50 Mm – the Golden Mean

It is often said that one should pay much for high brightness and long focal length. It does not, however, entirely for our normalaste lens, 50 mm. With this, you can get high brightness, light weight and awesome clarity for a pittance.

The reason why normal lens, or 50 mm-the optics, is so popular is that they usually cost very little and you get a lot of image quality for the money. In any case, if you compare it with kit lenses that usually comes with the camera, and the shallow depth of field and excellent background blur attracts many to test. These usually come in two different designs from manufacturers, a cheaper and more expensive with the aperture with Aperture 1.8 1.4.

Prices differ substantially between the different lenses we chose to test, from Canon’s simplest situated on just over a thousand patches to Sony that cost almost ten times as much. Even though only a third of a different f-stops between them is the price difference hefty.

It depends, of course, that it is not only the brightness differs. The brightest lenses usually takes on a more lavish design that makes them keep better and perform better image quality. Usually, anyway. But how much extra do you really for those hundreds of dollars to spend on the more expensive and brighter the lens?

Yes, that’s what we’ll find out in this quiz to help you choose the right lens for normal shooting.

Fits most

Normal, as it is often called, is suitable for many different types of photography. On an APS-C-House equivalent of the approximately 70-75 mm which gives a good porträttbrännvidd.

But, for its short depth of field and its dreamy blur are the most popular among photographers who shoot weddings, the short depth of field as well as breathe romance. On a full-frame houses, it is also a popular lens for gatufoto and portraits. A versatile tool in other words.

Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II

This is one of the cheapest lenses in this test. It costs more than a thousand patches and this makes it one of the most common Canonobjektiven in Canonfotografers camera bags, looking through the zoom lens that comes with the camera from the beginning. The feel of the lens, however, is not something that impresses very much. It’s very plasticky and feels cheap, which is consistent with the price tag. The advantage of the construction is that the lens is very small and light. It is no problem to get it in your pocket.

Focus motor has a sharp, albeit not very loud sound, which can be a little distracting. On the other hand, so are the focus reasonably fast and hits almost always right. Ring for manual focus is narrow and not easy to deal with.

When it comes to image quality, it’s not a big error on the sharpness of the cheaper lens. It has a faint pin cushion distortion and some chromatic abberration is visible in the pictures. But it is now the right easy to correct in retrospect. However, vinjetterar lens quite heavily at the largest aperture and requires that dazzles down a couple of steps for it to be quite good. Some think the vignetting is the thing, and put on it afterwards anyway. But for many, it is not always desirable.

Canon EF 50 mm f/1.4 USM

Instead of the micromotor sitting in f/1.8-model so sitting here instead of a USM motor which does its job both faster and quieter than the cheaper micromotorn. Also the focus ring is wider and gives a better feeling when you want to focus manually. Build sentiment is also a few notch higher even if it still feels a bit plasticky. It should be added to the Canon also has a f/1.2-version of this lens and it is where the real professionals feeling arises. But the f/1.4 version has a larger front lens and also an aspherical lens in their design, unlike the cheaper.

As with f/1, 8an, there is nothing wrong on the sharpness of this lens, there is actually no difference against the cheaper. The sharpness is quite good in both. But as its cheaper Companion is a weak pin cushion distortion and chromatic aberration. Vignetting is apparent and will only disappear after a couple of Preview button aperture step.

Sigma 50 mm f/1,4 DG HSM (A)

Sigma have since a couple of years divided their lenses in three different series. The Fast 50 millimetersobjektivet we test here belong to the series called Art, i.e. art. The lens is hefty, and unlike, for example, Canon lenses, this is a much more solid construction. It abandons one of normalens benefits, namely a handy size. It weighs approximately 800 grams and is quite long. But the feeling is growing in size, it feels really well built.

Focusing is quiet but not among the fastest in the test, but not so slow that it interferes with. However, the focus is not as secure as in the other lenses, it misses a little too often slightly when using the maximum aperture. The manual focus ring, however, is wide and has a very nice feel.

The picture quality in Sigma’s 50/F1.4 is really good. Virtually no distortion and hardly any chromatic aberration. When it comes to vignetting, so is it in the middle of the group. There is some vignetting but it is not as significant as that of Canon. At maximum aperture lens suffers of a certain flare, but it’s gone already at f/1.8. But the sharpness is really, really good. Best in this test actually.

