# A final goodbye to my 50mm f1.4 lens



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2012)

I finally posted my 50mm f1.4 on CL yesterday around 3:30PM and the lens got sold by 6PM same day for $290 cash.

When I opened my camera bag this morning, I see an empty spot in my bag - where the 50mm sits when not in use. 

My feeling right now = :-\ to :'(


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2012)

Gone, but not forgotten. It's still listed in your signature...


----------



## pierceography (Oct 9, 2012)

Why'd you get rid of it? I have one myself, but have been considering upgrading to the Sigma. Not on the top of my priority list though.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Gone, but not forgotten. It's still listed in your signature...



Thanks for remind me Neuro ...will replace with 35L soon 8)


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2012)

pierceography said:


> Why'd you get rid of it? I have one myself, but have been considering upgrading to the Sigma. Not on the top of my priority list though.



Hi pierceography,
I feel I don't need this lens anymore after my 24-70 II arrived. The 5D III + 24-70 II can handle most low light conditions. However...35L is on my "WANTED LIST"


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Oct 9, 2012)

I still miss my 28mm f2.8. Sold to make way for bigger and better things, apparently.

Was a perfect little walkaround lens on my 7D & Rebel. May still yet pick up a used one, or I might see if the stop-faster 35mm f2.0 does anything for me!


----------



## ChrisAnderson (Oct 9, 2012)

I love my 50 f/1.4, don't know that i'd ever sell it unless I upgraded to a faster 50. I've considered going with a FD-mount f/1.2, and I don't mind a fully manual lens. It's all worth it for the beautiful bokeh! I love how it looks on FF, with the circular warping of the blur at the corners.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 9, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I finally posted my 50mm f1.4 on CL yesterday around 3:30PM and the lens got sold by 6PM same day for $290 cash.
> 
> When I opened my camera bag this morning, I see an empty spot in my bag - where the 50mm sits when not in use.
> 
> My feeling right now = :-\ to :'(


Thats a low price. They go for $350 around here. No wonder you sold it so quickly. 
I've been thinkinng of selling mine, I've had it boxed up for the last 4 months, but have not been able to part with it. I might sell it if I buy a 24-70 MK II. I also have the 50mm f/1.8 MK I with metal mount. I just finished doing a AFMA with it (-11). I want to do a comparison of images before I decide which to keep.


----------



## Tammy (Oct 9, 2012)

i'm considering selling mine as well since getting the 24-70L II too.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I finally posted my 50mm f1.4 on CL yesterday around 3:30PM and the lens got sold by 6PM same day for $290 cash.
> ...



To me...the 24-70 II is a "SUPER" lens. This will be my most use lens for indoor. 

The copy I have right now is sharp, even before AFMA. I decided to run through FoCal, the results are -5 @ 24mm and +1 @ 70mm. Regardless AFMA or not, I know the copy I have is a keeper.

I'll keep this lens until Canon offers 24-105 f2.8 IS


----------



## AudioGlenn (Oct 9, 2012)

I feel your pain. Since I got my 35L, my 50 1.4 hasn't seen much use. I've been meaning to sell it but just can't seem to put up the craigslist ad. :-\


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> I feel your pain. Since I got my 35L, my 50 1.4 hasn't seen much use. I've been meaning to sell it but just can't seem to put up the craigslist ad. :-\



It was a hard decision, but I did it ;D

Bottom line is, I want latest "L" lenses in my bag - as long as I can afford without selling my kidney of course


----------



## keithfullermusic (Oct 9, 2012)

While the 24-70 ii seems like an amazing lens, it does not replace the 50 1.4. When I have that thing on I tend to stick around 1.6-2.2. This is for the nice bokeh which 2.8 cannot replicate (unless you are super zoomed). Also, 1.4 vs 2.8 is completely different in low light. 

I'm not saying I wouldn't rather have the 24-70ii, but it does not replace the 50 1.4, but I can see how the 35L does.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> While the 24-70 ii seems like an amazing lens, it does not replace the 50 1.4. When I have that thing on I tend to stick around 1.6-2.2. This is for the nice bokeh which 2.8 cannot replicate (unless you are super zoomed). Also, 1.4 vs 2.8 is completely different in low light.
> 
> I'm not saying I wouldn't rather have the 24-70ii, but it does not replace the 50 1.4, but I can see how the 35L does.



