Canon 50mm f/1.8 STM?

LongLensPhotography

LongLensPhotography

Th..th..that's all folks!
Messages
17,609
Name
LongLensPhotography
Edit My Images
No
I couldn't say I'm getting absolutely the most of my 5ds with 24-70mm f/2.8 II at the said focal length for my landscapes. It's fine and very convenient, but for some reason not ideal towards the edges. Canon has once said it is 100% so we'll have to leave it at that. Likewise 35mm Sigma ART also destroys it pixel for pixel.

Would I be happy with this for some landscapes and an occasional close-up details shot or environmental portrait? (Say at f/5.6-9 and 2.8-2.0, respectively).

What I am really looking for is clinical sharpness and reasonable enough build quality, the bokeh is a very distant secondary concern as it will be stopped down most of the time.

I know Sigma ART is a better lens, but do I need to spend this much when it won't be really used wide open for the most part and the end of life of the EF mount is another story.

I guess I'd like to primarily hear from landscape, architecture and product shooters with high MP bodies please.

edit / addendum:

---------------------

I have now received the lens and it looks a like good & clean copy so I'll share my first quick observations for the major aperture settings on 50MP Canon 5Ds:

Sharpness:

f/1.8 - the centre has decent sharpness, but the contrast is low and purple fringing is very prominent. Corners are very soft. It is essentially for emergency use only.
f/2.8 - a big improvement in contrast and sharpness in the mid-areas, but towards the edges it remains soft. It would be OK for portrait or close up shot if carefully framed and focused.
f/4 - it starts looking really good here although corners are OK but not perfect. I would prefer this over camera shake or noisier shot at f/5.6, otherwise go up. On 2XMP this should be excellent.
f/5.6-8 - no complaints, sharp throughout.

Bokeh:
Avoid highlights, shoot fairly open aperture and it will be acceptable. Highlights are transformed into bright circles with an even brighter outline which in my opinion looks awful. I don't care much about that so that's for general information only.

Focusing:
For anyone coming from USM-powered lenses the first difference to note is fly-by-wire operation. The ring triggers internal motor that turns the optics inside. That means it has some lag and less precision.
AF is slightly more noisy than USM but nowhere near as intrusive as the old screw motor. AF precision seems to be good enough from around f/2.8 or f/4 but it appears to be going slightly back and forward all the time in AI-servo mode and can't completely makes its mind up, and it appears like its going in bigger steps than USM. This means expect things to be a little out of focus at already soft f/1.8 setting. So that's another reason to stop it down.

Video:
I don't know and don't really care to be honest but I will do the basics particularly if softer look is desirable. Mediocre bokeh, slower AF and purple fringing would put me off a little personally and I'd get my 24-70mm every time (or opt for Sigma ART).

Conclusion:

I think this ticks the boxes as a landscape lens and it performs really well from f/5.6 (or f/4 on lower MP bodies). Considering size and weight it is a good backup for other lenses to have in the kit bag, and may be the go to lens for when critical sharpness is required at around 50mm.
The main advantage over Sigma art is the price and tiny footprint, ie, I don't have to think if I have space left in the bag to take it.
 
Last edited:
If you want clinical sharpness on a repeatable basis using a £3k camera, I'm not sure I would consider a £100 lens suitable. It's built to a budget so the build quality will be such that you can't guarantee perfect centering etc. The high-pixel count bodies certainly need the best possible lenses, but also best possible technique to guarantee perfect sharpness every time.
 
I had the tiny pancake 40mm stm.

I did not have a 50MP beast but remember thinking that lens was very sharp all over the frame

The 40mm length is also much better for landscapes than a 50mm i think.
 
fujilover said:
The 40mm length is also much better for landscapes than a 50mm i think.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that is not a conversation I'd like to start. Remember I've got everything from 16-400mm covered and 35mm with Sigma ART prime. 40mm makes little sense there.
 
magicolor1 said:
If you want clinical sharpness on a repeatable basis using a £3k camera, I'm not sure I would consider a £100 lens suitable. It's built to a budget so the build quality will be such that you can't guarantee perfect centering etc. The high-pixel count bodies certainly need the best possible lenses, but also best possible technique to guarantee perfect sharpness every time.
Click to expand...

You would think £2000 24-70 would be perfectly centered and maybe even parfocal.... Sadly, only in your dreams apparently. For that we may need to look all the way to £40k cine primes! 50mm lenses are the simplest and cheapest design so no I don't find it unreasonable to expect something acceptable, particularly stopped down.
 
