|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on October 08, 2022 Pros: Character, Autofocus, Used price, sharpness from f1.8 onwards. Cons: Exaggerated and disturbing AC at TA. Difficult to manage at TA Opinion: Beautiful lens at a general level, if you know what you have in your hand it gives you amazing results, with a very particular and very pleasant character. On the autofocus speech, it must be said that it works very well in cross-shaped points, in those only horizontal or vertical it always makes cilecca. So mounted on an old entry level gives a lot of trouble and makes you hate. I use it on 6d only with center point and on 70d on all points and it works which is a wonder. I don't like the 1200d at all. For portraits from foreground to half-length gives beautiful rows. You have to be careful in the exterior to the strongly illuminated subjects creates an exaggerated chromatic aberration at full opening. Addictive when you learn to use it |
 | sent on August 15, 2022 Pros: F2 sharpness, blur, contrast, construction, lightness, display with focus data. Cons: Devastating chromatic aberrations at TA, poor sharpness from TA to f1.8, fast but not always reliable focus, back and front focus suffering that varies from specimen to specimen and camera body. Opinion: An excellent fifty that, despite the old project, still defends itself well today. The yield varies slightly from one specimen to another, between sharpness and focus. In general, counting also the design in the distant 1993 and today's cost of € 400 new and € 200 used, has a good yield, excellent sharpness from f2 up, from f4 onwards it is very sharp and from f5.6 it is a blade from edge to edge, all with good blur and good colors. Fast focusing but not always reliable. Fortunately, my specimen still seems calibrated. I bought two used specimens as new by trial, then keeping the most recent construction, which turned out to be sharper and without the back and front focus. This specimen of mine, guessing the point of focus, at f1.4 / f1.6 is very soft and often with a nuanced and poetic effect, therefore usable for particular portraits (go and see my gallery to see what I mean). It took me some time to figure out how to exploit it well, but now I'm satisfied and it has entered my operating park. Recommended after careful analysis and testing! |
 | sent on June 20, 2022 Pros: Almost everything! Cons: Only the price (today) and the construction not really excellent. Opinion: I see a lot of negative reviews but honestly it is a lens that I have always used with satisfaction, it is small, light, f1.4 and the yield is more than good, just a little soft at full aperture. I am at the third specimen in my life, never had problems, the others I have destroyed in various ways unfortunately. The autofocus to tell the truth has never given me trouble, even in conditions of very low light with moving subjects and at full aperture, I have always failed very few shots, ok, always used with bodies of the 5d or 1d series is true, but it has never really given me problems. The only negative note is the construction, in my opinion a little more quality would not hurt ... and the price of the new to date, calculating how much I paid a few years ago the last specimen ... but considering the used round, I think you find some good offers around. Surely it is a lens that I recommend, I repeat, small, light and a more than good yield ... without forgetting that it has a diaphragm 1.4. Those who do not want to spend like this, can go on the 1.8, very comfortable even that and is in a pocket. |
  | sent on April 28, 2022 Pros: Nothing Cons: Autofocus,blurred Opinion: The worst lens I had, mounted on 5dmk2, canon 6d and 7d autofocus a complete disaster on 10 photos I had 2 in focus lost time with autofocus microregulation without a minimum result too dancer impossible to calibrate, some shots with the m.a.f forward and some behind, even as blurred just did not like, given by despair, vote 0 |
 | sent on April 27, 2022 Pros: f1.4, built better than "younger brother" (1.8) Cons: AF, noise, sharpness, no stabilization, no tropicalization Opinion: I had it for a couple of months, used with the old 5D Old. The images obtained were yes, good, but not excellent. Excessively noisy and really slow in hooking the subject, even during the day! Paradoxically I found myself better with the fifty 1.8 (tried by friends a few times). In conclusion, I want to hope that I bought it defective, because I do not think that Canon does such approximate things |
 | sent on November 08, 2020 Pros: Lightweight, compact, reliable fast Cons: MAF at an uncertain distance Opinion: I took it recently used, used on eos-90d it puts fast and precise focus up close, but not from afar. But using the micro maf point is perfect, even better using the livewiew where the MAF is always perfect and fast. I haven't made any maf adjustment on 90D yet although it's possible, but I haven't had the time, I will. Even on the M3 the MAF is perfect, the pairing is strange because the lens is larger than the body but it is great for portraits. |
 | sent on July 19, 2020 Pros: "Plastic is always better than metal, less weight and lasts longer, autofocus, made in japan. Cons: fixed focal Opinion: in the average stat virtus recites a Latin proverb, it is the case of 50mm f 1.4, not a ciofeca like the 50mm f1.8 smooth or stm, not even exaggerated just as a price compared to the 50mm f 1.2 or f1, for just over 200 euros in the used market you bring home a dreaming lens. In the catalogue now since 93 has been the starting point for all the other 50mm canons placed on the market in the years to come. Shooting at full opening is the lens that makes wow exclaim!!! becomes etherea, at f1,4, but you just have to close to f2 to see images without loss of illuminatzine or sharpness, at f 2.8 are almost ok,the best of itself anyway this lens returns it between f4 and f6.3, I fixed it at f 5,6,a f5,6 and f6.3 the images are super sharp. It is a lens that does not need to close the diaphragm already to f8 becomes very soft, besides it is not necessary to go. The optics have conventional type diaphragm blades such as the 50mm f 1 which means a better yield in the backlight or fill in, the 50mm f1.2 has coiled slats. Compared to an f2.8 allows a shooting time 4 times faster and 4 times less iso sensitivity,always said that it is better to invest in a lens than to machine body, compared to a f 4.5 the shooting time is about 10 times higher as well as the iso sensitivity needed is 10 times less. The maximum