raid
Dad Photographer
I took this photo with the chrome Canon Serenar 50mm/1.8 during a lens test on 50mm lenses two years ago. I was thrilled at the sharpness, when compared to images taken with exotic lenses.
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5288230
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5288230
ferider
Veteran
You have to look at it the other way: the 1.4 is every bit as sharp as the 1.8, at 1.8
Faster lenses normally have more abberations and flare ...My 1.4 is quite flare resistant and has quite high resolution wide open across the field. Better, for instance, than the pre-asph Summilux (but the latter has nicer bokeh to my eyes ...).
Cheers,
Roland.
Bingley
Veteran
Raid and Jim are right on concerning the Canon 50/1.8. In addition to Raid's lens tests, you can find sample shots taken w/ the 1.8 and 1.4 in the Flickr Canon RF Lens group and in the M-Mount Lens group.
raid
Dad Photographer
You have to look at it the other way: the 1.4 is every bit as sharp as the 1.8, at 1.8
My 1.4 is quite flare resistant and has quite high resolution wide open across the field. Better, for instance, than the pre-asph Summilux (but the latter has nicer bokeh to my eyes ...).
Cheers,
Roland.
Roland is right, but we just chatted about the qualities of the 50/1.8 with considerations for the cost of the lens. If you can spend an additional $100, the Canon 50/1.4 is a better lens in terms of its usefulness at 1.4 for that extra edge in low light situations.
Steve may be referring to the Canon RF Flickr group. There are photos there.
kermaier
Well-known
Yes, very sharp. The color rendition of the skin tones looks odd to me, though -- is that just the lighting?
I've been trying both the chrome and the black/chrome versions of the Canon RF lenses (tried both for the 28/3.5, and I'm currently using a chrome 35/2.8), and I moving toward the conclusion that I like the black/chrome lenses better. The chrome ones seem more solidly built -- all brass, rather than some aluminum parts? (Or maybe that just makes them heavier, not more robust.) And the chrome lenses seem slightly more compact.
But the ergonomics are better on the black/chrome versions: The focus ring on the chrome lenses is so narrow that it's only practical to focus using the tab, while it is wide enough to be usable on the black/chrome version. And the aperture ring settings on the chrome lenses are marked in a logarithmic scale, so it's a much shorter throw from f/11 to f/16 than it is from f/4 to f/5.6; while the black/chrome lenses have the aperture markings spaced equidistant from each other, which I find easier to use without having to look and make sure.
So I may soon be looking for a black/chrome 35/2.8 too.
I've been trying both the chrome and the black/chrome versions of the Canon RF lenses (tried both for the 28/3.5, and I'm currently using a chrome 35/2.8), and I moving toward the conclusion that I like the black/chrome lenses better. The chrome ones seem more solidly built -- all brass, rather than some aluminum parts? (Or maybe that just makes them heavier, not more robust.) And the chrome lenses seem slightly more compact.
But the ergonomics are better on the black/chrome versions: The focus ring on the chrome lenses is so narrow that it's only practical to focus using the tab, while it is wide enough to be usable on the black/chrome version. And the aperture ring settings on the chrome lenses are marked in a logarithmic scale, so it's a much shorter throw from f/11 to f/16 than it is from f/4 to f/5.6; while the black/chrome lenses have the aperture markings spaced equidistant from each other, which I find easier to use without having to look and make sure.
So I may soon be looking for a black/chrome 35/2.8 too.
raid
Dad Photographer
The color is due to the wall color and use of a long exposure with some artificial light mixed with window light.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
And Fuji film, I'll bet. I get a tint of magenta everytime and need to color correct in Elements. YMMV.
And if you get and use that Canon lens, be sure to post in our Flickr group, as me fellow members have been hinting at.
And if you get and use that Canon lens, be sure to post in our Flickr group, as me fellow members have been hinting at.
Bingley
Veteran
Both of the Canon 50s discussed in this thread are great lenses. For me, the choice comes down largely to what I shoot. I use a 50 mainly for street photography and landscapes (urban and rural), and have less need for 1.4 than someone who uses a 50 primarily for portraits. For now (important qualifier), I'm very happy w/ the 50/1.8 as an all-purpose lens ... for my purposes.
In fact, I will probably sell my Nokton 50/1.5 in the very near future... I'm just not using it, and I find I prefer the smaller size of my Canon 50s as well as the results from those lenses.
In fact, I will probably sell my Nokton 50/1.5 in the very near future... I'm just not using it, and I find I prefer the smaller size of my Canon 50s as well as the results from those lenses.
raid
Dad Photographer
I may one day get a Canon 50/1.5 simply because I love vintage Canon lenses.
MCTuomey
Veteran
Raid, I picked one up, sent it off for a half-bath at Golden Touch, and really am enjoying it. I've got to get some pics posted soon ...
I think you'd like it a lot.
I think you'd like it a lot.
raid
Dad Photographer
Mike,
The Sonnar design is always tempting.
Sometimes, you can see such a lens for low asking price, but then it is sold.
Platinum RF
Well-known
Canon 50/1.4 lens is good optically, but mechinically speaking they are lousy.
raid
Dad Photographer
Could you more explain why they are lousy.
tennis-joe
Well-known
I would tell about my 1.4 and it seems loose but the pictures taken with it are good. I guess I am use to the chrome Canon 1.8 which is very tight. Maybe my 1.4 was used a lot but the glass is clean.
Joe
Joe
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Not sure why the Canon 1.4 lenses are seen as mechanically "lousy" - sure there's no autofocus, but aside from that and MAYBE the infinity lock that I have now become used to, the fit and finish on mine Canon lenses are practically works of art.
In contrast, my modern day VC 35mm Ultron is less dense, easily chipped and dented and so on. But it takes nice photos, so I don't mind.
So I don't get it.
In contrast, my modern day VC 35mm Ultron is less dense, easily chipped and dented and so on. But it takes nice photos, so I don't mind.
So I don't get it.
kermaier
Well-known
Jim, I just posted a thread on the Flickr group with a photo using my 35/2.8.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Welcome, kermaier - BTW, my home was Northern NJ, on the border of Bergen/Hudson Counties. Started photographing there late 60s, early 70s.
John Shriver
Well-known
The 50/1.4 Canon doesn't have the stiffest of guide systems to keep the front of the lens from twisting. This can be made worse over time by not using the infinity latch to install and remove the lens. Not at all critical to focusing accuracy on a 50mm lens.
januaryman
"Flim? You want flim?"
Yeah, you CAN get used to the infinity lock. It takes a few months, but you will get used to it. If I can, anyone can. Glad I decided to leave it be rather than remove it.