Canon Prime Lenses - 50mm

MattHall

MattHall

Suspended / Banned
Messages
48
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

Just looking into buy a prime lens for my 5D. I coped with a walk around 28-135 through Uni but I think now that I've graduated I really should be looking to invest a little...

so my obvious options are these:


eBay Prices

Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens £65.00
Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM - £235.00
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L - £990.00

Anyone had any previous experience with these especially the 1.4?


Cheers,

Matt
 
The canon seems to suffer from autofocus problems and a lot of people say it is soft until f/2.8 or so which negates the spending of the extra over the cheaper f1/8 version other than the improvement to build quality.

as good as sigma lenses are (and this one is potentially very good) i dont see the point in buying a new product that you just have to send back from where it came because it wasnt built properly. People seem to just accept it as part of buying Sigma but it really isnt on at all, especially when the lens is a gem when set up properly.
 
Richard Duncombe said:
The canon seems to suffer from autofocus problems and a lot of people say it is soft until f/2.8 or so which negates the spending of the extra over the cheaper f1/8 version other than the improvement to build quality.

as good as sigma lenses are (and this one is potentially very good) i dont see the point in buying a new product that you just have to send back from where it came because it wasnt built properly. People seem to just accept it as part of buying Sigma but it really isnt on at all, especially when the lens is a gem when set up properly.
Click to expand...

How many are sold that do not need sending back? You only hear about the ones that do. I read about cannon/nikon bodies and lenses that have to go back, but this doesn't stop people buying them.
I have. 4 sigma lenses and a tc not one issue. I do think the issue is blown out of Proportion to some extent.

Have you ever brought a sigma lens, or is the above just based on what you have read?
 
Last edited:
MattHall said:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/New-Canon-EF-...Filters_JN&hash=item19bcb8d5b1#ht_1594wt_1154

I had the 1.8 for a very short while but sold it to a friend of mine with my 350D... It felt a bit plasticy to me. At £353 I wouldnt really consider the 1.4 but at that price it has really got me thinking maybe I could buy it as a stop gap (and then back up) when I get enough saved for the 1.2L.
Click to expand...

From the ebay ad:

·Import duties, taxes and related charges are not included in the item price or shipping charges. Those charges are the buyer's responsibility.
 
Davec223 said:
How many are sold that do not need sending back? You only hear about the ones that do. I read about cannon/nikon bodies and lenses that have to go back, but this doesn't stop people buying them.
I have. 4 sigma lenses and a tc not one issue. I do think the issue is blown out of Proportion to some extent.

Have you ever brought a sigma lens, or is the above just based on what you have read?
Click to expand...

Hi Dave

I went through 3 10-20mm Sigma lenses and ended up selling the last one i had as I simply wasnt happy with it and got fed up and also had a 35 1.4 that wasnt right so i ended up with the canon 35/2 which dates back the the 80s in design.

I am sure that pleanty of canon/nikon gear have problems too and they also need to up their game in this respect. But you would think that a smaller company trying to take business away from the market leaders would concentrate on reliability and quality in order to tempt buyers away from more established and commerical corporations. You just seem to hear too much for it to be isolated incidents and its a shame when the optics are so good!
 
I have the Canon 50mm f/1.4, bought 2½ yrs ago with my 5D classic and now being used with my 5D2. Still working fine :)

The autofocus isn't quite as fast as my L lenses, but it still works OK, and it can focus in very low light too.

Here are a couple of examples:

50portrait1.jpg


50portrait3.jpg


#1 was shot at f/3.2, and is as sharp as a pin - one of my 5D2 "wow" shots, in fact :cool:

#2 was shot wide open at f/1.4, ISO 2500, 1/50 sec handheld, natural light from streetlamps and shop windows. As you can see, it's not quite as sharp as the first (and I wouldn't expect it to be), but it's still perfectly useable. To believe some posters (no names ;) ) you'd be expecting a blurry mess!

Hope this helps

A.
 
Here we go again....Sigma = poor quality.

If considering only Canon lenses many people forget the 50mm f2.5. It's not a modern design and it's physically slower than some others and it's only f2.5 but despite all that it's regarded by some as one of Canon's optically better lenses.

I have one and I'm happy with it and I use it instead of my Sigma 50mm f1.4 if I think I'm going to want to take a few nice flower shots. BTW, my Siggy 50mm f1.4 is great, no issues with it at all.
 
