Canon 50mm 1.4 sharp or not

Paul6657

Paul6657

Suspended / Banned
Messages
404
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi can someone please help should a 50mm 1.4 lens be sharp at 1.4 or has anyone got any photos so i could have a look thanks
 
Could someone please move this to Talk Equipment
 
Most lenses at f1.4 arent great, but it shouldnt be awful. Often white text or lines look quite blurry for some reason.
Does it get better stopped down a bit?
 
Its ok at 2.2 / 2.8 but at 1.4 its cr-- wot is the 1.2 like
 
Not used the 1.2 so cant comment knowingly but I imagine its probably better at 1.4 than 1.2!
 
The short answer is yes, it's pin-sharp - but only from around f/2.0 onwards.

Any lens is not going to be at its best wide-open at f/1.4, added to which the depth of field is tiny, which makes an objective comparison difficult.

Here are a couple of examples. First one taken at f/3.2. This is so sharp you could cut yourself on it :)

50portrait1.jpg


This shot was taken at f/1.4. Not as sharp as the first example, but perfectly useable:

50portrait3.jpg


A.
 
Something wrong with your copy IMO.. it looks like there's vaseline smeared over the lens :( Is it sharp at any aperture?

A.
 
Have you got a filter on it? If so, take it off, you might be amazed.
 
Yes, always have had filters on it.

I rarely shoot it above 1.4 either and it is plenty sharp enough and I don't find the filter has any effect on IQ in my experience.
 
You guys need to get yours micro adjusted if its not sharp until 2.8!

I am going to post some 100% crop later when I get home at 1.4.
 
Who says lenses need to stop down to be sharp? :D

JMpGU.jpg



Anorakus said:
The short answer is yes, it's pin-sharp - but only from around f/2.0 onwards.

Any lens is not going to be at its best wide-open at f/1.4, added to which the depth of field is tiny, which makes an objective comparison difficult.
Click to expand...

Don't believe in that one single second I am sorry ! :D

I have shot razor sharp images at 1.2, actually, correction.

I shoot razor sharp images at 1.2 all the time. The depth of field is not a problem.

imoqa.jpg


OZrP4.png
 
Last edited:
JMpGU.jpg





Thanks Raymond i will take it back to calumet and see wot they say
 
There is no reason it shouldn't be like mine.

I don't subscribe to the "only sharp when stopped down" belief. Even my old 18-55mm kit lens was relatively sharp wide open! All of my lenses are sharp at their widest aperture (granted, most of them are L) but even the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 both are sharp at their respective maximum aperture.
 
Raymond Lin said:
I don't subscribe to the "only sharp when stopped down" belief.
Click to expand...

Realise you would have 1,000s of other shots but the shots in your examples are never going to show that though are they as you are concentrating on the centre and due to the low DoF the edges are so OOF it would be hard to tell anything about sharpness.

You don't take pictures of brick walls that you could post do you? :)
 
I could but ultimately it is pointless as what matters is at 1.4, for everything that I shoot, it is sharp where it matters to me.

If I were to take photos of brick walls for a living......(then again, whether it is 1.4 or f22 it make no difference as it is a wall with no background separation)
 
There is a guy who posts on this site who was doing some development work on lens testing software. From what I remember he found that the Canon 50mm f1.4 was pretty inconsistent due to the design of its focus system.

That was the gist as I remember it... if I'm wrong maybe he'll be along to put me right and tell the whole story...
 
There is a plot of 50/1.4 focus inconsistency in this post - http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=4627525&postcount=92

Many times I have repeated testing and many times I have seen similar results from this lens. While other lenses may also have the occasional wobble, none of them are as ropey as my 50/1.4. Just look at the 85/1.8 in the same post. An almost perfect plot from a lens barely any more costly. If you want to shoot at f/1.4 with the Canon 50/1.4 it's going to be a lottery whether or not you nail it. It doesn't matter how good you are or how well calibrated your gear. It's a game of chance. IMHO.


EDIT : After posting the above I thought I'd double check the AF performance once more with my 7D, 1D3 and 5D2. All three test runs produced far better graphs this time round than ever before. There were no wildly spurious AF results at all from any of the bodies, each producing a pretty nice "bell" curve as the AFMA value was adjusted. I've had my suspicions in the past that AF consistency improves over a series of consecutive runs, which at the time I put down to a loosening up of the lubricants within the focus mechanism. Given the temperatures today compared with my winter test results I think my suspicion has foundation. So, just as of now I find the AF consistency of the 50/1.4 to be very good. That isn't to say that no adjustment is required, but there is a distinct and repeatable performance peak, which allows one (or the software) to fine tune the AF calibration with a high degree of confidence.

Here are the new plots from my 1D3, 7D and 5D2 respectively....

