I just bought a Canon 50 1.4

[SAWYER]

Off potn for 285 shipped, it is a few months old and it supposed to come with a hood, caps, blank warranty card, receipt and box

I cant wait to try it and see how my 1.8 compares. I know the build quality will be much better but if I can't notice an iq difference I will sell it. I should easily be able to get what I paid for it if I sell it.

 

[alfa147x]

Nice congrats! I just got done shooting a good bit of video with my Sigma 50 1.4

I love 50mm's

 

[repoman0]

You're not going to want to sell it I bet You may not notice much of an IQ difference (although it's definitely there) but build quality and especially focus speed and accuracy make it worth it, particularly at that price.

 

[yhelothar]

The 1.4 is definitely sharper till about F/4.
It has much smoother bokeh as well. Nice buy.

 

[SAWYER]

He was asking 310 which was already good but I threw the lowball out ad he surprisingly took it

 

[Lotheron]

One of these days I might upgrade my nifty, but it does so well that I'd rather put money towards other lenses.

 

[angry hampster]

The 1.4 is definitely sharper till about F/4.
It has much smoother bokeh as well. Nice buy.

Really? I'd say center sharpness on the 50 is marginally better, but the two equal out around f/2.8. Corner sharpness on the Canon 50 is awful until about f/8.

Canon's 100mm f/2 is a better lens than the 85 f/1.8, though they're nearly identical.

 

[yhelothar]

Yup, that's an accurate assessment. The 50/1.8 is pretty decent in the center, but horrible in the corners.

 

[AkumaX]

Off potn for 285 shipped, it is a few months old and it supposed to come with a hood, caps, blank warranty card, receipt and box

I cant wait to try it and see how my 1.8 compares. I know the build quality will be much better but if I can't notice an iq difference I will sell it. I should easily be able to get what I paid for it if I sell it.

50 fun! on FF or APS-C?

 

[angry hampster]

Yup, that's an accurate assessment. The 50/1.8 is pretty decent in the center, but horrible in the corners.

I'm talking about the 1.4

 

[yhelothar]

I'm talking about the 1.4

You're saying the 1.4 has worse corner sharpness than the 1.8?

 

[RobDickinson]

Make sure you store the 1.4 with the barrel unextended, any knock on the focus barrel will kill the af system.

The canon(1.4) is frail but a decent lens, i went with the sigma version tho.

 

[angry hampster]

You're saying the 1.4 has worse corner sharpness than the 1.8?

From my experience, yes. It was horrendous.

Here are a couple MTF charts from Photozone.de:

50mm f/1.8

50mm f/1.4

From my experience, Canon's 50mm f/1.4 was very *mediocre.* Nothing less, nothing more. Focusing speed and accuracy were only decent, build quality was only decent, barrel distortion present, horrendous corner IQ at large apertures.

 

[corkyg]

Just happened to see this one in my new B&H catalog. Wow! Anyone ever see one of these?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...tialSearch=yes

 

[alfa147x]

Just happened to see this one in my new B&H catalog. Wow! Anyone ever see one of these?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search...tialSearch=yes

Dynamit data gives me an error. Do you have a search phrase?



°

 

[bobdole369]

Thats a tilt shift - sick.

 

[alfa147x]

Dynamit data gives me an error. Do you have a search phrase?



°

The Schneider PC TS Super-Angulon 50 mm f/2.8 Lens (For Canon EOS)



°

 

[angry hampster]

That's absurdly expensive even for a tilt-shift.

 

[iGas]

From my experience, yes. It was horrendous.

Here are a couple MTF charts from Photozone.de:

50mm f/1.8

50mm f/1.4

From my experience, Canon's 50mm f/1.4 was very *mediocre.* Nothing less, nothing more. Focusing speed and accuracy were only decent, build quality was only decent, barrel distortion present, horrendous corner IQ at large apertures.

50mm f/1.2L

Sigma f/1.4

Seiss 50mm f/1.4

Seiss 50mm f/2

Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4 G

Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4 D

 

[yhelothar]

Here's a comparison between Pentax's SMC Takumar 50mm F/1.4 from the late 60s, and the Canon 50mm F/1.8 in the corners. You could see that the Tak obliterates the Canon. From what I've seen, the Canon 50/1.4 is at least as good as the Pentax in sharpness, so I assumed the difference between the Canon 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8 to be similar to the below comparison.

 

[alfa147x]

The number on the left of those graphs. What do they represent?

 

[iGas]

Here's a comparison between Pentax's SMC Takumar 50mm F/1.4 from the late 60s, and the Canon 50mm F/1.8 in the corners. You could see that the Tak obliterates the Canon. From what I've seen, the Canon 50/1.4 is at least as good as the Pentax in sharpness, so I assumed the difference between the Canon 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8 to be similar to the below comparison.

Totally agree with you on the image, but the reality is that no one really care what the corner sharpness is like on a lens/picture. It is the center sharpness that is much more important. And, not only that the comparison is against a lens that Canon no longer produce (it was the worst 50mm that Canon ever made).

 

[iGas]

The number on the left of those graphs. What do they represent?

Q: What is the meaning of LW/PH (MTF50) ?

A: LW/PH means "Line widths per picture height" - it's basically a unit for resolution (not sharpness which is a combination of contrast and resolution) limited by the max. resolution of the camera's image sensor. You shouldn't take the LW/PH value itself too seriously because it is dependent on a number of factors. The analyzing tool (Imatest) is quite vulnerable to the quality of the source material.
The effective resolution is dependent on a number of factors. AA filter of the sensor, A/D conversion, demosaicing, base sharpening and of course the lens resolution. However, the "front-"factors are all near-linear. Say, e.g. the AA filter has a factor 0.7 whereas the base sharpening has a factor of 1.5. So in the end we have a formula like
EffectiveResolution = a * b * c * d * LensResolution
Now the value of a,b,c,d is actually meaningless. You can even add another factor - say 0.5. From a qualitative perspective this doesn't change anything. The charts will still look the same - only the numbers will be different.

All PZ sample images are taken as RAW files and converted via Photoshop ACR (default settings without automatic image correction and contrast set to 0). If you convert RAWs via other imaging applications the LW/PH figures will be lower or higher due to the different sharpening & contrast algorithms. In the future we will probably drop the LW/PHs in favor of a school mark system which is easier to read. Refer to the reference scale on the left of the MTF charts to classify the quality.

Here`s a little visual reference:

Sample portion @ 1100 LW/PH (Nikon)

Sample portion @ 2200 LW/PH (Nikon)

 

[angry hampster]

Totally agree with you on the image, but the reality is that no one really care what the corner sharpness is like on a lens/picture. It is the center sharpness that is much more important. And, not only that the comparison is against a lens that Canon no longer produce (it was the worst 50mm that Canon ever made).

So you're telling me you frame *every one* of your photographs with your subjects dead center?

 

[iGas]

So you're telling me you frame *every one* of your photographs with your subjects dead center?

Show me an instant that it is critical for you to get sharp image at the edge/border of the frame, beside nitpicking and copying (copy work are left for macro lens and tend to be shot close down at f/5.6~f/11).

That said the average photographer wouldn't even notice including you if the picture were to be print at 4"x6" or 5"x7". Even at 8"x10" any 50mm prime would be more than adequate for the image center to edge sharpness (sensor quality is more of a problem at 8x10 or greater).

Q: Where do you measure the center, borders and extreme borders?

If you bother to read the links provided above you would know what the different between dead center, center, and border.