1.4? 1.4???? YOU CAN'T HANDLE 1.4!!!!!

squareballoon

love mine too! love love love.

DeVore

Suffice it to say, I dont want my next lens to focus *at all* ...

DeV.

dnme

This MF v AF thing is getting to me. I have setup a test here.

Camera on tripod
Remote shutter release cable
I have focussed on the side of an electric oil radiator (lines of contrast)

I took one shot using AF (centre point) - AF.jpg
I took another shot using manual focus aided by liveview zoomed in - MF.jpg

Here's the EXIF (identical for both)

Camera Model Canon EOS 50D
Shooting Date/Time 16/11/2009 18:51:29
Shooting Mode Manual Exposure
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/50
Av( Aperture Value ) 1.4
Metering Mode Evaluative Metering
ISO Speed 400
Lens EF50mm f/1.4 USM
Image Quality RAW
White Balance Mode Auto
AF Mode One-Shot AF
Picture Style Standard
Sharpness 3
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Color tone 0
Color Space sRGB
Long exposure noise reduction 0:Off
High ISO speed noise reduction 0:Standard
Highlight tone priority 0:Disable
Auto Lighting Optimizer 0:Standard
Peripheral illumination correction Disable
File Size 19026KB
Dust Delete Data No
Drive Mode Single shooting
Live View Shooting OFF
Date/Time(UTC)
Latitude
Longitude
Altitude
Geographic coordinate system
Camera Body

Now for the images, These are crops from the RAW files in Canon Photo Professional, The cropped regions are identical. I exported to jpeg and resized by 50% just to be able to upload them to here. No other editing whatsoever.

Auto Focus


Manual Focus

Fajitas!

It does actually look like it needs a callibration - Are they 100% crops?

Valentia

Excellent thread. Might just take the plunge for Christmas.

It does look like the lens needs calabrating. If it was the other way around you could blame the diaopter adjustment.

dnme

Fajitas! wrote: »

It does actually look like it needs a callibration - Are they 100% crops?

No 50% crops. I'm gonna try it again now at low ISO and decent WB. This time I'm gonna use the laptop and EOS Utility to remote control the exposures.

dnme

I have done this test again. I have kept the lens at 1.4 for consistency, In order to get the ISO down I had to reduce the ambient light so I switched off the overhead bulb. I think the problem is very clear in this test.

This time I have cropped at 100% for clarity and reliability so please forgive the large files.

Tell me, what do you mean be calibration? Is this something that needs to be done by a technician/canon? what are we calibrating - the camera or the lens?

Many thanks

Exif (same for both)

Shooting Date/Time 16/11/2009 20:21:52
Shooting Mode Manual Exposure
Tv( Shutter Speed ) 0.5
Av( Aperture Value ) 1.4
Metering Mode Evaluative Metering
ISO Speed 100
Auto ISO Speed OFF
Lens EF50mm f/1.4 USM
Focal Length 50.0mm
Image Size 4752x3168
Image Quality RAW
Flash Off
FE lock OFF
White Balance Mode Tungsten
AF Mode One-Shot AF
Picture Style Standard
Sharpness 3
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Color tone 0
Color Space sRGB
Long exposure noise reduction 0:Off
High ISO speed noise reduction 0:Standard
Drive Mode Single shooting

Auto Focus (using single AF point at centre)


Manual Focus (using Liveview to zoom 10x, then manually adjusting)

Curran

Valentia wrote:

Excellent thread. Might just take the plunge for Christmas.

Im agree - happy to see this thread pop up, as I too am considering getting it for Chrimbo!!

Has anyone had any problems with their USM; when focusing the outer ring getting tight or sticky??
I was reading on Flickr, that some people were saying the (micro) USM in the lens is a bit weak - it can be damaged easily if it is bumped around a bit (I dont mean dropping it; they were saying that they were very careful with it but was getting damaged in their bags, basically with little force)
They were recommending that you should buy a lens body mounted hood for it, and never take it off or risk the lens being damaged - never let the face get nudged, bumped, tapped etc was the common reply. As its a micro USM and not the ring USM it doesnt take to kindly to mild rough treatment.
This has kinda made me think twice about it - but the build quality of the f/1.8, isnt supposed to be great as it was designed back in late 1990! Althought the f/1.4 is a based on a 37 year old design that was updated in '93 - Ive been doing some reading as you can tell Source - dpreview

Valentia

That seems to confirm it though I'm no expert.

Calibrating is usually done by Canon on the lens but some new cameras have a facility to store lens corrections for different lenses. The 5D MkII does but I don't know which others do.

Fionn

it's probably a back/front focus problem
see here to test it.
I'm not sure if you can calibrate a 5D mk 1.


I got rid of my nifty fifty 1.8.


but got a 35mm 1.4 super lens

after you discover how to control the DoF

Mycroft H

Ive calibrated my Sony a200 myself, the 50mm f1.4 was out by quite a bit, which i hadnt noticed with my kit lens.......

I wonder if its possibe to do the adjustment yourself with the Canon?


Btw i love the 50mm f1,4, even more on my old Minolta Dynax film camera

dnme

Found the calibration feature on the Canon 50D. It's in menus

C.FnIII Autofocus/Drive, 7. AF Micro adjustment

I've read a few tutorials on the web as to how to calibrate and went with this one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/encouragement/3211046757/

I'm finding that the Lens is awful at -20, ok at 0 and best at +20 but still not sharp. +20 is the limit so I'm wondering what to do now.

EDIT: Actually just done the calibration again with a little more light and now the sweet spot seems to be at 0.