qs lens for me from the portrait or on the American plane, the portrait is always soft, which always pleases women unless you give it in with the sharp correction in the car, on the American plane or whole subject manages to hide even the small defects and does not distort as certain zooms, the proportions of the subjects filmed are perfect and truthful, the naturalness of the subject taken is always top, as well as the three-dimensionality. Be careful, however, not to be misled, given the opening/brightness you do not have to give confidence is a moment to find images completely burned and devoid of detail as well as dark without contrast. Autofocus is really fast. One thing I like about this lens anyway is the three-dimensionality of the subjects filmed and that bokeh that is never annoying and intrusive as in so many other lenses, does not have a bokeh pushed like certain lenses that I hate that do not make you understand if a subject taken in the street was taken in new york, tokyo, or London because they blur in a brutal way flattening and making lose every detail in the background. Here is the 50 mm f 1.4 is propio this in the middle stat virtus, the virtue lies in the middle and, without bleeding the buyer's heswer. |
 | sent on June 25, 2020 Pros: wow effect in photos given by optical rendering, colors, blurry, compactness, lightness Cons: I would have liked a less cheap construction (especially the af ring, although almost useless, not fluid and with a few too many games) Opinion: In my opinion it has all the advantages of a dreamy, vintage rendering, with powerful bokeh and all the other features that you read in the forum and in the comments. It is NOT an optics for those who expect sharpness from board to board already at full opening, for that you have to close at about 2.8. If you are looking for this parameter it is not the optics for you (maybe take a sigma art...). Instead it is the optics that is right for you if you are looking for the magic yield that this lens can give you (as well as so many other vintage lenses, here you also have the fast and precise af - if well calibrated). I prefer this lens to 1.8 by far, not because they are not good, but because it is the TA yield that makes the difference! The sharpness in my opinion remains more good, what drops a lot is the contrast, they appear aberrations and fringing, which however are part of the dreamy yield (and possibly remove without too much problems). The only thing I would have appreciated, would have been a build quality just superior (especially the dial and its games). What could be better? Staying in Canon the L 1.2... same optical philosophy, push further! In this case it also greatly improves the build quality, but also doubles the weight! |
  | sent on June 25, 2020 Pros: Lightness, image quality, price used Cons: Construction not comparable to an L Opinion: Taken used at a low price (200th), and found far superior to the f1.8 models of various generations I had. I did not compare it with the stm version of which you read well because I do not think optically makes much difference and especially because I prefer the focus dials not by wire. This small and cheap lens surprised me: it has a much more pleasant blur than the 1.8, it is very sharp and a general rendering of the image very good, especially in colors. I just regretted listening to all the criticismS I had read and never considering the second-hand market. At the price at which it is recommended, despite the fact that at 1.4 it loses a bit of sharpness and, with strong contrasts, you see a bit of aberration, but nothing compared to 1.8 in TA. |
 | sent on May 06, 2020 Pros: Color Yield, Autofocus Cons: Yield at full opening good but not excellent. Opinion: Taken used in very good condition, I find it to be a really good goal, with a color rendering that I like very, very sharp, although at full opening it is not excellent, however the lens has its own peculiar performance that makes it lovable. Light, compact (although with the lampshade of course it becomes more cumbersome)... I find it great as the only lens to take for light outputs. I recommend it, especially at current prices in the world of used. |
 | sent on February 07, 2020 Pros: Sharpness in absolute terms from f4, chromatic yield, footprint, weight Cons: AC at full open, minimum focus distance Opinion: Taken in trade-in, without having put it into account, during the sale of a zoom, in conditions equal to the new, after everything I had read in the reviews here on juza, I expected that attached to the machine body, at the very least it sent everything into tilt, came out evil demons of the out of focus and disdirected after two seconds. But to my astonishment I realized that it works and that it also works well, always focusing where I wanted. I started testing it at TA and I have to say that it will not be the maximum of sharpness, but if necessary it can be used very well; I continued to use it, gradually closing the diaphragm to f2.8 and the results rose considerably in quality; I closed to f4 and became a blade and continues to grow up to 5.6-8, then better not go further to not affect the quality with the diffraction. I also have the excellent 50 stm at the moment, but compared to this 1.4 turns out to be less responsive in focus and slightly cold and disused colors, also the boken in this lens will not be perfect, but the stm is much worse as it is too nervous. I'd say the price difference between the two optics is all there, I'm using it on 6d mark II and it goes great unlike the specimens Sigma f1.4 ex and Art series, which I got to try, which instead present great difficulty in finding the optimal focus even at fine adjustment performed, but this is perhaps due to some imcopatibility introduced by Canon on this machine body, as with 80D and some other recent body, in order to force the user to use only , with which in fact there are no problems of focus in the vast majority of cases. Finally, the weight and footprint make it an optics to always keep in the bag/backpack at hand. |
