Is it like few millimeters what it backfocuses or way more? Allso does it vary at time to time or about same every time? This backfocusing issue is making me hesitate even more than the money thing. I dont really need 35 or 135mm

I was thinking i could sell my 28mm and money wouldnt be that much of a issue. Im really not in need for that wide angle, even if i could find it use for few shots in year i dont think its worth keeping the lens.



i ment that on 1.6 crop. On 1.3crop 50mm is good overall focal lenght

depends , it's about 5-15mm...
The point is that it's a misfocus, and at large apertures it sucks.

It's a design flaw, there is nothing to it, you have to just work around it.

I and a few other found that using external focusing points helps...

At 1.2 it's dead on.

But I can understand, 1000+ euros for a flawed design kind of sounds like a ripoff.

Not many people like the 50L for this reason.

Ah, also it's less sharp than the 1.4 at apertures < f4...

I love mine nonless

This post was edited by Astragony on Dec 8 2008 03:25am

I always find it unbelievable that people want 35mm+ lenses. I come from a line of thought where almost everything is done with wide-angle lens. Myself, I love my 35mm compact right now, but on my DSLR I loved the 24mm 1.4. It was such a beast and took 90% of my pictures.

As for the original question: that small difference isn't worth it. 1.4 is already a really nice number.

I do doubt the uses of a 50 mm lens though. 50mm on an analogue camera is similar to what our eyes see and that's exactly what photography isn't. On a digital it's usually 75-80mm which is just a bit zoomed. Not really useful for 'exciting' pictures, in my view.

50mm is good for 1.3 crop factor imo, im not into wide angles. Id want the 1.2 mainly for weather seals, flare and ca control, sharpness and 1.2 aperature and build quality would just be a huge plus. 1.4 would be better for its small size, price(not that big of a deal) and no af problems..

astragony have you tested how the af problems show if using focus assistant points? If the missfocus isnt more than few millimeters, then normal focus point for example to nose and assistant point to eyes might help a bit. Allso im wondering if its hard to nail focus manually at really low aperatures, with 1.8 its pretty easy for teh cameras good focus screen, but i never shot with 1.2 or 1.4. Allso you know if there is some better focus screens that would make manual focus easierand that could be used with other than just macroing?

Damn i suck making up my mind on these kind of things

You shouldn't use the camera's max apeture opening. The quality is best one or more stops above it. With a 1.4 lens, shoot with 1.8 etc.

I know, but max aperature is still useable

I don't think the 1.2 is worth the extra money for what it is. The 1.4 is sharper at anything above 4 or so.

I don't find the focus shift to be such an pain, as long as you know it's there it's fine.
I am not a test guy sorry.

You can get better focusing screens, I had one on my 5D and it really helped manual focus.
Actually the larger the aperture the easier it is to manual focus in my opinion.

Also I get the 1.2 for the 1.2, not to stop it down... that's the whole point...

I am probably getting the 24 1.4 II when it comes out but I really love my 50mm.
50mm forces you to find creative and interesting compositions instead of hoping that your lens effect (fisheye, macro or whatever) does the job.
I just like how vintage it feels to shoot with the 50mm (much better on full frame).