Canon 50mm f/1.4 sharpness

futureal33

futureal33

Messages
2,390
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Considering changing my 50mm 1.8 for the 1.4 version, but concerned at the comments about its lack of sharpness at f1.4

I am fairly confident at sharpening images, using several actions within photoshop and also a plugin purely for sharpening - I tend to apply a different level of sharpening to all my images, and have never been unhappy with the sharpness after inducing some PP sharpening, and this is with a variety of lenses.

I am just wondering how the 50mm 1.4 fares after some Photoshop sharpening? Is it still soft?

I would be using it with a 5Dmk2.

Ideally I would rather the Sigma, but the Canon is a lot more available.

If anyone could post up a sample 100% crop of the 50mm 1.4 wide open that would be appreciated, ideally with and without sharpening to see the difference?

Thank you in advance :)
 
Hi Nick,

I've posted a couple of shots HERE that were taken with the Canon 50mm f1.4.

If I get a chance later, I'll do a couple of 100% crops for you. In all honesty, I'm pretty happy with the results this lens produces. Sharpness definitely improves once it's stopped down a little but even though f1.4 is a bit 'dreamy', I think it adds to the overall feel of the image. :)

Hope that helps,
Si
 
Here you go. Perhaps not as sharp as it might be, given it was hand held and panned at 1/50 and is an unprocessed 5D2 raw file at 100%, but it's a start.

20120125_125925_000.jpg


This is perhaps a fairer example, at 1/8000 on my 1D3, and does show the dreamy effect when wide open....

20120125_130427_000.jpg


But the dreaminess largely disappears when you resize to more conventional viewing sizes. This has output sharpening applied, but is otherwise left unadjusted.....

20090924_102813_2985_LR.jpg
 
The 1.8 isn't at it's best wide open, it is the same with the 1.4.

Certainly usable images in anyones book.
 
The Canon 50mm 1.4 is sharp (especially when comparing to zooms) but it is not as sharp as the Sigma 50mm 1.4 and it is not as sharp as the L-primes. So don't worry, it's still a good lens!!
 
futureal33 said:
Tim, those look pretty sharp to my eyes I must admit!

By dreamyness do you mean like a classic soft focus and slight haze?
Click to expand...

I guess so. Compared to my 85/1.8 wide open or my 135/2 there is a softness to the 50/1.4 which is not down to misfocus.

Here's an example from my 85/1.8 wide open on my 7D, so the 7D 100% crop is more demanding than the 5D2 crop....

20120125_133143_000.jpg


And one from my 135/2 on my 5D2 once more....

20120125_133303_000.jpg


I'm sure they could all be improved with a little PP, but the 50/1.4 is definitely at a disadvantage wide open as a starting point.

Of course, a fairer test would be to shoot the same subject in the same light, at the same relative distance for the focal length and then make the comparisons. But then do you compare them all at f/2 or all wide open? It depends on what question you want to answer. The better comparison would be with other 50/1.4 lenses, but I only have the one.
 
The f/1.4 version becomes super sharp at f/2.2 from corner to corner - that is the reason to buy one. At f/1.4 it has plenty of coma and spherical aberrations making it look dreamy, but underneath the glowing look it is sharp. Hence, I wouldn't buy one if you need to use it specifically at f/1.4, however it is light years better than f/1.8 at all apertures.
Sadly for us Nikon version is way sharper still. Stop dreaming about Sigma and L as they are actually lenses full of compromises (mainly sharpness and drifting focus) to make them fast with nice bokeh. It depends what your priorities are, but I personally can't accept soft lenses.
 
i don't think its fair to compare the performance of a 1.4 lens wide open to the performance of a f2 lens or a 1.8 lens for that matter....
 
What is the Canon 50mm f1.4 like at low light focussing?

Im sure I read somewhere that it struggles in low light?

I have a 50mm 1.8 but must admit that I don't get the dreamyness of the above photo from the 1.4 version... My 1.8 is as also accecptably sharp at f1.8 - certainly sharp enough to shoot wide open with it whenever possible.
 
Edit - I used to own the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which is well known for having focus issues, and not being massively sharp at 1.4
However I must have got lucky as mine had none of these problems....