I had a Sigma 10-20 and was perfectly happy with it - in fact I think its focussing was actually quicker than my 17-40 L is by a smidge - I have never yet experienced a lens that is so quick and accurate to focus. The urbex community also swears by the 10-20 and it is very popular in amongst that crowd. It only seems to be on photography forums that the whole Sigma QC thing pops up.
 
yup here we go again with the "sigma are rubbish"..

we've got 4 sigmas in our household at the moment (50mm 1.4, 2x 70-200 2.8 macro, 120-300 2.8). how many have been back to sigma? 1. and that was due to the previous owner dropping it and distorting the body (and incidentally i wasnt charged for the parts that were couriered in from japan).

the sig 50mm f1.4 is widely regarded as better than the canon 1.4 wide open, it also has a better (newer) AF system than the canon.. etc (id recommend reading a few reviews)
 
Two things that put me off buying Sigma:

(1) The potential for compatibility problems in the future, caused by Canon not releasing their specs, forcing Sigma to reverse-engineer the lens electronics. They guarantee compatibilty now, but what about a few years in the future?

(2) Quality control problems. Sigma lenses are great when you get a good copy, but there seem to be a lot of dodgy ones around. I base this on the complaints about the 12-24mm, which I was seriously considering buying last year. For every happy owner, there seemed to be someone complaining about soft edges etc. who'd had to return it.

A.
 
Anorakus said:
Two things that put me off buying Sigma:

(1) The potential for compatibility problems in the future, caused by Canon not releasing their specs, forcing Sigma to reverse-engineer the lens electronics. They guarantee compatibilty now, but what about a few years in the future?

(2) Quality control problems. Sigma lenses are great when you get a good copy, but there seem to be a lot of dodgy ones around. I base this on the complaints about the 12-24mm, which I was seriously considering buying last year. For every happy owner, there seemed to be someone complaining about soft edges etc. who'd had to return it.

A.
Click to expand...

to be honest ive only heard of 1 complaint that an older model 70-200 didnt work on a 7D. as far as ive seen it does only seem to effect the really older range.. but sigma do offer re-chipping of lenses.

fortunately ive never had a sigma qc issue, however if youre unhappy swap it out with the retailer or send it off to sigma for a calibration. sigma service is very professional and from my experience offer pretty good turnaround.

however i suspect that most of sigmas bad rep is caused by people that have never owned a sigma and seem to spread the comments without actually having any experience, making the problem seem more widespread than it actually is..

(my 2p)
 
Far to many brand snobs write off sigma gear these days imo.

Had plenty of sigma glass and only one has been back when the USM went on it (was second hand).

canon 50 1.8 II people seem to rave about yet is a piece of crap if you need to use it in low light.
canon 1.4 seems to hunt in low light still but not as bad, when I last used one it seemed to want to jam a few times.

so I wouldnt say that the canons are the best out there either.
 
I had the 1.8 and really liked it, in a deal with a friend I swapped it with him for a free weekend in his flat in Nice so I was left wanting a replacemennt.

I bought the 1.4 which is a really nice lens, it's as light and unobtrusive as the 1.8 but has a much more quality feel to it. It's a please to use, amazing bokeh effect fully open but I tend to use it about a stop up with really nice effect.

Never tried the 1.2 but everyone I have heard who uses it says the main problem is the extremely narrow DoF (and the price!)
 
Anorakus said:
Two things that put me off buying Sigma:

(1) The potential for compatibility problems in the future, caused by Canon not releasing their specs, forcing Sigma to reverse-engineer the lens electronics. They guarantee compatibilty now, but what about a few years in the future?
Click to expand...

Sigma can re-chip the lenses to work again. I think they may even do it for free.



(2) Quality control problems. Sigma lenses are great when you get a good copy, but there seem to be a lot of dodgy ones around. I base this on the complaints about the 12-24mm, which I was seriously considering buying last year. For every happy owner, there seemed to be someone complaining about soft edges etc. who'd had to return it.
Click to expand...

Quality control: Again i think it's a lot of hear say. Like I said the 10-20s are very popular in amongst the urbex crowd and for good reason. As for the 12-24 having soft edges I wouldn't be surprised. 12mm on full frame is quite a technological achievement. the 17-40 isn't exactly sparkling in the corners either at 17mm :shrug: but who spends all day looking at the corners?




copperband said:
Never tried the 1.2 but everyone I have heard who uses it says the main problem is the extremely narrow DoF (and the price!)
Click to expand...

