# Do all of canons 50 mm lens suck?



## cpsico (Jan 2, 2012)

I have had my 50 1.4 recalibrated every so often but sooner or later back to suck. Is the 1.2 version any better or should I just get the 35 1.4? It seems to be much better rated. I used it with an aps-h sensor anyway so is there any one that has used one or the other or both?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 2, 2012)

I love the 50 f/1.2L. I've heard the "focus shift" issue has gotten better over time. I've never really noticed it. Though it doesn't have a floating element, so it's probably there.

The 50 1.4 is in dire need of replacement, Canon makes a lot of money selling focus motors for it though.


----------



## Stereohans (Jan 2, 2012)

I bought the EF-L 50/1.2 in December and have no issues with this lens. It is sharp even at 1.2, it focuses fast and there is no focus shift. Cons: that wonderful beast of a lens is heavy, huge and expensive - but it is also the best 50 I ever had including a 50/1.8 I and a 50/1.4.
So I can recommend the 1.2 if you are able to afford it.
I hope the next 85/1.2 will have similar qualities: No "electrofocus only" design, a bit less of weight and bulkiness and faster AF would be nice. If the improvement between 85/1.2 II and 85/1.2 III is as big as the step from 50/1.0 to 50/1.2 in terms of everyday usability I will buy that lens as soon as it is in the market.

Greetz, Hans


----------



## Cannon Man (Jan 2, 2012)

I have a love hate relationship with my 50 1.2L..
Compared to my 85mm 1.2L II it.. well you can't even compare them because the 85mm is sharper at 1.2 than the 50mm is at 2.8!!!! and has better contrast.

On the other hand i love the size and the weather sealing and i love the focal length and the colors look really nice and its not bad at all its just that the 85mm is better.

I wish they would make a better 50mm!! i have been thinking they decided to make it more affordable and cos' of it didn't make it as good as they could have.

Ive been thinking to buy the 8000$ 50mm cine lens if it works good for still photos too.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Jan 2, 2012)

I'm pretty happy with my sigma 50mm f/1.4 for now. But I will snap up a canon 50mm f/1.4 II as soon as it is released.

Dire need of replacement!


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 2, 2012)

Cannon Man said:


> I have a love hate relationship with my 50 1.2L..
> Compared to my 85mm 1.2L II it.. well you can't even compare them because the 85mm is sharper at 1.2 than the 50mm is at 2.8!!!! and has better contrast.
> 
> On the other hand i love the size and the weather sealing and i love the focal length and the colors look really nice and its not bad at all its just that the 85mm is better.
> ...



The cinema primes are supposed to be $6800 actually, but I guess with tax it'll be close. But like the Zeiss CP.2, most of the added cost is for the focus marks, manual iris adjustment, and uniform housing size to make swapping easy. I'm willing to bet the optics are very similar to the 50L, and when you factor in no autofocus it doesn't seem like a great deal.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 2, 2012)

cpsico said:


> I have had my 50 1.4 recalibrated every so often but sooner or later back to suck. Is the 1.2 version any better or should I just get the 35 1.4? It seems to be much better rated. I used it with an aps-h sensor anyway so is there any one that has used one or the other or both?



I've had the 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L. I can't say any of them really suck, sure the 1.8 is plastic and feels like a toy, but for $100 you can't complain. I thought the 1.4 was very sharp for the money, and I really liked it. I love my 1.2L, always did, but particularly so after I got it re-calibrated. 

If you're looking for something in-between the 1.4 and 1.2L, check out the Zeiss ZE 50mm f/1.4, it doesn't have autofocus but I think it's a wonderful lens. I think it's around $725...


----------



## Canon-F1 (Jan 2, 2012)

Cannon Man said:


> Ive been thinking to buy the 8000$ 50mm cine lens if it works good for still photos too.



well others make money with the 50mm 1.2 and some just dream about more gear to improve their photography... it´s always the same.


----------



## cpsico (Jan 2, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> I love the 50 f/1.2L. I've heard the "focus shift" issue has gotten better over time. I've never really noticed it. Though it doesn't have a floating element, so it's probably there.
> 
> The 50 1.4 is in dire need of replacement, Canon makes a lot of money selling focus motors for it though.


