# 50 1.4 on 5d3 anyone?



## bykes (Dec 11, 2012)

I'm thinking about picking up the 50 1.4 for a fast option instead of lugging my 24-105 around to family events etc. Is anyone using one on a 5d3? Your thoughts?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 11, 2012)

I use one on a 5D Mark III. It focuses very quickly and is very sharp f/2 and narrower. I think it's a great lens.


----------



## rj79in (Dec 11, 2012)

Mine works brilliantly. I thought I was a goner when I was using it on the 7D but it works great on the 5D3.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 11, 2012)

Its fine, but not as useful or as sharp as my 24-105mmL for all around use. Where it comes in handy is in low light, or for a shallow depth of field. 
If you a new 5D MK III user, give it a while with the 24-105, you will get used to the weight. Good lenses are heavier due to the large amount of glass in them. The 24-105 is on the light side compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 or some of the other popular "L" lenses.


----------



## rj79in (Dec 11, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its fine, but not as useful or as sharp as my 24-105mmL for all around use. Where it comes in handy is in low light, or for a shallow depth of field.
> If you a new 5D MK III user, give it a while with the 24-105, you will get used to the weight. Good lenses are heavier due to the large amount of glass in them. The 24-105 is on the light side compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 or some of the other popular "L" lenses.



+1 ... The 50 mm 1.4 is best used in low light or where you want better bokeh. For well lit scenes, I'd use the 24-105 for the versatility in framing the shots


----------



## iso79 (Dec 11, 2012)

The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 11, 2012)

iso79 said:


> The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.



Its not that terrible. : I've used the 50mm 1.4 Professionally for sometime before getting the 50L.

Its a good lens for the $$$.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 11, 2012)

iso79 said:


> The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.


Some buy lenses to take photos, some buy the best one, even if its the wrong focal length.


----------



## bykes (Dec 11, 2012)

I doubt I'd use it on any paid gigs. Just something easy to shoot with in low light. For example at my sisters to shoot her kids indoors acting like maniacs.


----------



## vmk (Dec 11, 2012)

Good lens, i'm using it with 5d mark iii. You get sharp images under low light.

I have not used 50mm 1.2L, so i can't compare with it...


----------



## Knut Skywalker (Dec 11, 2012)

Though I have a 5D2 and not the 5D3, I want to share my opinion. First i thought this lens was unusable wide open at 1.4, but when i played around with the AFMA-Function and found the right setting, I was getting way better results with it when shooting @ 1.4. The hazy look on the edges that I got from this lens was gone and the pictures looked way better when there was high contrast. At 2.0 this lens is getting really sharp on my 5D2 and I like the results very much.


----------



## elflord (Dec 11, 2012)

bykes said:


> I doubt I'd use it on any paid gigs. Just something easy to shoot with in low light. For example at my sisters to shoot her kids indoors acting like maniacs.


I took a 50mm f/1.4 with the 5DII on an international trip to see my parents (and my daughters grandparents) -- primary usage was family pics. I left at home the 35L, 135L and Sigma 85mm f/1.4. No regrets -- it worked out perfectly for that trip. The funny thing is, I don't otherwise use that lens very often on full frame (though it was my favourite on APS-C)


----------



## crasher8 (Dec 11, 2012)

Funny, My bag frequently has both the 24-105 and the 50 1.4. Decent range and light options with the two. I had a bad copy when I used crop and took a chance on one last month, this one is super sharp at 2.0 and needed no AMFA.


----------



## infared (Dec 11, 2012)

I use a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on my 5D3. More to lug than the Canon...but results are excellent. I am a canon "L" man but I found this lens to be somewhere in between or closer to the Canon 50mm "L". Made a compromise on the 50mm, saved my money and went for the gusto for the ultimate low DOF and bought the Canon 85mm "L". 
...but for the cost and the size and the quality the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a good lens too!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 11, 2012)

iso79 said:


> The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.



Terrible advice, just terrible.


