Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 1ds markII and a 50mm 1,4  (Read 8751 times)
qwerty
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« on: April 17, 2007, 01:12:28 PM »
ReplyReply

hi,
i was debating myself to pick a FF canon or a MFDB, anyway, i saw a refurbished 1ds mark II and i couldnt resist, so after i get the camera i pickup a 50mm just to try my camera was right.
First i noticed, and i used markII few time before, was my 50mm 1,4 distort every straight line that you put in front, i mean it gets a distortion like a if it was a wideangle no that big but something about 35mm lens . Second the resolution its good but not how i remembered, i still have some raws i shot a year ago with a standard zoom and a markII in a past job, these are quite similar if not better.
Today i went to buy a standard zoom lens, just for fun, my intention is buy a L lenses set in a future. I picked up a 28-135 is, it matches the resolution of my 50mm if not better, Is system works perfectly, and i dont get nasty distortion on 50mm position.
So my questions are, has nobody noticed some distortions with his 50mm?? is 50mm 1,4 generally not that good?? i did some homemade tests with both lenses and all f settings, and my 50mm doesnt get any better. What bothers me more is its barrel distortion, any thoughts???

cheers!!
« Last Edit: April 17, 2007, 03:50:19 PM by qwerty » Logged
juicy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2007, 03:47:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

50 1,4 certainly has some barrel distortion, it's not really suitable for repro or similar work where straight lines near edges are needed (unles using software correction). The distortion is seen on cropped sensor also but FF is really merciles. Sharp for portraits though.

Cheers,

J
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2007, 07:18:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So my questions are, has nobody noticed some distortions with his 50mm?? is 50mm 1,4 generally not that good?? i did some homemade tests with both lenses and all f settings, and my 50mm doesnt get any better. What bothers me more is its barrel distortion, any thoughts???
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112903\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Generally, distortions can be corrected in CS2 with either 'free transform' /distort or warp, or 'filter'/distort/lens correction. Barrel distortion is really only a problem in relation to some vertical or horizontal in the scene which one knows should obviously be vertical etc. With landscapes or portraits it shouldn't be a problem.

The 28-135 IS zoom appears to be sharpest at 50mm but still not as sharp as the 50/1.4, according to Photodo tests done some years ago. Having just checked the figures for you, we get a rating for the 28-135 at 50mm of 0.81 at f4.5 and 0.82 at f8, compared with 0.84 for the 50/1.4 at f4 and 0.86 at f8.

The over all rating for the zoom is 3.5 out of 5 and for the 50/1.4, 4.4 out of 5.
Logged
qwerty
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2007, 08:42:14 AM »
ReplyReply

well, i see that 50mm 1,4 from canon doesnt get any great reviews, maybe i felt in love with my old nikkor and i thought that canon one would be same. Im realizing myself that shooting digital and get lenses shorter than 85mm is so expensive or painful (contax, leica thru adapters rings, puffff!!!)
Thanks for the tip, i know i can correct perspective and distortion with photoshop, but thats time consuming, and i disagree with you, shootings portraits or full length bodies the barrel distortion is still there and appreciable. Roll on the PTlens again!!!
Thanks for your time!!
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2007, 10:14:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
well, i see that 50mm 1,4 from canon doesnt get any great reviews[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We must be looking in different places. I just typed in 'Reviews of Canon 50mm f1.4' into Google and I got several pages of favourable reviews for this lens.

I own a copy of this lens but I don't expect an inexpensive lens to be sharp and free of barrel distortion at full aperture.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2007, 10:15:09 AM by Ray » Logged
qwerty
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2007, 01:54:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
We must be looking in different places. I just typed in 'Reviews of Canon 50mm f1.4' into Google and I got several pages of favourable reviews for this lens.