Christy Allan by futureal33, on Flickr


Hence why I am now looking at getting its big brother, the 50mm 1.4 - but countless reports of focus issues have pointed me in the direction of the Canon alternative... but this gets a lot of comments about its sharpness wide open!

And around we go!
 
daugirdas said:
Stop dreaming about Sigma and L as they are actually lenses full of compromises (mainly sharpness and drifting focus) to make them fast with nice bokeh. It depends what your priorities are, but I personally can't accept soft lenses.
Click to expand...

The Siggy may have a compromise or two but I've yet to see a single review in which the Canon f1.4 beats it :D But...

With lenses like this I think that the bokeh and the overall look is much more important than any critical sharpness so although I personally went for the Siggy I could understand anyone going for the Canon if they liked the look better. Sharpness is a little overrated IMVHO.
 
woof woof said:
The Siggy may have a compromise or two but I've yet to see a single review in which the Canon f1.4 beats it :D But...

With lenses like this I think that the bokeh and the overall look is much more important than any critical sharpness so although I personally went for the Siggy I could understand anyone going for the Canon if they liked the look better. Sharpness is a little overrated IMVHO.
Click to expand...

Alan, I agree with you on this...with the caviat that the lens must be acceptably sharp and respond well to post production sharpening.

As an owner of the lens I really want (the Siggy 50mm 1.4) could you possibly post up any unprocessed an then processed images, wide open with this lens? Preferably portraits to determine sharpness of an eye etc...

Thank you if you can :)
 
Oh God now you're asking... :D

I don't catalogue my images so it's down to remembering what shot I took with what lens at what aperture :thinking: Plus, TBH I very rarely post people shots without getting approval first. It might be easier for me to run off a few test shots... Give me some time and I'll get something...
 
I bought a Canon f1.4 last October and I despite hardly using it, when I have it has been sharp even wide open. I have however succumbed to purchasing the 85mm f1.2 so will be interesting to compare the different traits of each.
 
In my experience the Canon 50/1.4 focusing is not very precise or repeatable. It's better than the 50/1.8, which is awful, but not as good as you might wish if you are regularly shooting with shallow DOF. The lens might be able to claim USM focusing, but it is not RING USM like the proper lenses and has too much slop in the system to be precise. This is borne out by the results during AF calibration by myself and other 50/1.4 users and in real world results. To demonstrate the issue here are two plots of image sharpness vs AF microadjustment value when calibrating my bodies and lenses. The first is from the 50/1.4, which is all over the map and basically almost random. The second is from my 85/1.8, which shows an almost perfect plot of improving sharpness as the AF microadjustment reaches the optimum value.

50/1.4 plot
20111224_110001_000.png


85/1.8 plot
20111224_111713_000.png


If you're happy to make 10" prints from a full frame image, without cropping, then it might be good enough most of the time. If you want to make bigger enlargements, including pixel peeping, then you might be disappointed.

AIUI the Sigma lens has proper HSM focusing and should be very precise. The problem should only be where you have a calibration mismatch between body and lens. Once that is resolved you should be able to expect superb perfirmance.

I used to own the 50/1.8 and found the IQ to be good (apart from bokeh) but the AF to be dreadful. For the money I do not consider that the EF 50/1.4 improves on the performance and build sufficiently. Knowing what I know now I wish I'd just gone for the Sigma instead, although as I use the 50/1.4 so rarely I might as well have stayed with the 50/1.8, warts and all. Bottom line - you get what you pay for.
 
futureal33 said:
Alan, that would be fantastic if you didnt mind :)

Deep down I know I want the Sigma really... its just the focus issue that puts me off!
Click to expand...

Well, you pay your money and take your chance... :D

Here's a little test at f1.4, my 5D, hand held...

The whole scene...

IMG_8758.jpg


100% crop with focus on the "g" in "boarding." Bounced in and out of CS5 with whatever defaults it sets...

IMG_8757c.jpg


This is the same shot with a slight boost to contrast and saturation and a mild "Smart Sharpen." I don't normally sharpen my shots but as this is going via photobucket I have this time. I've done nothing to correct CA. I've haven't optimised these for web posting as, frankly, I don't know how to :D so if you want the RAW files just let me know and I'll email them to you.