I was wondering if the 1.2 had similar issues I find 50 mm to be a very useful focal length, it seems to focus best 4 to 5 feet away. When the 1.4 is on its very sharp ESP when used with a 580 ex useing focus assist. The weather sealing could be better on the 1.4 too


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 3, 2012)

cpsico said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I love the 50 f/1.2L. I've heard the "focus shift" issue has gotten better over time. I've never really noticed it. Though it doesn't have a floating element, so it's probably there.
> ...



I agree about the weather sealing, the design for the 50 1.4 is from 1987 I believe, it's long due for an update (sooner rather than later, I suspect).


----------



## JR (Jan 3, 2012)

I have the 50 1.2 and had no issues with it. I had it for a year now and I must say it sits on my camera most of the time. I also had the 50 1.4 (actually still have it as I never got around to selling it) and I find the 1.2 much better.

For portrait it is a killer! Now you mentionned the 35 1.4. It is a amazing lens as well. I plan to get the mk II version hopefully announced this week (I place a lot of fait in the CR guy here )!

In the end it comes down to your needs. If you need a 50mm, go for the 1.2. If you use 35mm more, you will be happy with the 35 1.4.


----------



## pwp (Jan 3, 2012)

alipaulphotography said:


> I'm pretty happy with my sigma 50mm f/1.4 for now. But I will snap up a canon 50mm f/1.4 II as soon as it is released.



Pretty much my feelings too. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is a competent though hefty piece of glass, better than my previous EF 50mm f/1.4 at the wide end...nothing between them past f/4. 

Hoping the eventual replacement for the EF 50mm f/1.4 is just as compact as the original. Somehow I doubt there will be a replacement anytime soon...it would cannibalize 50mm f/1.2L sales in a big way. 

Paul Wright


----------



## willrobb (Jan 3, 2012)

pwp said:


> alipaulphotography said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty happy with my sigma 50mm f/1.4 for now. But I will snap up a canon 50mm f/1.4 II as soon as it is released.
> ...



Have to agree with Paul here, I think a new canon 50mm f1.4II would eat away at the 1.2L sales. Saying that though, with a lot of people saying they like the Sigma 50mm f1.4 canon are going to have do something....perhaps we'll see a canon 50mm f1.4II with a better AF motor and a sleeker look.

Anyway, I am very happy with my 50mm f1.2L. Been happily using it now for 18 months and it delivers every time.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 3, 2012)

I have used the 35 24 and 50 extensively on an aps-h sensor.

For IQ you much better off with the 35, IF the focal is what you need, they're very different. Second when it comes to sharpness you want the 35. However, if you need weatherseal, MUCH nicer bokeh, color and resistance to flare, you want the 50.

I use 24 and 50 on a mk4, and I love them both. But IQ of 50mm lenses will never match the equiv in 35 and 85mm. I hope they will, but it just seems like they haven't yet, so my money is on never.

If you want the best possible 50, and my god how wonderful the 50 is on both aps-h and FF, color, contrast sharpness from wide open (1,2) through 2,8, you absolutely want the 50L. It will never break and is in my eyes at least the best handling lens on a 1-series body ever made. It just fits right.

Nevermind the shift focus talk, it's not a big deal between 1,2 and 2,5. And this is where you use this lens. Be aware however, that the 50 L is very much softer closer than 3 ft than at some distance. So don't go shooting at mfd if you try this lens (as nearly 100% of the customers in my shop do when testing a lens)


----------



## foobar (Jan 3, 2012)

Can't say anything about the 50L (I don't use this focal length often enough to justify the price difference), but I have tried the 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and currently own the Sigma.

The 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens for the price, but the noisy AF, shoddy build quality and non-rounded 5-blade aperture means it's not for me.

The 50mm f/1.4 is an okay lens. In terms of image quality, I'd like to see rounded aperture blades here as well. Apart from that, it ticks most of the boxes, but only in theory. I could live with the micro-USM AF if the mechanism wasn't so fragile.

The Sigma has everything I want from a 50mm in terms of image quality. It may not win a sharpness race against Canon's 50mm f/1.4 but it's "sharp enough" and the way it renders is just beautiful. Sadly, its autofocus isn't as reliable as the Canon alternatives, at least on my copy. It's also bloody heavy because of that huge front element (77mm filter thread!).

So in short: Yes, if Canon would release a 50mm f/1.4 USM II (even if it was just a refresh of the old lens with ring-USM and rounded aperture blades), I would buy it in an instant.


