Which 50mm prime?

R

Rixy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
86
Edit My Images
No
Hi all

I'm looking at replacing my Canon 50mm 1.8. It has served me well for the last 6 years but I'm after something that has faster AF, sharper and nicer bokeh.

Originally I was decided upon the Sigma 50 1.4, however reading photozone's review has put me off somewhat as the edge sharpness performance is really terrible. Some say that with this kind of lens centre sharpness is all that matters, but on a full frame camera a 50mm lens becomes much more of a general purpose focal length rather than a portrait lens.

So that leaves the Canon 50mm 1.4 which has better overall sharpness but with not as smooth bokeh.

Any thoughts about which to choose?
 
Rixy said:
Originally I was decided upon the Sigma 50 1.4, however reading photozone's review has put me off somewhat as the edge sharpness performance is really terrible. Some say that with this kind of lens centre sharpness is all that matters, but on a full frame camera a 50mm lens becomes much more of a general purpose focal length rather than a portrait lens.

So that leaves the Canon 50mm 1.4 which has better overall sharpness but with not as smooth bokeh.

Any thoughts about which to choose?
Click to expand...

I have the Sigma and I wouldn't describe the edge performance as anything like terrible, far from it, not in the real world anyway. It was however designed to give "high centre performance at max apertures over corner-to-corner evenness stopped down" in the words of DPR who also say it has class leading image quality and "essentially redefines its class, and for once the results really live up to the marketing hype;" Read it all here...

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/6

It's up to you what's important, you can't have everything - at least not at this price but most reviews seem to be saying that the Sigma is the best at this focal length, aperture and price point.
 
I have owned the canon 1.8, 1.4, 1.2 and the sigma 1.4. Out of them all I was most impressed by the sigma.
Compared to the canon 1.4 I found the sigma to produce much nicer images. I'm sure its quite subjective though, but I preferred the bokeh and contrast of the sigma.
 
Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm still undecided, it's a shame that the edge performance on Sigma is so poor. Looking at a test shot of a chart on Photozone it's very apparent that the edges are very poor. You guys are saying that in the real world it isnt noticable but surely to some degree it must be.
 
Rixy said:
Thanks for your thoughts.

I'm still undecided, it's a shame that the edge performance on Sigma is so poor. Looking at a test shot of a chart on Photozone it's very apparent that the edges are very poor. You guys are saying that in the real world it isnt noticable but surely to some degree it must be.
Click to expand...

Your best plan would be to try both if at all possible. The Sigma may well be softer at the edges but it'll probably be sharper in the centre and possibly have less image nasties than other lenses because that's how it was designed to be. If you read some of the reviews, like the one at DPR, you may appreciate the decisions and trade offs the designers have made and why.

Many users and many reviewers place the Sigma ahead of the Canon and there must be reasons for that but if you don't agree and prefer the images the Canon gives then the Canon is a perfectly valid choice for you as lets face it, for the vast majority of shots the vast majority of people will never ever look at a shot and say "That was taken with a Canon 50mm f1.4 and you really should have bought the Sigma."
 
Most friends I know have gone for the Sigma over the Canon (both 1.4). The Canon is getting quite long in the tooth and isn't a great lens for the money.

It's remembering that the review will be based on a single lens so might not be a great example. Try and get hold of one yourself and do a few test frames.

I would say though that must fast primes aren't going to be sharp corner to corner wide open. I've got the Canon 1.2 and it's pretty poor at 1.2 but fine from 1.8 (and perfectly usable at 1.4).
 
There are rumours of an updated 50 1.4 from Canon shortly. If would almost certainly be an IS model, with a corresponding price hike to reflect 2012 R&D costs rather than those from 1993.
 
Sharpness at f1.4 is kinda missing the point :shrug:
With paper thin DoF it a question of which eye do you want in focus, never mind expecting the edges to be sharp!
Pin sharp group shots are pretty much a non-starter!

This wedding shot is an image I've posted elsewhere on TP.
Taken at ISO 12800, 1/30s on the Canon 50mm f1.4 at f1.4 it is pretty much pushing hand held low light photography as far as the current generation of cameras are capable of going.
Despite being a fairly distant subject, when viewed at 100% it can be seen that the depth of field is only about 6 inches and that although his face is pin sharp, hers is ever so slightly soft - that's how critical focus is!

