| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Canon 50mm - 1.4 or 1.8 or a bit of a Dinasour?
David Collister, Photographer
 |
Isle of Man | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 5:53 PM on 05.30.10 |
->> Does anyone actually still use the fixed 50mm anymore?, we all had em back when they came " free" as a standard lens.
I've always overlooked it in favour of wider angle zooms as it was not producing "extreme" looking enough images.
Having nothing between a 16-35 and a 70-200 would this be a faster/cheaper alternative than a 24-70.
The 50mm Would only really be used for remote shooting. |
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Columbia | MO | USA | Posted: 6:24 PM on 05.30.10 |
->> David,
What bodies do you have?
The 50mm f/1.4 is making a bit of a comeback with the resurgence of full frame cameras. I have one, but rarely use it on my 1D Mk IIN as it does not work super well on a 1.3x camera [I feel its not wide or long enough]
That said - If I had a 5DMk II, I would imagine using just a 50mm at times [like many of my friends do].
That said, if you are looking to get a 50mm f/1.4, let me know and I'll make you a deal on my one in lightly used condition. |
|
David Collister, Photographer
|
Isle of Man | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 6:36 PM on 05.30.10 |
| ->> Patrick, it's a 1D mk2 |
|
Michael Ivanin, Photographer
|
Oakville | On | Canada | Posted: 6:44 PM on 05.30.10 |
| ->> I would go with 50 1.4 I have 50 1.8 and I not satisfied with sharpness of images at 1.8. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
| | | Posted: 7:25 PM on 05.30.10 |
->> I have, use and love the Canon 50f1.4. I fact I just used it today on a shoot.
I used it with my full frame 5D series bodies and 1.6x crop bodies. It was also a commonly used lens with my 1Ds/1D bodies when I shot 1D bodies.
The 50mm lens is a versatile lens. The 50mm is small and light and with a 12mm extention tube makes an excellent macro lens without the expense of a dedicated macro lens.
In a pinch, the 50mm also makes a great loupe ... I use mine this way often when looking at prints. |
|
Bryan Rinnert, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Kent | OH | United States | Posted: 1:12 PM on 05.31.10 |
->> I love my 50 f/1.4. I also use it on a 1D mk2. It's a great fast lens, I use it for music shooting quite a bit as it's faster then my 24-70. I don't really recommend the 1.8 version, it's not made near as well. I actually had a friend with one and it fell apart when he set it on a table 3 months after he got it. Canon did fix it for free, but it's mostly plastic and for the money the 1.4 is worth it.
I also teach photography at Kent St and recommend the lens to many of my students. |
|
David Harpe, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 1:58 PM on 05.31.10 |
->> The 50/1.8 is so inexpensive it's hard not to justify having one. You can usually pick them up used for around $100 or so. I use mine with no filter and it has just a fun, classic look on a full-frame 5D2.
If you find yourself using that focal length a lot, then the 1.4 is definitely worth the extra money. But for me since I just use it occasionally for a certain look, the 1.8 is fine...even with all of the shortcomings mentioned above. |
|
Shawn Lynch, Photographer
|
New York | New York | USA | Posted: 3:20 PM on 05.31.10 |
| ->> I also have a 50mm 1.8. I love it on my 40D. It is such a small lens, but it's ever so slightly telephoto with the crop factor (it becomes an 80mm). The small size makes it totally unobtrusive, but you can get some nice close up photos of peoples faces with the little guy. Much nicer than sticking a giant 70-200 in someone's face. And as D Harpe said, for $100, you can't beat it! |
|
Robert Caplin, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 3:30 PM on 05.31.10 |
| ->> Prime lenses are all I use anymore. I use the Canon 50 1.2 just about every day and it's one of my favorite lenses I own. I highly recommended. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
| | | Posted: 3:56 PM on 05.31.10 |
->> Robert,
The 50f1.2 is a great lens, but personally I found it to be slow focusing and often mis-focusing.