 | sent on June 26, 2019 Pros: lightness, compactness, gorgeous color rendering, maximum opening Cons: AF not always precise (in LV, on the other hand, there is no mistake, but it is thanks to the DPAF at that point), slight softness in TA Opinion: I like it because it is a feather, gives a warm and "vintage" rendering to the shots and can open the diaphragm at 1.4 ... On the other, it is true that it is a bit soft at TA, but extreme sharpness is not the purpose of this lens, nor should it be for those who buy it. By the way, already closing at 1.6 / 1.8 we are at consonant levels. I also confirm the impression of AF inconsistent with very open diaphragms, said this however if you close the diaphragm from 2 onwards is a blade and does not miss a beat. For larger openings, I rely either on the MF or the excellent DPAF of the Live View Canon, and then problems solved even then. For the price on the used, a lens that gives nice satisfactions (new I actually would not have taken it...)! Vote 8, but only for the two small and partial "against". |
 | sent on October 12, 2018 Pros: Good starting point Cons: At the price at which there is nothing of what Opinion: Nice lens to start photographing as it should, to get comfortable with the reduced depth of field. Costa €200 new, get to make long disquisitions on chromatic aberrations or the non-superb sharpness would be misplaced. It's a good starting point for everyone, better than the Plasticotto 50 1.8 that frankly disadvise. If you do not have €200 for a lens, do not buy a reflex and go 3 times a restaurant. For the rest will give you some rewarding shots. On APS-C it becomes an 85mm suitable for portraits. It also pulls out a really blurry one, of a middle ground between a swirly and something not well defined, chaotic but without being ugly. If you are amateurs and can not focus the first few times do not give up, just take your hand. Note that it is also a very compact lens. |
 | sent on September 25, 2018 Pros: Size and low weight, AF speed, sharpness from f/2 up, price Cons: AF inconsistent, mild chromatic aberrations, soft to TA Opinion: Excellent lens that returns satisfactory shots, if you take the fire. By focusing subjects closely there are no problems, but from the distance often cane the focus. Already sent to calibrate in assistance and done the test of the F/b focus but seems not to suffer. However in the portraits "large" (more than half a bust) often (a 30% of the photos), focusing with the center point on the face, cane the focus and maybe puts to focus closer or farther (there is no constant) species at large openings. I use a 6d. With manual focus you solve problems but it is not suitable for photos that require speed and precision of focus. |
 | sent on August 22, 2018 Pros: AF speed, compactness Cons: AC Backlight Opinion: This review comes after about 6 months of using the lens, lens that was purchased new in February. On my profile I also created a gallery "review Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM" with 1 photo, to support what I'm about to write (the photo was obviously worked with Photoshop but I have not added sharpness). I state that I was one of those who said that the 50 STM was better. Then, intrigued by the fact that after years the 50 USM is still so required, I decided to buy it to realize the real differences in the field. The first thing I could appreciate once hooked to my Mk3 was the responsiveness of the AF, even in low light conditions. The construction is not from L-series but the lens is light and agile. The sharpness of the lens is better than I expected: For those who do not want to compromise, already starting from the aperture 1.8 the results start to be good. However for those who want to push to the max and look for a dream effect, I found no big obstacles to shoot at TA, the sample photo that I uploaded was taken precisely to 1.4. Let's talk about the focus: with the lens just purchased the feeling was of a very precise focus. Moving away from the subject however, we say to the distance to get a whole figure, I noticed that the situation worded. Corrected with + 5 adjustment on camera, now I have found a good balance, compensating the problem from afar without making significant differences closely. Since I shoot very often at 1.4, I would say that the focus is really accurate because there are not so many shots that I lose. With the lateral precision of the AF falls and the images are less sharp. But I have to say honestly that any lens I have used in the past has replicated this behavior, even my surgical Sigma 35 Art. So shooting with the sides to 1.4 is a bit ' complicated, better to make 4/5 shots in an attempt to get 1 decent. I repeat, the STM was worse, the 50l we don't talk about... Overall this 50 1.4 is worth every euro it costs. A quality/brightness compromise in a barrel weighing only 290g. The Sigma 50 (not Art) probably offers something more, but it is 1 cm longer, 1 cm wider and weighs 200 g more. It seems nonsense but to the practical act the difference is felt. I will change this lens only if tomorrow they manage to improve it without changing size and weight. |
 | sent on June 28, 2018 Pros: Compact, Sharp (especially from F 2.8 to F11). Cons: Lack of hood in the box Opinion: I own a recent specimen and I do not feel like to share (for now) what is described on this forum. The sharpness is very good, the vignetting is quite marked at f 1.4 and it attenuates by closing the diaphragm a bit; The autofocus is quite responsive and discreetly noisy. It is a light and easily transportable lens in any outfit... to have definitely. For me a serious lack is the absence of the hood in the package. |
 | sent on January 05, 2018 Pros: AF speed, size, weight and low cost Cons: For my needs none Opinion: I can not find obvious differences in image quality with little brother 1.8, in the use the difference is clear. Before as soon as the situation became slightly complicated to focus became almost a business, with this goal, even in difficult situations, it is much easier and faster. I fell in love with her ... |
| sent on January 05, 2018 Pros: AF speed, size, weight and low cost Cons: For my needs none Opinion: I can not find obvious differences in image quality with little brother 1.8, in the use the difference is clear. Before as soon as the situation became slightly complicated to focus became almost a business, with this goal, even in difficult situations, it is much easier and faster. I fell in love with her ... |