I have the aforementioned lens. I haven’t used it since I had my 80D a few years back but if I get chance later I’ll put it on my A7RIII later (obviously via an adapter) and post up the results :)
 
I suppose for the sake of £80 (used) or £100 new, isn't it worth just buying one. See how it performs and if you don't like it, then just move it on for pretty much what you paid for it. Just my thoughts of course.
P.s. I can see why you're asking for opinions, but only you know what is going to be acceptable for you. :)
 
Nostromo said:
I suppose for the sake of £80 (used) or £100 new, isn't it worth just buying one. See how it performs and if you don't like it, then just move it on for pretty much what you paid for it. Just my thoughts of course.
P.s. I can see why you're asking for opinions, but only you know what is going to be acceptable for you. :)
Click to expand...

It's possible that I may do that. However, if I get some a few responses like "I had it and it's not very good" for whatever reason then that's clearly an indication I may not be too happy with it either. It's worth a try if it saves time and effort.
 
Review here of that combo together.

Sounds as i would have expected :

Review Canon 50 mm f/1.8 STM @ 5Ds - CameraStuff Review

At full aperture, the contrast is low, and even the center sharpness clearly has room for improvement. At f/4, the center sharpness is nearly twice as high as at f/1.8. You do not have to carry out an Imatest measurement for that. Even a beginner can see it. Starting at f/8, the center sharpness begins to decrease again as a result of diffraction. At f/11, the sharpness across the entire image is constant.

www.camerastuffreview.com

Review Canon 50 mm f/1.8 STM @ 5Ds

With the arrival of the Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 STM, we met the successor to a legendary lens, which was introduced a full 25 years ago. The Canon 50 mm
www.camerastuffreview.com www.camerastuffreview.com
 
Just a thought.

If you can live with a max aperture of f2.8 and don't need lightening fast AF maybe take a look at some of the macro lens options.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
You would think £2000 24-70 would be perfectly centered and maybe even parfocal.... Sadly, only in your dreams apparently. For that we may need to look all the way to £40k cine primes! 50mm lenses are the simplest and cheapest design so no I don't find it unreasonable to expect something acceptable, particularly stopped down.
Click to expand...

Perfectly centred lenses especially zooms are as much of an occurrence as dust-less lenses :p

I have the 50STM and A7RIV. It mostly sucks f1.8-2.8 beyond the very centre. From f4-8 it gets better but no where near sigma art corner to corner sharpness.

Unfortunately on canon EF I have found sigma ART 50mm is the only real option if you want even corner to corner bitting sharpness.

Edit:
I haven't tried macro lenses as mentioned above. That may be an option too since you don't care for wide aperture.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Just a thought.

If you can live with a max aperture of f2.8 and don't need lightening fast AF maybe take a look at some of the macro lens options.
Click to expand...

I found an interesting looking 50mm TSE macro which I would love to have but sadly way out of my price range. Maybe I'm missing something but all the rest seem to be very old and rather soft designs?

Sigma art looks so perfect other than the EF mount dilemma.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I found an interesting looking 50mm TSE macro which I would love to have but sadly way out of my price range. Maybe I'm missing something but all the rest seem to be very old and rather soft designs?

Sigma art looks so perfect other than the EF mount dilemma.
Click to expand...

I am surprised you went with a 5Ds with the EF mount dilemma. If you were so concerned why invest in the very the thing in a system that loses value i.e. the bodies over lenses.

Unfortunately this is biggest pain with high resolution bodies, you won't really see the benefits unless you spend the extra £££ on good glass.

Perhaps look into the samyangs? They have some good MF glass art good prices. I don't know much about them in EF mount.
 
nandbytes said:
I am surprised you went with a 5Ds with the EF mount dilemma. If you were so concerned why invest in the very the thing in a system that loses value i.e. the bodies over lenses.

Unfortunately this is biggest pain with high resolution bodies, you won't really see the benefits unless you spend the extra £££ on good glass.

Perhaps look into the samyangs? They have some good MF glass art good prices. I don't know much about them in EF mount.
Click to expand...

Nearly-R5 quality for less than 1/4th price new. A more realistic A7RIV was over double that. It was a no-brainer, and no EVF too.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I found an interesting looking 50mm TSE macro which I would love to have but sadly way out of my price range. Maybe I'm missing something but all the rest seem to be very old and rather soft designs?

Sigma art looks so perfect other than the EF mount dilemma.
Click to expand...

In my experience a good macro lens is usually streets ahead of cheap f1.8's.

Another issue is, and this isn't a dig at Canon but I think it's sadly likely to be true, Canon 50's traditionally haven't been the best you can buy, in DSLR land anyway. Maybe you need to bite the bullet and go for one of the bigger and known better performers if you're looking for performance across the frame.

