# 50mm



## littlepilotdude (Nov 9, 2012)

Hello,

I am thinking of purchasing a 50mm. The thing is, I don't know which one. I have heard that the Canon is all right, the Sigma is pretty good, and I know the Zeiss is very good. The thing is, I don't know if I should spend $750 on the lens. 

Any advice anyone?

Thanks, 

littlepilotdude


----------



## drjlo (Nov 9, 2012)

I would recommend reading this first..

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


----------



## samhodde (Nov 9, 2012)

The Nikon AI series primes are definitely worth a look. You can pick them up pretty cheap, but they require an adapter and are all manual.


----------



## dirtcastle (Nov 9, 2012)

drjlo said:


> I would recommend reading this first..
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout



Thanks for the link! The comparison shows what an amazing price/performance ratio the 50mm f/1.4 has, particularly in the < f/2 range.

I'm in the camp of people who want to add the 50mm f/1.2 L to my quiver. But the f/1.4 generally gets the job done. While shooting with the 50mm f/1.4, I often bump it up to f/1.8-2 range for a small performance boost.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Nov 9, 2012)

I just moved to FF, and my canon 50mm 1.4 isn't so grand anymore, it's still sharp where it needs to be, but the bokeh really could be a lot better. On crop the lens performs nicely wide open, the center sharpness and what bokeh you get is smooth, but with the whole image circle I don't like the harsh background, also need 8+ afma. My Sigma 70-200 OS is beautiful in comparison, and convinces again that the Sigma 50 would be nice, sharpness is important, but I would rather have creamy bokeh than the best sharpness when I'm already shooting wide open. Since, if I'm going to be stopping down so often then why not get a zoom lens, one gets a fast prime to shoot fast right?


----------



## K-amps (Nov 9, 2012)

Nishi Drew said:


> I just moved to FF, and my canon 50mm 1.4 isn't so grand anymore, it's still sharp where it needs to be, but the bokeh really could be a lot better. On crop the lens performs nicely wide open, the center sharpness and what bokeh you get is smooth, but with the whole image circle I don't like the harsh background, also need 8+ afma. My Sigma 70-200 OS is beautiful in comparison, and convinces again that the Sigma 50 would be nice, sharpness is important, but I would rather have creamy bokeh than the best sharpness when I'm already shooting wide open. Since, if I'm going to be stopping down so often then why not get a zoom lens, one gets a fast prime to shoot fast right?



Longer reach lenses Generally melt the background away more than 50mm lenses (other factors being similar) ... thus show their Bokeh more clearly. At less than 80mm, you need really large apertures to get same quantity of OOF Blur. I had the same feeling with the EF 24-70 f2.8 ii vs the EF 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii. The Tele had so much better OOF blur rendition..... which ofcourse was amplified by the increased Quantity of Blur due to the longer reach of the Tele's.

If you want sharpness and don't care much about Bokeh, you can get the 50mm f1.8 with it's world class penta Bokeh . If you are into Portraits (where sometimes softness and Bokeh make happier customers than pore magnifying ultra sharp lenses) then the EF 50L 1.2 is hard to beat. It was Engineered to do just that. The Sigma is a nice balance between sharpness and Bokeh. Depends what you want...

If your Budget is $750, Perhaps think about a used 135L, if thats too long, the 100 F2 or 85 F1.8 do a nice job for a lot less money. The 100 F2 is very Sharp and has a nice Bokeh, the 85 f1.8 does the same for less $$ and both outperform the EF 50mm F1.4 IMHO.

The longer reach lenses will give you better working distance (discrete away from subjects making them less conscious) , they have more blur, and best, they have *better compression * than the wider angle 50mm which can sometimes suffer from some barrel distortion which is more noticable at shorter focal lengths. Heck I sometimes had to correct the 85L for barrel distortion that made my subjects looked like they had larger noses than they really had.... this is wher ethe 135L can do good (or 70-200mk.ii)

In the end it depends what you want it for....


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 9, 2012)

The canon 50mm 1.4 is a good lens. It's not perfect but I prefer it over the unrealiable hit rate on the sigma 50's. 