----------



## dswatson83 (Dec 11, 2012)

infared said:


> I use a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 on my 5D3. More to lug than the Canon...but results are excellent. I am a canon "L" man but I found this lens to be somewhere in between or closer to the Canon 50mm "L". Made a compromise on the 50mm, saved my money and went for the gusto for the ultimate low DOF and bought the Canon 85mm "L".
> ...but for the cost and the size and the quality the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a good lens too!



I pretty much shelved my 50 f/1.4 for the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. I'll carry the 85mm f/1.8 with me as well if I want distance. The Sigma blows the sharpness of the Canon 50mm out of the water and I find the focus motor on the 50mm slow. Just check out the reviews so far on the Sigma. It's built like a tank too and feels like an L lens and not a cheap feeling Canon 50mm f/1.4:
http://learningcameras.com/reviews/7-lenses/86-sigma-35mm-f14-review

It even is blowing away the Canon 35 f/1.4L:
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 vs Canon 35mm f/1.4 - Fight!


----------



## awinphoto (Dec 11, 2012)

I have the 50 1.4... I find that, for me, it's more reliable than the 50 1.2, in my tests, especially with F2 and narrower... 1.4-1.8 is very questionable if it will nail focus or not... Sometimes it does and it's astounding, sometimes it doesn't, and it looks like crap... Sometimes the halation kicks in and makes a sharp image look soft... But below F2 it is ok... I tend to favor my 24-105 over the 50mm for 95% of my pro work... I'm actually soon going to sell the 50 1.4 and buy the 100 2.8L... working range, i would only be losing a stop, but I gain macro, IS, more consistent wide open, and much better build and AF...


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 11, 2012)

I sold mine 2-3 months ago. It was sharp from 1.8

GREAT lens at lower budget


----------



## Vossie (Dec 11, 2012)

After switching from crop to ff, I find myself using the 40 1.4 more frequently. I like the FoV better then on crop. I think I actually use it more now than my 85L, partly because it's more forgiving than the 85L (especially with children than move around a lot). 

A negative is that the bokeh is not that great, it's a bit "unresty" and less pleasing than the 70-200 2.8 of 85L.
Neverthless, I can certainly recommend it on the 5D3.

The 50 1.4 is by far my oldest lens, I originally bought it for an EOS 3 around 2001. Used it a lot on that camera. I guess I like the FoV of 50mm on ff.


----------



## skitron (Dec 11, 2012)

+1 the Sigma.

If it were branded as Canon and was the replacement for the existing Canon 50 1.4 everyone would be praising Canon big time.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Dec 11, 2012)

I have that combo and its my favorite. Some are saying that its a crappy lens? That's some of the stupidest "advice" I've ever heard. I use it at paid gigs ALL THE FRICKIN TIME!!!

I looked into the sigma, but the reviews of it were that its great if you get a good copy, and I didn't want to deal with all that crap. On top of being amazing in low light, focusing fast and accurate, and producing beautiful images, it also has the benefit of being small, light, and discrete. 

If you want a 35 (as someone mentioned), then get it. If you want a great 50, then get the 1.4.


----------



## infared (Dec 11, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.
> ...



I agree..it is terrible advice all the way around. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a good lens at that price point.
...and SECONDLY...if you are going to advise someone to buy a 35mm PUUUUULEASE...advise them to buy the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4. It is sharper, better built, new technology and $429 less than the Canon "L"!!!! DUH! LOL!

(can't wait to see some more Artist Series Lenses from Sigma!!! Hope they hold this quality)


----------



## Cptn Rigo (Dec 11, 2012)

elflord said:


> The funny thing is, I don't otherwise use that lens very often on full frame (though it was my favourite on APS-C)



+1 I felt the same, just selled and bought the 85 1.2


----------



## Shane1.4 (Dec 11, 2012)

It is on my 5d mkiii 90% of the time when I shoot weddings. I had the 50mm 1.2 and didn't like it as much so I sold it. My 1.4 focuses much faster than my 1.2 did and after doing a micro adjustment of +8, the AF is spot on every time using my 5d mkiii whereas is misses often with my 60D. I sold my 24-105 for a 17-40 as I found the 24-105 to take nice photos but boring ones.


----------



## myone (Dec 11, 2012)

The 50 1.4 is definitely a great lens and it takes sharp pictures at f/2.0 and above. However, I sold my copy a few months ago after knowing Canon might release a new version.