I have the 85f1.2, which while not quick to focus by any means, seemed to focus much quicker with far less mis-focusing issues.
Do you experience this at all? |
|
Doug Keese, Photographer
|
New Orleans | LA | United States | Posted: 5:05 PM on 05.31.10 |
| ->> Would you say the 50 1.2 doesn't focus as well as the 50 1.4 or 1.8? I'm about to upgrade my 1.4 to the 1.2 because I thought the USM in the 1.2 would be faster and more accurate. Let me know your experience with this. |
|
Foster Snell, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Plano | TX | United States | Posted: 7:32 PM on 05.31.10 |
->> David,
First, I don't own (but I have used) the 50 f/1.4 and the 1.2. The f/1.4 is a great lens. It's sharp, fast, and relatively cheap. As said in posts above, the f/1.2 unfortunately focuses a lot slower (it's the same as the comparison between the 85 f/1.8 and the 85 f/1.2).
Second, I have a friend, Rob Shook (http://www.sportsshooter.com/members.html?id=8965) who told me he had the 50 f/1.8. He then bought a 1D II, and he blew out the autofocus in the lens within a couple weeks. The build and focusing mechanisms just couldn't keep up with the speed and demand of the 1D II. He could probably give you more information on that if you want.
The bottom line, if you're shooting sports (or anything moving for that matter) I wouldn't suggest the 50 f/1.2. I would never suggest the 50 1.8, even though it is very cheap. It's just not build to last or for any serious shooting. The 50 f/1.4, therefore is the choice for you.
Hope this helps. |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 7:36 PM on 05.31.10 |
->> If you're hard on your gear (at all), stay away from the 1.8. Look at it wrong, and the lens will barf out its front element, just sayin'.
That said, I have two 1.4s (one work, one personal), and love their sharpness. I'd love to say I channel my inner retro, but aside from a remote camera in early April, both gather dust. |
|
Foster Snell, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Plano | TX | United States | Posted: 7:41 PM on 05.31.10 |
| ->> Also, I do suggest the 50 f/1.4 as a cheap, middle lens for you between the 16-35 and 70-200. |
|
David Welker, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 8:26 PM on 05.31.10 |
| ->> Instead of the Canon 1.4 you could always go with the Sigma. From what I have heard it is a very sharp lens which can have some AF adjustment problems (As with any lens) but after calibration from sigma can be a real gem. Im sure someone out there may be able to comment on the Sigma. I have not used it but it is on my list. |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 9:05 PM on 05.31.10 |
->> The Canon 50 1.4 has barely adequate AF speed on a 30D for basketball. I would not rely on its AF for any fast action except as a last resort. It should do quite nicely as a remote lens though.
On this photo.net thread a poster claims that the 1.4's design is almost 40 years old, and I am inclined to believe it (although I know AF hasn't been around that long):
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00QoCg
I'm curious about the Sigma 50 1.4... it's about $200 more than its Canon counterpart but it's getting good reviews. Also, it has a 77mm filter size, compared to the Canon's 58mm. |
|
Rob Shook, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 9:11 PM on 05.31.10 |
| ->> Sports wise, the 50 1.4 is the best bet. But I have used the 1.2 with some success in basketball; if the extra light is worth the tag to you, you can make it work. The AF is significantly faster than the 85 1.2, and while it is slower than the 50 1.4 it is also more precise. |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Rob Shook, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 9:12 PM on 05.31.10 |
| ->> Also, the 50 1.4 is not significantly sharper than the 1.8. I only recommend it because of superior AF. The 1.8 really isn't useful for sports. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 9:23 PM on 05.31.10 |
->> There are two versions of the EF 50/1.8, the original has a metal mount and the later, current version has a plastic mount which is not nearly as durable but probably much cheaper to produce.
