# In search of an ~50mm faster prime lens



## daniela (Jul 1, 2017)

Hi Guys!

I´m lacking of an about 50mm prime lens that is, or is faster than f1.8 with an good image quality for my Eos 5D Mark IV. Preferred with an image stabilizer. Pricing not higher than 1200€.

An german shop offers the Tamron SP 1,8/45 mm Di VC USD Canon EF lens at 500€, thats 150€ off. 
Would that be an good choise? 
Or better buy an Sigma 50mm Art without IS?


Thanks a lot 
Daniela


----------



## traveller (Jul 1, 2017)

The Tamron SP 45 mm f/1.8 is currently the only stabilised fast 50ish prime for Canon EF mount that I am aware of. €500 looks like a bargain price. 

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art is faster but, like you state, doesn't have image stabilisation. I believe that the Sigma is considered to have a slight sharpness edge on the Tamron at equivalent apertures (both are sharper than the current Canon lenses), but the Sigma is quite a lot larger and heavier. There have also been reports of autofocus inaccuracy with the Sigma 50mm Art in particular. 

I would recommend that you read the excellent reviews by Dustin Abbott https://dustinabbott.net/category/lens-reviews/ and Bryan Carnathan http://www.the-digital-picture.com before making your final choice. 

Good luck!


----------



## Khalai (Jul 1, 2017)

If you can live w/o autofocus and IS, there is also Zeiss 1.4/50 Distagon Milvus lens. Very sharp, very robust build. Practically mini-Otus with 1/3 the price.


----------



## Larsskv (Jul 1, 2017)

I own the Tamron 45 f1.8 and Canon 50L. I used to own the Sigma 50ART. 

I never liked the pictures I got from the Sigma. They were sharp, contrasty and had almost no chromatic aberration, but I didn't like the overall look off it's pictures. They looked flat, in lack of a better word. My copy wasn't to bad in terms of focusing.

The Tamron is nice, but focuses a bit slow, and not very consistent. It's sharpness is comparable to the Canon 50L at similar apertures, and better in the corners. It has less chromatic aberration than the Canon 50L.

If I were to choose one lens, it would be the Canon 50L. It isn't very good at all at f1.2, but it is very good at f2, focuses fast and mostly accurate (but far from perfect). The most important thing though, is that I subjectively really like the pictures I get from it, the colors, the bokeh, and it's 3D like images. These are the things that set it apartfrom the 50 f1.8 STM.

If AF isn't necessary, the Zeiss 50 f2 macro planar is the best 50mm I have had.


----------



## aceflibble (Jul 3, 2017)

If you must have IS, Tamron is your _only_ option for a Canon body.

If you can forego IS, (which, honestly, for a 50mm lens on a 35mm sensor body, I would; even a shutter of only something like 1/80th will keep a 50mm shot free from shake on that body) then you've got a few more options. 
The Canon f/1.4 is an old design but it actually works better than the f/1.2L. (Both are very soft wide open, but the 1.4 gets sharper faster as you stop down; the autofocus is also quicker.) The f/1.2L itself is alright, a touch ungainly for such a basic lens but thousands of pros have happily used it for years without complaint. 
The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 beats all of them for image quality, but the autofocus is a tiny bit worse than the Canons. 
If autofocus isn't a concern for you than the Samyang 50 1.4 is worth a look as it's optically on par with the Sigma, but of course it is manual focus only.

For the Tamron vs Sigma specifically, personally I'd always go for the Sigma because, as I said before, I don't think IS is really of much use on a 50mm lens with a 35mm sensor body, and the Sigma is optically a little bit better than the Tamron and it's built just a little bit sturdier. (Their autofocus performance is the same.) It's all-round the best 50mm lens available on Canon bodies at the moment, though the Tamron is #2.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 3, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> The Canon f/1.4 is an old design but it actually works better than the f/1.2L. (Both are very soft wide open, but the 1.4 gets sharper faster as you stop down; the autofocus is also quicker.) The f/1.2L itself is alright, a touch ungainly for such a basic lens but thousands of pros have happily used it for years without complaint.



As someone, who has first 50/1.8 II, then moved to 50/1.4 USM and then finally settled on 50/1.2L, I have to disagree with you. Focusing with 50/1.2L is fast and more importantly noiseless (50/1.4 is NOT noiseless at all). And sharpness in reviews is one thing, real application is another. 50/1.2L has much nicer and saturated colours, much better contrast and rendering of focus transition zone and is actually built like a tank (50/1.4 seems rather vulnerable with that extending inner tube).

Is 50/1.2L four times better as the price would suggest? Hell no. But it's virtually better in every regard. I got lucky and bought mine for as low as 750 € in mint condition. That lens is not worth its retail price, but if you can get a decent second hand market, it's rather good deal.