It is a good combo for 5D3, but since you are investing money on a new lens that I am sure you will enjoy, it is always smart to consider the longevity of the lens. The main reason I sold the lens is because of its micro USM, which is prone to go bad if you are not careful or if you are not lucky.


----------



## gilmorephoto (Dec 11, 2012)

I think it's a great normal lens option for the 5D3 and, with AFMA, mine is good from 1.8 down. (1.4 ain't that bad when I need it.) But since I got the 40mm (lighter, smaller, sharp, and good compromise between 35mm and 50mm), I don't use the 50mm as much unless it's really low light. If the 40mm didn't exist, the 50mm would be my default walk-around lens. That's why I'm not ready to part with it yet, and were they to release a more current, less noisy, true USM version with current lens tech, I would have a hard decision to make.


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 11, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.
> ...



+1
Indeed this is terrible advice. EF 50 1.4 is a damn good lens and holds its own even against the 50L. It is comparable if not slightly better average sharpness from f2 and higher, perhaps trading contrast a bit. 50L shines below f2. Canon keeps 50 1.4 in its arsenal because it is a stable seller and they haven't even been driven to update it in any hurry... But I will not recommend "strongly" the 35L at this time...35L is a good lens and there was a time when it was the "go to" lens for event and street photography in the film and early digital era with moving subjects or dimmer intereiors with lower usable ISO's. It was, by far, the best option all things considered: IQ, speed, and build. 

But, it is almost 2013 and 35L has really aged in the digital era's high ISO and this shows its age once you move a bit off from the center of the frame. Needless to say it will be replaced sooner than later by Canon.


----------



## Knut Skywalker (Dec 11, 2012)

Knut Skywalker said:


> Though I have a 5D2 and not the 5D3, I want to share my opinion. First i thought this lens was unusable wide open at 1.4, but when i played around with the AFMA-Function and found the right setting, I was getting way better results with it when shooting @ 1.4. The hazy look on the edges that I got from this lens was gone and the pictures looked way better when there was high contrast. At 2.0 this lens is getting really sharp on my 5D2 and I like the results very much.



Addition to my previous post: The 50 1.4 is the only lens I bought since i bought it with my 5D2 nearly a year ago, it's a really, really, really versatile focal length and great for walkaround photography. I really learned to love this lens for its great versatility and that is why i bought it in the first place, because i knew i would'nt have the money to buy another lens for quite a while.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 11, 2012)

iso79 said:


> The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.



Well, that doesn't make sense and is actually not accurate. First of all, you can't tell somebody to go get a 35mm who is looking for a 50mm lens. Quite a different thing. And the 50 1.4 is neither cheap (at between 300 and 400 bucks) nor crappy. In fact, it's a lens design that has been around for decades and used to be considered THE reference lens for Canon. For good reason.

That being said, does the current EF version leave something to be desired when it comes to build quality, especially when compared to the previous FD manual focus lens (otherwise still exactly the same)? Yes, unfortunately. But with proper care - leaving the lens hood on at all times - it does ok. The results are great if you like fast 50mm lenses. And that's not to say that it's not worth considering a few alternatives - including other 50mm options.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 11, 2012)

bykes said:


> I doubt I'd use it on any paid gigs. Just something easy to shoot with in low light. For example at my sisters to shoot her kids indoors acting like maniacs.



Why not on paid gigs? I also switched to the 1.2 but it would be a lengthy answer as to why and what the benefits and trade-offs are. I'm sure lots of people have been paid well over the last several decades using that lens.


----------



## bykes (Dec 12, 2012)

Getting some great responses here. Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2. A wise choice? Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?


----------



## RS2021 (Dec 12, 2012)

bykes said:


> Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2. A wise choice? Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?



There is a short and long answer to this...

The short answer is generally no, given the competent performance of 1.4... but the long answer would continue further...

*unless* you have specific need for the better IQ from f1.2 to f2 or so and it's build... after that, the argument becomes more tenuous as 50 1.4 is no slouch. Then again, people don't get 50L to shoot at f 22. I do like the 50mm view on occasion but it does not live on any of my bodies...but your shooting style may favor 50mm or you may need that low light performance from the L for events or indoors...but here, subjectively, the normal field of view is not my cup of tea. Slightly wider is more edgy indoors and out.