----------



## cpsico (Jan 3, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I have used the 35 24 and 50 extensively on an aps-h sensor.
> 
> For IQ you much better off with the 35, IF the focal is what you need, they're very different. Second when it comes to sharpness you want the 35. However, if you need weatherseal, MUCH nicer bokeh, color and resistance to flare, you want the 50.
> 
> ...


I was seriously looking at the 35 1.4, there are times i find the 50 a bit to long as a good walk around lens. Thanks for the in depth comparison


----------



## distant.star (Jan 3, 2012)

By dint of coincidence, Roger at LensRentals has just published a test he did of 50mm lenses:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 3, 2012)

distant.star said:


> By dint of coincidence, Roger at LensRentals has just published a test he did of 50mm lenses:
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout



Thanks that was an interesting read


----------



## photalian (Mar 27, 2012)

How do you guys like the 50mm f1.8 on a crop body, compared to on full frame? I haven't have many shoots to test it with, but my initial thoughts are that the 50mm f1.8 shines on the crop body, but is sucking on my 5d mk2. It's not even that sharp around f2 or f2.8. I've had better results with my 24-70 so far.


----------



## nitsujwalker (Mar 27, 2012)

photalian said:


> How do you guys like the 50mm f1.8 on a crop body, compared to on full frame? I haven't have many shoots to test it with, but my initial thoughts are that the 50mm f1.8 shines on the crop body, but is sucking on my 5d mk2. It's not even that sharp around f2 or f2.8. I've had better results with my 24-70 so far.



I have the 1.8 and 1.4 and I have to shoot the 1.8 over 2.2 to get sharp, read: acceptable, results. The 1.4 on the other hand gives sharper results at 1.4 than the other at f2! Perhaps I got an iffy copy. But as someone else stated for 100 bucks I'm not complaining. I shoot them on a 50d and 7d.


----------



## dougfrommar (Mar 27, 2012)

I currently have the Canon 50mm f1.2 L and it is exceptional especially for family type shots or weddings. I have previously owned the Canon 50mm f1.8 as well as the Sigma 50mm f1.4. The Sigma was good but the Canon f1.2 is better. Top notch build quality. I have had no focus issues. I also own the Canon 24-105L and Canon 70-200f2.8L IS II. The Canon 50 is the lens that is on my camera most of the time. 
I have owned many other lenses including Canon 135L, Canon 100L macro, Canon 200Lf2.8, Canon 16-35L II, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200f2.8 (non IS), Canon 28-70L. I can say that the 50mmf1.2 is very worthy of the "L" title. 
(I use the Canon 5DmkII)


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2012)

I would happily pay $1000 for a new 50mm f1.4L similar size to the exisiting and L build same as the 100 f2.8L macro with similar sharpness etc circular apperture baldes etc engineering plastics to keep is small and light
which is one of the benefits of the fiddy.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 28, 2012)

The 50mm lenses use a optical formula from the stone age of cameras, and not just Canon. Then, they are cheaply made because they were intended as low cost mass produced items.

Its really too bad that there is not a upgrade. I use mine a lot, and its very good. I'd like excellent rather than good or very good. I'm thinking of selling it and just cropping from 35mm L or stepping back with 85mm f/1.8.

I'll take a look at the new 24-70mm L as well. If it is really good, I might limit my use of primes, since the 5D MK III does seem to be 1 stop + better. It also does not degrade as quickly at the really high ISO settings, noise increases more gradually. Correct exposure is absolutely critical though.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The 50mm lenses use a optical formula from the stone age of cameras, and not just Canon. Then, they are cheaply made because they were intended as low cost mass produced items.
> 
> Its really too bad that there is not a upgrade. I use mine a lot, and its very good. I'd like excellent rather than good or very good. I'm thinking of selling it and just cropping from 35mm L or stepping back with 85mm f/1.8.
> 
> I'll take a look at the new 24-70mm L as well. If it is really good, I might limit my use of primes, since the 5D MK III does seem to be 1 stop + better. It also does not degrade as quickly at the really high ISO settings, noise increases more gradually. Correct exposure is absolutely critical though.


yep i'm hanging out to try this lens becasue i've been considering the 24 f1.4II or the 35 f1.4 too end of april apparently...


