I don’t understand what you can admire so much . As the first glass, I don’t advise it on crop . It’s not convenient at a focal length . Guys, there are no miracles! And you will not be comfortable either, you will only understand this after the purchase. With it, you need a few more lenses and at once . But if this is your goal, then the flag is in your hands . From a fix, it is not expensive compared to gathering .

While I had one 70-200 f2.8 everything was ok. Occasionally he pulled out a "fifty kopeck" and had fun changing the depth of field and making blurry portraits. Since I got 24-70 f2.8 and covered the range of focal lengths from 24 to 200, the "fifty kopecks" has been gathering dust in my bag. And yet, it seems to me, not very sharp. So it lathers and that's it . maybe I'm so unlucky? Shooting with Canon 5D Mark IV

-followed by whale supreme. You will, of course, have to acclimate yourself to the reality that the focal length is always the same. - When you have optics of this caliber, you would instinctively want to photograph flowers, leaves, and insects; yet, who would be interested in purchasing a macro lens? You will not be able to go very near to the subject that is being shot due to the focusing distance. I assure you that I will upload a picture for your longer-term use. Has some pros 1. Aperture…

Good lens for portraits and concerts. With aperture 1.4 you can shoot indoors without a flash. You can have the only lens and not worry at all. If there is an opportunity to overpay and kupin 1.8 II, and 1.4 - replica.

I use both film and digital cameras. A good lens, but still it is worth recognizing that the Minoltian counterpart is more interesting. In use both and I believe my eyes.

Nice technical fix. Someone may not have enough "artistic drawing", but for such purposes, the old manual fifty dollars, which are a dime a dozen on the secondary market, are perfect. There are almost no competitors among AF half-tones, except for Sigma, which is much better in design, but weaker in terms of sharpness at the edges on covered apertures. Accordingly, in terms of shooting style (and purpose), Sigma is closer to the Kenon 50 / 1.2 than to 1.4.

This lens produces an image that is very high in quality and has an outstanding level of sharpness. Very immediately, you find yourself falling in love with him. It works wonderfully in terms of producing portraits. With the pinpoint accuracy and lightning-fast speed of the focussing, nobody has any complaints. This is a true vintage rendition of fifty bucks. But, there are some downsides. And the implications are significant. 1) An extremely pronounced chromatic aberration. While filming…

The glass was junk, there were two, the second one I bought because of disbelief that this could even be. Focus lives its intricate life, which does not obey the owner of the camera in any way. The magic concept of alignment is not about him (I repeat there were two of them, both new). The joy of aperture disappears immediately after you see the result - and there is solid soap. And do not talk about soft focus, the frame is either sharp or NO! And with this glass 50 to 50, that is, how lucky…

In general, I am very pleased with the lens. Chose between him and 1.8. Of course, he is far from 1.2. But there is a difference with 1.8 - it gives richer colors and the image is noticeably lighter at the same aperture. At the expense of washes in the open - I don’t know, everything is fine, the pictures are clear, you just don’t have to stand sideways to the camera)))) If you don’t mind the money - 1.4 is your choice.

I put it on the shelf after repairs and attempts to shoot further on crops in autofocus mode. As soon as I put it on a camera with travel autofocus, it played as it should. This "disabled character" is still my favorite lens. It's my first fixed focus. Its pros: In skillful hands, you can give out an expensive picture "immediately from the camera", regardless of the carcass used. This was the case on the 10D when I bought this lens. After 11 years, having put it on the 5DmkIII, I am still happy

Before him I used 50 1.8, there is a difference. Blurs beautifully, draws gorgeous. Misses in front and back focus are different in different shooting conditions, fortunately this is corrected on 50D. It is not very pleasant that the plastic body - when switching from auto to manual focus, it even crunches. Focusing speed is good, but not great. USM is not the fastest here. There is no significant difference in the picture between 1.8 and 1.4, so I think the price is somewhat overpriced…

I took it as a portrait lens for crop, in addition to 17-55 f2.8. In addition to the fact that bokeh is better, nothing pleased. Autofocus is often wrong, although it works quickly. On an open aperture, this is fatal. Chromatic aberrations hoo what. Even if you manually hover it accurately, it still lathers a little. All this goes away if you turn the aperture to 3.5, but: 1. Why is it needed then, there is 50 / 1.8 5 times cheaper. 2. A 17-55 f/2.8 set to 50mm at 2.8 is FASTER than this set…

They say that it is fragile and is recommended to be worn only in a hood. So I did. On a crop, the focus of this lens often smears, on a full frame everything is in order. I do not know what it is connected with. On canon 100D, one out of 10-20 shots was in focus and was sharp in the open, on 6d one out of 10-20 was out of focus. Now they sell this lens mainly because of aberrations and because there is a more compact 40 forging.

I used all three fifty dollars from Canon (except for macro) 1,4 I consider it an inappropriate purchase, I will explain why . Usually a beginner amateur photographer buys 1,8 after a whale one and there is no limit to happiness, because looking at the photo you understand why you bought a SLR)) ) the picture is an order of magnitude higher. At this point, you don’t pay much attention to the build quality and ease of use of the lens. Then you look in the direction of 1.4 and expect the same…

Got pros: Excellent picture quality Light weight Convenient size (permanent with hood) Relative bore 1.4 Low price Has cons: Weak constructive of the late 1980s No hood included, which is needed to protect the trunk UnderUSM

I don’t regret a single that I bought 50 / 1.4, a very good lens. Great for crop portraits! For economical ones - buy 50 / 1.8 - you will lose almost nothing, except for the construct and some "brightness" and "saturation" - this can hardly be distinguished only by comparison. And without aperture 1.4 it is quite possible to do. Its pros: 0. USM motor is quieter than usual. 1. Focuses relatively quickly. 2. beautifully draws bokeh. 3. 8-blade aperture - these are beautiful circles and…

I shoot weddings and most often I shoot fifty dollars, now it’s already 1.2, but sometimes I indulge in 1.4 , he helped me a lot at one time due to the lack of finances for the purchase of more expensive equipment , the picture turns out from him good, pleasant, soft, but it lathers a little on an open hole (((I usually shot at 2.8) and for this money it’s a wonderful fast lens

If the budget does not reach 17 thousand. to buy Sigma 50mm. F 1.4, then this is the best glass for a beginner. It is better than all cheap zooms, and in general, if the budget is limited to 20-25 thousand, then this glass is the best. Everything is worth the money. This glass can be removed very beautifully, which is too tough for whale zooms. Therefore, I recommend it.

Used numerous times, both on the crop and the FF. Various. I was given a test by several pals. A while back, I decided to get my own (on FF). Yet, this comes at the sacrifice of quality. It is not required that you test it on your body first. Inquire whether there are any left in the store. The target ought to be immediately captured by the lens (by 1.4). In the event that there is a difficulty, you should not accept it. I will elucidate. It is not in the least bit required to draw attention to

Ugly. Why is this expensive glass when there is a non-smearing 1.8 ? My 1.8 has a working aperture of 1.8. I did not even think to shoot them at a narrower aperture. Works with a bang. And this one. I use it with Canon 5D. More precisely, I do not use it, but I suffer. Constant misses. Those that say that the picture is better than that of 1.8 = are cunning. The picture is practically no different. Bokeh, of course, blurs better, but this is due to aperture 1.4 - which is not working. And on…