canon ef 50 mm f1.4 - limitations and applications

1) A lot if not most of the damage is by bumping the front element, so just put the OEM hood on it and leave it there.

2) After focus is achieved in non-servo mode, you can adjust focus by just turning the focus ring, just like your 100mm and zoom can. Try it.

3)Yes, all of above, but greatest strength probably in museum and kids in your example.

4)Yes, but not that great magnification for macro, but you have your 100mm for that.

5)Yes, depend on the action might be a bit too short.Don't worry about the AF capability. It's quite fast.

I purchased the 50 1.4 used and so far I never had a problem. The only real issue I ever seem to have is with the micro USM where I feel it focus hunts a little more then my L's but other then that its still my favorite lens of all.

I hear the 1.8 is just about as good so I think either one will do the job for you just fine.

I had the 50/1.4 and did not like it. While BQ is better than the 50/1.8, it was not as good as the 28/1.8 or 85/1.8. If I was today set of having a 50mm lens and did not have the money for the 50/1.2 I'd go for the Sigma 50/1.4. According to all tests and user reports I've read it has better AF and better BQ than the Canon 50/1.4.

That said, after reading the link below I'd check it meticulously to make absolutely sure I got a good copy.

http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.09.12/the-sigma-saga

Last word: BQ is mostly a parameter of how the lens feels in your hands and nothing more. I had one copy of the 50/1.8 for 12 years without a single fault. It's the longest time I had a copy of any lens.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

Sigma 50/1.4 is a tank, has HSM (=USM) and is sharper at larger apertures. But don't worry too much about EF 50/1.4, I haven't even broken the 50/1.8 which is a total plastic nightmare (nice pics though).

Portraits, kids in action, low light indoors - works fine.

Don't set the lens with the front element facing down, the damage often comes when someone has pushed it in manually. the lens can be used for any subject, but i think its a bit narrow for most architectual applications. my 50mm 1.4 was a lot better than my 28mm 1.8.... it is a very good lens.

I'm one that had the 50/1.4 autofocus fail without any trauma. I bought it new. It worked flawlessly for about a year and a half. I thought the people who complained must be smoking drugs they weren't sharing with the rest of us. And then one day, in the middle of a shoot, it stopped. Literally, one second the AF worked. The next, it didn't. No trauma. No pushing in the front element. It was in my hands at the time of failure, and it was sudden.

I don't trust it now.

Eric

I used an EF 50 1.4 USM for many years without AF failure. It's main problem was it searched and refused to lock AF in low light--light my EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM nailed without a whimper.

1) Most of the failures I have read about, have a front-on impact story behind them. Dropping the lens dosen`t help it either. There is a ``reported issue`` floating around the net of an internal (plastic part) wearing out. Mine has been OK for 4 years now. 2) It means you can turn the manual focus ring to achieve focus whilst still having the Focus selector switch set to ``AF``

3) I use my 50mm F1.4 (on a 5D) for all of those applications: a bit long for some architecture, and bit short my taste in portraits. A monopod or micro tripod might be useful for museum work.

4) Yes those three applications. A bit too short for most ``wild`` wildlife, but very nice for the family cat. It works well with extension ring(s) for macro, but that might be silly, in most general cases, as you have a 100F2.8 Macro.

5) Yes, good for that.

***

Basically the 50mm F1.4 is a fast ``normal`` lens for a 135 format camera. Many great pictures by many famous photographers have been taken using around 50mm Focal Length lens on a 135 format film camera.

BTW: Do not be fooled by the F1.8MkII version feeling ``plastic``, it produces fine images. I have used both the F1.4 and F1.8MkII Canon 50mm lenses, but prefer the F1.4.

I have not used the Sigma lens, mentioned.

WW

I have used both the 50 1.8 II and the 1.4. I owned them both for a while and kept the 1.4. Auto-focus seems faster and I like the pictures better. The 1.4 lives on my 30D while the 17-55 IS lives on the 50D.

>> It's main problem was it searched and refused to lock AF in low light--light my EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM nailed without a whimper.

It's not the first time I hear this. I sold my 50/1.4 too quickly to properly test this but I have noticed the same phenomena in my 70-300 IS. My guess is that ring-USM is somehow related to this.

>> Most of the failures I have read about, have a front-on impact story behind them.

I guess we are not reading the same things... :-) The most common hypothesis I read about is that the application of FTM within micro-USM is problematic.