----------



## Jettatore (Mar 28, 2012)

I've seen amazing results from the 50mm f/1.8

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1059085

would be cool to mod it so that it doesn't feel like just a toy


----------



## pwp (Mar 28, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> I've seen amazing results from the 50mm f/1.8
> 
> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1059085
> 
> would be cool to mod it so that it doesn't feel like just a toy



Mask it up and spray on a fine red line..._ta-da!_ An instant L. 

Paul Wright


----------



## Jettatore (Mar 28, 2012)

That would be look and for some feel.


----------



## BillyBean (Mar 28, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> I've seen amazing results from the 50mm f/1.8 ... would be cool to mod it so that it doesn't feel like just a toy



Easy! Just buy a Canon 50mm /1.8 *MARK 1* - available on eBay, usually for about the same price as the mark II is new, i.e. about £80 in the UK.

The mark 1 has (I understand) identical optics, but isn't built of belly button fluff. Seriously, it has a robust feel to it, and a proper, metal lens mount ring.

I had a friend whose mark II came apart - it really is made of total crap - the front part of the housing mounts to the back half with three or four 1/2 mm plastic welds that look like if you put it down hard they would come apart, so despite the optics, I could not recommend this mark II. Different story for the mark I...


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 28, 2012)

Heres How I Feel About the canon 50's

1. The 50mm 1.4 is A Superb Lens. Its Fast, Its Cheap and Its AF is sweet. I've used it for many, many portraits and LOW LIGHT Situations. Know its limitations also, Its not sharp wide open and is best from F2.8 and UP. Its Stupendously sharp at F/8 and Resolves alot of details that you might have to do alot of photoshop to your clients faces.

2. Unfortunately, I needed a FAST Lens but Also, Sharpness Wide Open. Enter the 50mm 1.2L...The Monster, The Beastly, The Manly, Hunk Of glass that makes other 50mm's Tremble at seeing its bold Red Ring. Its a AWESOME LENS! Its really sharp wide open and only gets to its best by 2.8. After that the 50mm 1.4 is actually alittle sharper but thats not the point.

The Point is that At Wide apertures is where the 50mm 1.2L Stands alone in SPEED and Sharpness and COLOR! Color is great on this lens!

Anyway, I Ditched the 50mm 1.4 for a USED 50 1.2L I saw on Craiglist. Best Decision EVERRRRRRRRR!!!!

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,647.60.html<------- here are some examples!


----------



## bycostello (Mar 29, 2012)

i have the 50mm... fine for me.... i don't take pictures of lens targets though...


----------



## MarkB (Mar 29, 2012)

I know the Canon f1.4 isn't sharp wide open, and I get a lot of missed pics with autofocus on it but...Some of the best shots I have are taken with this lens. The shots in the gallery below are taken around f1.6-f.2.0. The one with the present in it was taken at f4.0 and almost looks too sharp.

http://www.BenePict.com/p119494941

For the money its a great lens. I use it whenever I need to do portrait work. I have compared it extensively to the 24-105L and it wins every time in terms of image quality.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Mar 29, 2012)

I find the AF of the 50L to be much better on my 5D3 than it was on my 50D. What body are you using? I have both the 1.4 and 1.2 and they are both great, but they need to be used with a little care wide open. The 50L is amazing when you hit it, and on full frame the bokeh and what I call 3D look are unique.

The dof at f1.2 is thin, so some shots are missed because of camera or subject movement, so shoot lots!

*please remove suck from the title, they don't suck.


----------



## dichiaras (Mar 29, 2012)

cpsico said:


> I have had my 50 1.4 recalibrated every so often but sooner or later back to suck. Is the 1.2 version any better or should I just get the 35 1.4? It seems to be much better rated. I used it with an aps-h sensor anyway so is there any one that has used one or the other or both?



Why don't you use the f/1.8?
Its resolution is fantastic. Ok, it's not as fast as the 1.4 (or 1.2 for that matter), but it's sharper, lighter, and cheaper. For me it would be a no brainer. Following DxO mark, the 1.2 has definitely better resolution than the 1.4 (how it depends on the camera): just look at the field map to see that for different apertures.


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 29, 2012)

"Tremble at seeing its bold Red Ring"

Makes me shudder to think too


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 29, 2012)

Can we maybe get a bit of love for the f/2.5 compact macro?

Sharp enough to perform brain surgery and distortion-free -- everything the tape-banknotes-to-the-wall measurebator crowd drools over, and simply unbeatable for fine art reproduction.