50L 1.2 frequently generates diametrically opposed and usually strong opinions. I am no big fan, but I am sure you will hear equally valid points from its supporters.


----------



## Shane1.4 (Dec 12, 2012)

Don't get it. You will not notice a $1,000 difference over the 1.4. I went down the same path, bought the 1.2 and then sold it to again have the 1.4. Spend the money elsewhere.


----------



## CharlieB (Dec 12, 2012)

Have not had the 1.2 version... 

This I can say about the 1.4 version, and I've had an older one, and now a current one (the same design).

The image quality _can_ be very good from about f/2.0 out. From f/1.4 ti f/2.0... expect a certain creaminess in addition to the very shallow DOF.

Both of my own copes were fairly inconsistent in terms of focus repeatability. When shooting fairly close, at f/2.0 my own lenses would not focus the same place twice... the margin of error for very precise focus is somewhat hampered by the design of the mechanism. Realistic apertures of f/4-f/11 were consistent enough that you'd never see a problem, and results are very very good. Its that shallow DOF area... that the lens has a bit of an issue with. Not an AFMA issue, but a "make the lens do the exact same thing twice" issue. Mechanical slop, in other words.

I like the lens.... optically very very good for a 50/1.4 - one of the best out there... so use the slight caveats to judge its performance for your own needs. 

I hope someone can say the 50/1.2 is mechanically tighter and consistent repeatable focus is not an issue.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Dec 12, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.
> ...



Ditto. It's a good lens. I've taken wonderful pictures with it. I almost sold it and then used it again for some portraits and decided to keep it.


----------



## captainkanji (Dec 12, 2012)

The 50 1.4 takes fantastic shots. I broke mine though. I took it out of my camera bag the other day, and it made a rattle. I took off the back cap to discover the back lens element had come off. Not sure if it just came unscrewed or broke from a bump. I probably set my bag down too hard. It's less than a year old so it's under warranty and I'll be sending it in this week for service. I will miss it, since it is my go to low light lens.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 12, 2012)

bykes said:


> Getting some great responses here. Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2. A wise choice? Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?


What you get for the extra $$ is a lot more glass, better construction, and the ability to have super shallow depth of field.
You have to pay lots of $$$ to get even a tiny improvement. Good used 50mm f/1.4's are available for $250, and are better on FF than the Sigma 50mm. The Sigma is optimized for crop bodies and does very well there.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 12, 2012)

The CA and purple flaring and double lining in bokeh are turning me away from the Canon 50 F/1.4 , I generally shoot at F/2.0 and the results are decent on FF, ideally I want to shoot at F/2.8 as it's sharp all around with minial CA and still shallow enough, but highlights are not circular, and in general the bokeh of the lens could be a lot better. And crazy triangle highlights in corners at 1.8 ~ 2.8 or so, they really tear up the image sometimes. And besides, aside from weight and cost, shooting a normal prime at F/2.8 so often tells me to just go and get a zoom lens. I'll keep the lens for 'product shots' or anything that needs the fantastic sharpness from F/4.0 though, it's a good length for the sort of stuff I like too. However, the lens was best on crop, although somewhat long, the overall performance wasn't as bad there.
Now I'm looking at the Sig 35mm, turns out something wider for scenes and portraits are what I was after too~


----------



## skitron (Dec 12, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Good used 50mm f/1.4's are available for $250, and are better on FF than the Sigma 50mm. The Sigma is optimized for crop bodies and does very well there.



The Sigma is spec'd for full frame and works very well on FF with very similar caveats as the 50L on FF. Meaning very similar light falloff, softness towards frame edges, etc. But that said, it does work great on a crop.

The nice thing is that in practice, if you don't get hung up on the vendor, there are three good 50s to choose from with the Sigma sitting between the Canon 1.4 and 1.2L both in terms of price and "what it does". Consider the "asthetics" of the 1.4 and of the 1.2L as a range of sorts, and the Sigma sits between them about 2/3 of that range towards the 1.2L imo. 