I would have suggested the Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO Pro Lanthar as it's compact, relatively cheap and outstanding and would possibly suit you. Unfortunately it's also manual focus and built for Sony mirrorless.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
In my experience a good macro lens is usually streets ahead of cheap f1.8's.

Another issue is, and this isn't a dig at Canon but I think it's sadly likely to be true, Canon 50's traditionally haven't been the best you can buy, in DSLR land anyway. Maybe you need to bite the bullet and go for one of the bigger and known better performers if you're looking for performance across the frame.

I would have suggested the Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO Pro Lanthar as it's compact, relatively cheap and outstanding and would possibly suit you. Unfortunately it's also manual focus and built for Sony mirrorless.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about other brands but there is basically a 25 year old Canon f/2.5 noisy AF reptile that is not known for sharpness and a very similar old gen Sigma. Neither would outperform 24-70 II, except obviously at macro settings.

Now a small reasonably priced manual but native lens wouldn't be a disaster in my workflow, but admittedly not ideal. It depends if it can fit into filter slot of my bag vs it's own larger compartment.

I was actually very surprised to discover that as a general purpose telephoto my 70-20mm f/4 L IS easily beasts 100mm macro L IS for edge sharpness at all apertures on 5Ds. It still serves a useful purpose but it is being left behind on most days when I'm doing personal project work. The zoom is actually nearly perfect all round which is very welcome news.
 
I’m not sure why the pictures not showing (I’m guessing it’s size related). I haven’t got the time to sort it but hopefully if you click on the link it should take you to the image :thinking:
 
Hadron said:
I’m not sure why the pictures not showing (I’m guessing it’s size related). I haven’t got the time to sort it but hopefully if you click on the link it should take you to the image :thinking:
Click to expand...

This photo is private.


That must be why
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Looks pretty sharp all across, except maybe top right edge or that may be just getting tiny bit out of focus. For £80 and a tiny footprint in the bag you might as well. I realise at f/2.8 this is quite useless.
Click to expand...
I must say I was pleasantly surprised, I’ll have to try it across a range of apertures another night :)
 
Hadron said:
I must say I was pleasantly surprised, I’ll have to try it across a range of apertures another night :)
Click to expand...

If you get this sharp at f/4 that will be quite good. f/2.8 is prob. reserved for portraits and closeups only, and perhaps video on a suitable body.
 
A few years ago I started off thinking about buying a Canon 50mm STM, but then I found the 40mm STM and watched some reviews and looked at some tests of both these lenses, which mainly seemed to find that the 40mm was a little sharper in the corners than the 50mm. I also found I preferred the field of view on the 40mm, so I ended up buying the 40mm STM.

A typical test result here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djmnyCtiu0I



And some reasons why 40mm makes sense here, so perhaps keep an open mind and watch these? (NB the Kai one is not suitable for work, under 18s or those who are easily offended due to it containing four letter words and 'adult themes'):

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p89smQck44


www.youtube.com

Is The Canon 40mm f/2.8 The Only Lens You'll Ever Need?

Filmed with a Nikon D5100 and Nikon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6My photography:Flickr:https://www.flickr.com/photos/187517960@N08Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/jo...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com


If all else fails, then borrow a Canon 17-40mm L lens, and shoot that wide open for a whole day and do not stop down to f/8 or f/11 even once. It won't be the lens solution you are looking for but it should make you a lot happier with your 28-70 f/2.8 L II when you switch back to it ;)

Also, any slight edge softness that you are seeing will most likely not be noticed by the vast majority of the people who look at your photographs, so I wouldn't obsess too much about it; life is short and there are much more important things to think about and get right, even just in photography. (y)
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
Nearly-R5 quality for less than 1/4th price new. A more realistic A7RIV was over double that. It was a no-brainer, and no EVF too.
Click to expand...
2 stops difference in dynamic range isn't what I'd class as nearly same quality especially if you are into landscapes.
 
Mr Badger said:
Enough money left for a mint-ish, used 40mmSTM now, give it a month and re-sell the one you like least. (y)
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm OK now with Sigma 35mm, this and the 24-70mm. I am getting the itch of putting my fingers on 1 or 2 latest gen. TSE lenses but maybe that will have to wait a little unless a hard-to-resit offer comes forward. Something tells me Canon will come up with something so insane in the RF mount that it will blow away the old offerings; they don't seem to be simply replacing like for like.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Nah, I'm OK now with Sigma 35mm, this and the 24-70mm. I am getting the itch of putting my fingers on 1 or 2 latest gen. TSE lenses but maybe that will have to wait a little unless a hard-to-resit offer comes forward. Something tells me Canon will come up with something so insane in the RF mount that it will blow away the old offerings; they don't seem to be simply replacing like for like.
Click to expand...
All the RF replacements have been very interesting to say the least.

