Review on Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens, black by Adam Chyliski ᠌

Acquired more than two years ago as a purchase. I needed to acquire something quickly, so I attempted to catch up with zooms (the maximum aperture that canon cameras can achieve is f/2.8, which is fairly common knowledge). The employment of it was going to be beneficial to both the EOS 40D and the film EOS 3, respectively. I chose one out of five copies, which brought the options down to the very last one; yet, there was only one that was completely accurate. Agreed, it is soft at 1.4-1.8, but there are times when it is preferable to remove the "software" with an acceptable shutter speed and then correct it in PS rather than getting a "hard" but blurry result. This is because there are times when it is preferable to remove the "software" with an acceptable shutter speed. Because the 40s does not excel in terms of its adaptability, there was a desire to attach something in the 24-28-35mm range to it. For a considerable amount of time, there was no urge to shoot with anything other than an EOS 3, and for that reason, there was a wish to attach something in that range. Because I place the main point in the middle of the frame the majority of the time, I did not have any difficulty focusing at all. Outstandingly high quality glass! Spending several times as much on a lens that will only have a very narrow aperture despite the fact that it will take photographs that are marginally better. Yes, I have made the decision to add just a couple of sentences regarding the 1.8 version: the lens, for my money, is fairly impressive in terms of the sharpness of the center of the crop, at the very least being no worse than the 1.4 version! In other words, the 1.8 version is an improvement over the 1.4 version! When compared to the Mk1, they removed the metal mount, the distance scale, which was quite comfortable and had a good hook, and the focusing ring - all of which contributed to an overall sense of quality, which was a good thing. However, everything is ruined because of the deliberate cost cutting, which on version II simply screams about itself. Taking into consideration that in order to expand it from 1,4 they left a 5-blade diaphragm, what kind of bokeh are the owners of the property talking about? And the fact that the "native" lens hood is screwed into the adapter, which winds onto the thread for the filter, which, in turn, is positioned on the retractable "trunk" of the focus (clearly a possible weak spot, judging by 1,4), practically does not surprise me at all! Nevertheless, I will reiterate that in my opinion the choice is satisfactory; regardless of how much they simplified it, the core idea remained the same. Despite the fact that they streamlined it, the core idea remained the same.