Despite what I just said, viewed at small sizes you can get away with a lot.
Here's a set of images taken by two photographers, both shooting with a Canon 50mm f1.4 wide open in utterly atrocious lighting conditions; one of the toughest shoots I've undertaken.
They don't stand up to close inspection, and even sized for the web us photographers can pick holes in them, but the theater are very happy with them.
Here's a link to the full set.
Here's an explanation of why it was so tough.

Just about the only thing that will have sharp edges at f1.4 will be a test shot of a brick wall taken straight on. I've got some of those and they look great ;)
Once stopped down a bit the Canon and Sigma should be indistinguishable.
 
Some very good points there Ducan. I now feel like I'm being over critical of the edge performance. In their review of the Sigma 50 1.4 DPReview actually shot a brick wall at wide open and the edges do look horrendous. But as you say, how often are you going to be shooting wide open and needing the whole shot to be in focus.. Brick walls are probably the only example.

Still makes you wonder why we can't have it all :thinking:. I thought that 50mm lenses were relatively easy to design/construct. The Canon 85mm 1.8 absolutely demolishes the Sigma and Canon 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 in terms of sharpness at wide open, admittedly at the expensive of CA and not as pretty bokeh.

I'm not too fussed if Canon will be realising an updated 50mm. It's likely to be way more than what the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is selling for. If not then the great thing about lenses is how well they hold their value in the second hand market.

So it's either the Canon 1.4 or the Sigma 1.4. I am leaning towards the Sigma. I need to make my mind up though as I do need to get rid of the nifty as it really stands out with its slow AF after having a play with USM lenses fro the first time. As great as what its been for me for the last 6 years it makes you realise how bad the nifty is in the build and AF speed department.
 
Last edited:
Rixy said:
Some very good points there Ducan. I now feel like I'm being over critical of the edge performance. In their review of the Sogma 50 1.4 DPReview actually shot a brick wall at wide open and the edges do look horrendous. But as you say, how often are you going to be shooting wide open and needing the whole shot to be in focus.. Brick walls are probably the only example.

Still makes you wonder why we can't have it all :thinking:. I thought that 50mm lenses were relatively easy to design/construct. The Canon 85mm 1.8 absolutely demolishes the Sigma and Canon 50mm 1.8 ans 1.4 in terms of sharpness at wide open, admittedly at the expensive of CA and not as pretty bokeh.

I'm not too fussed if Canon will be realising an updated 50mm. It's likely to be way more than what the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is selling for. If not then the great thing about lenses is how well they hold their value in the second hand market.

So it's either the Canon 1.4 or the Sigma 1.4. I am leaning towards the Sigma. I need to make my mind up though as I do need to get rid of the nifty as it really stands out with its slow AF after having a play with USM lenses fro the first time. As great as what its been for me for the last 6 years it makes you realise how bad the nifty is in the build and AF speed department.
Click to expand...

Hi Rixy - thanks for responding :)
Spooky timing!
Yesterday I shot exclusively with a 50mm prime; a bit of an oddball lens.
The 50mm f2.5 Macro on my 5DIII; but I was using it for landscapes.
By reputation, this lens was developed for copy work, so is pin sharp right into the corners.
When I say pin sharp, it's an old lens and pixel peeping wide open doesn't do it any favors; but it still stacks up well against newer lenses.
Build quality and focus speed are comparable to the 50mm f1.4.

Why was I using it? Easy answer is that I was taking intimate landscapes and occasionally needed to get closer than the 50mm f1.4 minimum focal distance.
The weather was horrible with increasingly heavy sleet. I ended up getting soaked, but the glass on this lens is so deeply recessed that it stayed mist and water free.
The images look great!

Oh...
Regards the Canon 50mm f1.4.....
There is a quite a lot of batch variability and there are exceedingly sharp copies out there.
I was lucky enough to have tested a few before buying one and knew the one in the shop was a good copy. It's really sharp even wide open at the edges. But although it's nice to know it is a good copy, I don't think it has ever made a practical difference to any shot I've taken with it.
 
Just out of interest...

I had a Canon 50mm f2.5 and in my own tests the Siggy is at least a match and probably sharper (centre frame or there abouts) at every aperture the f2.5 can match plus the Siggy is much much faster to focus, actually the Siggy was more accurate at focusing in my tests.
 
woof woof said:
Just out of interest...

I had a Canon 50mm f2.5 and in my own tests the Siggy is at least a match and probably sharper (centre frame or there abouts) at every aperture the f2.5 can match plus the Siggy is much much faster to focus, actually the Siggy was more accurate at focusing in my tests.
Click to expand...

