Canon 50mm 1.4 alternatives

Padaer09

Hello all,

Looking at splashing out on a Canon 50mm 1.4. Anyone got a better alternative for this type of lens or know of anything new due on the market? The 50mm 1.4 sounds great except it looses sharpness below 2.0. If making a suggestion let me know what you like about the alternative lens. It'll be used on a 450d for the moment. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

magicbastarder

you'll find that most ultrafast primes aren't pin sharp wide open.
bear in mind that the 50mm is not a 'standard' lens on your camera.

minikin

sigma 50mm 1.4 is supposed to be better wide open

BlastedGlute

I had one and sold it, the sigma I mean. I liked it a lot. But I'll probably get a nifty fifty instead, not much difference when stopped down a bit and you can still use it for still life and object with a nice bokeh and not lose much in the effect it gives. The 1.2 would be razor sharp at 1.4 and 1.8 but that's why it costs 1400.

Borderfox

Sigma 30mm f1.4, The 50mm f1.4 is soft wide open but then again the depth of field is so small that it doesnt really matter

kelly1

Padaer09 wrote: »

Hello all,

Looking at splashing out on a Canon 50mm 1.4. Anyone got a better alternative for this type of lens or know of anything new due on the market? The 50mm 1.4 sounds great except it looses sharpness below 2.0. If making a suggestion let me know what you like about the alternative lens. It'll be used on a 450d for the moment. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks.

Hello, if you're looking for a general purpose "walk-around" lens, you'll find the 50mm a bit long on a cropped sensor (80mm efl). Would you not be better off with a 30/35mm? The 50mm is great for portraits though.

Padaer09

Thanks, will check out the sigma options. Have a Canon 18-200 3.5-5.6 which covers a bit of everything but results are little bland. Looking to take better portraits and experiment with wide apertures.

joepenguin

Ive not used a 50mm 1.4 yet but an alternative would be buy a 50mm 1.8 and put the rest towards a sigma 18-50 2.8? whcih can come in under 300 euro now.
The sigma 30mm 1.4 would act as a standard lens on a 450d and is a great lens although a bit more expensive then the canon 50mm 1.4.

Any of the lenses listed so far are value for money so in any case you will be making a good purchase, suppose its just a matter of making the best one for you.

Sleepy

Isn't the Canon 50 f1.8 supposed to be slightly sharper than the f1.4 wide open? Or am I mis-remembering and it's somewhere else in the aperature range?

Freddie59

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello, if you're looking for a general purpose "walk-around" lens, you'll find the 50mm a bit long on a cropped sensor (80mm efl). Would you not be better off with a 30/35mm? The 50mm is great for portraits though.

I would agree. I had the 50mm 1.4 on a 450D and found it very restrictive. Ended up selling it and buying the 17-55 IS f/2.8 Canon lens.

kelly1

Freddie59 wrote: »

Ended up selling it and buying the 17-55 IS f/2.8 Canon lens.

What you think of this lens? I hear it's a cracker but expensive.

Borderfox

Sleepy wrote: »

Isn't the Canon 50 f1.8 supposed to be slightly sharper than the f1.4 wide open? Or am I mis-remembering and it's somewhere else in the aperature range?

I would have thought it is the f1.4 is sharper at f1.8 than the nifty is at f1.8 (wide open)

sineadw

Borderfox wrote: »

I would have thought it is the f1.4 is sharper at f1.8 than the nifty is at f1.8 (wide open)

Definitely! I have both. No contest:) I've never found issue with the 1.4 and sharpness.

Freddie59

kelly1 wrote: »

What you think of this lens? I hear it's a cracker but expensive.

I picked one up 2nd hand on DoneDeal.ie. I find it very good. Here's a few shots from it:


The Trossachs from Glengarry Viewpoint by Vadrefjord (Ireland), on Flickr


Duthie Gardens, Aberdeen, Scotland by Vadrefjord (Ireland), on Flickr


Luss, Loch Lomond, Scotland by Vadrefjord (Ireland), on Flickr

FoxT

I have used the f/1.4 and the f/1.8, generally for low light shots or portraits.

The f/1.4 is a little softer, but I have never found it a problem. At wide apertures, getting the focus right is key, and I found the AF performance if the f/1.4 to be much better than from the 1.8. This more than made up for any softness.


The f/1.8 AF is slower & quite noisy. It is fine for static subjects, but I found that taking photos of kids etc , the AF often didn't keep up.

OTOH, the f/1.8 is 1/3 of the price, so if you are planning to use it mainly for static subjects then I think it will be fine.

-FoxT

jaybeeveedub

are you interested in it for low light capabilities or for the focal length and image quality??

if for length and quality and low light isn't important the 50 f/2/5 macro is superior to it optically and cheaper too...!!

Padaer09

Did a bit more research and decided to go for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX DG HSM in the end. The general consensus seems to be it's a newer lens with a slightly better build quality than the canon. Focusing ring is easier and smoother use. Aperture has rounded 9 blade diaphragm resulting in nicer bokeh. In focus picture is meant to be slightly sharper below
2.0.

So I've read anyway. On the downside it's a bit more expensive but not too much. Looking forward to getting it. Due next week. Will try to post a report then.

pullandbang

sineadw wrote: »

Definitely! I have both. No contest:) I've never found issue with the 1.4 and sharpness.

Have to say I do at f1.4.
It's definitely sharper stopped down a bit. I rarely use it at 1.4 as I'm never happy with the results. At f8 on portraits it's tack sharp and it's nice a quick to focus (especially over the f1.8 version).

FoxT

"Aperture has rounded 9 blade diaphragm resulting in nicer bokeh" :eek:


/flees thread


















































This is a facetious comment wrt a previous thread....and nothing to do with the merits of any particular lens....

Padaer09

@ FoxT just so I learn could you explain why you think a rounder aperture ring wouldn't result in smoother blur? Because I've read it does and am confused now.

BlastedGlute

Padaer09 wrote: »

@ FoxT just so I learn could you explain why you think a rounder aperture ring wouldn't result in smoother blur? Because I've read it does and am confused now.

I'm to believe that more blades would indeed mąkę for a washier bohke! Its like increaseing the AA on a graphics program, it gives the image more edges to construct with taking away any squareness from those out of focus elements. The canon 1.2 has the same amount of blades as the sigma 1.4. I saw a 15blade telephoto on adverts last week. Blur looked mind blowing, like melted brie on a salami baguette!

BlastedGlute

On another note, i went to try out a second hand 30mm from a shop in Dublin recently. The amount of chromatic abberation was off the charts! There was big bright Purple whisps around highlight areas. And green around some of the midtone points. I took the same pictures with settings and focal length unchanged, except on my 17-55mm 2.8 and it was perfect. The guy in the shop made some muffed have asses excuse and he literally just walked away from me. Was it a bad copy? Anyone else have similar issues?

dmg1982

The 50mm f/1.4 is an excellent lens. The shot below was taken with it at f/1.4 on a full-frame camera

DeVore

I'll speak up for the nifty fifty... I find its perfect for my needs. Its considerably cheaper too so take a moment and ask yourself why you are going for an expensive lens and if you really need it. You are shooting with a 450D so I presume you arent a professional.

This was taken with the 450D and the 50mm 1.8 Canon.



DeV.

Borderfox

With the Sigma the bad copy question rears its head, personally I never had one but there is enough evidence around that people do get them. I have never had a bad Canon copy, my 50mm f1.4 is perfect on the 5d and still plenty sharp at f1.4