What was so hilarious? I guess you rather give a remark like this than to actually respond to the points and info I made an gave?
Because even when I DO start being anal and looking at graphs on sharpness, you dismiss them and TELL us what factors are important, what factors aren't important, as though these are "the truth." They're not absolute.
You actually do that often when you post here.
To be frank, corner sharpness is really the LAST thing that is important for what a 50mm lens will be used for. You should know that in portrait photos corner sharpness is not very important, ESPECIALLY in such shallow depth of field photos if you would actually use f1.4.
I don't use the 50 mm exclusively for portraits and will sometimes use it as a low light lens, so I care about corner sharpness whenever I don't use it for portraits.
Example: I used the 50 mm during a BBQ and at the Nagoya Aquarium when travelling in Japan. Corner sharpness doesn't matter TO YOU at f/1.4, so you dismiss it as a factor. Not everyone uses it exclusively for portraits. Portraits were only brought up you in your last post, probably to make your point about corner sharpness being unimportant. I use it for portraits, but I also use it for other reasons, so I want sharp results throughout my photos.
Now...LET'S LOOK AT SOME PRETTY GRAPHS!!: (This will be the ONLY time I'll bother playing the numbers and graphs game with you. Full stop.):
Even at Photozone.de, which you said you trust (it's a site I like as well), the sharpness at the corners at f/1.4 are so low (1415!!) that it's unacceptable to me. When looking at Photozone.de's sharpness graphs, we both know what values the good lenses get, and what numbers the GREAT lenses get. Being familiar with their graphs, I believe that any lens that's sharper than 1850 is so sharp that it won't affect my photo even if it's not as sharp as another lens. The difference between 1900 and 2050 isn't going to be big (for example). Since any lens above 1850 is very sharp, get the one with HSM, or better build, better value, etc.
Anything lower than 1400 (ie: halfway between 1250 and 1550 on their scale) is too soft for me, while anything from 1550 - 1700 is very usuable.
The 50 mm f/1.8 at f/1.8 (wide open):
1690 at the centre.
1644 at the corners.
The 50 mm f/1.4 at f/1.4 (wide open):
1754 at centre.
1415 at the corners.
The difference along the centre
(only 64 lw/ph) is negligible, but the corner sharpness is much different, with the 50 mm f/1.4 near my
personal bottom limit from Photozone.de tests, as it's at an f-number I'll sometimes use.
I know corners are going to be softer than the centre. I'm obviously not completely anal about sharpness, as I'll make an exception for a very wide aperture lens that's nice for low light use, since it serves that function. But lets face it, it's
soft at the corners, and is only as sharp as the 50 mm f/1.8 version at the centre. This is why I said the 50 mm f/1.8 is sharper when used wide-open. It is.
Fact is, the f1.4 is sharper and better than the f1.8, and what you claim, that many say the f1.4 is soft, is just not true.
I know MANY people with a 50mm f1.4, and no one complains it is soft.
And besides, SLRgear comfirms this, they even state that the lens is TACK sharp over most of its aperture range.
Yes, SLRGear did say that, but we're talking about
WIDE-OPEN sharpness, and so my response was about shooting wide open, which was the topic of conversation. I never said the 50 mm f/1.4 isn't sharp at higher apertures.
Funny thing is that when comparing the two 50 mm models with both lenses set to f/1.8, the 50 mm f/1.8 is
STILL better:
50 mm f/1.8 set at f/1.8 (wide open)
Centre = 1869
Corner = 1805
50 mm f/1.4 set at f/1.8 (
NOT wide open)
Centre = 1861 (a tie)
Corner = 1580
And that SLRgear doesn't know how to reliably test lenses is not my problem. And maybe they had a damaged copy, if their copy was unsharp in the center.
If SLRGear's copy of the 50 mm f/1.4 was damaged, then how come the lens started to be so sharp when set at only f/2? I know that even with slightly damaged lenses, you can still get great results and "mask" the flaw by stopping down, but you'd usually stop down to f/5.6 or f/8 to really cover up a flaw. Are you saying that in this case, this "flaw" was fixed by simply stopping down from f/1.4 to f/2?
A lens that doesn't work properly at f/1.4 won't get great numbers at f/2 either, and yet it does.
But photozone.de actually does quite a good and careful job, and their findings most of the times match the results from the german photomagazine ColorFoto.
The fact that both photozone and ColorFoto come to the same assessments most of the time does show that photozone's test results are reliable.
I don't know about those two sites coming up to the same conclusion "most of the time", but have you ever take a statistics class? Three websites will test a total of 3 copies of a lens (usually).
Personally, I like all 3 sites. SLRGear doesn't do a bad job. And besides, I like looking at several review sites to see what I may end up with from a non-faulty lens from sample variance.
Their conclusion on the 50mm f1.4:
"The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM showed an almost flawless performance during the lab- and field-tests both in terms of optical and mechanical quality. If I had to list a few negative points it would be vignetting and low contrast at f/1.4. So if you're looking for a lens in this class the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is a great option."
I never said that you woudn't be happy with the results, even at f/1.4. I know that f/1.4 isn't going to give me critical sharpness, and when I do use such wide apertures, sharpness isn't my concern -- light is.
I do not know about you, but in reality you would not use f1.4 very often.
If you wouldn't, then buy the f/1.8 version.
Joking.
I would use the lens at f/1.4 in low light, but that's it. That IS one reason why people buy it, not just portraits.
And the lens is a very good lens, and very attractive for portrait photography.
You're right, it is a good lens for a wide aperture prime. They both are.
And in portrait photography, who cares about softer edges when you would actually be using f1.4! You subject is in the center.
Until you take a shot under low light that isn't a portrait photo.
Here a 200% crop of the Canon 50mm f1.4 on the edge (not the corner) on s 5D fullframe(!!). At f8 i believe.
And here a 200% crop from the Nikon 50mm f1.4 on APS-C (D200).
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/co...o-Head-Review-/Performance--Image-Quality.htm
This shows the 50mm f1.4 Canon to perform well compared to the Nikon version... both in sharpness on its extreme edge (it was full frame) and in CA.
I never compared or tried/wanted to compare the Nikon, so it's a bit off-topic. The conversation was about shooting wide open, not at f/8. They're both sharp at f/2.8 and up.
From f/2.8 to f/8, both the Canon f/1.4 and f/1.8 models are sharp, the 50 mm f/1.4 being better at f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6. At f/8, it's around the same. But again, you're comparing 2 sharp lenses at this point, so "meh."
And if you actually care to read what real users have to say about it, you would know it is a very good lens. If you shift through the "reviews" on fredmiranda for instance, and discard the worthless "reviews", you will find it to be a very well liked lens.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=29&sort=7&cat=2&page=3
I never said it wasn't good or well liked.
And which "worthless" reviews?