There is also a problem with the 50mm f/1.2 called focus shift, which is where the focus actually changes slightly as the aperture stops down to take a shot. It seems to happen on relatively close shots at relatively wide apertures, which can be a real problem as a little shift can end up ruining the shot. I don't own this lens myself, but just about every corner of the Internet suggests that what I am saying here is true; and that's too many people to disbelieve. That said, I'd still not hesitate to buy one if I had the cash :)
 
I have the 1.2 and yes the dof is narrow, but for me that is was makes it so much fun.
You have to be spot on every time to nail 1.2, but to be honest I usually use it above. At 2.0, maybe 1.8, its well worth its red ring!

So that gets you asking, what go for the 1.2 over the 1.4, well build quality is better, but that just makes it bigger and heavier to hold!

Would I change my 1.2 - No, Can I explain why I love it over the 1.4 - Not really :)
 
"Never tried the 1.2 but everyone I have heard who uses it says the main problem is the extremely narrow DoF"

That reminds me of something a dealer told me once... A guy he sold a Sigma 30mm f1.4 to complained that his shots were "a bit soft." Can you guess what he was doing? Yup...shooting everything at f1.4.

To say ATGANI might be a bit harsh but maybe he should have read up on aperture settings or asked a bloke in the shop.
 
Last edited:
If money is no object then the L glass is a no brainer, if money is a little tighter then for less than the L you could have both a 50mm 1.4 and an 85mm 1.8, if you want to try primes and aren't 100% sure its what you really want then grab a 50 1.8 to try.

Personally I have a 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8, if I was able to get out and about 1 would be on the camera, the other in my pocket along with a spare battery, I would be happy walking about with those two on a crop or FF body.

canon 50 1.8 II people seem to rave about yet is a piece of crap if you need to use it in low light
Click to expand...

I shoot in low light all the time, never had an issue with mine.
On a bright sunlit day the best I get in here is 1/60th @F4 ISO 100 so usually shoot hand held stuff at around F2.8 - F4 ISO 100-1600 depending on lens, light and whether using flash or not, with a preference for low ISO's.
 
iancandler said:
If money is no object then the L glass is a no brainer
Click to expand...

:plusone: I would love the 1.2 but since money is an object I went for the Canon 1.4 and like it a lot. Very nice, no fuss lens for not huge money (thanks Kerso). When I had a Sigma SD10 the Sigma 1.4 was my 99% lens but it was much higher maintenance than the Canon - bigger, heavier, fussier to focus. Lovely when I got it right though.

All-in-all, I'm happy with the Canon 1.4.
 
I just love my 50mm f1.4 lens....for the money it really is a cracking buy. Bought on here for just over two hundred quid if I remember right.
 
I absolutely love my Canon 1.4. :)The boketh is beautiful and it produces lovely rich colours.

Lisa
 
I have the 50mm 1.4 and its great. Really fast, the colours are warm and rich colours on my 50d (in contrast to my 17-40mm L lens)
 
Last edited:
Another one for the Canon 50mm f/1.4. The, sharpness, low DoF and smooth bokeh is superb.
 
think you'll be happy with that - was my first prime - great walk around lens as well very discreet
 
I think the real answer is that you won't be unhappy with any of them as long as you get decent copies, I now love my sigma but the first copy was shocking. The 50mm 1.8 is great too but the bokeh on it just loses it compared to the sigma for me. Still a good one though

canon 1.8
4960431619_bcfffa99fd_b.jpg
 
Anorakus said:
That's a bit like saying that the main problem with a Ferrari is that it goes too fast ;)

A.
Click to expand...

Very true, and therefore for some that would make it less usable than a slower car!
In the right hands the 1.2 is I'm sure infinitely useable in the same way as the Ferrari is to a talented driver.
Perhaps though for the rest of us the F1.4 is just more suitable as it is slightly easier to handle?
Likewise if you're driving to the shops the feeling of speed at 30mph is broadly the same in any car!

Back on topic - it would be interesting to see some comparison shots of the 3 lenses at say F2 which is around where I tend to use my 1.4 most of the time.
 
Last edited:
I've had the canon 1.8 for a while now and once i started using it it rarely left the camera body. For the money it is a no brainer really, fantastic quality from a thing that look more like a crappy plastic toy. I've now upgraded to 1.4 and selling off the old nifty fifty, but honestly can recommend both of them only depends how much money you want to spend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top