AnCatDubh

dumb ass question but i'll ask anyhow, how are you stabilising your test setup? hand held / tripod / fixed surface???

Only reason I ask is that I went through a period of thinking the 50mm was very soft at f1.7 but in reality there were two things at play (a) it's known sharpness was going to be at f5.6 so everything else was going to be a compromise, and (b) there was an amazing difference at f1.7 between handheld and stabilised tripod / fixed surface shooting. Moral of the story for me was - must try harder.

I discovered the above after downloading lens calibration cards, reading up the manual on custom adjustments, etc.., etc... Sometimes the simpliest solutions can be the best.

(I know its a dumb ass question... so move along now, nothing to see )

dnme

AnCatDubh wrote: »

dumb ass question but i'll ask anyhow, how are you stabilising your test setup? hand held / tripod / fixed surface???

Only reason I ask is that I went through a period of thinking the 50mm was very soft at f1.7 but in reality there were two things at play (a) it's known sharpness was going to be at f5.6 so everything else was going to be a compromise, and (b) there was an amazing difference at f1.7 between handheld and stabilised tripod / fixed surface shooting. Moral of the story for me was - must try harder.

I discovered the above after downloading lens calibration cards, reading up the manual on custom adjustments, etc.., etc... Sometimes the simpliest solutions can be the best.

(I know its a dumb ass question... so move along now, nothing to see )

Decent Tripod all the way. But in a room with poor overhead lighting so WB is tricky and aparently that can affect calibration. I have actually disable calibration (AF Microadjust) because 0 seems to be the sweet(ish) spot.

kumate_champ07

whats the story with all these 50mm threads all of a sudden?

padocon

Just got the 1.8. I miss being able to zoom in and out! Now I have to go far and close, thats the down side.

Fajitas!

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

whats the story with all these 50mm threads all of a sudden?

Cameras are usually supplied with a zoom lens as the kit lens these days, the 50mm is usually recommended as the first prime one should buy. Having an aperture as fast as 1.4 or 1.8 can be quite an adventure if you've been used to a 3.5 - 5.6 lens.

No harm in people being happy with their lenses

mikeanywhere

Fajitas! wrote: »

the 50mm is usually recommended as the first prime one should buy. Having an aperture as fast as 1.4 or 1.8 can be quite an adventure if you've been used to a 3.5 - 5.6 lens.

Especially when you consider the cost of the 1.8 being as cheap as it is too - perfect sense!!

kumate_champ07

Fajitas! wrote: »

Cameras are usually supplied with a zoom lens as the kit lens these days, the 50mm is usually recommended as the first prime one should buy. Having an aperture as fast as 1.4 or 1.8 can be quite an adventure if you've been used to a 3.5 - 5.6 lens.

No harm in people being happy with their lenses

I know all that but I havent seen so much interest in them here before and theres a few of these threads that are basically the same discussing and posting photos from a 50mm fast prime

Fajitas!

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

I know all that but I havent seen so much interest in them here before and theres a few of these threads that are basically the same discussing and posting photos from a 50mm fast prime

Ah there's always been threads popping up on the 50mm's - In fact, I'd say there's more threads on 50mm's than any other lens.

There's different questions in each thread, like the OP having a difficulty with his lens front/back focusing. They're not all the exact same.

Also, if someone is getting used to a lens, no harm in posting a few pictures to show what can be done with it, where its weaknesses are, softness, vignetting, etc, or when and where it works best.

We're only trying to help the OP, bu if you think the should all be merged, I'd say report the post and let the moderators decide. Personally, I don't see the problem

kumate_champ07

Fajitas! wrote: »

Ah there's always been threads popping up on the 50mm's - In fact, I'd say there's more threads on 50mm's than any other lens.

There's different questions in each thread, like the OP having a difficulty with his lens front/back focusing. They're not all the exact same.

Also, if someone is getting used to a lens, no harm in posting a few pictures to show what can be done with it, where its weaknesses are, softness, vignetting, etc, or when and where it works best.

We're only trying to help the OP, bu if you think the should all be merged, I'd say report the post and let the moderators decide. Personally, I don't see the problem

dont get me wrong I dont actually think its a problem I was just intrigued with what seemed to me to be a sudden interest in the 50's

DK32

I think I mentioned it in a similar 50mm thread. I too am in love with my nifty-fifty.
The Canon 50mm f1.8 II is such a quality lens considering the ridiculously cheap price.

I think I will deffo move up to the 1.4 in the coming months. Maybe treat myself in the January sales.

Few shots taken with mine
http://pix.ie/dk1974/tag/canon_ef50_f18_ii

CabanSail

Just a comment about these lenses being sharp in the middle and falling off towards the edges.

When we think of images being in focus, we think of that as being a plane, which works for most situations. However it is not really a plane, as the points that are in focus are all an equal distance from the lens, it will be portion of a sphere. This can become significant in low depth of field shots on subjects which are close.

DaireQuinlan

CabanSail wrote: »

Just a comment about these lenses being sharp in the middle and falling off towards the edges.

When we think of images being in focus, we think of that as being a plane, which works for most situations. However it is not really a plane, as the points that are in focus are all an equal distance from the lens, it will be portion of a sphere. This can become significant in low depth of field shots on subjects which are close.

Actually a well-corrected lens does indeed have a focal plane, not what you describe above. A good macro lens (where the correction has probably been done as much as possible) will image (say) a page in front of it as sharp in the corners as it will in the middle. Those gigantic process lenses from the former USSR that people sometimes use as large format lenses are also good examples of this.