 | sent on December 27, 2017 Pros: Speed ??and accuracy in focusing. Colors. Dimensions and weight. Sharpness. Cons: I can not find it. Fratellone 1.2 and sigma art have a more beautiful and soft sfucato etc etc, but one (1.2) costs much more, and the art is too heavy for my taste. Opinion: Replaced the 50 stm with this 50mm f1.4. Many also here on the forum say that the change is not worth it and indeed some claim is better than the new 50mm stm. I have found differences. I do not speak (only) of build quality and precision / focusing speed, because even on the STM are good and not very distant (although both in favor of the USM) but I find differences in color rendering and blurring, considering also that there is almost a stop of difference. So I like a lot I'm satisfied with the constancy of the surrender, which with the 50 stm did not always happen. The stm often gave me beautiful images but sometimes with "cold" colors ... with the USM it has not happened to me yet. In my humble opinion the 50mm 1.4 is a great lens. For my abilities it is too much ... I use it with 5D markII. |
| sent on October 28, 2017 Pros: Acceptable weight, great focus, beautiful blur. Cons: Just bought (in an authorized CAnon store's store) it seems to me that something inside moves slightly. Opinion: The portraits are beautiful. You have to take some care in the close-ups at the maximum opening. The depth of field is very narrow and it is likely to have the tip of the nose in focus and blur the eyes. Initially I thought it was a defect in focus, but then I realized that in some cases it should be triggered from 2.4 up. However, I'm happy with the purchase. |
 | sent on October 06, 2017 Pros: weight and footprint, af speed, price Cons: rubber ring, difference from 1.8 Opinion: unfortunately after 2 or 3 years from the purchase had deformed something inside and did not focus on it, then sent to canon assistance to repair, they said it probably got hot and deformed inside (I do not remember what ). The rubber ring with time ages and is discolored / ruined. For the rest good! |
 | sent on September 28, 2017 Pros: Weight, sharpness, price Cons: I did not find it Opinion: They gave it to me in the spring and since I started using it I fell in love with it. On my aps-c is a 80 but has a blur and a sharpness that although I do not have comparisons to do I'll be very happy when I'm going to see the photos again. Of course, portraiture in tight spaces for the whole figure is a bit chal- lenging since I was saying 80's quality, and I would also say the price that is important to them, however, extensively. Going to the 100D I ride it smoothly thanks to its minimal footprint. To be advised without a doubt |
 | sent on March 24, 2017 Pros: bokeh effect, f 1.8, Price Cons: noisy Autofocus Opinion: The competitive price of this lens has always attracted me. It is easy to find second hand at good prices. I purchased it to make portraits one-time, with good results on my canon 7Dmark II. It 'a lens which I then also used for other occasions with satisfaction thanks to the pleasant bokeh effect. I find the autofocus a bit 'noisy, but in general I consider it a good product mainly due to the quality / price ratio. A must for those who love portraiture to everyone. |
 | sent on March 23, 2017 Pros: Yield on portraits, brightness and cost. Cons: inconsistent AF Opinion: I've always loved this point of surrender, with all its strengths and weaknesses, especially on ritratti.rnAcquistato to replace the Canon EF 50 f / 1.8 II I wanted to improve autofocus speed blur and a bit duro.rnPurtroppo the first copy purchased had consistency problems in focus, I do not speak of Front or back focus.rnSemplicemente Cannava shots in any condition of light, contrast, and aperture, while in the manual was perfetto.rnMi has been replaced with another exemplary which also had the same problem, we even tried another and was also inconsistent in the account AF.rnTenendo form at that time I used it with a Canon 60D free of micro, I had to give up and fall back on ' ottica.rnForse other existing pieces have been improved, and if I can not rule out in the future to try new specimens. |
 | sent on January 08, 2017 Pros: Sharpness from 2.8 up to 13 fantastic - precise autofocus - Light and obviously comfortable - pleasing blur Cons: Sharpness at TA - with no significant differences lower model Opinion: 9 has improved the reasons to keep this lens is not as striking, but it is clear that they are and remain subjective views |
user38936  | sent on November 06, 2016 Pros: Sharpness, price, bokeh Cons: Imprecision focus, poor build quality Opinion: The lenses I think are good, even at TA does not disappoint, from f2.8 on it is a razor, good bokeh.rnLa accuracy of focus leaves much to be desired, the percentage of photos cannate is really my troppa.rnIl specimen is particularly buggy saw that I had to set the fine adjustment at -20 (maximum) due to excessive back focus.rnLa build quality is plasticone, the ring of the focus has too much play, and the movable part of the front lens "tuft" not poco.rnNon is a real USM, but a mixture, and this penalizes velocità.rnE 'a lens dated and look long been a serious upgrade, but I lost speranze.rn |
 | sent on September 26, 2016 Pros: Bright, light, compact, moderately fast AF Cons: chromatic aberrations Opinion: Got it used for about one year is the lens that I am using the most. Mounted on the 60D is a great portrait lens, also "stolen" given the good AF speed. It has shades a bit cold, especially in artificial light compared to most modern Canon optics. The best will be if used in low light, where the max aperture is actually exploitable. In full sun, unfortunately, there are strong phenomena of chromatic aberrations (purple that is green) is at high-contrast edges in the blurred areas. This is not always easy uncorrectable, often it threatens to ruin the "correct" edges to correct those with halos. In addition to the entire coverage it is a little soft and with a slight loss of contrast. All these defects improve by stopping down to f2.0 and f2.8 to come almost to disappear. To this last focal Opening it reaches levels equal to those of the 40 2.8, but the latter maintains (of course) a more circular bokeh. Overall, the buona quality at f2.8, the ability to open up to 1.4 when conditions permit together with its light weight allow me to always take it with me often finding opportunities to use it. |
 | sent on April 21, 2016 Pros: Bright, sharp as a knife excellent colors and very vivid contrast. Cons: MF ring that hardens with time ... Opinion: I took this lens used to 200.00 € and I am overjoyed. I tried now in many different ways. Maybe because my copy is successful, but I must say it is very clear already at TA. No strange flare or AC obvious to give disorder. Using indoors for ceremonies and the like is domostra very valid. 2.8 onwards is magnificent. At f / 5 hole in the screen. very mounted varies on different cameras. At least this is my impression. On 1ds mkii excellent and beautiful outdoors while with the 5d fantastic old indoors. A vivid and real contrast. It may be that the 16-odd MP of 1ds are perhaps too many for the 50 but with the 12.7 of 5 churns out again in the splendid internal files. Shadows, highlights perfette.rnQUindi one of my Sharpening purchases. For the money of the new or rather the lens used is a splendid IMHO.rn |