Oh, and it makes really nice pictures, too.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## AnselA (Mar 30, 2012)

"The 50mm 1.4 is A superb lens." I will second that. I have had not had any problem in capturing great images in very poor light and also in well lit outdoors scenes. The color is amazing, it is fast and the bokeh lovely. You won't be sorry.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 3, 2012)

The 50 F1.2. When its portraits time the 50 F1.2 is the go to. If i am pressed for time and can't move around the 24-70 also does well. The color, the sharpness, the out of focus blur, and the build, all epic. I have owned the 85 F1.2 but sold it for this lens. Is that to say the 85 isn't still king, no, but the 85 doesn't have a weather seal gasket and its slow, the 50 solves those issues and the out of focus blur doesn't really look that different in my opinion.

Here is one for fun  Its not sharpened or processed at all and i know i could dazzle you with sharpening and processing applied. I took this out walking around because i had a shoot that weekend i decided to grab this for walk around for fun. This is my buddies daughter. 
F1.4


----------



## Bosman (Apr 3, 2012)

Here is another one. If you own an 85mm F1.2 I bet you wouldn't be able to spot the differences in Bokeh, maybe but doubt it.
F4


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 3, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> *please remove suck from the title, they don't suck.



... I had the 50/1.8 and for the build quality, bokeh and noisy/slow af "suck" is not a very elaborate, but fitting description :-o



dichiaras said:


> Why don't you use the f/1.8? Its resolution is fantastic.



It's great that you like the lens, but the resolution is far from "fantastic" unless seriously stopped down - and then, I don't need a f/1.8 lens. I'd describe the 50/1.8 as "cheap", both positive and negative. But it's a nice emergency "shoot in the dark lens".



TrumpetPower! said:


> Can we maybe get a bit of love for the f/2.5 compact macro?



The problem with this one is that it isn't chipped and doesn't report subject distance - afaik very bad for flash w/o preflash.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 3, 2012)

cpsico said:


> I have had my 50 1.4 recalibrated every so often but sooner or later back to suck. Is the 1.2 version any better or should I just get the 35 1.4? It seems to be much better rated. I used it with an aps-h sensor anyway so is there any one that has used one or the other or both?



more or less they do, two have poor build and AF, if perfectly fine image quality for a basic 50mm-type design

i don't know too much about the 50 1.2, some say it's less sharp stopped down than the other two and has slow AF with focus shift


----------



## birdman (Apr 5, 2012)

My 20+ year old 50/1.8 Mark I is not too bad at all--even wide open. The bokeh is what a lot of people complain about on the 1.8--and the build quality. 

I met a gentleman that owns the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2-- the 50mm is his favorite by far. Focuses faster, more useful FL, nearly as sharp (according to him)

They will replace this soon I think. Go for 35/1.4 and 85/1.8. Forget 50mm


----------



## AnselA (Apr 6, 2012)

Here is a vote for the wonderful 50mm f/ 1.4. Very sharp, nicely saturated colors and great bokeh. I have had it for several years and love it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 6, 2012)

birdman said:


> My 20+ year old 50/1.8 Mark I is not too bad at all--even wide open. The bokeh is what a lot of people complain about on the 1.8--and the build quality.
> 
> I met a gentleman that owns the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2-- the 50mm is his favorite by far. Focuses faster, more useful FL, nearly as sharp (according to him)
> 
> They will replace this soon I think. Go for 35/1.4 and 85/1.8. Forget 50mm



35/1.4 is going to be replaced before the 50s according to the rumor mill.


----------



## krjc (Apr 6, 2012)

Bought a 1.4 about three years ago, when I was just getting back into photography and I was extremely disappointed and therefore hardly ever used it. Then about 3 months ago I came to the realization that it needed an adjustment. Got it back about two months ago and have been loving it ever since. Its not perfect but I have taken some of my best photos with it.


----------



## Thorne (Apr 6, 2012)

The 50/1.4 was my first lens, and I'm on my third copy now. (First one ruined during a traffic impact, the second by novice-abuse, which was really painful, since the second one was the best sample of all three of mine to date.) I have loved and adored it/them for all eight years of my serious photography, but I won't buy another when (not "if," WHEN) the AF craps out. I am _desperately_ hoping that a new non-L 50 will show up in this new wave of "primes with IS." 