I agree....just like food - see and smell are not enough, you gotta taste it.


----------



## extremeinstability (Oct 9, 2012)

I had one of these all of 2 days. Always had a 1.8 with my crop cams but hardly ever used it. Went full frame and was ready to use 50mm more, but was so done messing with the "focus ring" of the 1.8. So snatched up the Canon 1.4 largely just to have a real focus ring that doesn't change if you sneeze within 100 yards of the tripod. Last night shooting northern lights for the first real shoot with it, I saw how lame the coma was on stars in the full frame edges and corners. Soooo just swapped it out for the Sigma 1.4 and hoping it is better in that regard.


----------



## comsense (Oct 9, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Thats a low price. They go for $350 around here. No wonder you sold it so quickly.


You can buy a brand new one from adorama ebay for $350; $360 - $10 for ebaybucks (3% if you use billmelater)


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2012)

comsense said:


> Thats a low price. They go for $350 around here. No wonder you sold it so quickly.


You can buy a brand new one from adorama ebay for $350; $360 - $10 for ebaybucks (3% if you use billmelater)
[/quote]

Current price in US is $360 BRAND NEW, with Canon rebate of course.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12140-USA/Canon_2515A003_50mm_f_1_4_USM_Autofocus.html


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 9, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> AudioGlenn said:
> 
> 
> > I feel your pain. Since I got my 35L, my 50 1.4 hasn't seen much use. I've been meaning to sell it but just can't seem to put up the craigslist ad. :-\
> ...



lol. So you are not going to get your iPhone 5?
You will miss the F/1.4. My 50mm F/1.4 is the lens I use about 80% of time at home.


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 9, 2012)

I too only had one for a short time albeit it was on a crop. My copy had to be WAY stopped down to get sharp, hardly a good use for a 1.4. I'll try out a Sigma one of these days until then the flapjack and 24-70 do me just fine. (funny though how one is a feather and the other a brick.)


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > AudioGlenn said:
> ...



Trust me...it was a hard decision. Am I going to miss f1.4? ==> Yes

24-70 II is a better choice for me


----------



## extremeinstability (Oct 9, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> I too only had one for a short time albeit it was on a crop. My copy had to be WAY stopped down to get sharp, hardly a good use for a 1.4. I'll try out a Sigma one of these days until then the flapjack and 24-70 do me just fine. (funny though how one is a feather and the other a brick.)



I took some tests the day I got mine, filling the house with the frame and focusing on the roofline. The white plumbing stacks towards the corners had white "shadows"/smears coming sideways off them through F2.8 it was so soft in the corners. The trees in the corners were garbage till hell F8 probably. So just now I took this sigma 1.4 out and did the same thing to see if it at least wasn't going to be worse(with my only real hope was to not have the coma stuff at night with stars/lights). Holy hell what a freaking difference. And it is cloudy and windy, yet just the tree(moving in wind no less) difference in the corners way open is so silly to what the Canon was. 

I just went full frame again recently and now have 3 new lenses to sorta "review". 14mm Samyang, a 24L that was pretty damn far off(decentered and tilted focal plane) that I got used that is now fixed, and this sigma 50 I can compare to the canon 50 1.4. Been getting some pretty big eye openers through this. But now I want to see how close to typical the full frame corners were for that Canon 50 F1.4 to what I just briefly had. It was at least a sharp lens way stopped down. I was scared swapping it for the Sigma I might go backwards, but just looking at the zoomed in samples on my cam with the Sigma of the same scene......it's crazy crazy better.


----------



## pierceography (Oct 9, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Perhaps this is a conversation for a different or new thread, but in regards to FoCal - Which version do you use?

I haven't really done anything regarding AFMA, but have read good things about it. I'm considering buying FoCal, but don't have a lot of money to throw around for software. Is there a huge difference (yes, I've read the version diff chart) between the three versions offered? Could I get away with just standard? Or is plus or even pro recommended?

Thanks in advance for any replies!