Toss the nifty 50 into the mix and we have four good 50s to choose from, all with a different optomization/price formulas. And as usual, a shot with the nifty by someone really capable and shooting a compelling subject is going to trump a shot with the 50L by a noob shooting his cat on the living room floor.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 12, 2012)

bykes said:


> Getting some great responses here. Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2. A wise choice? Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?




I'm one of those who love their 50 1.2. But my advice would be to only buy it if you really know why you want it and what to do with it. I would start with the 1.4 or any of the other lower price choices. If it turns out that you use 50mm primes a lot and that you like to shoot at wide aperture then you can make a case for the 50L. Or not. It all depends. Or as somebody here said once: if you have to ask you probably don't need it.


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 12, 2012)

skitron said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Good used 50mm f/1.4's are available for $250, and are better on FF than the Sigma 50mm. The Sigma is optimized for crop bodies and does very well there.
> ...



I'd add a few more choices to consider: Zeiss and old FD/FL lenses with the Ed Mika adapter. Both would be manual focus.


----------



## bykes (Dec 12, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> bykes said:
> 
> 
> > Getting some great responses here. Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2. A wise choice? Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?
> ...



Thats probably what I'll do....I'll start with the 1.4.


----------



## bykes (Dec 14, 2012)

Got it yesterday. Great lens! I'm going to have fun with it.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 14, 2012)

bykes said:


> I'm thinking about picking up the 50 1.4 for a fast option instead of lugging my 24-105 around to family events etc. Is anyone using one on a 5d3? Your thoughts?



Noticeably sharper than the 24-105 although that is when it focuses. The AF on it is worse than on the 24-105. It does focus a bit more reliably on the 5D3 than on most older cameras, which helps a lot, but still is a bit so-so in the AF department, especially shooting f/2 and under (but it won't drive you totally insane on a 5D3 as it might on some other bodies so it's workable).
I do use it as a super fast/low DOF complement to my 24-70 2.8 (and earlier to my 17-50 2.8).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Dec 14, 2012)

Everyone seems to bashing the 35 1.4 advice that someone gave but it seems like decent advice to me. Personally I find 35mm more interesting than 50mm on FF (if you shot a 24-70 or 35-70 or 24-105 etc. how many shots are at 50mm? I bet the fewest). And the 50mm does have a delicate AF that is prone to breaking. The 35L works better. The new sigma, assuming the AF works well and since it is Sigma who knows, hopefully they have that in order these days (even if not it can't be worse than the 50 1.4 AF though even if it might not quite match the 35L), might be something to look into too since it has a good price and tests craaaaazy sharp.

But that said 50mm 1.4 is a nice lens too (other than the AF motor on the Canon).


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 14, 2012)

bykes said:


> Getting some great responses here. Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2. A wise choice? Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?



The 50L on the 5D3 has become my favorite carry !!! The 1.4 has a tendency to take a crap on you after a year or so. I've bought two and after having the 50L, I believe I wasted money on both 1.8's and 1.4's. I should have just gone for the quality build of the 1.2. 

If you shoot between 1.2-2.0 most of the time... do yourself a favor and pony up for the 50L. If you shoot all over the range, don't care or need about a robust build, and don't shoot often in inclement weather... go for the other flavors. 

My link has a "50 f/1.2 + 5D3" set if you’re interested in seeing images with this combo... On my 7D or 5D2, it was a difficult lens to get a solid grasp on (image wise). I think this is due to the AF. On the 5D3... Flawless Victory!!! As one commenter put it... it's a fookin winning combo!


----------



## LOALTD (Dec 14, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Its fine, but not as useful or as sharp as my 24-105mmL for all around use. Where it comes in handy is in low light, or for a shallow depth of field.
> If you a new 5D MK III user, give it a while with the 24-105, you will get used to the weight. Good lenses are heavier due to the large amount of glass in them. The 24-105 is on the light side compared to the 24-70 f/2.8 or some of the other popular "L" lenses.



More versatile: yes
Sharper: 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=355&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

No.

