Its a great lens for closer stuff, once you get it past 15 foot on focus, it's a crap shoot. The AF is also a bit slow for anything that moves at any speed.
Pros:
Sharp
Beautiful bokeh
good contrast
Great value
Cons.
Spotty focus
Poor design. 1 small bump on the front of the lense can kill autofocus forever. the motor just dies
My auto focus comes and goes whenever it experiences temperature shifts. Which is really odd. I live in a colder climate and I took the lense to hawaii and to texas and on both trips AF gave out and left me hanging until I got back and it returned to normal.
Wonderful images but I just can't depend on it for professional use.
I gave up on the 1.8 version after breaking it twice. Minor trauma both instances. It's mostly plastic inside, at least the pieces that I could see when it was in pieces.
The bokeh is much better with the 1.4 if that's important to you. Great indoors, focuses fast enough, etc. I vote for the 1.4!
The 1.4 is optically a very good lens for almost all uses. It flat out sucks for night sky work, however (though it is probably fine for star trails).
As others have posted, it is possible to damage the lens, either by restraining the motion of the front section while attempting AF, or by bumping the front section hard.
I've had a copy for about 5 years, and it has traveled the world with me (North America, EU, Asia). Still kicking, no problems.
The bokeh on the 1.4 is *far* superior to the 1.8, and that alone is worth the upgrade. It is a wonderful lens for shallow-DoF portrait work, especially on an APS-C camera, where its focal length is right in the sweet spot for portraiture.
It is kind of a sore spot with me that Canon can't make a more mechanically robust and optically more refined 50mm lens that doesn't cost $1600. Ridiculous, actually. I'd gladly pay $600 for a non-L 50mm with non-extending optics and better correction of spherical aberration.
You may be in luck, www.canonrumors.com is reporting that just such a lens is in the works.
Originally posted by kirbic:
It is kind of a sore spot with me that Canon can't make a more mechanically robust and optically more refined 50mm lens that doesn't cost $1600. Ridiculous, actually. I'd gladly pay $600 for a non-L 50mm with non-extending optics and better correction of spherical aberration.
The 1.4 is optically a very good lens for almost all uses. It flat out sucks for night sky work, however (though it is probably fine for star trails).
As others have posted, it is possible to damage the lens, either by restraining the motion of the front section while attempting AF, or by bumping the front section hard.
I've had a copy for about 5 years, and it has traveled the world with me (North America, EU, Asia). Still kicking, no problems.
The bokeh on the 1.4 is *far* superior to the 1.8, and that alone is worth the upgrade. It is a wonderful lens for shallow-DoF portrait work, especially on an APS-C camera, where its focal length is right in the sweet spot for portraiture.
It is kind of a sore spot with me that Canon can't make a more mechanically robust and optically more refined 50mm lens that doesn't cost $1600. Ridiculous, actually. I'd gladly pay $600 for a non-L 50mm with non-extending optics and better correction of spherical aberration.
You might want to look into the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 for Canon. I think it is the sharpest, best corrected lens I've ever owned. The lack of auto-focus hasn't been a major issue.
You might want to look into the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 for Canon. I think it is the sharpest, best corrected lens I've ever owned. The lack of auto-focus hasn't been a major issue.
That's a good point... if a greater percentage of my 50mm use was in night sky or landscape use, the Zeiss might be a great option. Heck, for those uses, I'm always shooting with AF off anyway.
Most of my 50mm use, however, is in low-light indoor shooting where AF is a huge benefit. I couldn't justify an MF 50mm for just my night sky work.