| sent on January 05, 2016 Pros: Construction, af fast, weight Cons: Muddy in TA, af inaccurate to 2.8 Opinion: Well, that is, frankly I expected better. A TA is unusable and up to f2.8 to f is completely inaccurate, even in conditions of abundant light. Solid construction, and af fast, quiet, great for portrait work, possibly as if it had cost the equivalent sigma, I would not have bought. What is my model to suffer from this imprecisone? Rn |
| sent on February 24, 2015 Pros: Good sharpness from f 2 of the entire frame. Grand opening Cons: My model has problems in focus that try to solve by using it in the manual. Opinion: Good lens considering the cost, always returns a good blur in photos portraiture, with the flaw shape shutter clearly visible and not well rounded in certain situations. Sharp always stopping down. The focus is rather unreliable openings higher and it is better to rely on manual focus when possible. |
 | sent on January 13, 2015 Pros: Cost, maximum aperture, focus, strength, FullTime MF Cons: Difficult to focus in TA Opinion: PRO: rnStrepitoso, bright, a few euro we will take home one of the most luminous glass on the market, to have a little more you have to spend much more! RNE 'exceptional lens for portraits, his images are nothing short of poetic . I always use a wide open aperture (otherwise step to my trusty 28-70). I use it on fullframe (Canon 6D) and do not dismount almost never! RnCONTRO: rna F1.4 is very difficult to focus, easy to be with eyes focused and ears of the subject out of focus. In live view or preview it is hard to tell whether the image is perfectly fuoco.rnal center the image is almost always perfect, but the edges are often suffers from chromatic aberration, and vignetting. little bad because usually due to blur not nota.rnNOTE: rndopo many years of service it can happen that the mode focus locks, or that it locks the motore.rnPurtroppo is a congenital defect of the lens. In particular there is a guide plate that bends because it is very sottile. Just disassemble it and press it against a table to straighten it and fix it ... and I mean if I did I open it and fix it can make anyone really! (Eye not only to strip the outer screws or those glued) |
 | sent on November 22, 2014 Pros: Blurred, Great brightness, Three-dimensionality of FF focal Yield on APS-C, Construction, Af Cons: Hood sold separately, ring MAF (a bit 'too smooth) Opinion: A lens that I love, the brightest of my outfit (f 1.4). Together with the 28 1.8 USM and the legendary 85 1.8 USM complete my series of fixed lights. All lenses Cool: MAF fast, beautiful bokeh, otiima construction and great robustness. I come from the 50 1.8 II series lacking for brightness, build quality and auto focus than this, certainly better than the 1.4 that makes it better especially on FF. Globally, however, the fifty I've never been disappointed, and taught me how to take pictures with pdc and effects creativi.rnSu Mk2 reduced the yield is good, on APS-C is a 80mm with a nice design and excellent nitidezza.rnA 2.8 the lens is super-sharp, but even at f2 is fantastic second me.rnIn low light always saves the shot; does not have a high cost and versatility ottima.rnMolto satisfied the objective, only a slight fluidity of the ring of MAF compared to 28 and 85 (AF above), but that's okay. rnParaluce purchased separately (not a fault of the lens), for & ogravand; Canon could add in kit.rnMeglio of this - of this focus - there is only the big brother 1.2 (sublime), but it costs more than four times this ... rnrn |
 | sent on October 01, 2014 Pros: Excellent build quality, usm, already at f1.4.nitido and with beautiful contrasts / colors Cons: Hood not included (but not a fault) Opinion: I used it on the 50d and 6d then APSC and ff behaves really in excellent condition for me is perfect excellent bokeh, clear already at f 1.4 but from 2 onwards is a blade, af lightning, very great satisfaction for those who decide to buy it (I also tried the 50 1.8 that has much less to build quality, auto focus, 13 stop in most but as glass makes good photos too) so if you want to buy a bright and lasting optical usm is money well spent species for close-ups busts. |
| sent on September 24, 2014 Pros: Sharp already at full aperture (the copy in my possession becomes great if you close to a stop), good color (maybe a little bit warm, but I like that?), Nice bokeh. is an objective particularly lightweight, small in size but not for this little rugged. The vignetting and chromatic aberration also contained on FF (vignetting obviously more "visible" but correggibilissima in post production on FF at full aperture). Cons: Difficulty in focusing freehand aperture wide open, lack of image stabilization, lack of lens hood. Opinion: Goal that can be really interesting is that of reduced sensor on FF. Together 85 1.8 is the ideal option for portraits of my equipment and the like. It is not a simple lens, because of the ease with which, freehand and with the "greed" of the aperture wide open, you can not go wrong focus. Once known it but I can not appreciate the sharpness and bokeh that I find it soft and clean. Not being included, I will have a hood coupled "For Canon" cinesissimo that, I think I remember, I paid a few euro? RnNel Overall I think it is a great lens, although a little 'hard to tame at least all'inizio.rn |
 | sent on September 24, 2014 Pros: Sharpness, focus, aperture, weight, price Cons: Ring focus Opinion: I use this lens for portraits and street on a camera body has FF.rnSi plasticky and could suggest a toy but the quality of the images I really like, I find it enjoyable also blurred. And 'light and veloce.rnLa manual focus instead is difficult due to a ring very sensitive and very long, at least this is my percezione.rnRitengo the quality / price excellent. Grade 7. |
 | sent on September 12, 2014 Pros: Precision, sharpness, grand opening, Bokeh excellent results in general Cons: No lens hood ... not stabilized. Opinion: 27oscurità .... and I have completely solved the situation perfectly capturing the faces of children with spectacular bokeh of my City of Lights. The price is in line with the product, however, is of excellent quality despite the materials used ... I highly recommend it. The only drawback .... no hood .... but you can recover with 8 euro .....:-) |
