Camera Labs

I would like to replace my EF 50mm F/1.8 II with a higher end lens.

According to Ken Rockwell, DRTV and another forum, if you don't want the aperture of it, the EF 50mm F/1.2L is not worth getting and it's not all that optically better, my images (from a technical POV) won't change much.

Your opinions guys?

_________________
Canon EOS 500D
Lenses: EFS 18-55mm IS, EF 50mm F/1.8 II

The f/1.2 is built for f/1.2. So if you don't need that, why not look at the Canon f/1.4 (and hope stories about its AF dying are not too accurate) or the Sigma (enjoy the focus shifts). The Zeiss is about as expensive as the f/1.2 but you have to like manual focus, where if you do you might even go as far as getting an adapted Nikon?

All in, first figure out where the f/1.8 might be holding you back, then look at fixing that.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

I would just like to optimise it's performance.

A Valid holdback would be the build quality. Is there any lens that is optically better? I don't go below F/2.8 usually.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D
Lenses: EFS 18-55mm IS, EF 50mm F/1.8 II

Which way round is "below" f/2.8?

I've been thinking about getting another 50mm f/1.4 for a while myself. I also have the f/1.8 which I don't like using due to its focus system. I know I have the Zeiss makro too, but that's MF and sometimes I just want to point and shoot so personally I think the Canon f/1.4 is the best overall balance. Not a huge upgrade but all the little things set it apart from the f/1.8. The Sigma's focus shift puts me right off.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

F/2.8 is the furthest I stop up, so F/1 isn't always necessary.

Besides aperture, is the L series any better than the regular 50mm F/1.8 and F/1.4 (all marks)?

_________________
Canon EOS 500D
Lenses: EFS 18-55mm IS, EF 50mm F/1.8 II

I have owned and used the 1.8 and 1.4 canons. The 1.4 has better build quality and focusing. It is very soft @ 1.4, but probably better @ 1.8 than the 1.8. The bokeh is nicer (8 blades vs 5.) I have no experiance with the 1.2, but have read it is the best at lowest apertures.

However, i sold both to get a 2.8 70-200 zoom. I just couldn't find any uses for a wide apeture 50mm on a crop sensor camera. (I own a 17-55mm 2.8 zoom which sits on my camera 95% of the time.)

Yes, the 17-55 2.8 is the other I want

Primes are great for landscapes.

_________________
Canon EOS 500D
Lenses: EFS 18-55mm IS, EF 50mm F/1.8 II

I find the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM to be one of my favorite lenses.
It is a fun little prime with fairly accurate auto-focus and a decent build quality.

I have had this lens for roughly 3 years now and have not had an issue with it.
With it being such a small lens, I generally find room for it even when I leave my more expensive lenses behind.

If you want a comparison between the 3, DitialRev did a comparison between the 3 Canon 50mm primes.

_________________
Canon Rebel XTi, BG-E3 Grip
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes

I have looked at the dxo mark, and these are the results.

The aberration is best on the L one.


Is the F/1.4 any sharper than the F/1.8 based on your own experience?

_________________
Canon EOS 500D
Lenses: EFS 18-55mm IS, EF 50mm F/1.8 II

If you pixel peep, the 1.4 will probably give you better results at 1.8 and lower than the 1.8.
However, that's really not the main reason to upgrade if you were to do so.
The image quality and sharpness is probably not going to be much/enough of an improvement.

Here are four reasons why the 1.4 is better than the 1.8:
1) It lets in more light due to being an f/1.4 lens.
2) Faster Focusing, and quieter, with a Micro-Motor USM.
3) Even though it has a Micro-Motor USM, it stil has full time manual (FTM) focusing capability.
4) Build quality.

If these reasons are not sufficient to get an EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens, then I would not advise getting one.
The EF 50mm f/1.8 I or II is the best bang for buck lens Canon makes.

I am not aware of any other lens which perform as well in relation to how much you spend.

_________________
Canon Rebel XTi, BG-E3 Grip
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes

5) The 50mm 1.4 has 8 diaphragm blades vs. the 5 of the 1.8. = nicer bokeh when stopping down.
6) Even shallower depth of field if wanted

_________________
Canon EOS 500D + Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Canon EF 24-105mm 4L IS USM + EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6L IS USM + EF 100mm 2.8L Macro IS USM + Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 EX DG HSM + Canon Speedlite 580 EX II + Nissin Speedlite Di 466

I read so many recommendations about the nifty fifties, and the merits of 50 mm primes that I bought the EF 50 f1.4 lens a year ago.
On the relatively few occasions I have tried to use it, I have often been frustrated by the field of view. This is no fault of the lens which is undoubtedly a high quality piece of glass. I suspect that I have just become accustomed to the versatility of my zooms, especially the EF-S 15-85 on the 7D and the 24-105 on the 5DII. Or maybe I just don't take the kind of images that best suit a 50. The 50mm is always in my bag, but I am still struggling to justify its presence.

_________________
Brian,
Canon 5DII, 7D, EF-S 10-22, EF 50 USM 1.4, EF-S 60 macro EF 16-35 L USM, EF 24 -15L IS USM, EF EF 100-400L, Canon SX130

Brian Harmer,

One of the main strengths for a 50mm is the low light capability.
So how about you try to use it at f/2 in lower light and see what it does for you?

A prime can be challenging at first. It is not nearly as versatile as a zoom.
The best way I can think of to figure out when to use a prime is to go out and just use it.
Get use to using it in order to be able to better understand why people enjoy it.
A lower light test might be just the thing as that is something your zooms will not be able to do.
However, it can be challenging to focus properly at f/1.4.

_________________
Canon Rebel XTi, BG-E3 Grip
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II, 24-105mm f/4L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DO, 85mm f/1.8
Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX Macro
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX, Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II
Canon 430EX II
Opteka 13mm, 21mm, and 31mm extension tubes

Get the EF 50 2.5 macro or the EF-S 60 2.8 macro or the TS-E 45 2.8 or get the EF 24-70 2.8

I don`t actually like that focal length that much, I would rather have a 30 1.4 like the Sigma for example.
For me 50 on a cropped body is either not tight enough or wide enough, doesn`t suit me all that much.

_________________
Canon Powershot S95, Canon 7D, 15-85, Canon 85 1.8 USM, Sigma 30 1.4, 50mm 1.8, Canon 100 2.8L IS Macro, Canon 70-300L IS USM+Kenko 1.4 Pro 300DGX, Canon 430EX II and RS 4 Classic