20120820_143700_.JPG
20120820_143759_.JPG
20120820_143927_.JPG
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
If I were to take photos of brick walls for a living......(then again, whether it is 1.4 or f22 it make no difference as it is a wall with no background separation)
Click to expand...

It is not about background separation, it is about having a subject that is all within the same area of focus. You can then crop the edges and the centre and see if the edges are sharp or not. You can then take the same shot at differing aperture to see if the quality changes.
Sounds like a good test to me if proof is required.

Not that I do that sort of thing myself as I am not really that interested. As you, I am happy with the end result and that is good enough, but just pointing it out :)
 
I know it's not about background separation lol, it's a wall. That's my point, if I were to take photos of walls for living, and my lens is only sharp at F/22. It'll be fine as there is no "background".
 
Raymond Lin said:
I know it's not about background separation lol, it's a wall. That's my point, if I were to take photos of walls for living, and my lens is only sharp at F/22. It'll be fine as there is no "background".
Click to expand...

But what if you wanted to take a picture of a wall in lower light at F1.4, would those bricks on the edges be as sharp as the centre?

Without doing some sort of test like that you cannot really say whether a lens is sharp all the way across as maximum aperture, can you?
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
But what if you wanted to take a picture of a wall in lower light at F1.4, would those bricks on the edges be as sharp as the centre?

Without doing some sort of test like that you cannot really say whether a lens is sharp all the way across as maximum aperture, can you?
Click to expand...

It would with my copy of this lens....

I borrowed a 500 1.4 and had a good session all at 1.4.
It kinda matched the reviews. I.E. not pin sharp when pixel peeping.
It didn't worry me as using f1.4 is more about getting enough sharpness in the right places, never about pixel peeping!

I ended up buying one while visiting a camera shop and was talked into trying one - it was absolutely pin sharp in the centre at f1.4, and to my astonishment was also pin sharp on the edges!
I didn't let them take that lens out of my sight. It's an unusually good copy!

Go and read reviews of the 135mm f2, the sharpness of that lens is often quoted as a problem!
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=411636&highlight=135
In summary - pixel peeping sharpness is unrealistic and unnecessary at this aperture.
 
Last edited:
I shoot a Sigma 85mm 1.4, and often shoot it at 1.4
I think others would agree, that the "effect" of shooting at 1.4 is much more important (and desirable) than absolute sharpness.

Although sharpness is good (perfectly acceptable) at f1.4, it is better by f2.0 - but I would shoot at f1.4 without any worry all the time - if that was the look I was going for
 
I do not pixel peep and I only buy cheap lenses so I am not the target market for a super sharp right across the lens 1.4.

However, if someone wants a lens that is sharp across the lens at f1.4 they need to have someway to prove it, especially in a discussion on sharpness of f1.4 lenses.

Please don't prove it to me though, I am not that interested :)
 
ernesto said:
However, if someone wants a lens that is sharp across the lens at f1.4 they need to have someway to prove it, especially in a discussion on sharpness of f1.4 lenses.

Please don't prove it to me though, I am not that interested :)
Click to expand...

LOL - I didn't get that impression from your earlier posts. ::D

Quoting directly from the 135mm f2 thread...
"I don't think you can go 'too sharp'. You can always soften blemishes, soften images no problem, it's much harder trying to make a soft image look sharp when you need it to."
Which I think is a fair comment.

If requested, I do have some images I can share to illustrate the points in my earlier post.
 
futureal33 said:
I shoot a Sigma 85mm 1.4, and often shoot it at 1.4
I think others would agree, that the "effect" of shooting at 1.4 is much more important (and desirable) than absolute sharpness.

Although sharpness is good (perfectly acceptable) at f1.4, it is better by f2.0 - but I would shoot at f1.4 without any worry all the time - if that was the look I was going for
Click to expand...

:agree:

I couldn't have put that better myself Nick! :)

I use my 50mm f/1.4 for the effect rather than the sharpness... With all due respect to Raymond's eyeball shot earlier, that isn't what I'd call sharp but it is what I'd call acceptable for the 50mm!
 
I bought my partner one for her 7D. It was very soft so we took it to H Lehmanns in Stoke and they set it up properly. If its under warranty get it checked. I know we're tempted to demand a replacement but you might be in the same boat again.
 
Thanks all the lens has gone back to Canon so i will see wot it is like when i get it back
 
This is the first shot I took with my 50 1.4, I had a friend round and quickly strapped the lens on and put it down to 1.4 and clicked. I have to say, compared with the 50 1.8 I had the 1.4 is way sharper wide open than the 1.8 was stepped down.

This was taken at 1/125 and ISO100 and f1.4 on my 5D3. This is just cropped, no other PP has been done at all and I'm pretty pleased with the sharpness.
7263300714_e1c25082d8_b.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top