>> Auto-focus seems faster

I have not noticed that. I tested my second copy of 50/1.8 directly against the 50/1.4 and found they are neck-to-neck when it comes to AF speed and accuracy. The only advantage I found is that the 50/1.4 was more quiet.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

>> >> Most of the failures I have read about, have a front-on impact story behind them. I guess we are not reading the same things... :-) The most common hypothesis I read about is that the application of FTM within micro-USM is problematic. <<

No.

I think we are talking the same language, Yakim.

The bit I referred to about the plastic part wearing out, is the FTMF / micro motor bit you refer to.

I did put that as a secondary issue and kind of alluded to it being: ``questionable`` only because the references I have read:

1. do not exclude a bang or drop, and,

2. I use FTMF quite a lot on my 50mmF1.4, and I use my 50mm lens quite a lot.

But I do NOT engage manual focus whilst the AF is running, but rather only ever turn the focus ring only after ensuring the AF is NOT running, and thumb is well away from AF (set to `*`).

Thus far I have had zero problems.

Maybe I have been lucky, and hopefully, I have not jinxed myself.

WW

>> Maybe I have been lucky, and hopefully, I have not jinxed myself.

I hope you haven't but have you read what Eric wrote above? :-)

Happy shooting, Yakim.

Yes I did, and before I wrote anything, too. And I was not intending to offend Eric, either.

If there was any honest ``ignoring`` Eric`s comments on my part, please put it down to me acting much like the proverbial ostrich.

But on the other hand my 5D`s shutter mechanism completely failed at image 163 . . . and that left a stale taste, so I understand Eric`s view of ALL 50mm/F1.4.

IMO, it is quite difficult to get a real handle on the actual % of ``genuine`` faults.

***

My Psychic says I should not discuss this matter any more . . . as I do like my 50/F1.4

:)

WW

Acting like the proverbial ostrich? I only hope that you have a good looking behind.... :-)

Happy shooting, Yakim.

As I've reported previously on this forum, I bought a very cheap s/h 50/1.4 that proved to have the AF problem (but was otherwise fine) and I had it repaired by Fixation in London. The repair was not cheap, but the total cost still made it a worthwhile purchase. The technician explained to me what he had done, which was indeed to replace internal plastic components that are unique in design to this lens because of the combination of micro-USM and FTM. That's the weak point, and there's no doubt about it. In normal gentle use I suspect that failure is quite rare, but the weak point is very vulnerable to quite minor bumps, and it is plausible that bumping the moving part of the lens from the front is very bad news.

PS My regards to your Psychic, Bill. I'm sure he told you I would contribute to this thread.

It is the fine detail in many things, which I find so sweet.

I was indeed waiting for a comment, thank you.

Regards back to you,

Bill

Which begs the obvious question: Why haven't Canon made a 50/1.4 Mk II with ring-USM and IF/RF design like the 28/1.8 USM and 85/1.8 USM? Why must we go to Sigma to get this or spend a fortune on the 50/1.2?

Canon, just a note: Nikon has done just that....

Happy shooting, Yakim.

Hi,
I will not answer the "will it break when using it" aspects, as I use mine quite often and it never failed me.
So, I will try to answer the other questions:
I use it for portraits or whenever I need a shallow DOF, also for landscapes, when seperating an interesting foreground element from the background. Actually, mine also focuses fine in bad light and also does not fail me, when chasing kids with the camera :) (although outdoors i prefer something longer)
Regards,
André

I had mine fail, after it got squeezed (I think pressed is too strong a word) in my camera case.

The a/f is pretty dreadfully slow, compared to some of the other canon lenses, but it's a good aperture for the price.

I own this lens.

"1) In view of it having a micro usm motor, are there any specific precautions I need to follow to avoid damaging it? (anything on focussing or other limitations)"

Nothing really.

"2) what is full time manual focus? I am used to switching focussing lens on usm lens for getting manual focus"

While the lens is in autofocus mode this feature allows you to simply use the manual focus ring without switching into manual focus mode. In other words, both mode are simultaneously available.

"Can I use the lens for... street photography, architecture, photography in museums , portraits of kids?"

Of course.

"4) Is there any other subject that I can use this lens for? I also shoot nature, wildlife, macro."

I don't really understand this question. You can use any lens for any subject if it is the right lens for the shot.

"5) can I use this for taking portraits of kids? kids in action ( any restraints with the focussing)?"