----------



## Larsskv (Jul 3, 2017)

Khalai said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon f/1.4 is an old design but it actually works better than the f/1.2L. (Both are very soft wide open, but the 1.4 gets sharper faster as you stop down; the autofocus is also quicker.) The f/1.2L itself is alright, a touch ungainly for such a basic lens but thousands of pros have happily used it for years without complaint.
> ...



+1 The Canon 50 f1.4 is hazy from f1.4 to f2, has poor colors, poor bokeh and is quite soft till f2.8. It might be sharper in the edges than the f1.2 at f4 and f5.6, but not by much. I'd take the 50 f1.8 STM over the f1.4 every day. The f1.2 is by far the best Canon 50mm lens, but it may not be worth it's price for everybody.

I like and can recommend the Tamron 45mm f1.8. 

I encourage everybody interested in the Sigma 50ART to look beyond the test charts, and carefully study pictures taken with it on flickr. It will often provide flat and lifeless looking images, compared to the 50 f1.2, especially when subjects are close to the camera. I guess it has something to do with the transition from in focus to out of focus areas. Lenses have other qualities than just sharpness.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jul 3, 2017)

I read all the time about one lens rendering better than another, people preferring the "look" from one lens, one lens looking flat whereas another looks 3D, etc. I wish for once someone would post comparisons of THE SAME SHOT taken with two of these lenses so those of us who can't purchase all of these lenses would be able to see for ourselves whether there really is a difference visible to us. I've seen people post photos from different lenses supposedly showing a difference, but they're always completely different scenes, with different lighting.


----------



## GammyKnee (Jul 3, 2017)

I've never tried the Sigma 50 Art (just the Canon 50 1.8, 1.4, and the Sigma 50 EX DG) but I can say that I'm very happy with my Tamron 45mm, especially on the 5DIV. 

I've always liked the rendering I get with the Tamron, the IS is very effective, the slightly wider field of view suits me very well (although Sigma 50s also shoot wider than the 50mm badge suggests), and the close min focusing distance is also handy. 

My main criticisms are of it are CA (can be noticeable with some shots) and general focusing speed (I wouldn't say slow, but certainly not fast). 

AF accuracy and consistency is OK with the center point on my 5DII, it was good with the central bank of 21 points on my 5DIII, but with my 5DIV the outer points are quite usable and the central points are really good.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 3, 2017)

I've never liked the Canon 50mm F1.4 between F1.4 - F2.
Now, I love my Sigma 50mm Art.

See a side-by-side comparison between some 50mm Canon and Sigma:

http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/


----------



## Larsskv (Jul 3, 2017)

gruhl28 said:


> I read all the time about one lens rendering better than another, people preferring the "look" from one lens, one lens looking flat whereas another looks 3D, etc. I wish for once someone would post comparisons of THE SAME SHOT taken with two of these lenses so those of us who can't purchase all of these lenses would be able to see for ourselves whether there really is a difference visible to us. I've seen people post photos from different lenses supposedly showing a difference, but they're always completely different scenes, with different lighting.



I understand your request very well. I have tried to find good comparison pictures as well, without much luck.

My most relevant experience was a night I had some friends over playing a game. I took pictures with both the Sigma and the Canon 50L that night. Same camera, same light source and angles, same apertures (f2-f2.8), same people. The day after I selected the pictures I liked, and ended up with 3 from the Sigma, and close to 20 from the 50L - and I had about as many pictures with each lens to begin with. The main difference was that the Sigma-pictures looked flat and lifeless, and the Canon 50L-pictures had much more depth and "life" to them. 

I have deleted the pictures I didn´t like, and I don´t want to share pictures I have left of my friends online. Besides the few Sigma-pictures I kept was pretty good and wouldn't illustrate the difference very well. 

I would also like to mention that my wife, who has no technical interest in cameras or lenses, also preferred the Canon 50L pictures without hesitation. (And she didnt know which lens was used...) 

That is why I encourage you to have a look at different flickr-groups where the Sigma 50 Art and the Canon 50 L are used. When you look at the 50L-groups, be aware that you find way to many pictures taken at f1.2, and/or which is slightly out of focus. I think the strength of the 50L is between f2 and f4, and you will have to look for those pictures as if you were looking for a needle in a haystack.  

I think the pictures "Johnny [shakedown]" takes generally are very good at illustrating how well depth is rendered by Canon L - primes: https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnyshakedown


----------



## pwp (Jul 4, 2017)

After going through EF 50 f/1.4, Sigma 50 f/1.4 and an EF 50 f/1.2 and not particularly warming to any of them, in an impulsive moment bought an EF 35f/2is. I just love the look this lens delivers, and the assistance that contemporary IS gives you just can't be underestimated. It's completely out of character for me to buy non-L Canon glass, but this one is a cracker.