Samyang 50 mm f/1.4 AS UMC

Samyang is, in this context, a relatively new manufacturer of lenses. All the building is manually focused and most also require that you change the aperture manually on the lens. You cannot run these lenses with full automation. Like Sigma lens, this is a powerful well-built lens where most parts are made of metal, leaving a solid impression. But where Sigman perhaps gives a little more sense of finesse, Samyang a more industrial impression if one may say so. Good craftsmanship, but so much energy has probably not been added to the design. The weight depends on the bayonet to choose but range between approximately 540 grams up to 600 grams.

The focus ring is smooth and wide, so there is no problem to adjust the sharpness physically. But with the short depth of field you can get with a bright, normal, it is not always easy to set focus in the viewfinder. It happened more than once during the test to focus ended up wrong. Can you use live view and zoom in so you can more easily, but it requires a subject that does not move as much.

When it comes to image quality, follow the pretty much the same line as the other when it comes to distortion and chromatic aberration. In contrast, vignetting only a bit better than the Canon. The sharpness is fine at maximum aperture, but you need to dazzle down to f/2.8 because it should be quite good. However, it is not as sharp as Sigman.

Pentax SMC-DA 50 mm f/1.8

Price wise, this lens is not so far from the Canon’s cheapest. It costs the ballpark a 100 dollars extra. The finish also feels better, and slightly less plasticky. The bayonet is plastic on the Canon lens. The size is small and agile, the weight is too low. Since Pentax for many years now not invested in 35 mm cameras, this lens is designed for cameras with APS-C sensor size.

The lens does not have a built-in focus motor, without the use of screw focus. The focus is on a par with the other lenses, not fast, not slow.However, the loud. A sharp and beeping sound that actually bothers a lot.It is not an auto focus I would like to use in a quiet environment, such as at a wedding. The manual focus works better than the Canon equivalent lenses when the focus ring is both wider and softer.

Among Pentaxobjektiven, we got a little bit of the weirder results. It was namely the chromatic aberration absent in the cheaper lens, there was no distortion, but in the more expensive was the chromatic aberration is relatively strong. The sharpness of the cheaper, however, was not as sharp and it required that wowed stopped down to f/2.8 for that sharpness would be comparable. Well stopped down as was the sharpness. Vignetting was very weak, barely noticeable.

Pentax SMC-DA * 55 mm f/1.4 SDM

This lens is part of the series that Pentax themselves marked out with a *, which means that it should keep a really high quality. The lens is also much more expensive and more professional than the less expensive lens, but so does it cost a good penny more, too. It’s certainly better than Canon’s 1.4, but it also costs more. Because it is made for APS-C is also the size of the lens less. It is similar to Canon’s 1.4 in size but with a better feeling. A big lens hood included. For some reason it also has five millimeters extra focal length compared to the other lenses.

The focusing is done with a built-in motor which works significantly quieter than the cheap version. It is, however, not faster. To the works that quietly does almost that you perceive it as slower, but when checking the different it so little that it’s not noticeable. Manual focus goes well with the help of the broad and rubberized ring.

Pentax f1/4 gave hintades in the text above some chromatic aberration in the pictures, but as mentioned previously, this easy-to-adjust away with software. Any distortion was not either. It gave a certain flare at maximum aperture, but it was gone in the middle of the lens at f/1.8, and out at the edges at f/2.8. Vignetting was as weak as in the less expensive f/1.8.

Sony E 50 mm f/1.8 US

Sony 50 mm 1.8 give only the full image circle on cameras with APS-C sensors, which is a little sad because the size would be perfect for their A7 series. Sony also has a 50 f/1.8 in a more expensive series, which is suitable for full-frame format, but since it costs almost 10,000 dollars so it’s not a cheaper option. Well, Sony’s 1.8 is a nice lens. The feeling is good both in build quality and handling. If I had to guess, I would think that it was more expensive than it actually is. The lens also features built-in image stabilization that allows one to take advantage of low light, even better.

The focus may not be the fastest in the test but definitely the quietest. I’d probably like to go that far to say that it is silent. Manual focusing is done with a broad, rubberized ring.

The sharpness of the Sony’s cheapest lens, there is nothing wrong, it’s slightly soft at full aperture but dazzles down to 2.8, the good of the whole image. Distortion is weak and pin cushion, someone we could kormatisk see abberation. On the whole, it provides a great picture quality.

Sony Zeiss Planar T * 50 mm f/1.4 ZA SSM

We have become accustomed to Zeiss lenses are high quality, and this is no exception to the rule. In build quality, there is nothing to complain about. A rich design of metal and glass with fine finish and hefty weight. Build quality is probably almost just a bit sharper than the Sigmas, which otherwise is in the top otherwise. But the price is also higher. Sadly, you can’t use it on Sony’s A7 series without an adapter, which in turn is quite plasticky. What does the feeling something. Do you have a Sony A77 or a A99 so it becomes another thing.