 | sent on August 02, 2014 Pros: Sharpness, grand opening. Cons: Missing the hood as standard. Opinion: My first lens, from beginner beginning I thought the maf does not execute correctly wide open, knowing and using it then I learned to appreciate it, I feel good, I use it both with tubes fitted with reverse ring for close-up shots. I find it great for indoor low light, shooting with high ISO and at wide apertures course. |
 | sent on July 09, 2014 Pros: Lightweight, versatile, very bright, inexpensive species if found used. Cons: Economic outer coating material, non-stabilized, not fast focus, not tropicalizzato.Privo lens hood in the original package. Opinion: Found used in Florence with 200 Euros, I use it for many years has never betrayed in avverse.Il classic fifty atmospheric conditions to me that I sometimes solve difficili.In through the day situations when you take a lot of pictures with heavy lenses gives you mano.Un a bit soft in the rendering best when used 1.8 also applies discreetly 1.4.Mi feel satisfied, definitely 50 to 1.2 and the other thing but many pennies in +. |
 | sent on May 16, 2014 Pros: Price, weight, optical quality, sharpness, fast AF, bokeh Cons: No lens hood, AC TA but correctable Opinion: Optics that I love, on full frame (5d Mark II) is a performance, razor sharp already at f1.4 at the point on fire! Make effort to remove it from the car .. fast AF and low weight, the yield is great, just a little 'AC wide open, fixable in PP in seconds! RnConsiderando that new now is 300 € and used on the 200 / 250 is a must have, much better than the 50 f1.8 II as resa.rnIl 50 L f1.2 I've never tried it and will definitely be higher .. but it also costs 4 times the 1 .4 .. it is really worth ? |
 | sent on May 13, 2014 Pros: Sharpness already at 1.4 Bokeh price (compared to 1 .2) accuracy and speed of focusing Cons: ring focus "long" in the video lens hood is not standard Opinion: I have used for 2 years younger brother, 1.8, great lens, but the quality difference is noted, and a lot too. Ergonomics is another level, the focus ring to focus the 1 .4 you can move easily, sharpness and better in my opinion already at room temperature, color rendering is superb and the difference of the USM motor is known and many more. A great glass that advice! |
 | sent on March 14, 2014 Pros: Cheap, good value for money Cons: A little mushy, if you can tell, made vitreous tank. Opinion: It 'clearly a personal impression, I usually prefer the objectives yield dense, creamy, like say ... pasty. This perspective, the price being offered is superb, no doubt about it, but I think it lacks the personality that does not place on top of the L-series zoom lenses that cover this focal length (for example, the 24-70 f / 2.8 to 50mm focal length gives a different atmosphere and the colors more dense, saturated and contrasting). Personal opinion of course, is certain is that the value for money is great, but because the alternative is the excellent f/1.8, or the "dear" f/1.2, different objectives for yield and, not least, for the purchase price. rnOttimo focus, noticeable purple fringing at wide apertures in contrast scenes, reportage and street in low-light situations, it is definitely a perspective that guarantees an excellent result. |
user26730 | sent on February 27, 2014 Pros: really a lot! Cons: I do not know Opinion: Reading a bit everywhere the book reviews of this lens makes me think that there is not a constant quality construction by Canon. Why not 'for someone who can read and' crystal clear and for someone else and 'too soft. For some, the AF and 'faultless and other wrong 6 of 10 photos! RnIo use it for years (and I bought two to three years away from one another because the first was stolen from me) and I can say and that 'a worthy tool. A f1, 4 and 'maybe a tad soft but according to what you have to photograph (and with the sharpening in PP) is already so good. Gia to f1, 6 Nessu has no more need of help. For portraiture in the studio, with or without artificial light when the lighting and 'enough, I love to use it to f2, 5 because she gives me a razor sharpness blurred interesting. With the flash at f2, 8 and stupendo.rnCosa add, small, lightweight, inexpensive and efficient. What can 'ask for more? RnConsigliatissimo |
 | sent on November 22, 2013 Pros: Brilliant clarity, optical quality, Reasonable price; Portability Cons: Lack hood "standard"; Opinion: I love this lens. The use of full frame (5d mark II) and is the best in my kit. The sharpness of the picture is sorpredente, greater even than that of the expensive L-series zoom! Also incredible price, is 300 euro in the network, a ridiculously low price when compared with other more famous optics. Worth much more than the money it costs. rnSu full frame is very usable in different situations, and it is a lens to carry around even for taking pictures in the street. Hard to think of selling it ... rnDa buy without reservation. |
 | sent on October 12, 2013 Pros: Good sharpness, good light, blurred pleasant, light weight and size, slight chromatic aberrations and vignetting, great for video Cons: 1 of 4 photos without 3piedi not be fully in focus, MF ring is not very stable, lack of IS and lens hood, f/1.4 a bit more difficult to focus. Opinion: Great goal, it was necessary to adjust the focus, at the maximum aperture no front / back focus as soon as the first lens montato.rnLo recommend to anyone for the quality / price ratio and the discrete versatility. With a little 'commitment and a FF you can get photo quality very professional. (I do not know of a reduced size xkè do not have it). Highly recommended as "unique" lens for video makers who have low buget but want to start shooting, thanks to its sharpness and light in dimly illuminati.rnPer me, really money well spent, now it's my second lens but always carry and I will not sell at all. |
 | sent on October 11, 2013 Pros: lightness, clarity, cost for an f1.4. Cons: focus unreliable, especially with regard not optimal. Opinion: I see this judgment, in view of a use of FF. My example and 'crisp and clear 1.4 accettabilissimi levels and optical efficiency and overall' truly remarkable. And 'a' good goal from bright really low cost and light weight and portability 'inimitable. In good light, the autofocus and 'reliable diaphragm also very open on the central but little on the side. Strangely are more 'reliable long lateral extremes that those around the center, mah ... Just cove light or the subject is not' perfectly illuminated and contrasted, taking up to F2 you lose reliability 'on the Maf, also on the panel. We must pay close attention and do more 'shots with various tests of focus or manual focus go to the aid of a slide mat. It could be better ? but surely to 250 Euros and used with this lightweight, no. I would change with the new 1.8 STM? absolutely not, shoot at f1.4 and 'another story. |
