Toronto Photography Meetup Group

Right now I have the kit 17-85 lens with my 40D and I am wondering if it is worthwhile to get a 50mm prime. I had my eye on the EF 50mm f/1.4 for a while because I heard about the nicer bokeh and being slightly faster, but I also heard that the lens is only sharp from f/2.

Two questions:

1) How practical is f/1.4? I.e.: Do people really use f/1.4 alot?
2) Would it be more wise to get the 35mm f/2 so it more closely approximates the view as seen by the human eye since it becomes 56mm on the 40D?

Thanks!

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 will serve you well. f/1.4 is useful for portraits and low light especially. I think you'll be happier with the 50/1.4 rather than the 35/2. The lower aperture number will give you more choice than the wider focal length. You'll find yourself shooting wide open at 1.4 a lot. The bokeh is just not nicer, it's gorgeous. Worlds apart from the 17-85mm.

In terms of sharpness, I think the lens does wonders. The supposed difference in sharpness won't matter in making an interesting photo. Doubt you'll notice any difference. It's a good lens at a great value. Great addition to any beginner. I always suggest a zoom (which you have) and a fast prime for beginners.

Take a look: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=canon+5 ... ss=2&s=int

What about the Sigma 50mm f/1.4? I heard mixed reviews about it but generally was under the impression that it is sharp (if not sharper) than the Canon offering at f/1.4. Can anyone confirm this?

Why not consider the Sigma 30mm

There was a short discussion about the Canon 50/1.4 vs Sigma 50/1.4 awhile ago: http://www.tpmg.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11503 The conversation kinda got side-tracked though...

Here are some other discussions you may want to take a look at.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canondslr/ ... 472742475/
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RtVc
http://www.photomalaysia.com/forums/sho ... hp?t=71348

I believe all three lenses are at about the same in quality (Canon 50/1.4, Sigma 50/1.4, Sigma 30/1.4). As for the focal length, that is up to you. The wider focal length will give you a wider field of view and the barrel distortion at 30mm isn't too noticeable compared to 50mm. For me, the difference is focal length isn't too much of a worry. Just take one step back if the framing is too tight.

I use the Canon 35/1.4L as my walk around lens as well as one of my portrait lenses... but all that is another story...

Here are the Fred Miranda reviews on the three lenses.
Canon 50/1.4 http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... product=29
Sigma 50/1.4 http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... roduct=367
Sgima 30/1.4 http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/show ... roduct=320

If you ask me, I would just stick with the Canon 50/1.4. Like I said before, it's a great lens at a good price. Look for one used on CL and save yourself some money.

Actually, I just re-read the OP - he has a 17-85...

why not tape your zoom lens at 30/35 and 50, and do the the kind of photography that you like, then you'd find out which FL you prefer?

You make it sound as if the 30/35 is a medium wide angle lens. On a FF, yes. But OP is using a 40D, for which you have to consider that a 50 is actually a short tele...

All I'm saying is that the difference between 30/35 and 50 made relatively little impact on the outcome of my photos. But I do agree.. try out which focal length you like most and get the prime for it. Everybody else's opinions won't matter unless you know what you want. One thing's for sure though, you won't regret getting a fast prime.

Was going to be my suggestion...there's no point buying a prime if you don't know whether you like shooting at that focal length or not.

the point is buying a fast prime, not just a prime. 17-85 only gives a 5.6 aperture at 50mm, which is pretty hard to work with in low light + not a great bokeh I actually opted for the 1.8 version of 50, which I trully love when the sun goes down. at $130 you'll love it a lot more. However the 1.4 version is USM and has a usable manual focus, unlike the 1.8 II. Better quality too. I was also afraid of the FOV issue, but once I got the lens, it was gone

The Sigma 50 is comparable to the 50L in quality and distinctly better than the other two at wide apertures. The Canon 50/1.4 and Sigma 30/1.4 are similar in quality although the Sigma's AF drive is superior (ring-type USM instead of clutched micro-motor).

if you have a decent dSLR, you're probably covered for 95% of all shooting conditions by using the ISO/EV comp, shooting in RAW and using a 50/1.8... at f2 the Nikkor and Canon are about as sharp as anyone really will ever need...