I own a copy of this lens but I don't expect an inexpensive lens to be sharp and free of barrel distortion at full aperture.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


first reviews are quite good but when you read more carefully, or read proper reviews ( i mean, good for me is maybe brilliant for you, and i dont trust anyone charts or freaky tests that are over internet) the fifty is not that brilliant.
I get barrel distortion over all apertures and 300 euros is not that cheap for a fixed lens, i dont want start any brand war, but a nikkor 50 1,8 af for 100 euros doesnt have any distortion, is sharper and has a prettier bokeh!!.
Anyway thats what i have, thats what i use, by the way i love my canon body and i doesnt agree with those ones who said that nikon bodies are better.
cheers
Logged
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2007, 03:37:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
first reviews are quite good but when you read more carefully, or read proper reviews ( i mean, good for me is maybe brilliant for you, and i dont trust anyone charts or freaky tests that are over internet) the fifty is not that brilliant.
I get barrel distortion over all apertures and 300 euros is not that cheap for a fixed lens, i dont want start any brand war, but a nikkor 50 1,8 af for 100 euros doesnt have any distortion, is sharper and has a prettier bokeh!!.
Anyway thats what i have, thats what i use, by the way i love my canon body and i doesnt agree with those ones who said that nikon bodies are better.
cheers
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Send the lens back, it sounds defective, my copy doesn't suffer distortion
Logged
howiesmith
Guest
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2007, 04:25:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a couple questions regarding the photodo tests and ratings.

Are the tests and rating for a single lens or an average of several lenses (a sampling)?  Seems with all the discussions about the variation between lenses, a test of a single lens would not likely be representative of a customer's lens.

The Canon mtf curves shown in photodo do not appear to be the result of tests.  Canon publishes their theoretical (best you can get) curves.  The photodo curves show no disconnect (offset) between the saggital and tangential curves at zero displacement (center).  This offset is caused by misalignment of lens elements during assembly.  It seems very unlikely that a representative lens (or even aan average of several lenses) would be perfectly aligned.
Logged
jorgedelfino
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2007, 05:59:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a 1ds II and a 50 1,4 and find it quite sharp and with very little barrel distortion, is not a L lens, and feel plastic and cheap, but does the job well, send yours back.
Logged
julian_love
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 21, 2007, 06:18:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I think you are looking at the wrong points. I use a 50 f.1.4 on a 1Ds MkII.

1) Yes, there is some distortion, but this is true of nearly all fast primes.
2) Yes, at f/8 it probably won't show much difference to your 28-135 - all lenses these days are very good at f/8. But the 50 will also be very sharp at f/2... try shooting at f/2 with your 28-135. Oh, it doesn't go to f/2 does it? If you are only going to shoot at f/8 you don't need a prime - you won't see any benefit.

Julian
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #10 on: April 21, 2007, 10:49:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you are only going to shoot at f/8 you don't need a prime - you won't see any benefit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=113528\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Probably not quite true, Julian. My father used to say 50 years ago that all lenses are equal at f8. We've upped the ante since then. I would say that all lenses are equal at somewhere between f11 and f16. (That is, all good 35mm lenses.)
Logged
ScottBHughes
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2007, 04:41:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Our copy of the Canon 50/1.4 is one of our sharpest lenses.  I put it in front of the four L zooms we use.

I've not notice an barrel distortion, but our type of work doesn't demand for perfect lines.

It is used on both a 1DM2 and a 1DsM2.  I find it brutally sharp at 2.8 and beyond.  More open and it provides very sharp and quite pretty images!

Sounds like you have a bad example.... get it back to Canon.   -Scott
Logged
Limosa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #12 on: April 27, 2007, 10:36:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Me too slightly disappointed by the 50/1.4's performance (on 5d) it's nothing to write home about. With those nice wide-open portraits the head has got to be somewhere not too far from the center region of the image because vignetting and corner unhsarpness would rob the face from important detail. Cant remember seeing this with the Nikon 50/1.4, at least not this bad. Same goes for distortion. Canon, time for a 50/1.4 mark II, or even L?

ps anyways it's nice to have a a place where you can complain about such trivia.
Logged
qwerty
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2007, 06:04:00 AM »
ReplyReply

yep,
im with you, nikkor one perfomes better in every aspect, i dont complaint being soft wideopen, but its distorton is making me crazy, and i dont think is such a trivial problem, im not in arquitechture stuff, if it were the case i would throw my canon lens after 2 shots, im on fashion photography and well, everything is permited in that field, i want to control distortion and apply it when ever i want it, and not deal with it every shot.
Anyway, i put my freaky 28-135 Is lens (poor, very poor made lens) and it performs better than 50mm, i use lights all the times  so 1,4 dont care for me, i was used to fixed lens in medium format so think to use it aswell in digital, i learn i have to spend huge amount of money to get decent results with fixed lens!!.
cheers!

jp
Logged
kjkahn
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2007, 11:13:26 AM »
ReplyReply

If distortion is important, the 50mm macro has very little, but is apparently a little softer.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/ca...50_25/index.htm
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2007, 11:31:54 AM »
ReplyReply

You can of course use your nikkor with a simple adaptor as long as you don't mind stop down manually focused shooting. If you look on the Alternative forum of FM you will find a bunch of guys to whom mounting a Canon lens on a Canon body is heresy!

