Whats the best 50mm at f1.4?

I think the Sigma is the sharpest, as far as Canon AF lenses go, towards the edges at 1.4. For overall IQ, I like the L.

samurairx7 wrote in post #10635456
wow those Zeiss samples are crazy.... i didn't think it was that good.

In terms of raw optical performance there is no other 50mm that you can get in an EF mount that comes even close to the 50 MP. If you include non-EF lenses then the newest version of the Leica 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH has comparable performance. That however is a $4,000 lens and the latest version is only available in M-mount which can't be adapted for Canon. Older R-mount versions can be converted but they are not quite as good as the new ones.

Jam.radonc wrote in post #10635258
From my experience with the Sigma which I've had one and used two, it has far too much CA even stopped down few notches.

I'm afraid that the 50L is no better than the Sigma when it comes to CA at large apertures. It's the curse of fast lenses.

thanks all. I don't want to settle for center sharpness at f1.4. I want great fast lens, but how often can you really focus enough at 1.2? yeah, the 50ze 1.4 isn't stellar until a stop down.

I didn't think the 50 MP was great at infinity, but samples here are nice. on the other hand, the sigma doesn't do much for me from the samples.

this is my point: if the MP is great wide open, I'll be fine. if it, or others, need a stop, I'm not happy. the exception being the 50L since it has a stop to spare. I'm a huge zeiss fan. but I've seen some very nice rendering with the 50L. never thought I'd get another macro, but so far it's the winner. wide open?

mcluckie wrote in post #10636190
this is my point: if the MP is great wide open, I'll be fine. if it, or others, need a stop, I'm not happy. the exception being the 50L since it has a stop to spare. I'm a huge zeiss fan. but I've seen some very nice rendering with the 50L. never thought I'd get another macro, but so far it's the winner. wide open?

The 50 MP is excellent wide open - as good as the 100 MP. The improvement when stopped down is marginal.

Since you have the 100 MP, you pretty much know what to expect. The only real difference is the focal length - beyond that they are very similar. That is also perhaps the main argument against it. If you want something with a significantly different rendering style from what you get with the 100 MP then the 50 MP isn't it - even if the focal length does have an impact on bokeh etc.

In comparison to other 50mm lenses worth knowing is that the 50 MP is sharper and has a deeper DOF at comparable apertures.

I did a small comparison of the Canon 50/1.4 and the Zeiss 50 MP a while ago:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=904368

I am confused, the OP wants a 1.4 50mm that is sharp wide open and is throwing out the possibility of a Sigma 50 or Canon 50 because you have to stop them down a bit to get something "reasonable", but will consider a Zeiss f2 lens? Just stop the sigma down to f2 then?

EDIT: just saw the location, now I understand...

huh? I don't get what you're trying to say. sorry

I thought my last post might be incoherent, as I woke up and from iPhone...

Apparently the Sigma isn't good until 2.8. Same as my 50 ZE. Even that "good" might only be reasonable. I'd like stellar at f2. The Canon 1.4 is out -- maybe it's good as others at 2.8 or 4, but the MF is horrible.

The 100 MP wide open at f2 is indeed stellar. If the 50 MP is the same, I'm good. Although previous to this, I had read that infinity performance was not strong. If the 1.2L is stellar at f2, that might still be an option. Heck, AF and an extra stop+... I've also read that the UW date code I once had did indeed suck, but that the newer UY date codes had been improved.

mcluckie wrote in post #10636332
huh? I don't get what you're trying to say. sorry

I thought my last post might be incoherent, as I woke up and from iPhone...

I posted this before I realized the two of you started comparing f1.4 lenses to f2 lenses, and altered my post.

Yeah! What about at 1.4? The 50 MP can't do that, but either can the Sigma or the Canon 1.4. Is my option to suck it up with the Zeiss 1.4 or 1.2L?

Granted, I might not use the razor thin 1.2 often, but what about BETWEEN 1.2 and 2.0? I think we got sidetracked by the need to stop other lenses down to f2 to get performance IQ.