Brian Tao who makes a living shooting weddings uses a Nikkor 50/1.8 AFD on his D700s rather than the 50/1.4 AFD - I suspect he compared both and found the 1.8 more than sufficient

Actually the Canon AF is USM so it's fast with manual over ride.

I have had both of the Canon 50mm f1.4 and f1.8 I kept the f1,4 because of it's better build, better quieter USM drive which is easier to manual focus by over riding the USM. I actually find the f1.4 aperture quite useful and not at all bad.

yup, canon 50mm f/1.8 doesn't have USM motor, it's slow and noisy

The 50/1.4 is unique in the Canon line with regards to AF drive. It does not use a ring-motor USM drive despite the presence of manual override. Instead it uses a micromotor USM drive like low-end USM lenses without FTM focusing, but the focus ring is clutched allowing you to get full-time manual focus.

The only other lenses to use a similar setup are the Pentax DA, D-FA and DA* lenses.

There are a number of reports about the Canon 50mm f1.4 lens being easily damaged if the front barrel is bumped. I ended up getting the Sigma 50mm f1.4 version instead. The 77mm filter thread meant that I could use all my other filters.

For portraits, I'd think the 50mm is probably the widest you'd want to go to cut down on the distortion you'd get from wider lenses. If you're doing 3/4 or wider shots I guess it won't be that noticeable. f1.4 is pretty shallow but the bokeh is sweet!

Mawz I have no doubt you are correct but in practice I don't see any difference between the usm 50 and the 100mm in focus noise or speed. I was comparing the Canon 50mm f1.8 to the 50mm f1.4 I have no reference to the Sigma line.

Thanks for the insight everyone!

Last week I saw a used Canon 50mm f/1.4 for $395 with hood but jumped on it too late, the seller withdrew his posting when I asked him about it.

I will personally be taping my 17-85 at the 30 and 50mm focal lengths soon


Just curious though, I heard many reports about the focusing issue on the Sigma lenses. The last thing I want is to buy a lens that won't focus properly. What is a reliable and accurate test for this problem?

I've got the Canon 50mm 1.4 on an XSi. I love the lens. I use it indoor for family events all the time, it's a little soft at 1.4 but much better than the 50mm 1.8 @ 1.8 (I owned that lens first).
Unfortunately, 50mm on a crop body isn't as wide as I'd like. For the price I think its a great lens.

If you plan on going full-frame, the Sigma 50 is your best bet. My copy is an absolute gem and almost as sharp as my 100mm macro. However, you need to be very careful with your focus at wide apertures and at close range from the subject. Even a little movement can ruin your shot shot wide open. Generally, I find the focus FAR better than my old canon 50 1.4 in terms of speed and accuracy.

If cost is your primary concern, look no further than the 50 1.8 - a GREAT lens and the best value around. Just don't use it wide open.

Ditto. The Sigma version I have is tack sharp and I didn't have to micro adjust it in my camera bodies. AF speed is snappy. I had the 50mm f1.8 Mark I version and it was soft wide open and the contrast wasn't that great not to mention noisy and slow AF. Then again, it's a sub $200. lens. Mind you, there was an ebay war going on for my Mark I lens and it sold for over $200!

The Canon 50mm f1.4 can be had fairly cheaply on ebay, craigslist, fredmiranda etc.

As Nocean has mentioned, the DOF shooting at f1.4 is VERY shallow so moving just an inch forward or backward is enough to change your focal point.

On a 1.6 crop sensor, you're looking at an 80mm equivalent. Pretty good for 3/4 to portrait shots but not to say you can't take full body portraits with it.. you'll just have to stand a little further back. If you're using it for landscape or a walk around lens, you might find it a bit on the long side and might want to look at a 35mm or 24mm prime instead. Mind you, those two lenses aren't very flattering for portrait work as they tend to make your model's nose (and face) a bit on the plump side.