That RF 85/1.2 is my envy.

But a lot of these lenses costs an arm and a leg.
 
nandbytes said:
All the RF replacements have been very interesting to say the least.

That RF 85/1.2 is my envy.

But a lot of these lenses costs an arm and a leg.
Click to expand...

Hopefully the prices will drop but I think not for another year or two, beginning with the 24-105s

I would be very interested in 85mm RF f/2 macro IS; and obviously the much improved 1.2L

Then we have an incredible choice between 24-70 f/2.8 IS or 28-70mm f/2.0 and an extra kidney for the main course

And for the desert these are rumored for the future
500mm f/2.8L
14-21mm f/1.4L https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-r...one-of-the-crazy-lenses-coming-next-year-cr1/
70-135mm f/2L https://www.canonwatch.com/canon-rf-70-135mm-f-2l-usm-lens-for-the-eos-r-system-coming-2020/

Sounds pretty insane but so was 28-70/2L.

Some are miss like 600mm and 800mm f/11, all the f/7.1 zooms and external zoom 70-200mm f/2.8. At least in my view that's poor choice from durability point of view for the workhorse. Hopefully internal zoom version and f/4 equivalent are coming.

Most interesting of all is what they will do with 16-35mm f/4 replacement? My hope is 15-37.5mm f/4 internal zoom.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Nah, I'm OK now with Sigma 35mm, this and the 24-70mm. I am getting the itch of putting my fingers on 1 or 2 latest gen. TSE lenses but maybe that will have to wait a little unless a hard-to-resit offer comes forward. Something tells me Canon will come up with something so insane in the RF mount that it will blow away the old offerings; they don't seem to be simply replacing like for like.
Click to expand...
Sounds promising and best of luck, but if you ever get the chance to try that little 40mm STM pancake lens then give it a go. If it's a good one, then I think you'll be quite impressed with the results from it, bearing in mind its price point and tiny size. It's made me prefer 40mm to 50mm in terms of usefulness as a 'standard' fixed focal length for a full frame/35mm camera too, and that's got to have some value!
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Hopefully the prices will drop but I think not for another year or two, beginning with the 24-105s

I would be very interested in 85mm RF f/2 macro IS; and obviously the much improved 1.2L

Then we have an incredible choice between 24-70 f/2.8 IS or 28-70mm f/2.0 and an extra kidney for the main course

And for the desert these are rumored for the future
500mm f/2.8L
14-21mm f/1.4L https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-r...one-of-the-crazy-lenses-coming-next-year-cr1/
70-135mm f/2L https://www.canonwatch.com/canon-rf-70-135mm-f-2l-usm-lens-for-the-eos-r-system-coming-2020/

Sounds pretty insane but so was 28-70/2L.

Some are miss like 600mm and 800mm f/11, all the f/7.1 zooms and external zoom 70-200mm f/2.8. At least in my view that's poor choice from durability point of view for the workhorse. Hopefully internal zoom version and f/4 equivalent are coming.

Most interesting of all is what they will do with 16-35mm f/4 replacement? My hope is 15-37.5mm f/4 internal zoom.
Click to expand...

The 28-70/2 is huge and the others will be even bigger and I just don't mean size cost wise too.

Apparently the f11 lenses will be a bit hit in places that's not the UK lol. I still don't think they'll sell but we'll see.

The 100-500mm isn't actually as bad as people think. At 400mm it's f5.6 just like other 100-400mm lenses but now you have the benefit of sacrificing some light for reach. Almost like a mini built in 1.25x TC.

I really like the idea of the Nikon 14-30mm f4 but the issue is its not sharp at f4 but really good from f5.6. a similar lens but sharp from f4 would be my preference.

I don't think there will be an internal zoom 70-200mm and I personally like the design. I have been using the tamron 70-180mm f2.8 on Sony e-mount and I honestly don't miss the big heavy 70-200mm f2.8 lens. In fact the tamron is smaller and sharper than the 70-200mm f4 too which means I can crop a little and basically have a similar result. Something to think about I think.
 
nandbytes said:
The 28-70/2 is huge and the others will be even bigger and I just don't mean size cost wise too.

Apparently the f11 lenses will be a bit hit in places that's not the UK lol. I still don't think they'll sell but we'll see.