The EF 50/1.8 (version I) is a sharp lens, both wide open and stopped down. I used one on both a 5D and a 40D, it was an essential part of my kit of primes. |
|
Chris La Putt, Photographer
|
Jersey City | NJ | USA | Posted: 9:01 PM on 06.01.10 |
| ->> for about $90 for the 1.8 why don't you just get both? |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 11:45 PM on 06.01.10 |
->> The canon 50 1.4 is a pos for sure. For 499.00 the sigma 50 1.4 is stellar.....image quality that rivals the 50L or the noctilux....at 1/3rd the price, and without the iffy af when close in. (a phenomena of the 50L acknowledged by canon) as is the rather off putting habit of its front element dropping off...people are kind of funny about that after dropping 1500+ on a 50mm lens.
As for useful....yeah..its an amazingly useful lens. Although more of a pj/wedding lens than a sports lens. |
|
Ron Manfredi, Photographer
 |
Merrick (Long Island) | NY | | Posted: 8:52 AM on 06.02.10 |
->> Brad, You mentioned $1500.+ Are you talking about the 1.4 or the 1.2??
I have heard of focus motor problems with the 1.4. Does anyone have experience with this matter? |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 9:35 AM on 06.02.10 |
->> Ron the 1.4 is just crap really. The 1.2 is a superb lens except in the 4-8ft range where it has a focus shift anomoly that is a pain in the butt, and the front element comes off...both issues are known issues by canon.
Obviously the 1.4 isnt 1500 bucks....but it isnt even close to the sigmas quality at only 499 either. Harsh bokeh, ....dodgy focus motors.....and nowhere near as sharp wide open....and after all wide open is why most of us bought the 50's in the first place.
On Nikon Cafe, there is a thread in the lens lust section that compares the Siggy vs the Noctilux...and another that compares the Siggy vs the new Nikon 50 1.4G.....
All tests seem to agree, that for the $$$ the siggy is the best bang for the buck. The 50L edges it out slightly on image Q...as long as you arent fairly close and your front element stays put :-) |
|
Robert Caplin, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 4:56 PM on 06.02.10 |
->> Steven,
Yes, the 50 1.2 isn't the fastest focusing lens and hitting the super shallow 1.2 focus right on the money is often hit or miss, but when it hits, it really hits.
I dont know if I'd recommend it if you're simply looking for an extra sports lens for a remote....but if you're looking for a luxury lens that will give you an excuse to use less flash and give you a drop-dead gorgeous image, I highly recommend it.
Have no doubt, shooting with a strait 50 will separate the boys from the men (no offense ladies...just as the saying goes) because you're not using any gimmicks (super wide or telephoto). You're shooting what a human eye sees. Also, fixed-length lenses are "move your ass" lenses and require the shooter to actually physically get closer or back up to properly fill and compose the frames. Basically, the photographer has to make the image without stretching the edges with a wide angle or vice-versa with a telephoto.
As I mentioned earlier, I shoot exclusively fixed focal length lenses anymore (with rare exceptions) and I feel it's made me a better photographer because I have to think more about how to make my image verses staying planted and zooming to fill my frames.
I have both the 50 1.2 and the 50 1.4 (I kept it after my upgrade), and though the 1.4 is a nice, small, light lens, the quality of the 1.2 FAR exceeds it....but it's significantly larger in size and heavier in weight....and the price is far higher.
If you just need an inexpensive lens for a remote, no need for the super fast glass....but if you're ready to invest in quality, the 50 1.2 will last a lifetime and certainly give you an edge.
Robert
(I am in no way sponsored by the 50 1.2, though I wish I was.) |
|
Shane Bevel, Photographer
|
Tulsa | OK | USA | Posted: 7:14 PM on 06.02.10 |
| ->> My 50 1.4 is a stellar piece of gear. It's paid for itself 6 times over in the last year alone. The 1.2 is very nice as is the 85 1.2, but unless you really love the focal length, that's a lot of weight and money to carry around. |
|
David Collister, Photographer
|
Isle of Man | UK | United Kingdom | Posted: 12:15 PM on 06.16.10 |
->> You know this site is great, I dont post often but when ever I have the feed back is fantastic - buy yourselves a drink!