I did a shoot last week with the Sigma 50mm on a 5D Mark II. I'll see if I can post an example if interested... I've still got to edit the darn pics.

http://focustestchart.com/chart.html

Also read this:

http://tpmg.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=91600

http://northlight-images.co.uk/article_ ... tment.html

It depends on what you shoot. When you need it, you need it. f/1.4 is approximately 0.725 of a stop faster than f/1.8. In other words, where you might need ISO 1600 with the f/1.8, you can get away with ISO 1000 with the f/1.4. Or if f/1.4 allows you to shoot at 1/80 s, f/1.8 will require you to slow down to 1/50 s. If that seems like a big difference to you, then you may need the f/1.4.

That's not the whole story, though. You've already mentioned quality of the bokeh (a subjective thing). There are also slight differences in contrast and colour reproduction (both of which can be corrected in post). If you like to intentionally include flare in your photos, the two lenses will produce different kinds (again, that's a subjective thing).

The current Canon 50/1.8 is produced with an all-plastic housing. It won't be as robust as the metal lens mount of the 50/1.4, and it is certainly no match for the 50/1.2L. But it is sturdy enough to withstand everyday shooting abuse.

The 50/1.4 is a bit hazy at 1.4, but that goes away when you stop down to 1.8 or 2.0 or so. There is quite a bit of light falloff in the corners when wide open, but you won't notice it much on a cropped sensor body like the 40D.

The 50/1.4 is notorious for suffering from mechanical failure, usually related to the portion of the lens barrel that extends slightly during focus. Shock to the protruding lip can cause damage to the fragile AF motor, which can manifest itself in the focus ring seizing up, or the camera not being able to drive the AF motor, or similar symptoms.

I've owned four copies of the Canon 50/1.4, and all of them eventually developed problems of one kind or another. Two of them suffered from AF ring seizure (the last of which I had to send in twice for repair, because Canon "forgot" to fix it the first time), one from lens astigmatism (one lens group was misaligned). I forget what problem plagued the fourth one. It's one of those lenses (like the 17-55/2.8 IS) that is wonderful when it works, but don't be surprised if it starts acting funny after only a few years.

When I switched to D700's, I ended up buying the Nikkor 50/1.8 AF-D (as Ken says). Nikon also has a couple models of autofocus 50/1.4, but testing them side-by-side, I did not see enough of an advantage to the 1.4 aperture. Sharpness, contrast, falloff, distortion, bokeh, etc. were all comparable. The 50mm f/1.4G had a slight edge over the f/1.8D, but when you're talking about $500 vs $125, the 1.8 wins out.


I had the 35/2 for a while, and it was a great lens for walking around town because of its tiny size. The AF motor whine was a bit annoying, though. I sold it and later bought the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM. That gives you an equivalent FOV of a 50mm lens on a full-frame body, has a maximum aperture of 1.4, and the silent HSM motor with full-time manual focusing. It is $600+ new, though, so not an inexpensive lens unless you compare it to Canon's $1500 35/1.4L.

For me, 50mm on a cropped body was a bit too long, so I splurged for the Sigma 30/1.4. But if I had to do it all over again and the 50mm view suited me, I would have stuck with my old 50/1.8 Mk I and saved a considerable amount of money and hassle by not messing around with all those 50/1.4's over the years.

All the reports of not-so-durable lenses or general quality control issues are making me think twice about buying used now, yet I can't really pretend that there are no significant savings going that route for a faster lens.

Even my 17-85mm lens bought 3 months ago has dust on the backside of the front glass despite keeping it in my camera bag whenever it is not used.

i have the 35L... i was planning to buy a 50/1.4 (much more wallet friendly and it would be real 50mm on FF!), but end up jumped into the 35L cuz i found a good deal on CL.

after using it for a month i am sure i cannot live without it... even with 17-55 or 24-70 @ 2.8 is not fast enough for low light photography (such as restaurant or some night photowalk) DOF is completely different as well.

I am sure 50/1.4 is good enough on a 40D for low light photography

some random snaps with my f1.4

f1.4 on 40D..


f1.4 on 1d mk3, i love to use f1.4 during the day as well...