50mm Macro f/2.8 vs 50mm f/1.4

ksignorini · 07-16-2008, 10:16 PM

Could someone post some comparison pictures (or point me at some on the net) between these two lenses.

I have the 50mm f/2.8 Macro and am wondering if the f/1.4 is as sharp. I love that 50mm Macro.

I am thinking about grabbing the f/1.4 just to have a super fast lens for church weddings, etc. but am curious how it compares. It's an added stop, and that's important, but so is clarity.

Thanks!

GSk · 07-17-2008, 01:48 AM

The 50mm f/1.4 is not very sharp when used with aperture wide open. It is a cheap lens that might be handy occasionally. I do not use mine very much, as I have the 40mm and 70mm limited, and find them much better.

fearview · 07-17-2008, 02:03 AM

i shot this wide open. at f/1.4.

i dont know wheter this can be categorized as 'sharp' or not.

--

looking up to arsenal you already has, i dont think you need 50 1.4.

fishy · 07-17-2008, 03:47 AM

I have the 1.4, and absolutely love it. It might be a bit soft @ 1.4, but still sharper than many 2.8 lenses (@ 2.8, duh). I like the narrow DOF (and actually also the softness) of this lens wide open for portraits. And, I think you get two stops more...

*Peter Zack* · 07-17-2008, 04:01 AM

Fishy is right. It's a 2 stop difference and the lens is pretty good wide open but does get better as you stop it down (but what lens doesn't?). Same goes for the 50/macro at 2.8. Overall the 50 macro is sharper but won't help you when the lighting is poor.

I have both and I'll take a couple of test shots shortly and post them.

*Peter Zack* · 07-17-2008, 06:10 AM

Here are the test shots and crops. Each picture is labeled and EXIF is intact I think. Sure the FA50 is softer at f1.4 and has razor thin DOF but that can be a real plus for a portrait and have a look at the speed differences. All shot with 2 second lock up on a tripod with controlled light. The 2 flower shots are wide open with each lens and gives you a real world look at both. No PP at all other than to crop and resize. Shot in RAW K10D No sharpening on any shots.

Sharpen the wide open FA50 shots a bit and you have a winning fast lens that is a must have lens IMO.

Click on the image to view it in a larger size

FA50 f1.4 @1/2000

Click on the image to view it in a larger size

FA50mm Macro f2.8 @1/500

Click on the image to view it in a larger size

There's a huge speed difference when you look at what the 2 stops can do. Could be the difference between getting the shot or not at an event.

ll_coffee_lP · 07-17-2008, 07:55 AM

Great examples Peter! Did you happen to go with Primus' wireless long distance solution?

(j/k)

Gooshin · 07-17-2008, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by GSk

The 50mm f/1.4 is not very sharp when used with aperture wide open. It is a cheap lens that might be handy occasionally. I do not use mine very much, as I have the 40mm and 70mm limited, and find them much better.

your 40 and 70 limites cant do 1.4...

this is an FA50 1.4 @ 1.4

Blue · 07-17-2008, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by GSk

The 50mm f/1.4 is not very sharp when used with aperture wide open. It is a cheap lens that might be handy occasionally. I do not use mine very much, as I have the 40mm and 70mm limited, and find them much better.

Thats not a fair comparison unless you compare them at f2.8 with the same series of shutter speeds etc. The reason I got an FA 50 f1.4 was to have a FAST af 50mm lens on hand.

That said, if the budget could handle it, I don't see anything wrong with having a FA 50 f1.4 and the DA 50mm f2.8 macro although since I have the FA 50, I'm looking at the 35mm f2.8 macro. But then there's the DA 40 f2.8 I'd like to have. So many lenses, so little time . . .

*Peter Zack* · 07-17-2008, 12:12 PM

Good example of how the FA50/1.4 can do portraits Gooshin. Looks great. It's why I have both. If I want speed, or thin DOF the 1.4 comes out. For the ultimate in everything but speed and thin DOF, the 2.8 gets used. It was once rated "the best 50 made by anyone" and can still hold it's own against any lens. Look at the difference in the colour in the 2 flowers above. Not only is it richer, but it has as much or more depth to it than any lens I've used and would be comparable to the 43 or 77 in that respect.

But the 50/1.4 still has an important place.

ll_coffee_lP, Yup they got me a few years ago but keep sending flyers all the time. Save the environment? Not yet!

*nulla* · 07-17-2008, 01:37 PM

Thats not a fair comparison unless you compare them at f2.8 with the same series of shutter speeds etc. The reason I got an FA 50 f1.4 was to have a FAST af 50mm lens on hand.

I agree Blue

Is there a chance of seeing such a comparison please guys?

Gooshin · 07-17-2008, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by nulla

I agree Blue

Is there a chance of seeing such a comparison please guys?

even at 2.8 the comparison is not all too fair.

the FA50 at 2.8 will have bokeh shaped according to the diaphram pattern, while the macro will have a full circle, making the two shots noticeably varied.

jslifoaw · 07-17-2008, 04:18 PM

If you don't need F/1.4, the macro is really great. It's also faster to focus at normal distances.

However, two stops could be missed on many occasions. Not so much for dof, but when the lights get dimmer.

Blue · 07-17-2008, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by nulla

I agree Blue

Is there a chance of seeing such a comparison please guys?

I don't have the 50mm macro or I would.

*Peter Zack* · 07-17-2008, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by nulla

I agree Blue

Is there a chance of seeing such a comparison please guys?

Originally Posted by Gooshin

even at 2.8 the comparison is not all too fair.

the FA50 at 2.8 will have bokeh shaped according to the diaphram pattern, while the macro will have a full circle, making the two shots noticeably varied.

Exactly.

The macro will produce smoother highlights and bokeh. The macro will be a little sharper at all focal lengths and it's also slightly warmer looking. Little or no diffraction effects as you get in the really small apertures. It's the nature of the macro design.

I have 2 weddings this weekend and will have no time to do more test shooting. Maybe next week but I don't know what the point would be in f2.8 comparisons. The point of the thread is how the 50/1.4 looked wide open.