Canon 60D: Looking at 50mm lenses and Question about Full Time Manual Focus

[GWestphal]

I have a Canon 60D which I am loving so far despite the mushy buttons. It was a great step up from my Nikon D40, much better handling in low light.

I have the 18-135mm lenses which has served me well. I have one question about this lens, I don't think it has full time manual focus, but even in AF mode I can manual move the focus, but there is more resistance than if I move the switch to manual. Is it damaging to manual focus without flipping the switch?

I'm looking for some primes that are a little faster than the 3.5-5.6 that the 18.135mm gets me. At this point I'm between the 1.4 and 1.8 m ii. It seems both have some pros and cons.
What does AT have to say? Definitely looking to spend $500 or less (emphasis on less) on a prime.

 

[angry hampster]

Do *not* spin the focus ring in AF mode on lenses that don't have FTM focusing. ..such as your 18-135. It can and will damage the focusing mechanism.

My take on the cheap Canon 50s:

The f/1.4:
- OK build quality
- Unreliable focusing
- Soft wide open, especially in corners

The f/1.8 mkII:
- Poor (terrible) build quality
- Extremely unreliable focusing
- Soft wide open, especially in corners
- Hideous bokeh


Skip both and pick yourself up a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Carefully evaluate your shooting style. 50mm on a crop sensor is fairly tight.. you will not have much opportunity to use this lens indoors. This is why I recommend the 30. Good built quality, excellent focusing (with FTM), and much better suited toward a crop sensor.

As a point of reference, I have owned both of those Canons, and the Sigma 30.

 

[RobDickinson]

My 50/1.8 had very reliable , if slow/clunky focusing. Only in low light did it suffer much and that was more about the body I think. its center was also fairly sharp wide open (it did need a touch of MA on my 7D). Bokeh wide open was good, stopped down a nit it was poorish but not terrible.

IMO Certainly not a lens to use for salable shots too much.

Canons 50/1.4 isnt any sharper, the USM is micro motor and doesnt have FTM and is prone to self destruction if the front barrel is touched when not focused at infinity.

like AH above I currently have a sigma 50f1.4, its pretty damned good.

 

[Maximus96]

another vote for the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for a crop body. However, sigma's quality control on autofocus is hit or miss and may require a calibration from the factory repair center. I had to go thru 3 each before i got a copy that nails focus on 1.4. i had the 30mm and 50mm at one time.

 

[ElFenix]

Do *not* spin the focus ring in AF mode on lenses that don't have FTM focusing. ..such as your 18-135. It can and will damage the focusing mechanism.

My take on the cheap Canon 50s:

The f/1.4:
- OK build quality
- Unreliable focusing
- Soft wide open, especially in corners

The f/1.8 mkII:
- Poor (terrible) build quality
- Extremely unreliable focusing
- Soft wide open, especially in corners
- Hideous bokeh


Skip both and pick yourself up a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4. Carefully evaluate your shooting style. 50mm on a crop sensor is fairly tight.. you will not have much opportunity to use this lens indoors. This is why I recommend the 30. Good built quality, excellent focusing (with FTM), and much better suited toward a crop sensor.

As a point of reference, I have owned both of those Canons, and the Sigma 30.

when did sigma's focusing jump above the canon 1.4?

the canon 1.8 has a problem of the motor working in large steps so you can get into the situation where focus can't be achieved by the motor as the point is between the steps on the motor. works fine if the subject is far enough away or your aperture is stopped down a bit.

 

[GoSharks]

My 50/1.8 had very reliable , if slow/clunky focusing. Only in low light did it suffer much and that was more about the body I think. its center was also fairly sharp wide open (it did need a touch of MA on my 7D). Bokeh wide open was good, stopped down a nit it was poorish but not terrible.

Good compared to a zoom?

Bokeh
The quality of the bokeh, the out-of-focus blur, is naturally of major interest for an ultra-large aperture lens like the 50mm f/1.8. Unfortunately it turns out that this is a major weakness of the lens. One major problem is the non-circular aperture shape which is visible in highlights at max. aperture and especially from f/2.8 onwards. The focus blur is pretty even in front of the focus zone but nervous towards the rear.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/415-canon_50_18_ff?start=1

 

[angry hampster]

when did sigma's focusing jump above the canon 1.4?

the canon 1.8 has a problem of the motor working in large steps so you can get into the situation where focus can't be achieved by the motor as the point is between the steps on the motor. works fine if the subject is far enough away or your aperture is stopped down a bit.

Sigma's HSM has always been better to the 1.4's ring focus. It's very sloppy in low-light situations and not as fast as HSM.

 

[RobDickinson]

Canons 50/1.4 does not have ring USM, it has micro motor USM, not the same thing.

Heres some shots from my 50f1.8, exif should be intact.

This one is f1.8

Sigma f1.4

vs 17-55f2.8

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Just go ahead and get any of them. You are right, there are pros and cons to each choice. None of them are ideal. But all of them can do things that your zoom lens simply can't, and that 's reason enough to go ahead and get any of them as soon as you can.

The 50/1.8 is super cheap and you can sell it for 90% of what you paid for it.

The 50/1.4 is not bad overall and you can sell it for 90% of what you paid for it.

The Sigma 30/1.4 is awesome if you get one that focuses right, and once again you can sell it for 90% of what you paid for it.

There are very few permanent decisions when it comes to camera lenses, especially for popular mounts like Canon and Nikon. There is a huge secondary market and you can always sell for not much less than you paid (as long as you are not over-paying to begin with). If you are patient on the big photography forums and wait for a good deal to buy a used lens, you can even sometimes come out even, as long as you take care of your stuff.

I did the 50/1.8 first, then the Sigma 30 (when I only had crop bodies), and now I'm on the Canon 50/1.4 (full-frame body). I liked the Sigma the most out of the 3. I have seriously considered the Sigma 50/1.4, but it is significantly larger and heavier than the Canon version, and since the 50/1.4 is one of my constant go-to lenses (especially for travel) I'm not sure that I want to deal with the extra size and weight. All this despite being a little PO'd at the Canon 50; it has had a minor focusing problem on the close end ever since I did a beach wedding and some sand inadvertently got into it. (Would not have happened with the Sigma.) I have never noticed any image quality problems with any of the 3 lenses.