Lens focuses relatively fast to be so heavy and have such great lenses. It’s very glass to be moved. It is quiet but not as silent as their cheaper colleague. If you want to cancel the auto focus, there is a focus button on the lens which disables the autofocus. The manual focus ring could well have been a bit wider, but the feeling is good. However, the gear ratio a little too high so it is not entirely easy to fine-tune focus manually.

In Sony’s more expensive lens, however, is not the picture quality really that you would expect. Not that it’s bad, but it does not come up in class with Sigma. It is sharp even at full aperture but will be slightly sharper at the Preview button. Chromatic aberrations are present, but not as powerful. Distortion is relatively strong compared to other lenses in this test. It should almost be able to expect anything more from this lens because it costs so much. Vignetting is very weak.

Nikon 50 mm f/1.8 G

Nikon is the manufacturer of this test with both lenses are basically the same size and also very similar, clean appearance. In a blind test, it is mainly the importance that separates them, where f/1.4 is slightly heavier. The construction of f/1.8 is good for the price. Significantly better than Canon’s counterpart, and it costs just a few hundred more; compared to the Pentax cheapest, it feels a little better.

Focusing is okay, but not much more when it comes to speed. But it’s accurate, so you need not worry that it ends up wrong. For manual focus is focus ring fit broad and rubberized. But the feeling is not as nice as some of the other lenses in the test. The cheaper Nikongluggen makes the reasons for its price, in a positive way. It exhibits no fuss when it comes to image quality. The sharpness is fine, actually as good as the more expensive Variant. It will be sharper when it dazzled down one step. There is a certain pin cushion distortion and the vinjetterar an idea.

Nikon 50 mm f/1.4 G

As already mentioned this is Nikon’s two lenses are very similar visually. The more expensive and heavier f/1.4 has a slightly better sense of when to use it, mostly due to the slightly higher weight. To the exterior design is very similar between the two lenses so you may assume that it is under the skin that those extra hundreds of dollars have ended up.

The speed of focusing is nothing to boast about. If you are looking for a fast-focus lens so you get enough turn to something else. It’s not very slowly, but it is perceived as something tougher than the rest. However, it is quiet and soft, so it is an advantage if, for example, to the film. Even the manual focusing is soft to the touch and feel of the focus ring is better in the more expensive lens. Softer and smoother.

The sharpness is equivalent with the cheaper and less bright lens. However, this requires steps Preview button to reach the real sharpness. As with the cheaper, there is a slight vignetting and pin cushion distortion. However, it turned out that the more expensive the lens giving brighter images at the same exposure in comparison with the less expensive.

To award any winner in this test, then it is inevitably Sigman, in all cases, if you look at performance and perceived quality. It is also lucky because Sigman can be used on multiple camera brands. Are you looking for something small, easy and cheap, one can count itself lucky if it’s Canon or Pentax owners because this is where the smallest lenses available.

But how was it now? What exactly is the difference between the various lenses within each brand? What do you get for the extra money, except a little more brightness? Yes, in general we have seen that the build quality is better in the more expensive lenses. The cheapest Canonobjektivet ports at the bottom when it comes to quality feel, but then it’s also the cheapest in the test. The image quality is different, however, is not so very much between the two Canonobjektiven. It is rather that you pay more for a lens that keeps better and feels better to use.

With Pentax, it’s a bit of a special case. The more expensive the lens has a better build quality and a good weather sealing. But there are some miss in image quality that is not found in the cheaper. The focus, however, is higher in f/1, 4an.

The cheaper Sony lens is good for you to get an award for being affordable. Although it doesn’t cost so very much is both finish and picture quality good. The more expensive Sony Zeiss lens is impressive when it comes to build quality. It is a solid construction that delivers good pictures. But you should go after the list price, it should supply more.

It’s not bad, but for the money it should have won the test. Samyang is probably actually a bit of a loser in this test. Not that it’s bad, but it is not significantly better than the other lenses, and it’s not as cheap as we hoped.

The samyang is a budget option in many other focal lengths, but right here, they get spanked. It delivers still nice shots, but it makes the other lenses too, and then you also get autofocus and exponeringsautomatik.

Shoot you with Nikon shows the tests that mainly deals with the brightness you want to access, but also to some extent the construction quality. However, it is not much difference in sharpness or optical defects. Which gives an advantage to the cheaper lens because it costs £ 200 less, but not £ 200 worse off.

In the end, your choice depends on many factors. Your budget, what you’ll have it to and what you have for the camera. All lenses in this tested has both advantages and disadvantages. The only question is what weighs most heavily just for you.