If your doing a lot of tight portraits, the 100mm f/2 or the 135L are better choices.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 9, 2012)

You did not say what you would use it for, or if you would be a heavy duty user or ligh user. There is not a huge difference in image quality between a cheap 50mm f/1.8 and a $750 lens. For the most part, you are paying for a wider aperture, improved construction, and faster autofocus.
If you are only going to use the lens occasionally, get the Canon 50mm f/1.8. However, if you want to use manual focus one of the others will be better, the Zeiss being much easier to manually focus. However, with manual focus, you run into other issues like the viewfinder size, focus screen type, etc.
Another thing to understand is that lenses perform differently on APS-C and Full Frame bodies. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is optimized for Crop bodies, while the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is optimized for use on FF bodies and has better IQ on FF than the Sigma does.


----------



## littlepilotdude (Nov 10, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> You did not say what you would use it for, or if you would be a heavy duty user or ligh user. There is not a huge difference in image quality between a cheap 50mm f/1.8 and a $750 lens. For the most part, you are paying for a wider aperture, improved construction, and faster autofocus.
> If you are only going to use the lens occasionally, get the Canon 50mm f/1.8. However, if you want to use manual focus one of the others will be better, the Zeiss being much easier to manually focus. However, with manual focus, you run into other issues like the viewfinder size, focus screen type, etc.
> Another thing to understand is that lenses perform differently on APS-C and Full Frame bodies. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is optimized for Crop bodies, while the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is optimized for use on FF bodies and has better IQ on FF than the Sigma does.



Hello, 

I would use this lens quite frequently in all situations. I'm looking for a well constructed lens and good quality. I have used the Zeiss and it was great. I have also used the Canon 50 1.4 and it wasn't as good as the Zeiss. The only one I haven't used is the Sigma. I use a 5D Mark II, so I wouldn't go with the sigma since it isn't great with full frame.

Thanks, 

littlepilotdude


----------



## florianbieler.de (Nov 10, 2012)

I was also a great fan of the 50mm 1.4 back in APS-C times, then on my 5D Mark III it did not bring great results anymore, at least not between 1.4 and 2.0. I do not know if you have APS-C or Full Frame - but the Sigma 1.4 does only work correctly on APS-C, it has huge focussing issues on full frame cameras and no one knows why. On APS-C it's quite a bit better than the Canon, at least in the high aperture settings, from 2.0 on I think they don't make a big difference.


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 10, 2012)

Nishi Drew said:


> I just moved to FF, and my canon 50mm 1.4 isn't so grand anymore, it's still sharp where it needs to be, but the bokeh really could be a lot better. On crop the lens performs nicely wide open, the center sharpness and what bokeh you get is smooth, but with the whole image circle I don't like the harsh background, also need 8+ afma. My Sigma 70-200 OS is beautiful in comparison, and convinces again that the Sigma 50 would be nice, sharpness is important, but I would rather have creamy bokeh than the best sharpness when I'm already shooting wide open. Since, if I'm going to be stopping down so often then why not get a zoom lens, one gets a fast prime to shoot fast right?



What exactly do you find wrong with the 1.4's bokeh? And I don't understand how the look of the "bokeh" would be any different on FF or crop.

I've used Canon's 50 1.4 lenses since the beginning (the 70s that is) and they're great and have been considered a reference lens for decades. For my EF system I only recently moved to the 1.2 mainly because the modern 1.4 isn't built too nicely. The image quality is still stellar and that includes the background blur as far as I am concerned.

The Zeiss is really not that different from what I see. Plus it's not really a Zeiss lens anyway so that seems like a waste. The Sigma is probably something to consider and compare.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Nov 10, 2012)

Nishi Drew said:


> I would rather have creamy bokeh than the best sharpness




EF 50mm f1.2L


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 10, 2012)

littlepilotdude said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > You did not say what you would use it for, or if you would be a heavy duty user or ligh user. There is not a huge difference in image quality between a cheap 50mm f/1.8 and a $750 lens. For the most part, you are paying for a wider aperture, improved construction, and faster autofocus.
> ...


Are you talking the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4? It certainly is not as good optically as the Canon 50mm f/1.4, but has a better build by far. With a wide aperture autofocus lens, its pretty common for the AF to need fine tuning with AFMA for the best results.
Here is a link to comparisons of test data. The Zeiss has less viginetting, but loses by a lot in the other areas.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/196/(lens2)/341/(brand1)/Canon/(camera1)/483/(brand2)/Zeiss/(camera2)/483


----------



## littlepilotdude (Nov 10, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> littlepilotdude said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I was talking about the 50mm in general.


----------