I didn't find the 50mm 1.4 to wow in any way, wide open it was ugly and soft and at f5.6 my 24-70L wasn't noticeably worse. The 85mm 1.8 on the other hand is a real beut of a lens that blows away my 24-70L. That said the 85mmL that I tried at a CPS conference made my 24-70L look like a milkbottle which hadn't been washed out yet!

Annoyingly the 50mmL doesn't seem to be better in any way other than the speed and bokeh wide open. Opinion seems to be that it isn't as sharp, slower to focus and a waste of time if you are going to stop it down past f2 or so. It would be nice if Canon had made a decent 50mm, i.e. a wider 85mm 1.8 but with all its attributes.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2007, 11:44:11 AM »
ReplyReply

The Canon 50/1.4 is sharpest at f8, as is the 50/1.8. They are probably close to being as good as any lens at this aperture. But some lenses get better at f5.6 and f4, even at f2.8 sometimes, but not these 50mm primes. Both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are very soft at full aperture (at least mine are).

It would be interesting to see a comparison at f1.8 between the 85/1.8 and the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2007, 11:50:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The Canon 50/1.4 is sharpest at f8, as is the 50/1.8. They are probably close to being as good as any lens at this aperture. But some lenses get better at f5.6 and f4, even at f2.8 sometimes, but not these 50mm primes. Both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are very soft at full aperture (at least mine are).

It would be interesting to see a comparison at f1.8 between the 85/1.8 and the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115005\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I did at one point do a comparison of the 1.8 and 1.4, the 1.4 is sharper wide open even though it has an extra half stop, the bokeh of the 1.8 is slightly softer, the 1.4 can be quite disturbing wide open at times. I don't have any 50mm at present otherwise I would do it for you, the 85mm is not wow sharp wide open but it's pretty good, certainly more than acceptable on my 5D and the bokeh is very pleasing.

I've been doing some shooting recently with the 24-105L, now that is a lens with really weird bokeh, edges become spidery and horribly ugly.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8948


« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2007, 08:10:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I did at one point do a comparison of the 1.8 and 1.4, the 1.4 is sharper wide open even though it has an extra half stop, the bokeh of the 1.8 is slightly softer, the 1.4 can be quite disturbing wide open at times. I don't have any 50mm at present otherwise I would do it for you, the 85mm is not wow sharp wide open but it's pretty good, certainly more than acceptable on my 5D and the bokeh is very pleasing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Pom,
I would say that two lenses like the Canon 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 are so close in general performance that quality variation amongst different copies of the same lens will result in the cheaper 50/1.8 sometimes being the equal of the 50/1.4.

At least that's the case with my copy of the 50/1.8. It appears to be very marginally better than the 50/1.4. Having just done some extensive testing of these 2 lenses at each f stop, I can confirm that the 50/1.8 is very marginally sharper in the centre than the 50/1.4 at both f1.4 and f1.8. Away from the centre, resolution falls off so drastically with both lenses one would think one was using a pin-hole camera.

How some people can claim such lenses are sharp at full aperture or even one stop down, beats me. The Photodo MTF charts below tell the story. What's interesting here is the MTF response of the 85/1.8. At full aperture the response is remarkably flat at all frequencies tested, all the way to around 15mm from the centre.

Those who are using the 85/1.8 with a cropped format DSLR should be getting equal sharpness right out to the corners, at full aperture, provided the corners are still in focus, which is often not the case. However in the dead centre and up to around 7mm from the centre, the 50/1.8 could be sharper, depending on copy variations.

[attachment=2414:attachment]
Logged
KenRexach
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #19 on: May 02, 2007, 10:37:05 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad