better than a nifty/50

KIPAX

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
21,426
Name
KIPAX Lancashire UK
Edit My Images
No
On a crop camera my 35mm f2 was perfect for ring sports such as boxing or kick boxing ect

Now I ahve a full frame the 35mm is too wide.. but the nifty/50 is perfect... however its slightly lacking in speed of af for example.. its a great lens but not as great at high ISO

Is there an eqivelant prime.. 50/60 but slightly better quality lens..
 
There are macro lenses at 60mm with an aperture of 2.8 (maybe not fast enough for you)

An f1.4 85mm prime is a nice portrait lens but maybe a bit long for your needs.

Well that's for nikon, perhaps there are canon equivalents.

Not sure why the lens affects AF speed, is that not down to your camera body?
 
Last edited:
Is your current nifty the f/1.8? Is the f/1.4 faster in terms of low light AF?
 
50, 28 and 20mm are probably the worst primes canon has. 50/1.8 is a total toy, frankly useless for what i do. I use 50/1.4 which is a big step up, still very far from perfect. 50/1.2L is am being told very problematic and not much better than 1.4. Sigma is a different problem, many bad copies around, and if you stop it down it wont sharpen up as quickly as canon. But if you are used to 35/2 I guess canon 50/1.4 can only be better.
 
Personally, I love my canon 50mm 1.4. But I use it for portraits on a crop sensor so not the same as you. Oddly, I was looking at the Sigma 30mm 1.4 as a "normal" lens I.e. 48mm equivalent.
Cheers

J
 
whilst the Sigma 50 1.4 optically is a great lens, I found the AF pretty frustrating for anything which moved. I've had two of them and neither were great - the AF was too inconsistent on my 5D2. I don't think it's any worse than the nifty fifty, but not really that much better. Not really, and not in the same league as the 35L, which focusses almost instantly and is very accurate.
 
Jayst84 said:
Looked at the Sigma 50 1.4? Supposed to be better than the Canon 1.4.
Click to expand...

I shot it and found it's AF to be dog slow compared to the canon, on a 1 series body too

daugirdas said:
50, 28 and 20mm are probably the worst primes canon has. 50/1.8 is a total toy, frankly useless for what i do. I use 50/1.4 which is a big step up, still very far from perfect. 50/1.2L is am being told very problematic and not much better than 1.4. Sigma is a different problem, many bad copies around, and if you stop it down it wont sharpen up as quickly as canon. But if you are used to 35/2 I guess canon 50/1.4 can only be better.
Click to expand...

inside the 50 1.8 you can see the cost cutting, things are so easy to break it's no wonder than every one I know who owns one has broke theirs- sometimes clean in half

the wobbly lens barrel on the 1.4 is killer though- i'd think about the 1.2 just for that reason, but the 1.2 is better 1.2>2.8 and the 1.4 is better above 2.8
as has been said the sigma is also optimised for shooting wide open, it doesn't get killer sharp even stopped down
 
Gary Coyle said:
Will the extra MP of the 1DX not allow you to crop to a similar size as the MKIV and still use the 35mm f/1.8
Click to expand...

am usualy at very high iso.. so fill the frame is still a requirement.. 35mm on full frame just a bit too wide... 50 was bob on but want somehting better af

canon 50 1.4 sounds right then... bet that costs a bomb
 
KIPAX said:
am usualy at very high iso.. so fill the frame is still a requirement.. 35mm on full frame just a bit too wide... 50 was bob on but want somehting better af

canon 50 1.4 sounds right then... bet that costs a bomb
Click to expand...

The 50 1.4 sounds like it will suit you fine, ignoring the sensationalism in the thread it's a very good lens with good fast af and won't break the bank second hand or refurbed from the canon outlet. I would definitely look at the sigma version though if I were you as again ignoring the sensationalism It's a cracker.
 
KIPAX said:
am usualy at very high iso.. so fill the frame is still a requirement.. 35mm on full frame just a bit too wide... 50 was bob on but want somehting better af

canon 50 1.4 sounds right then... bet that costs a bomb
Click to expand...

:lol: and 1dx was cheap in comparison to £250 lens :D
 
Canon's new lens strategy is bewildering. A new state of the art 50/1.4 L is very long overdue (it is rumoured to be coming) and meanwhile they put out 24mm, 28mm and 40mm f/2.8 lenses that nobody asked for, a fish-eye that nobody wants, 24-70mm f/4 L IS that fills an overlapping slot. Weird.

They're no doubt wonderful and welcome, but in terms of priorities, especially with full frame becoming more popular, Canon seems to be losing the plot :thinking:
 
My nifty 50 is ultra sharp..its pin sharp..can't fault it in that respect.. but in low light at boxing it can be a bit slow and iffy..but no quality problems..

Is the http://www.flashcamera.co.uk/canon-normal-ef-50mm-f-1-4-usm-autofocus-lens/ going to be worth the price upgrade? Am sorely tempted. I do a lot of boxing and 50mm on FF looks to be the one...


I htink i am typing and trying to convince myself at same time :)

PS very much dount i would use anyhting more open than 2.8
 
Last edited:
KIPAX said:
My nifty 50 is ultra sharp..its pin sharp..can't fault it in that respect.. but in low light at boxing it can be a bit slow and iffy..but no quality problems..

Is the http://www.flashcamera.co.uk/canon-normal-ef-50mm-f-1-4-usm-autofocus-lens/ going to be worth the price upgrade? Am sorely tempted. I do a lot of boxing and 50mm on FF looks to be the one...

I htink i am typing and trying to convince myself at same time :)

PS very much dount i would use anyhting more open than 2.8
Click to expand...

You must be mistaken the 1.8 is a useless flimsy toy that no pro would ever use?

I think you will see a good af improvement by going for the 1.4 it may have the slightly odd micro usm motor but it will still be quicker quieter and more reliable.
 
a1ex2001 said:
You must be mistaken the 1.8 is a useless flimsy toy that no pro would ever use?
Click to expand...

yes its flimsey and yes it feels like a toy... but its one of the sharpest lens in the bag and I ahve had great results with it in certain circumstances... but need to step it up for a particular sport..


a1ex2001 said:
I think you will see a good af improvement by going for the 1.4 it may have the slightly odd micro usm motor but it will still be quicker quieter and more reliable.
Click to expand...

Yes I am sold on it for combat sport... thanks everyone for the reccomendation :)
 
daugirdas said:
50, 28 and 20mm are probably the worst primes canon has. 50/1.8 is a total toy, frankly useless for what i do. I use 50/1.4 which is a big step up, still very far from perfect. 50/1.2L is am being told very problematic and not much better than 1.4. Sigma is a different problem, many bad copies around, and if you stop it down it wont sharpen up as quickly as canon. But if you are used to 35/2 I guess canon 50/1.4 can only be better.
Click to expand...

As usual I'd take almost everything you wrote with a large pinch of salt.

I actually own a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and I'm very happy with it, it's been perfect since it came out of the box and it's certainly sharp in the centre which is how it was designed to be.

I used to own a Canon 50mm f2.5 which I've read is Canon's sharpest 50mm and indeed one of their sharpest lenses and I found the Sigma to be at least a match at every aperture the f2.5 could match. The Sigma also focused quicker and more accurately (although focus speed is not the f2.5's strongest point.)
 
woof woof said:
As usual I'd take almost everything you wrote with a large pinch of salt.

I actually own a Sigma 50mm f1.4 and I'm very happy with it, it's been perfect since it came out of the box and it's certainly sharp in the centre which is how it was designed to be.

I used to own a Canon 50mm f2.5 which I've read is Canon's sharpest 50mm and indeed one of their sharpest lenses and I found the Sigma to be at least a match at every aperture the f2.5 could match. The Sigma also focused quicker and more accurately (although focus speed is not the f2.5's strongest point.)
Click to expand...

No one said it is a bad lens :wave: and I am not sure why you are so hung up on centre only. However there have been plenty of comments about AF which is not as good as could be, and Canon one does get sharper after f/2.8, agree? Is canon perfect? - No, very far from it... Can I not complain about it? Why the hell not?!!!

To keep you happy, I am probably getting the new sigma 35mm f/1.4. Finally they seem to have put their act together if we believe lensrentals.com blog
 
daugirdas said:
To keep you happy, I am probably getting the new sigma 35mm f/1.4. Finally they seem to have put their act together if we believe lensrentals.com blog
Click to expand...

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

There is a post I never thought I'd see! Looking forward to either some sigma love from you or a melt down when it disapoints.
 
Tony just buy the 50mm new, I bought 2nd hand and the AF failed the first time I put it on a body in anger £100+ repair bill from canon.
 
Just bought from kerso.. 275 quid should be here Tuesday.. have a big Boxing event on Fri night.. this lens will be for combat such as boxing kickboxing ect.. Can't see me ever using it for anythign else :)


Now to get rid of the 1.8 and this 28mm f2.8 both not required now :)
 
I wanted it for Boxing.. First proper go with it tonight... LOVE IT THANKS!

50mm.jpg
 
:lol: belting image :) shame you've got a touch of blur there, but I think that can be excused! At least "butterbean" has had his flu "jab" :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top