Anyone own a 50mm f1.4?

[GorillaJJitsu]

I just Ordered a used one. Wondering about your thoughts on its image quality and relevance!

 

[Dao]

I have one. Great lens although I did not use it much nowadays. I use the 85mm more often than the 50mm. Most of the time, I use the standard zoom or now my wide zoom lens and pair it with the 85mm.

Optically, it is great and it has less CA issue shooting wide open when compares with the 85mm f/1.8. Out of focus blur background looks nice. Much better than the 50mm f/1.8 lens I used to have but not as good as my 85mm f/1.8 though.

Overall, great lens.

 

[photoflyer]

Optically, it is great and it has less CA issue shooting wide open when compares with the 85mm f/1.8.

I have the 85 f 1.8 and love it but can attest to a bit of chromatic aberration. My guess is you will really enjoy your new lens. I think the temptation will be to shoot wide open but the depth of field is sooooooooooo tight. Experiment with different aperture settings to get the look you want.

 

[daveo228i]

I have one, had it for years. When I need speed it’s there.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Derrel]

I owned one for about 10 years it was a pretty good normal lens on the 5D. My example was pretty darn sharp at 3.2

 

[smoke665]

I have a Pentax FA 50mm f1.4. Just finished 4 days of shooting in studio, with it, over 1000 images total. I love the lens, but as in all things it was the correct tool for the application.

 

[Derrel]

A good 50 mm f / 1.4 lens is a lot like a good hammer to a carpenter who frames houses. There are lots and lots of uses for the tool. A good one should last 25 to 30 years. The 50mm f/1.4 EF is a much better lens than was the cheap 50mm F / 1.8 EF, which has now been replaced with the STM version, which is much better.

 

[Derrel]

Try the lens from f/3.2 down to about f/5.6. Wide open at f/1.4 the lens is not especially Sharp in the corners and you can see some optical flaws, but this is pretty par for the course for most regular-grade f/1.4 50s . This lens is not a $5,995 Leica 50, nor is it a $1,200 50, nor is it an $800 lens, and it improves quite a bit from f/1.4 to F 2.8. At f/ 2.8 on a modern high-megapixel sensor the lens is actually quite sharp and careful testing of my 50 revealed that F3 is its sharpest lens opening due to the small size of pixels on the Canon 60D. The lens reached its highest sharpness at a surprisingly wide aperture.... I don't have the figures on hand but if you are shooting on a 5D-II or 6D it is possible I suppose that the maximum sharpness is reached at f/4 or thereabouts. However it's possible that the increased depth of field that a smaller aperture such as F 7.1 gives, might yield a better picture. There is a lot of talk about loss of sharpness due to diffraction but in my experience shooting at a small f stops such as F-16 can yield added depth of field that makes for a sharper- looking picture. I am talking about f/3- f/3.2 for getting the maximum amount of sharpness for flat plane or distance shooting, as in test chart or astrophotography. It is in certain situations like this that diffraction can cut your sharpness and a surprisingly wide-aperture such as F 3.2 might actually be better than a medium aperture such as F / 5.6.