Simple answer - I don't know!
The largest I've printed from this lens is A1, which was fine.
Just checked and all the shots I took yesterday were f8 to f18 so I don't have a wide open shot I can pixel peep. The subjects weren't moving, so quick AF wasn't an issue either.

I originally had an f1.8, which was pretty dire wide open with vignetting and bad corner softness; center sharpness wide open wasn't too hot either.
I quickly upgraded to the f2.5 as a cost effective prime with a good reputation.
The f1.4 is a recent purchase as it has taken me a long time to fully appreciate the big aperture cinematic look.

The reason I have both the f1.4 and f2.5 is that they serve different purposes.
I rarely use the f1.4 at anything other than f1.4; it's very good at that big aperture cinematic look, so that's what it gets used for. If I wanted regular looking shots, then I could get more versatility from the 24-105.
The f2.5 gets used for landscapes and rarely gets used wide open. Macro provides real versatility and the deeply recessed front element (extreme by most comparisons including the f1.4) protects the glass from the elements. However, although I get on with it fine, it's probably not a lens to recommend for most people...
 
Last edited:
Here's a couple of examples of the sort of subject the 50mm f2.5 is really good for.
Both taken yesterday on the 5DIII in horrible weather conditions.
I know from experience that these images tend to be a bit Marmite, especially to other photographers; so will probably do nothing for most people reading this thread - but I like them :)

This could have been taken with the 50mm f1.4 or the 24-105.
i-3vpjqzs-X3.jpg


This couldn't...
i-gSGk4Dx-X3.jpg
 
Last edited:
The 50mm f2.5 does look like an interesting lens. I do need to invest in a macro at some point. But I was going to save up for the 100mm Macro L.

Hmm thanks for adding something else in to the mix Ducan :p :D
 
I have just ordered the Sigma 50 1.4.

Hopefully I'll be happy with it. :)
 
I'm back and very frustrated.

Since December I've had to return two copies of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 due to inconsistent auto focus. I'm now waiting for a refund as I've had enough of playing the Sigma lottery.

So it begs the question of what to do next?

It only leaves the Canon 50mm 1.4 which doesn't impress me too much, it's an old design and not USM driven.

I have been looking at the Canon 85mm 1.4 which seems to have stunning sharpness, however I'm a tad concerned that its focal length is too close to my Canon 100L macro.

Any thoughts?
 
Rixy said:
I'm back and very frustrated.

Since December I've had to return two copies of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 due to inconsistent auto focus. I'm now waiting for a refund as I've had enough of playing the Sigma lottery.

So it begs the question of what to do next?

It only leaves the Canon 50mm 1.4 which doesn't impress me too much, it's an old design and not USM driven.

I have been looking at the Canon 85mm 1.4 which seems to have stunning sharpness, however I'm a tad concerned that its focal length is too close to my Canon 100L macro.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yet some people still believe its down to user error and theres nothing wrong with Sigma QC :nuts:
 
The Canon 50mm f1.4, a great lens... come off it :gag: There are enough question marks over that lens to make anything from Siggy look like a safe bet... if you belive what you read on the internet :D

If a 50mm must be a Canon personally I'd wait for a new one to come out. The f1.4 has questionable build and reliability and most agree is beaten by (a working) Siggy for IQ, the f1.8 has the build of a paper cup so that leaves the f1.2 which also has its IQ question marks.
 
twist said:
Yet some people still believe its down to user error and theres nothing wrong with Sigma QC :nuts:
Click to expand...

I'm certain that a lot of it is down to user error. I've seen it myself but tell someone that their technique is crap and all they hear is "You're man parts and teeny weeny." Truth is some just wont admit it.
 
I gave up on trying to find a new Siggy 50 and found a spot on copy used. It really is worth getting one of you can find a good copy.
 
There is always the risk that you're matching on the edge lenses to an on the edge body. That's another thing that few will admit as a possibility.
 
woof woof said:
I'm certain that a lot of it is down to user error. I've seen it myself but tell someone that their technique is crap and all they hear is "You're man parts and teeny weeny." Truth is some just wont admit it.
Click to expand...

In my own experience I dont agree, Id say a little is user error not a lot, but youve had different experiences to other experienced photographers on this forum. LOL @ man parts.
 
I can understand how some people's issues are down to user error. Wide open we are talking about a razor thin depth of field.

Take a look at some of these test shots that I've taken of the better second copy that I was sent. 100% crops and focus was on the centre of the crop. Tripod mounted.