The 100-500mm isn't actually as bad as people think. At 400mm it's f5.6 just like other 100-400mm lenses but now you have the benefit of sacrificing some light for reach. Almost like a mini built in 1.25x TC.

I really like the idea of the Nikon 14-30mm f4 but the issue is its not sharp at f4 but really good from f5.6. a similar lens but sharp from f4 would be my preference.

I don't think there will be an internal zoom 70-200mm and I personally like the design. I have been using the tamron 70-180mm f2.8 on Sony e-mount and I honestly don't miss the big heavy 70-200mm f2.8 lens. In fact the tamron is smaller and sharper than the 70-200mm f4 too which means I can crop a little and basically have a similar result. Something to think about I think.
Click to expand...

I think f/11 lenses are for the bird spotters. I.e. spot, show and delete type of deal. MTF curves are quite dreadful on these; and they require ISO1600+++ handheld even in sunlight. Canon may sell a few early on but then sales will drop like a rock. Or maybe everyone will buy them to spy on the neighbours!

I saw there was a lot of talk about 100-500, and no I primarily meant all the other, non L-zooms. But this one is more like f/6 at 400mm, but same sources say sharpness is great on these. I would probably buy one money no object; for tripod use half a stop means nothing. Handheld / for wildlife I think I'd prefer 400mm f/4 prime (own a 5.6 one).
Realistically I'm covered for 70mm++ range, just may add the old 135mm f/2L for special effects. These are still fantastic and will be a dream with IBIS.

Nikon 14-30mm is a very infesting case. I think I prefer the tried and tested 16-35mm range, but then that 35mm end is not great on mine. 14mm is ridiculously wide, probably would only get used twice a year even for interiors! I had Samyang 14mm and couldn't find any use for it except the whole Milky Way but not with that vignette at f/2.8. I guess the option doesn't hurt though.
On Z6 almost everything half decent will be sharp at 100%. Z7 will be very demanding on glass like this Canon 5Ds or R5 thing.
 
I have now received the lens and it looks a like good & clean copy so I'll share my first quick observations for the major aperture settings on 50MP Canon 5Ds:

Sharpness:

f/1.8 - the centre has decent sharpness, but the contrast is low and purple fringing is very prominent. Corners are very soft. It is essentially for emergency use only.
f/2.8 - a big improvement in contrast and sharpness in the mid-areas, but towards the edges it remains soft. It would be OK for portrait or close up shot if carefully framed and focused.
f/4 - it starts looking really good here although corners are OK but not perfect. I would prefer this over burred or noiser shot at f/5.6, otherwise go up. On 2XMP this should be excellent.
f/5.6-8 - no complaints, sharp throughout.

Bokeh:
Avoid highlights, shoot fairly open aperture and it will be acceptable. Highlights are transformed into bright circles with an even brighter outline which in my opinion looks awful. I don't care much about that so that's for general information only.

Focusing:
For anyone coming from USM-powered lenses the first difference to note is fly-by-wire operation. The ring triggers internal motor that turns the optics inside. That means it has some lag and less precision.
AF is slightly more noisy than USM but nowhere near as intrusive as the old screw motor. AF precision seems to be good enough from around f/2.8 or f/4 but it appears to be going slightly back and forward all the time in AI-servo mode and can't completely makes its mind up, and it appears like its going in bigger steps than USM. This means expect things to be a little out of focus at already soft f/1.8 setting. So that's another reason to stop it down.

Video:
I don't know and don't really care to be honest but I will do the basics particularly if softer look is desirable. Mediocre bokeh, slower AF and purple fringing would put me off a little personally and I'd get my 24-70mm every time (or opt for Sigma ART).

Conclusion:

I think this ticks the boxes as a landscape lens and it performs really well from f/5.6 (or f/4 on lower MP bodies). Considering size and weight it is a good backup for other lenses to have in the kit bag, and may be the go to lens for when critical sharpness is required at around 50mm.
The main advantage over Sigma art is the price and tiny footprint, ie, I don't have to think if I have space left in the bag to take it.
 
nandbytes said:
I am glad you are liking it :)

footprint is one thing, the sigma art also costs 6-7 times more ;)
Click to expand...

That's f/1.4 vs f/4.... There is no comparison wide open.
 
These are some shots I took with my 5D mk2 and Canon 50 f1.8 STM. I love this lens but then it's the only prime I've ever owned.

@ f4

Goat 2 by Merlin 5, on Flickr


@f4
Goat 3 by Merlin 5, on Flickr

@ f1.8
Cream Tea by Merlin 5, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top