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 9, 2012)

pierceography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I bought the Pro version and currently using "AF Consistency". So far, I like it. For window version, 5D III and 1D X are not fully auto yet. You can still run the test. The software will promt you to change the AFMA values(-20, -15, -10, -5 etc...) in your camera manually. It's quite easy.

More info:
http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/versions/version-comparison

Here are the test results on my 24-70 II - keep in mind, higher is better in this test.


----------



## Menace (Oct 9, 2012)

Have fun with the new 24-70II ;D


----------



## crasher8 (Oct 9, 2012)

extremeinstability said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > I too only had one for a short time albeit it was on a crop. My copy had to be WAY stopped down to get sharp, hardly a good use for a 1.4. I'll try out a Sigma one of these days until then the flapjack and 24-70 do me just fine. (funny though how one is a feather and the other a brick.)
> ...



Yep it took to about 7.1 for me to get sharp but that only lasted until about 11 or a bit less. Pretty lame range. Funny how I have had unsharp 'sharp ' Canon(50 1.8, 50 1.4, 35 f/2) lenses but all the Sigma's I have had were awesome. Awesome on a crop that is.


----------



## pwp (Oct 10, 2012)

pierceography said:


> Why'd you get rid of it? I have one myself, but have been considering upgrading to the Sigma. Not on the top of my priority list though.



I switched from an EF 50 f/1.4 to the Sigma 50 f/1.4 and it's not really an upgrade. Neither are great wide open, both start to look good at f/1.8, both are looking very good at f/2 through to f/5.6. Both have dubious AF.

For me the only real difference is the Sigma takes up a lot more room in my bag.

-PW


----------



## brianleighty (Oct 10, 2012)

crasher8 said:


> Yep it took to about 7.1 for me to get sharp but that only lasted until about 11 or a bit less. Pretty lame range. Funny how I have had unsharp 'sharp ' Canon(50 1.8, 50 1.4, 35 f/2) lenses but all the Sigma's I have had were awesome. Awesome on a crop that is.



I can agree on the 50's but the 35 2.0 has been pretty good for me on crop. You're not talking about corner sharpness right? That lens will never be sharp in the corners but the center is pretty darn sharp. I'm still contemplating whether to sell that or the 50 1.8 and get the 40 2.8. The only reason I'm even thinking about holding onto the 50 1.8 is it's a lot easier focusing for video than the 35 2.0.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 10, 2012)

brianleighty said:


> The only reason I'm even thinking about holding onto the 50 1.8 is it's a lot easier focusing for video than the 35 2.0.


Do you have the 50mm f/1.8 MK I? The MK II is the poorest lens to manually focus I've owned, and by a large margin. The MK I is fine. 

The 35mm f2 also has a actual focus ring.


----------



## brianleighty (Oct 10, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> brianleighty said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason I'm even thinking about holding onto the 50 1.8 is it's a lot easier focusing for video than the 35 2.0.
> ...


Yes I have the mark II. Yes as crazy as it sounds, I find the 50 MK II to be much easier to focus smoothly with video. The 35 just doesn't feel right and takes a large amount of effort to switch. The 1.8's poor performance wide open isn't as much an issue either for video as the resolution is so much lower. Now for pics, I'll hands down take the 35 2.0 but for video it's not half bad.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Dec 14, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I finally posted my 50mm f1.4 on CL yesterday around 3:30PM and the lens got sold by 6PM same day for $290 cash.
> 
> When I opened my camera bag this morning, I see an empty spot in my bag - where the 50mm sits when not in use.
> 
> My feeling right now = :-\ to :'(



Sadly, i just sold mine today(for $280). There's an empty slot in my bag now, too where the 50 would sit. :'( My wife brought up a good point though. I should be happy that I have the new 24-70 II. After I purchase an UWA and a Macro lens, I'll save up for the 50L. In the meantime, the 35L will do.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 14, 2012)

AudioGlenn said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I finally posted my 50mm f1.4 on CL yesterday around 3:30PM and the lens got sold by 6PM same day for $290 cash.
> ...



he he....I thought I was the only one. My 50L is now taking over that slot. The copy I have now seems to have back focus issue. When AFMA is set at -8 in camera, the lens is AMAZING at f1.2  The build quality is *SOLID*


----------