-pw


----------



## GammyKnee (Jul 4, 2017)

pwp said:


> After going through EF 50 f/1.4, Sigma 50 f/1.4 and an EF 50 f/1.2 and not particularly warming to any of them, in an impulsive moment bought an EF 35f/2is. I just love the look this lens delivers, and the assistance that contemporary IS gives you just can't be underestimated. It's completely out of character for me to buy non-L Canon glass, but this one is a cracker.
> 
> -pw



Agreed - the EF35 F2 IS is stunningly good value. I still prefer the rendering of the Tamron 45 and the slightly longer focal length for most things, but if you want that wider view and don't need f/1.4 it's hard to beat. Outstandingly fast and accurate AF as well, especially on the 5D4.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 5, 2017)

pwp said:


> After going through EF 50 f/1.4, Sigma 50 f/1.4 and an EF 50 f/1.2 and not particularly warming to any of them, in an impulsive moment bought an EF 35f/2is. I just love the look this lens delivers, and the assistance that contemporary IS gives you just can't be underestimated. It's completely out of character for me to buy non-L Canon glass, but this one is a cracker.
> 
> -pw



Amen - that lens is on my "cold dead hands" list. Especially for the price.


----------



## Larsskv (Jul 5, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > After going through EF 50 f/1.4, Sigma 50 f/1.4 and an EF 50 f/1.2 and not particularly warming to any of them, in an impulsive moment bought an EF 35f/2is. I just love the look this lens delivers, and the assistance that contemporary IS gives you just can't be underestimated. It's completely out of character for me to buy non-L Canon glass, but this one is a cracker.
> ...



The Canon 35 f2 IS is a very nice lens. Compared to the 50L, it is smaller, sharper, lighter, focuses faster and more accurate, and has IS. On the other side, it's bokeh leaves something to be desired, and it lacks the contrast, clarity and color that you get from the 50 L (and other L lenses).


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2017)

Just curious: how many folks waiting for a better 50 prime are just getting by with the 35mm f/2 IS USM instead?

[Raises hand]

The Sigma 50 pickle jar is too big + AF too much of a wildcard. The 50 f/1.2L is not my bag (the whole magic/rendering over sharpness thing). So I'll shoot with the 35 IS for now.

- A


----------



## Khalai (Jul 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Just curious: how many folks waiting for a better 50 prime are just getting by with the 35mm f/2 IS USM instead?
> 
> [Raises hand]
> 
> ...



I've just settled with 50/1.2L. My least sharp lens, but no slouch. I guess I got lucky and have quite precise AF. Love the colours and out of focus transition. Also got it used for 800 €, because I don't believe that it's worth its full price.

I've also tried Milvus 50/1.4, but that's one large and heavy beast. IQ is brilliant, but MF only of course. And it's not exactly cheap either.

New Canon 50/1.4 is long overdue. I guess even 50/1.8 with IS and proper USM, in line with 24/28/35 would be very welcome by many. Not clear, what's taking Canon so long about updating their higher 50 mm models.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2017)

Khalai said:


> New Canon 50/1.4 is long overdue. I guess even 50/1.8 with IS and proper USM, in line with 24/28/35 would be very welcome by many. Not clear, what's taking Canon so long about updating their higher 50 mm models.



There's a general misconception that the 24/slow28/35 line was of the same 'family' as the fast28/50/85/100 family, so the natural question that follows that thinking is _Where the @#[email protected] is the 50/85 IS refresh?!
_
But in truth, they were separate families of lenses. Canon appears to have updated the old / low-featured pre-USM stuff and then promptly stopped, which is a cryin' shame.

- A


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 5, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> LonelyBoy said:
> 
> 
> > pwp said:
> ...



Luckily, I haven't yet had a chance to play with the pricey L primes, so it's not ruined for me yet. 

The L zooms I have are great, though.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 5, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > New Canon 50/1.4 is long overdue. I guess even 50/1.8 with IS and proper USM, in line with 24/28/35 would be very welcome by many. Not clear, what's taking Canon so long about updating their higher 50 mm models.
> ...



Right, you are correct. But quality of those IS primes rather spoilt everyone and it was natural to expect 50/85/135 update I guess. Well, that 85/1.8 USM is not a bad lens, but they could improve some contrast and colour fringing while wide open. And 135 would be quite redundant I guess, considering that there is quite a number of used 135/2L for a good price. But damn, that 50 is like a sore toe...


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 5, 2017)

LonelyBoy said:


> Luckily, I haven't yet had a chance to play with the pricey L primes, so it's not ruined for me yet.
> 
> The L zooms I have are great, though.



