Canon 1ds markII and a 50mm 1,4

[Ray]

Man, my 50mm f1.4 puts to shame any L zoom (at f2.8+), let alone the 28-135mm, it just obliterates that lens. My 85mm f1.2L is even a tad sharper than the 50. The 50 and the 85L are probably the sharpest 2 lenses that Canon makes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115348\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Really? Post a couple of shots at f2.8 and f8 (of the same scene) and let's have a look.

My 50/1.4 is very soft at f1.4 and the lens Photodo tested is also very soft at f1.4 as you can see from the graph.

Just goes to show how much quality variation there is between different copies of the same lens.

But I see we are at cross purposes. You are talking about f2.8. The 50/1.4 is significantly better at f2.8 than at f1.4 but not nearly as sharp as it is at f8. Also it doesn't appear to be nearly as sharp as the 400/2.8 at f2.8.

[BobDavid]

I've been using the EF 50mm f/1.4  with  a 5D for a year and a half. I think it's a great lens -- sharp, nice contrast and color, and beautiful bokeh.

It is not a flat field-field or rectilinear repro lens.

F/1.4 gives very shallow depth-of-field. I've shot at F/8 and have made tack sharp  20" X 24" enlargements.

The reasons for opting for a 1.4 over the 1.8 go way beyond sharpness alone.

I bought the lens for its bokeh and the extra stop of light it lets through the viewfinder.

[Ray]

I've been using the EF 50mm f/1.4  with  a 5D for a year and a half. I think it's a great lens -- sharp, nice contrast and color, and beautiful bokeh.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Of course it's sharp..... at f8. Most 35mm lenses are sharpest at f8 and the 50/1.4 is no exception. However as you stop up from f8, resolution gets worse and worse till at f1.4 it's truly lousy.

Of course, I realise that when using f1.4 you are mainly after shallow DoF. Because most of the image, at f1.4, is seriously out-of-focus, the parts that are in focus might appear to be relatively sharp, and indeed they are relatively sharp, but not relative to f8.

[KenRexach]

Of course it's sharp..... at f8. Most 35mm lenses are sharpest at f8 and the 50/1.4 is no exception. However as you stop up from f8, resolution gets worse and worse till at f1.4 it's truly lousy.

Of course, I realise that when using f1.4 you are mainly after shallow DoF. Because most of the image, at f1.4, is seriously out-of-focus, the parts that are in focus might appear to be relatively sharp, and indeed they are relatively sharp, but not relative to f8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree the 50mm f1.4 isnt very good at f1.4, at f2 it gets much better, the 85mm f1.2L however is very good even at f1.2

[Ray]

I don't know how you get into distortion with FFDSLR, but not with film. That sounds strange to me.

It's not strange to me. Although I've had a life-long interest in photography, that interest lay fairly dormant till the digital darkroom became an affordable competitor to the wet darkroom. I've had very little experience using wide-angle lenses with 35mm film.

I did observe, however, significant cornor fall-off and color shift on FFDSLR. It is not shown at all on film. This is from Contax Zeiss 50mm/1.4. I need to set lens optimiation to ~39 to balance it. Canon's 50mm/1.4 is much worse.

Trouble with film is, we have so many variants, just like digicams. If you are not noticing corner fall-off with film, yet the same lens does produce corner fall-off with a particular DSLR camera, then the logical explanation is the DSLR is producing sharper images at the point of focus than the particular film/lens combination.

However, there is another explanation. Sensor photodiodes may not be working efficiently at the edges with wide-angle lenses because of the extremely acute angle of the light rays. I've got no idea to what extent this might be a factor, but what I see tends to approximate to the Photodo MTF tests where resolution is shown as falling off dramaticall towards the corners in all lenses except a few really expensive ones.

[qwerty]

i dont want start another discusion but, we are now dealing about diferences on digital and film, my question is has nobody notice the motion freezing on digital, is completly diferent on film, i mean, i learn that 1/125 will freeze "that" on film, then on digital it doesnt work i have to use more faster shutter settings a stop or more faster, the same on studio, i have to use less power and use faster lights to freeze motion, sometimes  it freezes motion diferent, sometimes it freezes just a part of the picture, dont know if anyone has encountered with these problems aswell.
sorry for my bad english, i guess you get the point.

[Jonathan Wienke]

i dont want start another discusion but, we are now dealing about diferences on digital and film, my question is has nobody notice the motion freezing on digital, is completly diferent on film, i mean, i learn that 1/125 will freeze "that" on film, then on digital it doesnt work i have to use more faster shutter settings a stop or more faster, the same on studio, i have to use less power and use faster lights to freeze motion, sometimes  it freezes motion diferent, sometimes it freezes just a part of the picture, dont know if anyone has encountered with these problems aswell.
sorry for my bad english, i guess you get the point.

There is no difference between a film SLR and a full-frame DSLR in regard to barrel distortion. Barrel/pincushion distortion is a function of the lens, not the camera, and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves. Take a shot with the lens in question attached to a film SLR and a full-frame DSLR and make equal-sixed uncropped prints, and you'll find distortion to be identical.

As to the effects of motion blur, the higher the resolution olf the camera, the more noticeable the effects of motion blur become. A small amount of blur hidden in the film grain can be quite niticeable in a well-focused DSLR image captured with a good lens.

[Ray]

I agree the 50mm f1.4 isnt very good at f1.4, at f2 it gets much better, the 85mm f1.2L however is very good even at f1.2
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You must have an exceptionally good copy of the 85/1.2 then. I'd treasure it and never let it go.

As far as I can tell from the reviews I've read, the 85/1.2 and 85/1.2 Mark II are roughly on a par in terms of optical resolution, but the Mark II has better flare control and faster autofocussing and probably a few other improvements.

But let's not kid ourselves that these lenses are sharp at full aperture. Nothing could be further from the truth. At f1.2, these lenses would have less resolution than the cheapest Canon zoom that money can buy, at f8.

At apertures wider than f2.8, these lenses are quite awful as regards sharpness. Of course, you get lots of shallow DoF and nice bokeh and you get the opportunity to shoot in low light without a flash, but let's not kid ourselves the lenses are sharp at full aperture.

If you think I'm wrong, show me some comparisons between f8 and f1.2.

[dmg]

This is becoming an amusing discussion.

There might be some "unsatisfied" owners of the 50 1.4, but I guarantee you most of
us (who own one) are quite fond of them. They take _GREAT_ pictures at any aperture (if
you know how and when to use it). Is it the sharpest? Is it the one with the least distortion?
I generally don't care. What I care is that every time I see pictures that come out of it
I feel happy I choose it instead of other lenses (particularly zooms). The 50 1.4 can do 1.4 (_very_ few other lenses can), it can focus faster than either 50 1.8 (MkI or II) and it is lighter and smaller than the 24-70L, and it is way cheaper than the 50 1.2L or 50 1.0L.

Any lens is a trade-off, but the 50 1.4 provides such a balance that it is my most used lens (and I own quite a collection of lenses, including various L and both versions of the 50 1.8

dmg