I think you may be confusing this lens with the f/1.8 "nifty-fifty" This f/1.4 version has a USM focusing system not the STM stepper motor system of the 1.8.
I owned the 50mm 1.4 and it was a great lens optically but a terrible lens for focusing due to the stepper motor. It failed repeatedly and always struggled to find precise focus. If you research it, they used some very old motor tech on this lens from over a decade ago. Other than that... It captures nice pics.
The 50mm f/1.4 is not a particularly good lens but the 85mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens, everyone with a FF Canon camera should have one. It's exceptionally sharp.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank AUSSIE2U
11-29-2022 at 10:58 AM.
I owned the 50mm 1.4 and it was a great lens optically but a terrible lens for focusing due to the stepper motor. It failed repeatedly and always struggled to find precise focus. If you research it, they used some very old motor tech on this lens from over a decade ago. Other than that... It captures nice pics.
The 50mm f/1.4 is not a particularly good lens but the 85mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens, everyone with a FF Canon camera should have one. It's exceptionally sharp.
I owned the 50mm 1.4 and it was a great lens optically but a terrible lens for focusing due to the stepper motor. It failed repeatedly and always struggled to find precise focus. If you research it, they used some very old motor tech on this lens from over a decade ago. Other than that... It captures nice pics.
I think you may be confusing this lens with the f/1.8 "nifty-fifty" This f/1.4 version has a USM focusing system not the STM stepper motor system of the 1.8.
Edit: I was mixing it up with the nifty fifty w.r.t STM v USM.
I remember trying the 50mm/f1.4 many years back and finding it a bit soft and hearing that's normal. Is that still the case?
I've had this lens for over 20 years. It is a bit soft on the edges at 1.4, but better enough than the 1.8 STM at this price where comparable. I don't travel with it as I also have the 1.8 STM and prefer a lighter kit.
Edit: I was mixing it up with the nifty fifty w.r.t STM v USM.
I remember trying the 50mm/f1.4 many years back and finding it a bit soft and hearing that's normal. Is that still the case?
Yup, the 50 1.4 is softer than the 1.8 even with them both at 1.8. However, the 1.4 has much nicer bokeh rendering and the USM focusing is better than the STM of the 1.8.
Personally I pass on them both and go for the manual focus vintage Canon nFD 50mm f/1.4. The nFD is sharper than the EF 1.4, and has even nicer rendering. You can scoop up a nice condition nFD 50mm f/1.4 for $80-$100 and an adapter for another $20. Keep in mind though, the nFD can only be adapted to mirrorless bodies.
The 85mm was so good that I refuse to sell it when I upgraded my body from apsc to full frame 6D (I bought the equivalent focal
length 135mm f2 together with the 6D).
The 50mm 1.4 is a different story, I hate it so much because its focusing issue and end up selling it at a loss. Now I'm using the 50mm sigma art, far better lens imo. For traveling, I use the lightweight 40mm 2.8 pancake lens.
The 85 is an excellent lens. I was a full-time wedding photographer for a decade and this lens never got left at home. So sharp at a super affordable price. Are there better? Of course. The 1.2 is phenomenal, but focus is so slow you better hope nothing is moving. This is highly suggested to anyone who wants to do portraits.
Strange, when I search Canon refurbished lenses I find the EF 85mm f/1.8 is $400 and OOS.
However, the link works and I agree this is a stellar deal at $180.
I have R5 with
EF: 50 1.4, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 2.8 IS L (mk 1), 100 macro
RF: 100-400 and 35 f/1.8 ($300 refurb), arriving today.
I use the 70-200 most of the time, for sports, events and occasionally portraits. It's certainly showing its age though and I'm tempted to replace it with the much smaller/lighter RF version.
This is sure tempting though and gives me more than an extra stop at low-light.. and I presume much sharper than my 70-200.
Oh... and someone may be giving(!) me an EF 50mm 1.2L soon. If I had that, I don't imagine I'd use the 85mm much.
couldn't pass on the opportunity to flex? everything after "$180" seems irrelevant, no? ;-)
57 Comments
Your comment cannot be blank.
Featured Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank AUSSIE2U
I remember trying the 50mm/f1.4 many years back and finding it a bit soft and hearing that's normal. Is that still the case?
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I remember trying the 50mm/f1.4 many years back and finding it a bit soft and hearing that's normal. Is that still the case?
I remember trying the 50mm/f1.4 many years back and finding it a bit soft and hearing that's normal. Is that still the case?
Personally I pass on them both and go for the manual focus vintage Canon nFD 50mm f/1.4. The nFD is sharper than the EF 1.4, and has even nicer rendering. You can scoop up a nice condition nFD 50mm f/1.4 for $80-$100 and an adapter for another $20. Keep in mind though, the nFD can only be adapted to mirrorless bodies.
length 135mm f2 together with the 6D).
The 50mm 1.4 is a different story, I hate it so much because its focusing issue and end up selling it at a loss. Now I'm using the 50mm sigma art, far better lens imo. For traveling, I use the lightweight 40mm 2.8 pancake lens.
However, the link works and I agree this is a stellar deal at $180.
I have R5 with
EF: 50 1.4, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 2.8 IS L (mk 1), 100 macro
RF: 100-400 and 35 f/1.8 ($300 refurb), arriving today.
I use the 70-200 most of the time, for sports, events and occasionally portraits. It's certainly showing its age though and I'm tempted to replace it with the much smaller/lighter RF version.
This is sure tempting though and gives me more than an extra stop at low-light.. and I presume much sharper than my 70-200.
Oh... and someone may be giving(!) me an EF 50mm 1.2L soon. If I had that, I don't imagine I'd use the 85mm much.