Prime Deficiencies for Canon full frame and 1.6X

There are MF Zeiss lenses and Nikons, M42x1 and other mounts that can be adapted to Canon. Yet IMO 50/1.4 and 35/1.4 are wonderful lenses...
But...instead of "searching the web" you might want to rent/borrow the lenses you are interested in and see for yourself. There are so many bullshit opinions floating around the 'net about Canon lenses that it is nearly impossible to fish out anything even remotely resembing truth.

Stop reading all the garbage that floats around on the web. The Canon 50 1.4 is a good lens, if you want to give the Sigma a try go ahead - you can always return it or get it adjusted by Sigma.

I had a similar problem when researching for the purchase of a "fast 50".

I was wary about the EF 50/1.4 because of the reports, on the various forums and test sites, about the AF system failures and lack of sharpness etc.

The alternatives were either way out of my price range, or, had flaws (again, according to the forums and test sites).

I finally bought the EF 50.1.4 and couldn't be happier.

Some time after I bought it, one of the review sites (SLRgear.com) retested the EF 50/1.4. Their initial test was a big reason why I didn't buy this lens to begin with. They gave it a much better rating the second time around:

http://www.slrgear.com/articles/variation_canon50f14/canon50f14.htm

If you live in the USA or in Canada, you can rent a huge variety of lenses from these folks:

http://www.lensrentals.com/for-canon

...including 1/2 doz or so different "fast 50s" in Canon EF mount. That should take some of the mystery out of the "which lens for me" question.

If you buy a lens and want to determine if it is a good copy when you receive it, Bob Atkins has a good test here:

http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/testing.html

Cheers! Jay

The 50 F1.4 is a lens most people should own but it is not a great lens. It is fairly soft until F2 but from there on the quality is good. On full frame the 85 F1.8 is probably the best (low price) portrait prime. The 85 F1.8 on the 5DII (or similar) outperforms the 50 F1.4 on the 7D. I don't have the EF 35 F2 but I do have FD version and the FD 35 F2 is a good lens. Obviously the L series lenses are better but that is what you pay for. Personally I find a 50mm equivalent lens a bit short for portrait use. If you cannot afford the 85 F1.2 then the 85 F1.8, 100 F2 and the 100 F2.8 macro all make reasonable alternatives. The 135 f2 is also a great lens but I find it a bit long for portrait use. You can also try the Zeiss 85 F1.4 which is MF only but cheaper than the 85 F1.2 canon - but I have not used this lens.

My 50 1.4 is razor sharp, even wide open if used correctly. I do have issues with the focus. I find it hunts more then any other lens I own, its not terrible just not as good as a USM lens. Overall still a good buy and I have been happy with it.

The only thing "wrong" with the Canon 1.4 50 is that it does not have a ring USM. Its performance is good. At f1.4 it is softish but good for portraits (flattering), it is better at f2 and very sharp at f2.8. This is not aberrant behavior - it is absolutely typical for f1.4 fast 50s. The Zeiss ZE is no great shakes at f1.4 either. The 50L is better but it is no better stopped down below f2.8.

Dennis,

I own the 35f2.0, 50f1.4, and 100f2.0.

Here's my review: They are all fine lenses. All are well suited to portraiture. The 100mm is spectacular. The 50mm is excellent. The 35mm is quite good to excellent, and unless you really, really need the f1.4 L lens, this lens will save you a lot of money...probably enough to buy the 50 1.4 and the 100 2.0.

The one issue is the focus mechanism of the 50mm lens. Mine got sticky (the inner barrel rubbed the outer barrel), but it's been fine since Canon repaired it under warrantee.

In my work, I've worked with some of the most expensive lenses ever made for photography, and these lenses will make you very happy as long as you stop reading a lot of "reviews" on the internet. All these lenses are certainly as good as the "L" zooms that cover the same focal lengths, if not better.

My 50 f1.4 is very good. I have run several focus tests on it and it passes every time, even at f1.4. For a portrait lens on FF I find it works very well. Here I was messing about with HSS wireless flash at f1.8. I would point out that the focus point was very squarely on the sharpest part of the skin next to the eye, however the lower eyelashes are perfectly in focus. The top crop is untouched, the lower one has a quick sharpen to it. Most tests on the Sigma show it to be sharper in the corners than the Canon but less sharp in the center, if I was shooting documents at f1.4 the Sigma might be interesting, but I don't, so it isn't.

Stop reading all the garbage that floats around on the web.

This is a great point. Most of the lens "tests" are irrelevant for what people do with their photos. I have used both the 50/1.4 and the 35/2 for years, had photos published, done prints in shows, and never had anyone say "Gee that looks soft." Usually, technique, especially lighting, has far more to do with how sharp or unsharp something looks. And in many photos, that last bit of sharpness may not be particularly relevant. The only problem I have is that my first 35/2 self-destructed after three years, so I bought a second one. And I agree that focus isn't as quick with either as it is with most L lenses, but that's more of an issue in the dark (which is usually where I shoot) than at most times.

I shot a whole night recently with just the 35/2, here's something from that.

Ruby Ruin