Lens comparison site (and intervention needed)

[Neiby]

I found this site a couple of days ago that is quite eye-opening when it comes to various lenses.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens Image QualityI can't afford a 50mm f/1.2, but I can afford the 1.4 and now I'm seriously considering upgrading from my 1.8. I like the 1.8, but the 1.4 is so much sharper and not that expensive. Sure, I'd love to get a 24-70 and a 70-200 2.8, but those are just not in the cards right now. But a 50mm 1.4.....I could do that, but I'm trying to convince myself to stop spending money on this abominable hobby.

 

[Sonoma]

Can't speak to either of those lenses, but here is a great site for lens reviews. Maybe this would help you decide.

Canon Lens: Primes - Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

Canon Lens: Primes - Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

Good luck
Gary

 

[Neiby]

Thanks for the link to SLRgear.com. Lots of good info there!

 

[Big Mike]

The 50mm F1.4 is a great lens for a great price. I'm sure I'll have that lens some day.

Another gem is the 85mm F1.8. Great quality for a great price.

 

[Neiby]

The 50mm F1.4 is a great lens for a great price. I'm sure I'll have that lens some day.

Another gem is the 85mm F1.8. Great quality for a great price.

I was looking through a thread on another forum that was nothing but pictures from prime lenses. The 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 were highly represented with some fantastic photos.

Even the 50 1.8 that I've got is capable of some rather nice shots, but when you see them side-by-side with the 50 1.4 and others, it's pretty easy to see the difference.

I'm also wondering about a 35mm. I was using the 50mm as a street lens last weekend and found myself in a few situations where I couldn't get back far enough from the subject. On my 60D, a 50 is more like an 80, right? I should try a 35mm on there and see how I like it.

 

[Neiby]

Here is a link to the prime lens "competition".

Prime Lens Portraits - Post Your Best!! - Canon Digital Photography Forumshere are so many awesome pictures in that thread. It really makes me want to start using my 50mm more. I tend to use the 18-200 as a walkaround lens, but I'm starting to see the difference that sharper lenses make and these primes are looking pretty fantastic.

 

[Big Mike]

I was using the 50mm as a street lens last weekend and found myself in a few situations where I couldn't get back far enough from the subject. On my 60D, a 50 is more like an 80, right?

A 50mm lens is 'more like an 80mm'....only if that 80mm is used on a film SLR (or full frame DSLR like the 5D). So unless you also have (& use) a 35mm film camera (or full frame digital), then you should forget the whole 'crop factor' stuff.

And yes, 50mm (on your camera) can be a bit tight at times. That's where a 35mm or 24mm lens would be nice. I don't think that the cheaper versions of those lenses, in the Canon line up, as 'gems' like the 50mm & 85mm mentioned above. Well, if they are....they don't get mentioned much.

The current line up can be seen HERE.
The only ones that seem to get talked about on internet forums, are the 24mm F1.4 L and the 35mm F1.4 L. Both of which appear to be amazing lenses, but very expensive as well.

I may have to look up some reviews of the cheaper 24 & 35mm lenses....maybe they will be pretty good too.

 

[Neiby]

I may just have to bite the bullet and get the 50mm 1.4. I've spent a great deal of time looking at photos taken with that lens online and comparing it with a tons of photos taken with the 1.8. The 1.8 seems to be a pretty decent lens and reasonably sharp for the price. Definitely a good value. But the shots I'm seeing with the 1.4 just have more clarity and a sense of depth to them. And I mean a subjective sense of depth and feeling, not depth of field, although the depth of field is good, too.

Since I'm planning on doing a lot more portraits in the very near future, maybe the 50mm 1.4 would be a good investment. I'd love to get some L glass, but I definitely can't afford that.

 

[Big Mike]

maybe the 50mm 1.4 would be a good investment

I think that is the best way to think about it.
Sure, if we are talking image quality per dollar spent, it's hard to beat the 50mm F1.8 (nicknamed the Nifty Fifty). But it's also a very cheap lens in terms of build quality etc. It feels like a plastic toy when compared to most other lenses.

So if you want a lens that will more than likely last for a very long time, then the 50mm F1.4 would be a better investment.

 

[analog.universe]

If you're looking at 50 1.4s, everyone I've spoken to lately has said the Sigma is way better than the Canon.

And it's unfortunate but there are not really any high quality and inexpensive wide lenses available for canon. The 28 1.8 has great build quality like the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8, but the optics are a bit soft and a bit distorted. The 24 2.8 has decent optics, but the build quality is comparable to the 50 1.8 (the price however, is not). Sigma's 30 1.4 is also quite soft. The best option on a budget in that range seems to be the 17-40 f/4L believe it or not... all of the desirable primes are >$1500.

 

[Big Mike]

I've got the 30mm F1.4 and it may be the sharpest lens I have. Well, it may be, but I'm not sure if it focuses 100% accurately, which seems to be a common problem with Sigma lenses, well that one at least.

Note that the Sigma 30mm is meant for crop sensors only. A shape, as I just upgraded to the 5D mkII.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Looking at the ISO12233 test charts at 100% is a very extreme example of a lense's capabilities. It helps you to compare apples to apples when comparing lenses. However, it is not a real world application. Are most "L" lenses going to be better? Of Course. However, if you don't shoot extreme high contrast photos, you don't pixel peep or enlarge to enormous sizes, and keep your noise under control, you should be able to achieve quality photos with the 50mm 1.8. That also assumes that you KNOW how to shoot in general.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

I've got the 30mm F1.4 and it may be the sharpest lens I have. Well, it may be, but I'm not sure if it focuses 100% accurately, which seems to be a common problem with Sigma lenses, well that one at least.

Note that the Sigma 30mm is meant for crop sensors only. A shape, as I just upgraded to the 5D mkII.

Yeah, I have been recently looking at that lens and the Canon 28mm f/1.8. I figured I would rarely use it wide open, and the biggest gripe I see with the Sigma 30 is the AF accuracy. Some people get superb copies, but it seems more often than not they don't.

 

[Overread36]

For those considering a slightly wider lens on crop sensor I'd just like to leave this here:
Tokina AT-X M35 Pro DX 35mm f/2.8 Macro Lens Review
Tokina Lens: Primes - Tokina 35mm f/2.8 AT-X M35 PRO DX - SLRgear.com!
FM Reviews - Tokina AT-X M35 PRO DX
Tokina AT-X M35 PRO DX 35 mm f/2.8 review - Introduction - Lenstip.com

because the poor little lens hardly ever gets mentioned

 

[Big Mike]

I've got the 30mm F1.4 and it may be the sharpest lens I have. Well, it may be, but I'm not sure if it focuses 100% accurately, which seems to be a common problem with Sigma lenses, well that one at least.

Note that the Sigma 30mm is meant for crop sensors only. A shape, as I just upgraded to the 5D mkII.

Yeah, I have been recently looking at that lens and the Canon 28mm f/1.8. I figured I would rarely use it wide open, and the biggest gripe I see with the Sigma 30 is the AF accuracy. Some people get superb copies, but it seems more often than not they don't.

I was hoping that when I got a body with micro adjust, I could fine tune the AF on the body, specifically for this lens. But now I've got a full frame and the lens will vignette severely anyway. Still, I've got plenty of resolution to crop...so I'm certainly going to test it out.