Though in the meantime, I'm trying to wheedle my current employer into buying me a 1.2 L to give that a try. You guys' posts have encouraged me to get my hopes up!


----------



## jseliger (Apr 6, 2012)

Thorne said:


> Though in the meantime, I'm trying to wheedle my current employer into buying me a 1.2 L to give that a try. You guys' posts have encouraged me to get my hopes up!



Thorne: Why not get the Sigma 50mm f / 1.4?


----------



## DJL329 (Apr 7, 2012)

Yes, they all have their drawbacks, even the Sigma, but an EF 50mm f/1.4 II (with ring USM and no dang IS***!) would be a winner for most folks who want a fast 50mm.

========================

*** No need for IS on a fast prime of < 100mm. All it would do is increase size, weight and cost.


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 7, 2012)

Jseliger.

Do you wear Levis or Wranglers?

'nough said m8 

ET


----------



## Thorne (Apr 7, 2012)

jseliger said:


> Thorne said:
> 
> 
> > Though in the meantime, I'm trying to wheedle my current employer into buying me a 1.2 L to give that a try. You guys' posts have encouraged me to get my hopes up!
> ...



Cause I hear the AF ain't great? And because if my employer's gonna buy me a new 50, I might as well go for the gold...! ;-)


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 7, 2012)

One of my first 50mm shot ever done digitally for professional use. Rebel XSI W/ 50 1.4. Gosh, that camera body had such good skin tones out of the camera. Almost as good as my 5Dc.


----------



## picturesbyme (Apr 7, 2012)

I tried the Canon 1.8, 1.4, and the Sigma 1.4.
Liked the two 1.4s, but I think that unless you have some special needs that a limitation on a certain lens makes impossible to do any/all "good" lens will do... and while I have doubts about the 50 1.8 myself the 1.4 even with its "issues" is a good lens...

NSFW 
This lady http://alisaverner.com/about/ shoots a lot with the 50 1.4. I think she's pretty good at what she's doing and another good example that expensive equipment doesn't substitute a good photographer...


----------



## Radiating (Apr 7, 2012)

I think it's more than just all of the Canon 50mm's that suck. I would go as far as to say that virtually all the 50mm lenses available for Canon or Nikon aren't very good, at least above f/2.8. The performance of the Canon 50mm: f/1.2, 1.4, & 1.8, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Nikon 50mm, 1.4D, 1.8G, & 1.8D and Zeiss 50mm 1.4 are all fairly bad above f/2.8.

The Voigtlander Nokton 50mm 1.4, Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro, & Nikon 50mm 1.4G are decent at f/2.0 though, but leave a lot to be desired compared to what we're used to with top lenses at f/2.0.

The whole 50mm fast lens range seems to just be bad.


----------



## Frankie T Fotografia (Apr 7, 2012)

I'm surprised none of you have complained about the color fringing on the 50mm f1.2 L lens. The color fringing on this lens is so bad that it's still visible stopped down to f4.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 7, 2012)

Radiating said:
 

> I think it's more than just all of the Canon 50mm's that suck. The whole 50mm fast lens range seems to just be bad.



Maybe "bad" is to strong a word, but "have issues" might be something many people could agree upon. And I just understand Canon: Instead of patenting every strange lens possible, why don't they just release a modern 50/1.4L without any issues (micro-usm, focus breathing) and a 1500$ price tag? They'll sell loads, I'm sure of it.


----------



## Physicx (Apr 7, 2012)

Ive owned the 1.4 and the 1.8. I loved the look of the 1.4 at 1.4. unfortunately it is very soft and the images are not usable at 1.4. Also I have have 2 copies of that lens. Both gives purple fringling in low light at night. I didnt like the colour reproduction either.

The 1.8 is cheap but the bokeh is not as good. and it is noisy.

I have now got rid of them both and bought a sigma 1.4. it is the best lens by far. sharp images, incredible bokeh. yes canon needs a new lens.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 7, 2012)

Frankie T Fotografia said:


> I'm surprised none of you have complained about the color fringing on the 50mm f1.2 L lens. The color fringing on this lens is so bad that it's still visible stopped down to f4.



Never been a problem on my copy. Date code 2011. The 50mm 1.2L is the best 50mm out there for SLRs. There is no aspheric 50mm's with the complete feature set of this lens. It's Great!!!


----------