user5958 | sent on August 12, 2013 Pros: Sharpness, aperture, color rendering, portability, good speed MAF. For its price a bargain. Cons: The blurred may not like. Opinion: The lens I used the most. I use it since 2009 and I still marvel of its quality. F 3.2 is crystal clear, and just recently I'm rediscovering a TA, where the MAF is hardly accurate but if apt on my copy is sharp enough to be used for portraits with discrete magnifications. Quality of the blurred perhaps a p'o dry, but pleasant in my opinion, and if it guesses exposure and background can have remarkable results. The objective is portabilissimo, the MAF fast and sufficiently precise. When I bought it I was struck by the contrast and color rendition. Closing f 3.2, a blade, great for portrait work, even on APCs. rnNon I can only recommend it. rnAggiornamento June 2014: rnSono past to FF, in particular Canon 6d. I have to say that the optics after a loss has held up very well my first shot. At first glance, I immediately noticed a perceptible vignetting is not too annoying to say the TA and the first aperture to F2. For the rest I can say that I only had improvements. The sensorof 6d should have approximately the same density of the APS-C sensor of 400d. From here I'll explain how the risolvenza of the lens has not had significant decreases. Indeed TA must say that once guessed the focus sharpness in the center is more than enough for portraits. The management of the lens is obviously a little more complicated in the sense that if effettuavo first shots at f 3.2 with good security to have a pdc enough to avoid out of focus shots in quick time I close at least af 4, in which the lens aperture shows a sharpness of respect . Colors are blurry and the people I knew before, now accustomed to the lens molto.rnCon appreciate the arrival of the 6d I could test the lens for shooting video and I have to say that it is as spectacular as the yield of blurry, and colors. rnDevo say that for example when compared to the 35 f2 in my possession, or colors are quite different as well as the three-dimensionality of the shooting emphasized by pdc reduced. The AF is fast enough and combined with the central point of 6d even in low-light situations do not hor major problems just do a little attention and know well the optics! rnSe then consider the compactness of the lens, I think the 50 will remain ino my traveling companion for a long time, without making me regret most renowned lenses. Often I read many outputs crew of only 50, coming home with great shots. |
 | sent on May 13, 2013 Pros: Small, lightweight, bright, beautiful colors, bokeh appreciable, autofocus pretty quickly (though not lightning) and accurate even in low light and in the absence of strong contrasts. I took it down the street a couple of nights and I was amazed to accuracy and reliability. Very good quality / price ratio. Cons: Occasional problem of color fringing, lack of a decent lens hood (for now and I've tried quite a few "dancers"), low sharpness at full aperture. The AF has a hard time with the side steps (on 6D). Opinion: It is in my view to have in your arsenal, both for FF APS-C. Although 85 to FF 1.8 is much more strongly. Optics really nice for portraits, especially on APS-C. Thanks to the low weight, it is phenomenal for a walk in the city and capture special moments. Especially at night, when the 1 .4 can help a lot to keep the ISO low and difficult situations still managed to make it to the fullest. In short, to have. |
 | sent on March 18, 2013 Pros: Cost, very sharp, precise in focus Cons: This has already been said, the para absent light Opinion: At full aperture suffers a little in the corners but it is already very sharp in the center, but already 2.2 is another story. I tried several shots has a sfucato fantastico.Nelle street is just as exceptional as close todir a little becomes a real blade. Easy to carry. trying to dim light I was impressed with the accuracy. I recommend it, The only drawback as I said I will have to order the para light, but this is not central to the quality of this glass |
| sent on February 14, 2013 Pros: Sharpness, brightness, colors, excellent construction, very good MF Cons: Lack of the hood as standard, lack of stabilizer Opinion: C, and since I rarely buy the detachment from the camera body. I recommend it to those looking for features like this, even taking into account the cost that is reasonable after all. |
 | sent on February 11, 2013 Pros: Small, light, crisp, bright Cons: --- Opinion: I have this lens for a few weeks and I must say I'm loving it. Of APS in some cases is a bit long, but for portraits, street, architecture and I are having a great time. The much bistratta softness TA I do not observable, even in some portraits are forced to soften voluntarily. The colors are very natural and the flare is quite low. |
 | sent on January 03, 2013 Pros: Relatively inexpensive, focus faster than canon 50mm 1.8, fuzzy good compared to 1 .8. Cons: Many individuals suffer from f / b focus, f/1.4 is not very sharp. Opinion: This lens is like a pebble in your shoe, I had the first version of 1 .8 and the difference to be honest you do not notice, I always use it to 1.8 and never TA because it is too soft, you can not crop if used in TA is all very very mixed, 1.8 better, but nothing shocking. I took it for a better af, but here I was a little disappointed. |
 | sent on November 05, 2012 Pros: Quality / price, sharpness, blurred Cons: no Opinion: I bought this lens used (200 €) and without knowing the dangers of front-back focus. Result: optical crystal-clear already at full aperture (the use of 5D and 40D), excellent bokeh (for my taste much better than the 1.8 I had fifty), discrete building (not an L, but it is not a plasticone) and perfect focus. Do not miss a photo even with the 5D (which is not just a flash, on paper at least). I've never tried the 50/1.2 so I can not make a comparison, but between the fixed "not L" is eccezionale.rnObiettivo from which I will separate mai.rnIl hood (the absence of which seems to be a "counter" for all) the 'I bought it (new and Chinese) € 2.50 shipped. What you ask for? |