Sure.

Dan

I bought a bad one. The motor needed to be replaced, which I had done by Canon Thailand for $100. Awesome lens in every other respect, especially when used at the wide open end.

I also have the lens and love it for low DOF portraiture (currently using on a 30D, so it's similar to what the 85 f1.8 would be on a FF) and for demo'ing DOF to the classes I teach, since so many folks nowadays are shooting with a max. aperture of 4.5 and a small sensor, and so have a harder time with it.

A question about the focus-hunting issue (which i notice as well) does part of it have to do with this lens's large max. aperture, that target it's trying to hit is so small? (ie a lens with max. aperture of 2.8 is going to have more wiggle-room in finding the 'in focus' point than the f1.4 one is) Seems to make sense, but I'd be curious to find out opinions on that.

I guess testing it vs. the f1.2 would answer the question, but I... ...seem to have misplaced mine somehow. grin.

The autofocus on my 50/1.4 did fail. FWIW, I do tend to keep it face-down in my top-loading SLR bag. It was repaired by Canon under warranty at no charge.

Aside from that I have no complaints at all. It's my favorite EOS lens and gets a lot of use.The build quality seems very, very similar to the 85/1.8 and the 28/1.8. Image quality is excellent. Autofocus does hunt sometimes in very low light, but that's a challenging situation and I suspect that it's due to the camera as much as the lens.

William:

No offense taken. Like I said, before it happened to me, I tended to discount the anecdotal tales I heard. And mine is anecdotal, as well. Maybe it was just bad luck. It was just very weird when one moment a lens works and the next it doesn't, and then I search online and I find that there are known issues with the autofocus parts.

It's a shame, because when it worked, it produced lovely images. I'm tempted by the 50/1.2. :)

Eric

> Acting like the proverbial ostrich? I only hope that you have a good looking behind.... :-) <

:) that comment cracked me up. :)

***

Eric:

More seriously, thanks for taking the time to add that comment.

I could not bring myself to the 50/F1.2, when I could have the 50/F1.4 and the 24/F1.4L for the about the same price.

***

This thread is nicely tempered: some decorum and some . . . less so . . . but equally with good intent.

What a nice community we are.

WW

Helmut Newton was using this lens, just get it ;)

It's a great lens... fair price, but most importantly it has excellent glass at a non-"L" series price. I use it as my "walk-around-lens" when I get tired of "humping" my 24 - 70 f/2.8L beast around.

Great Glass... MUCH better then the 1.8.

Ciao'

Frank

I had the nifty 50 and it is good glass but grinds away. I thought I lost the f/1.8 at a shoot and bought the f/1.4. The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a quality lens, silent focus and very good quality. I have used this lens at many races for driver/rider portraits and closeup shots in the paddock. This lens focused fast for panning IRL, ALMS and motorcycles when I was very close to the action at high speeds. It's not an L lens but it performs like one.

In low light the 1.8 hunts, I have not had problems with the 1.4. The 1.4 exceeded my expectations shooting night racing at Infineon (NHRA) and Laguna Seca (ALMS). I also liked the shallow DOF on closeup detail shots at the Monterey Historic races.

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 is worth the extra money over the 1.8.

>> I'm tempted by the 50/1.2. :)

Unfortunately, it too has had it share of AF problems, especially at close range. Also, due to it's unique design its AF speed is not top-notch, as one might expect from a lens at this aperture and price tag. When toggling between the 50/1.2 and 35/1.4 about a year ago these were eventually the decisive factors for me.

Happy shooting, Yakim.

Get the lens and try it for yourself. It's not expensive and the worst that can happen is you use it a few months, decide you don't like it and sell it for most of what you paid.

My 50/1.4 was bought used about 6 years ago. I have no idea how hard it was used before I got it, but it's not had all that easy a life since. No glitches or problems (knock on wood). AF is fine. Image quality and AF speed are close to my 85/1.8 and 28/1.8. I tend to stop it to f2 at least, where it starts to sharpen up nicely. It's always nice to know there's an extra stop there if I need it.

I have not used the new Sigma. Most of what I've read is that you can expect it to be sharper than the Canon wide open, the two are pretty comparable between f2.8 and f5.6, then the Sigma starts to go softer at f8 or smaller apertures. Sort of the opposite of the Canon. So, I suppose it depends in part on how you shoot, which one you'd choose. If you shoot wide open a lot of the time, then the Sigma might be the better choice. If you tend to stop down more often, then the Canon would be the lens to get.