IMG_8757cp.jpg


This lens gives a little "blooming" around light sourses, bright and reflective things so I thought I'd try and show it by focusing on "CE." 100% crop...

IMG_8758c.jpg


Slight boost to contrast, saturation and mild "Smart Sharpen."

IMG_8758cp.jpg


Blooming goes away as you stop down.

As I said, if you want the RAW's you can have them.
 
Last edited:
Just for fun... a more realistic f3.2... whole image and 100% crop...

IMG_8455.jpg


IMG_8455c.jpg
 
Never had a sharp shot at f1.4 but i think that is to do with me shooting mostly sport in low light so my ISO is usually cranked up. Lens is defiantly sharper then the 1.8 version though worth the upgrade.
 
futureal33 said:
Alan,
Thank you for doing those - they look super sharp for f1.4! Very impressed!!
I see the "blooming" do you think that would go away with some CA adjustment?

Thank you very much for posting :)
Nick
Click to expand...

Firstly, you are welcome.

Secondly, CA... Well, I don't think there's anyone here who isn't better at post capture processing than me, so I'd say that some improvement may be possible. In CS5 moving the "CA slider" has no effect what so ever so I assume that you'd have to download a lens profile, or something :thinking:

I'm pretty sure that someone else (who knows what they're talking about) could chip in on the CA issue. I never bother as I rarely do more than very mild cropping and it's very rarely an issue in a full or nearly full image at the sizes I view and print.
 
tdodd said:
In my experience the Canon 50/1.4 focusing is not very precise or repeatable. It's better than the 50/1.8, which is awful, but not as good as you might wish if you are regularly shooting with shallow DOF. ...

I used to own the 50/1.8 and found the IQ to be good (apart from bokeh) but the AF to be dreadful. For the money I do not consider that the EF 50/1.4 improves on the performance and build sufficiently. Knowing what I know now I wish I'd just gone for the Sigma instead, although as I use the 50/1.4 so rarely I might as well have stayed with the 50/1.8, warts and all. Bottom line - you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

That's strange. I guess it is down to the AF mechanism. The hit rate with 1DsII 50/1.4 is very high, definitely no worse than 85/1.8.

I remember trying another one on 40D and it was a misery. The 50/1.8 is a total fail though - the focusing path is too short and crude to be of any real use (and horible bokeh). Build is very poor of both. Mine does the job so I'll wait for the mk2 version from Canon.

woof woof said:
Well, you pay your money and take your chance... :D

Here's a little test at f1.4, my 5D, hand held...
Click to expand...

Cool, now let's see something sharp near the corners. Very frequently my subject is NOT dead in the centre or is across the whole frame (stopped down of course)
 
daugirdas said:
Cool, now let's see something sharp near the corners. Very frequently my subject is NOT dead in the centre or is across the whole frame (stopped down of course)
Click to expand...

I use a 20D or a 5D and if I'm focusing away from the centre area and too far for a minimal crop I usually do it manually.

Although I don't mind posting the odd example or test shot if I have the time to either look through my pc or shoot examples there are other sources of examples such as the usual review / test sites. All I can say is that the Siggy 50mm f1.4 is fine by me and after that you lot can make your own minds up :D
 
Pretty sure that half of the people moaning about the 50 1.4 being soft actually just have terrible technique and aren't used to how shallow the depth of field it gives is, so moan that their photos are soft when actually they're just rocking back and forth or breathing in/out when taking the shot...
 
itsdavedotnet said:
Pretty sure that half of the people moaning about the 50 1.4 being soft actually just have terrible technique and aren't used to how shallow the depth of field it gives is, so moan that their photos are soft when actually they're just rocking back and forth or breathing in/out when taking the shot...
Click to expand...

:agree:

I'm with you on this one... I've lost count of the number of shots I've lost due to poor technique or 'influences outside of my control'! ;)

I've only had my 50mm f1.4 for a couple of days but I know damned well that the duffers I've taken so far have been my fault. Granted, it's a bi dreamy wide open but it's certainly tack sharp once it's stopped down a bit.

Best advice I can give anyone is to stick the lens on your camera and get out there and shoot it... It's a lens, not a laboratory tool! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top