The first is a great result. It's clearly sharper than the Canon 50 1.8 @1.8

8437724475_c6fdc8985a_b.jpg


Now 10 minutes after the above shot was taken look at this:

8438810548_4cf0b719f5_b.jpg


Time after time in this setting the Sigma fails to achieve the correct focus. The distance from the subject is the same as the fence panel. I even tried using the AF assist beam on my 530exii. No amount of micro adjust is able to correct this as it's just too far out. I have no idea what the lens is doing, but more often than not the results I got from the Sigma were like this. :cuckoo:

It's pathetic to be honest, that a lens of £300 is able to leave the factory and marked as okay. With the amount of complaints about this lens its far from isolated problem that Sigma have with their 50mm. I can understand why there are some Sigma haters out there if this is their only experience with Sigma.

I do firmly agree Woof Woof, if you get a good one then the Sigma will absolutely shine, as my first shot shows, but inconsistent AF is probably the worst kind of issue to be having on a lens.

Perhaps as you say twist that the secondhand route is the way to go with the Sigma. I'm not sure, I think we are probably looking at at least a year, likely a couple before canon revamp their 50mm with an updated model.

I still am not sure what to do. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Let me give my opinion about this:

People always say "this lens is a good copy", "this lens is a bad copy", "this was the best copy in the store", etc.. This is wrong.
People should say "this copy is sharp with my camera", "this copy is not sharp with my camera".

There are several mechanical variables involved that influence the way a camera works with one lens. One lens may not be sharp with one camera but can be pin sharp with another camera. One lens may not be sharp on the right side with one camera and may not be sharp one the left side with another.

Off course there are lenses that have problems, but that would be a very, very minor % of them.
Usually, they just need to be paired with the right camera body. ;)
 
Last edited:
PitaDaVespa said:
Hi,

Let me give my opinion about this:

People always say "this lens is a good copy", "this lens is a bad copy", "this was the best copy in the store", etc.. This is wrong.
People should say "this copy is sharp with my camera", "this copy is not sharp with my camera".

There are several mechanical variables involved that influence the way a camera works with one lens. One lens may not be sharp with one camera but can be pin sharp with another camera. One lens may not be sharp on the right side with one camera and may not be sharp one the left side with another.

Off course there are lenses that have problems, but that would be a very, very minor % of them.
Usually, they just need to be paired with the right camera body. ;)
Click to expand...

I understand that there will be tolerances between a body and a lens. If it was consistently producing soft images it would make sense. But it's not consistent, something is a miss with it's AF. Single shot, centre AF point and tripod used and it's a roll of the dice if it'll be sharp or not.
 
Rixy said:
I understand that there will be tolerances between a body and a lens. If it was consistently producing soft images it would make sense. But it's not consistent, something is a miss with it's AF. Single shot, centre AF point and tripod used and it's a roll of the dice if it'll be sharp or not.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was not talking about this specific lens, though.

I've read some AF "miss and hit" issues with this lens and I agree with you. I don't think it has anything to do with AF adjustments or tolerances. It must be a lens problem.

Best of luck solving it.
 
PitaDaVespa said:
Hi,

Let me give my opinion about this:

People always say "this lens is a good copy", "this lens is a bad copy", "this was the best copy in the store", etc.. This is wrong.
People should say "this copy is sharp with my camera", "this copy is not sharp with my camera".

There are several mechanical variables involved that influence the way a camera works with one lens. One lens may not be sharp with one camera but can be pin sharp with another camera. One lens may not be sharp on the right side with one camera and may not be sharp one the left side with another.

Off course there are lenses that have problems, but that would be a very, very minor % of them.
Usually, they just need to be paired with the right camera body. ;)
Click to expand...

I read my own answer and felt one could think I was being rude. I was not and I hope people didn't feel that. I was just trying to give my humble opinion.
English is not my main language and sometimes it's not easy to explain myself correctly.
I hope you understand. :|
 
woof woof said:
The Canon 50mm f1.4, a great lens... come off it :gag: There are enough question marks over that lens to make anything from Siggy look like a safe bet... if you belive what you read on the internet :D

If a 50mm must be a Canon personally I'd wait for a new one to come out. The f1.4 has questionable build and reliability and most agree is beaten by (a working) Siggy for IQ, the f1.8 has the build of a paper cup so that leaves the f1.2 which also has its IQ question marks.
Click to expand...

Strange.i have one and it's pins sharp, focus's well. My only issue is its tiny and looks out of place on the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top