I use the 50/1.4 for about 90% of my work, it's an oustanding lens. So many people on here have drank the "L" koolaid. I've borrowed the 50/1.2 from CPS and I found it quite soft.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 15, 2012)

LOALTD said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Its fine, but not as useful or as sharp as my 24-105mmL for all around use. Where it comes in handy is in low light, or for a shallow depth of field.
> ...



Yep. I dismissed the "L" bug myself when I sold my 50L and got the 50 f/1.4. The 1.4 is very sharp and I have not noticed any of the problems that some have mentioned. I typically shoot f/2 and narrower and the lens is very sharp and I don't miss the 50L. I also have the 24-70L II lens, which is just as sharp at f/2.8 at 50mm as the 50L, or even slightly sharper, but it's not much of a difference. I just do not understand the 50L's high price tag. It's the only L prime of Canon's that I dislike.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 16, 2012)

Another vote for the 50mm 1.4 on a 5D3. I think it's a great lens. 
Some of the negative comments make me wonder if they ever used it.
It has a lovely shallow depth of field on full frame.
I'd be a big fan of it.
Sometimes people have a habit of rubbishing lens instead of improving technique.
No modern lens is that rubbish really if you take care with the photograph.
F1.8 50mm is also a good lens for it's price. People criticise it's plastic construction I'd say you'd be lucky to ever wear it out.
50mm is way more flexible on full frame. It really improves your photography as you have to move around a bit.


----------



## kyklop (Dec 19, 2012)

Have used my 50 mm 1.4 on my 5D and 5DII now for five years. It gives me wonderful portraits in low light.
I read this Great 50 mm Shootout:

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

In regards to resolution it is second to none - probably except for the Leica


----------



## spinworkxroy (Dec 19, 2012)

The Sigma 50 f1.4 is definately a better lens than the Canon 50 f1.4
However, i did NOT get the Sigma 50 over the Canon for 1 reason, the 5D3 has in built CA correction for the Canon 50.
I know you can adjust it PP in photoshop or Raw or Lightroom etc…many way to do it..BUT i only use the 50mm for general shooting in jpg, and for those photos, i do not want to edit every single shot, just SOOC..so the in built correction on the 5D3 works brilliantly on the 5D3.

I do however own the Sigma 85 and sold my Canon 85 because i use the 85 specifically for commercial portraiture and i will edit every photo in RAW so the in built correction is not important for me in this case.

That's how i made my decision with the Canon 50 f1.4 and no i did not consider the 50L because i don't use the 50 very often at all


----------



## sambafan (Dec 19, 2012)

I do love my 24-105L for travel, but lately I'm alternating between the 50 1.4 and the 28 1.8 for "walkaround" on my 5Dii. Light, relatively inobtrusive for street shooting.


----------



## infared (Dec 19, 2012)

I have a Sigma 50mm f/1.4. I love it. Way less money than the "L" and I find it to be all I need. All my other lenses (besides a Zeiss) are "L"......but I really enjoy that Sigma!


----------



## skitron (Dec 19, 2012)

I'm liking the Sigma 50 on 5D3. I sent it to Sigma warranty for firmware update about a month ago and on 5D3 it works great at all distances and f stops. Before the firmware update it was "focus range bound" per Roger @ LensRentals description. It's nice to not have to compensate for that anymore.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 19, 2012)

sambafan said:


> I do love my 24-105L for travel, but lately I'm alternating between the 50 1.4 and the 28 1.8 for "walkaround" on my 5Dii. Light, relatively inobtrusive for street shooting.



You might want to add an 85mm F1.8 lens or 100mm F2. Now you've got your perfect combo for street shooting.


----------



## comsense (Dec 19, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


+10, I am so happy that I disregarded the opinion on this forum and bought 50 f/1.4 and 28 f/1.8. Please try and compare with 'L' counterpart yourself before making decision.They are not perfect (neither are some L for that matter) but very good (and perfectly usable under most conditions) esp. at that price. IMO,CR crowd opinion has been wrong on these lens. I wonder if its because most people who flock here has the bigger/L/more expensive the better bug. Some people flaunt it rather obscenely.  I am sure when they look at great paintings, they pay more attention to quality and graininess of canvass......


----------