I recommend the matching lens hood.

Maybe the Sigma now on the market will light a fire under Canon to finally get this lens updated.

I've not had any problems with mine. AF fast in all light and quite accurate. Great IQ, especially for shallow DOF applications. The new Sigma appears to be slightly better for a bit more money from what I have read, but not worth trading up. One of the things I like about the EF 50 f1.4 is its compact size and the Sigma is substantially larger.

Sample high resolution images at: http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/canon_ef_50_hires

The Canon 50 f/1.4 is a great lens for me, with now problems for me after a year of moderate used. On a cropped body it makes a great portrait lens. I shoot mainly wide open as I love the look of the out of focus areas in the background - pretty nice bokeh. Not a Leica bokeh but still nice. If I could affor one I would purchase the 50 f/1.2 - a really nice lens.

Even though the 50 f/1.8 is inexpensive I think the 50 f/1.4 is a better optic. I purchased mine new, BTW as most used prices I've seem aren't much lower than the new price.

I protect the front element with a very high quality UV O filter and lens hood.

Thanks all for your time and responses. I also liked the humour on the ostrich proverb . :)

Hi Sanjay,

50mm f/1.4 is a very good portrait lens. Its lightweight, easy to carry around and good in low light (I prefer generally to shoot w/o flash). What I like most about it is the color, contrast and bokeh. See http://picasaweb.google.com/shubhankaray

If you have a full frame camera, then this lens should suffice for street photography as well. For a smaller sensor you might have to go for something in the 35mm range.

50mm f/1.4 certainly has its limitations. I wasn't very successful with it in concerts. There is just too much flare...but perhaps this can be reduced to some extent with a hood.

Regards, Shubhankar

My EF 50/1.4 auto-focus failed on me one-day. I think it might have been me holding the focus ring while pressing the shutter button. I was told that it really isn't full-time manual focus, so the stress of me holding the focus ring could have broke something.

Anyway ... sent it to Canon for repair (under warranty). Got it back and it seems sharper than before I sent it in.

Has anyone done a side by side test of the canon 50mm 1.4 and the sigma 50mm 1.4 : Thanks for the info:

Hi photo zone has tested both and when looking at the MTF charts the sigma is i bit better at F1.4 at the edge but at F5.6 the sigma is sharper at the center of the frame and the canon sharper at the edge and the sigma has not as good performance with C A (purple fringing) as the canon so i think optically both lenses are very good and average out to be the same, definitely wont notice any difference in practice , apart from the C A with the sigma which will still be lower than 99% of zooms as for build quality its to early to know if the sigma has any problems. Also you have to remember that its a chance of camerincompatterbilty with the sigma with f body's to be released i have a lovely sigma 24mm F2.8 super wide mk2 that will not work with any thing newer than a D60 and most sigma more than 3 to 4 yeas oild can have this prablem links to the to test below hope this helps Dave http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/159-canon-ef-50mm-f14-usm-test-report--review http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/392-sigma_50_14_canon

I've shot a few thousand indoor action shots of grade school volleyball and basketball with 1.6 crop camera and the EF 50mm f1.4 lens. I started with the metal version of the F1.8 but the focus was too slow and I really needed a bigger aperture for the dimly lit gyms. (Flash photography is considered rude if not flat out forbidden at these events.) The f1.4 version seems to focus faster than the f1.8.

Because I had a press pass (school paper) I was very close to the action. (Always talk to the refs and coaches before the games about where you can be.) If I had to be in the stands I would have gone for an 85 or 100mm and missed about 10% of shots due to the lighting in some gyms. But these lenses get great shots in the better lit gyms.

Except for an Olympus 35-100mm f2.0 zoom ($2000+) I don't know of any zooms that are useful for indoor sports under these conditions: bad light, no flash, maximum ISO 1600, and wanting to freeze action. The 50mm is my main lens. I have a 70-200mm f4L for track and field and cross country -wish I could afford the f2.8 version for more control of depth of field, but that's in the future.

Check out "Lens Rentals" so you can experiment and see how a lens works for you. I fell in love with the 100mm f2.0 lens after renting one for a few weeks. For volleyball games I'd switch between the 50mm and the 100mm to get a better variety of shots. (With the 100mm I could shoot from back court.) The players really pop-out when you've got a wide open big aperture lens.