My fault completely for drifting.

Since there seems to be no clear winners in the 1.x range for you, I guess the Zeiss has to be your winner.

The only f/1.4 lens that I know of that has great image quality wide open is the Leica 50/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH.. but that can't be adapted for Canon. The Summilux-R isn't as good (although still better than the competition).

The Sigma, Zeiss Planar, Canon 50L, Canon 50/1.4 have all unimpressive sharpness wide open - up to f/2.8. I would say that the Zeiss Planar is the best of the lot in terms of colors but it is just awful wide open and close up. The Sigma has probably the best bokeh while the 50L is well rounded in terms of colors, contrast and bokeh. The Canon 50/1.4 is the weakest of the lot.

None of them is as good by f/2.8 as the Zeiss 50 MP is by f/2 though..

For the best f/1.4 performance you can get, I'd probably recommend a Leica 50 Summilux-R (E-60) adapted for Canon. The down side is that it requires a mount conversion which involves mutilating the original lens - which is asking a lot since it's a $2500 lens (used as they are no longer in production). Next after the Leica it becomes difficult. The Zeiss Planar is very nice around infinity and f/5.6 - f/8 but around f/1.4... my answer would have to be: None really.

Well, for $400, the Sigma works well enough for large prints for portraits for discerning clients, as would the Canon 1.4. However, the DOF is so thin, it doesn't take much to move something from sharp to blurry, and that ends up being an issue, for me anyways.

Wide open works for what I shoot which is great, but I understand that to others, this just won't cut it, and that is fine with me. However, back to the question what is the best 50mm f/1.4 lens out there (since they exist, you have to choose one based on the question posed), I would have to say based on bokeh, the Sigma, based on price and name-brand, the Canon, and based on L-ness, the Canon 1.2 stopped to 1.4.

As for other lenses that can be fit to the Canon EF mount, I am not aware of them personally.

In any case, f1.4 is just simply fun no matter the manufacturer, especially if you have willing subject material!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I have had most 50mm primes in the market and if you're OK with MF, stick with 50MP.
It doesn't get much better than that lens.
I now have a converted Contax N 50mm f/1.4, IQ wise, 50MP is still superior and only got this lens as I needed that AF.
I still dream of taking pics with the 50MP... I will probably end up buying it again.

I might try the Sigma (I thought I'd gag at the idea) with an option to return. At least as a curiosity for the price.

From my research and here (thank you), the 50MP is, indeed, the best 50 for a Canon (aside from adapted others) IF you don't need 1.4. I have the middle range covered with Zeiss, 24-85, but at f4, meaning 5.6 to give it a stop to improve. What I'm after is that fast 50. The f2MP isn't fast, but only a stop off.

From what I understand the Sigma is no better wide open than the Zeiss Planar you already have. It's in fact a bit weaker when it comes to sharpness. The main difference will be in the bokeh and of course in performance stopped down where the Zeiss is significantly better.

When I'm saying that the Zeiss Planar is "awful" wide open and up close, I'm comparing it to the 50 MP. It is however no worse than the Sigma and the Canons. They are all bad wide open. So essentially you won't be stepping up in IQ from what you already have. So if you insist on something new and unless you want to adapt a Summilux-R your best choice is the 50L. It will at least give you f/1.2 which you don't currently have. You won't see much of an improvement in quality though..

thanks, man - you know I value your opinion -- based on your work, and the similar lens choices we've made. (I'm not out traveling this year due to a couple of surgeries and courts with my ex, so I'm busy retooling my bag.)

I can't really put a sigma in my bag. this morning, I'm back to either the mp or 1.2L. I suppose the question becomes how useful 1.2 really is, since I know by f2 the zeiss is better. I'm leaning towards the 1.2 again now that the focusing seems fixed, and since my 50 desire is really speed. my dilemna is speed vs bokeh. and the blur is so amazing on the 100mp...