| sent on September 18, 2012 Pros: economic, bright, blurred Cons: no Opinion: bought three days. I did several tests and I'm happy: my model does not suffer from back or front focus ... amazing! is a little too early to make a definitive judgment, but for the use that I do the f 1.4 is another planet, with the 5D MK2 shooting in the dark with time safely. I was used to the other 3 goals that I (f 4) this is another thing |
| sent on September 08, 2012 Pros: very bright, excellent color rendering, fast autofocus, light, better building small 1.8. discreet street photograpy. beautiful blur. Cons: 30% of the photos out of focus, against the evil acts. of bee-c is no longer a 50. Opinion: great lens from the best 2.8-up. Very soft at 1.4 but the focus is really worth! At least I like it :) very versatile, even in the city use almost only this, even if on APSC becomes perhaps too long. different flare but not displeasing. there are defects. the consideration of other brands enhance the very definition and usability to large openings. it is not stabilized then suffer much blur as each lens is not stabilized. the autofocus does not always take us, especially against the suffering much more than other models. I also sent in for service, where I have graduated and are now improved picture in focus. in conclusion, to have a goal, 50 has its own charm, and I would say that at a price to be used I took absolutely. some problems, but manageable, very bright and I think my problems and also for my bad :) come on full frame becomes beautiful. but on almost APSC portrait in bright excellent :) |
 | sent on June 08, 2012 Pros: Sharpest, lightweight and discreet, very bright, fast and quiet AF. Cons: Lack of the hood as standard. Opinion: Great lens for street reportage on FF, as well as for portraits. The objective is particularly small and light, good wide open, but closing a little becomes a real razor, great colors that gives the AF is accurate and silent, the 8 aperture blades give a good blurred, The cost is not very high, so I would recommend it highly to anyone in preference to younger brother is to build quality for optical quality, for AF, really slow and noisy that of 1, 8. The only drawback is the lens hood is not supplied, then that must be purchased separately, however, strongly recommend the purchase of the latter. |
 | sent on February 11, 2012 Pros: Compact and lightweight, good build quality and optical Cons: missing the hood, to buy separately; optical quality is not outstanding at the widest apertures Opinion: Although this is an outdated project is a perspective that can be very rewarding, making it very clear to both the center than at the edges, except in the widest apertures. To f: 2.8 Zeiss succumbs than its counterpart, for which, however, is slightly higher at the edges f: 5.6 (at least with the examples that I could try). Also good yield of focus. I often use both fullframe and with APS-C (D7) and it becomes a sensational lens from portrait and / or reports. |
 | sent on October 05, 2011 Pros: Very sharp, exciting colors, bright Cons: Suffers from a slight distortion, digests bad backlighting Opinion: Are related to Canon products for a lifetime. The 50 mm FD did not suffer the flare as the EF. Objective "life-saving" excellent in extreme low light situations. Good and sturdy construction, offered at an affordable price. Currently I use a little since I adopted zoom EF 24/105 L. I imagine a fifty with stabilizer .. what could be done .. Canon has heard? |
 | sent on October 03, 2011 Pros: quality / price ratio, light, space, quiet AF motor Cons: imprecision MAF, construction, lens hood (absent) Opinion: I use it for a while ', and for portraits on APS-C is my lens of choice. Unfortunately my copy suffers from front focus, but thanks to the micro-adjustment available on the 50D is not a big problem: after a session "serious" point adjustment MAF, now it's fine. At full aperture is very soft, especially at the edges you can see a lot of loss of sharpness, but closed from f / 2 to f / 4 brings out the best of themselves. The building is one that is slightly better than the "plasticotto" f/1.8 Canon counterpart, plus a game of ring MAF, denouncing probable future problems of dust and dirt. Moreover, at that price, you can not not complain, even the Sigma equivalent that acts a bit 'better at room temperature and has a more professional building, still costs a good 25-30% more. A lens upgrade candidate, in any case, since it's been around for a little bit and an "upgrade" technology would not hurt. Finally, the usual sore point with all Canon lenses, the lens hood is not included (and having to shell out another 10% more to buy original annoys more than a little, because in this way the final price comes dangerously close to that of the "twin" Sigma, which instead has the lens hood included, in addition to "bag" to keep the lens when it is at rest). |
 | sent on September 28, 2011 Pros: Sharpness, AF, Colors, Flare resistance, light weight, Filters 58mm Cons: Lack of the hood as standard Opinion: I have a good copy, already clear at TA FF has a good bokeh maybe not up to the competition (which, however, suffers from other problems) and brother f/1.2 L but I remember that it costs 1/4 less, for rest is a great lens may be a little dated, gives me great images even in low light. Closing up to f/1.8, it becomes a razor incredible, at a cost acceptable uses 58mm filters (less expensive than 77mm) AF accurately and quickly. |
 | sent on September 24, 2011 Pros: Sharpness, construction, good AF, portability. Cons: Chronic lack of hood and soft at full aperture. Opinion: Excellent in everything except for the yield at full aperture which is maintained comunqua acceptable. The focus is very good but the competition on this is better. As you start to close the diaphragm becomes a blade. Worth every euro it costs, but the parent does not understand that a hood would cost them a few cents and earn millions of consensus in the image. |
 | sent on September 24, 2011 Pros: very sharp, small and light, very bright, fast and quiet AF Cons: the hood you buy separately. Opinion: lens from the good results, valid from portraits ambientati scenes with little light available. Handy and light, blur very pleasant and progressive. Even at full aperture maintains a good quality, excellent intermediate diaphragms. Very resistant to flare, tan'è the hood I use it more for protection of the front lens by light. Small and lightweight, fits easily in your bag. |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