Sooo I plumped for the 50mm 1.4 and wasn't dissapointed, a little cheap looking but sharper than the 16-35 by quite some way. |
|
Shane Bevel, Photographer
|
Tulsa | OK | USA | Posted: 1:42 AM on 07.04.10 |
| ->> Good news David.. you can pay us back by putting us all up at the races next year! Seriously... on the big list of trips to make, but it's not an easy one it seems, it always gets put off another year. |
|
Brian Dowling, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 2:27 AM on 07.04.10 |
| ->> I like my Canon 50 1.4, but I don't love it. The build quality seems to be a lot less than what I was expecting it to compare to the Canon 85 1.8. I bought one a couple months ago used(3yrs old) for $315 shipped and with a hood. Be careful if you buy a used one because some can be a couple years old or a dozen. This lens has been around a long time! |
|
Matthew Healey, Photographer
|
Providence | RI | | Posted: 1:53 PM on 07.05.10 |
->> The 1.4 is a great lens and I use it a lot on a Mk2. Portraits, candids, concerts, whatever.
However if you so much as tap the front barrel then you will have to have it repaired. Something to do with the focusing gears. Yeah I am exaggerating a little but it's really not rugged. I have had mine fixed twice so far and it just doesn't work like it used to. I may look into this Sigma one. |
|
Chris Large, Photographer
|
Okotoks | AB | Canada | Posted: 12:52 AM on 07.06.10 |
| ->> I have both the 1.4 and the 1.8 The 1.4 is a work horse for me, I need the low light advantage it gives me on movie sets. I use it as a 50 with the 5d mk 2 and as a 85 on the 7d. I use it more than any of the other primes (24,28,35, 85) that I have. Never had a problem with it being fragile. I use the 1.8 when I need 3 bodies with different focal lengths at the same time ( 50 on 5d, 50 on 7d, 85 on 50d - gives me 50, 85 and 100 all on fast primes) Love the 1.4 ! |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
|
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 12:03 PM on 07.06.10 |
->> I use my 1.4 during the receptions at the grand majority of weddings I shoot so I can make candids with available light on the 5dII. It may not be the sharpest, but the tradeoff of size and weight vs. IQ, it works well enough. That said, I have had the AF motor replaced on it already under warranty. I have not looked into the Siggy, though I own their 15mm fish and it is great.
Also, totally agree with Robert 100%; everyone should spend at least 1 week a year with a fixed 50 to get some exercize for their eye! |
|
David Seelig, Photographer
|
Hailey | ID | USA | Posted: 12:38 PM on 07.06.10 |
| ->> I shoot basketball in badly lit gyms with the 1.4 and now the 1.2. Frankly the 1.2 is better even in those gyms. I had better sharper photos and did not notice less shots being in focus, but saw sharper photos with the 1.2. |
|
Dave Lintott, Photographer
|
Wellington | Well | NZL | Posted: 5:06 AM on 07.08.10 |
| ->> i picked up a cheap 50/1.8 mf nikkor for my new D3s (all that my bank would allow) and it is ...priceless. I have always had and used 50mms, they are fast, sharp and small. and as a mate pointed out a while back, shorter focal lengths generally should be used with manual focus for general work. Tho tracking my daughter running around on live view video with mf is a small challenge... |
|
Dave Lintott, Photographer
|
Wellington | Well | NZL | Posted: 5:10 AM on 07.08.10 |
| ->> (and i agree about the canon 50/1.8, i've had three fall apart on the job - guts coming loose from af overuse.) |
|
Mike Burley, Photographer
|
Dubuque | Iowa | USA | Posted: 9:36 AM on 07.08.10 |
| ->> I love my "thrifty fifty" - Its sharp, and disposable at $80. Cant go wrong. Its a little slow on the AF, but not bad. I was never really happy with the sharpness of my 50 1.4, and for the extra $, I cant justify it. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|