There are 'levels' of L lenses, IMHO. 

Back in 2012 I rented the 28 f/2.8 IS USM and the first 35 f/1.4L USM and I actually preferred the non-L over the L. And I could buy a 50L tomorrow but my 50 f/1.4 USM is a better instrument for my needs (read: I don't shoot that much wider than f/2).

But yes, some L primes are gangbusters -- the 35L II immediately comes to mind on that front. 

- A


----------



## gruhl28 (Jul 6, 2017)

Larsskv said:


> gruhl28 said:
> 
> 
> > I read all the time about one lens rendering better than another, people preferring the "look" from one lens, one lens looking flat whereas another looks 3D, etc. I wish for once someone would post comparisons of THE SAME SHOT taken with two of these lenses so those of us who can't purchase all of these lenses would be able to see for ourselves whether there really is a difference visible to us. I've seen people post photos from different lenses supposedly showing a difference, but they're always completely different scenes, with different lighting.
> ...


I have to admit, some of those "Johnny [shakedown]" do show depth really well.


----------



## Jopa (Jul 6, 2017)

daniela said:


> Hi Guys!
> 
> I´m lacking of an about 50mm prime lens that is, or is faster than f1.8 with an good image quality for my Eos 5D Mark IV. Preferred with an image stabilizer. Pricing not higher than 1200€.
> 
> ...



I asked the same question here a few months ago. Also was thinking Sigma vs Tamron, both are good lenses but unfortunately not great, so decided to keep the GAS level down and stay with my $125 50/1.8 STM


----------



## aceflibble (Jul 6, 2017)

Khalai said:


> As someone, who has first 50/1.8 II, then moved to 50/1.4 USM and then finally settled on 50/1.2L, I have to disagree with you. Focusing with 50/1.2L is fast and more importantly noiseless (50/1.4 is NOT noiseless at all). And sharpness in reviews is one thing, real application is another. 50/1.2L has much nicer and saturated colours, much better contrast and rendering of focus transition zone and is actually built like a tank (50/1.4 seems rather vulnerable with that extending inner tube).


Then you got very lucky with the 1.2 and unlucky with the 1.4, or I've had the reverse fortune. I've had three of the 50 1.2s and two of the 1.4s. All five lenses had consistent behaviour; the 1.2s being slower to focus, unusable soft until dropped to f/1.8 and still softer than the 1.4s until around f/8 when they finally equal. (Which is not to say that the 1.4s were perfect, either, just that they were sharper by f/2.) I also found all the 1.2s to be unnaturally warm-toned (as in, compared to all other Canon lenses in my possession and correct white balance) which is an entirely subjective preference for many uses, though for my own (highly technical) work, it made it unusable compared to the more neutral rendering of the 1.4s. However I purposefully omitted that point from my original post because I recognise that rendering style is, in most cases, down to each individual's subjective taste and what one person regards as better or worse rendering may be the opposite for another, hence why I stick to only talking about the bare bones technical aspects. (E.G. resolving power, lock speed.)

For the record, I now use the Sigma and Samyang and they both blow both the Canons out of the water optically, so hey.


----------



## Khalai (Jul 6, 2017)

aceflibble said:


> Khalai said:
> 
> 
> > As someone, who has first 50/1.8 II, then moved to 50/1.4 USM and then finally settled on 50/1.2L, I have to disagree with you. Focusing with 50/1.2L is fast and more importantly noiseless (50/1.4 is NOT noiseless at all). And sharpness in reviews is one thing, real application is another. 50/1.2L has much nicer and saturated colours, much better contrast and rendering of focus transition zone and is actually built like a tank (50/1.4 seems rather vulnerable with that extending inner tube).
> ...



For technical work, I'd perhaps consider Zeiss Milvus 50/2 Makro-Planar or Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4 Distagon. Insanely sharp lenses with amazing contrast and microcontrast. If you can live without AF of course.


----------



## Larsskv (Jul 6, 2017)

gruhl28 said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > gruhl28 said:
> ...



I am happy that you notice what I am talking about. This is what I find lacking with the Sigma 50 and 35 ART lenses (which I have both owned and sold). They were both very sharp, and with almost no chromatic aberrations, but I never liked the look of their pictures.


----------



## aceflibble (Jul 8, 2017)

Khalai said:


> For technical work, I'd perhaps consider Zeiss Milvus 50/2 Makro-Planar or Zeiss Milvus 50/1.4 Distagon. Insanely sharp lenses with amazing contrast and microcontrast. If you can live without AF of course.


I manually focus most of the time anyway. But no, those two are out of the question for me simply as the insurance costs skyrocket when adding that much value to the lens drawer. I already need to downscale as the premiums have gotten ridiculous.


----------

