Canon 50mm 1.8 II or 1.4 USM

giantwolf

giantwolf

Suspended / Banned
Messages
451
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
Other than the price and the f-stop, what is the difference between the Canon 50mm 1.8II and the Canon 50mm 1.4 USM?

Is the 1.4 worth the extra £££'s or not? :help:

Many thanks,

Richard.
 
The main differences between the two are better build quality and better bokeh on the F/1.4. Actual sharpness is pretty similar.

I use my F/1.8 as an emergency low light lens. I am sure the extra stop on the F/1.4 would be nice, but I have never really missed it for my occasional use. I guess whether the F/1.4 is worth 3x more than the 1.8 is down to how much you intend to use it and how deep your pockets are. Apart from F/1.4 the more expensive lens is not that special. Lenses with better IQ can be had for less (EF-S 60mm on a crop body for example).
 
It's not worth 3 x more for the 50mm f/1.4 in my opinion. I say this having owned both at the same time.
 
I have had both and to me the 1.4 was worth the extra, it was sharper and had better contrast right up to f5.6, focus is a lot faster and more accurate, the 1.4 also has FTM focusing and a 8 blade aperture giving better Bokeh.
 
Thanks all. I think thats my main decision is whether it is worth paying 3x more. If there isn't much difference I might think about putting the saved cash towards uppgrading some of my exisiting lenses.

Many thanks again, any further views on this from other folks are more than welcome... its definitely not a final decision yet.
 
could always get the F1.2 50mm L lens if you've got enough cash ;)
 
depends how much you use it, if your 50mm is your go to lens then get the 1.4, but buy a bloody hood ;)
 
it really depends on your budget, the 1.8 is a good value lens but if you can afford it, go for the 1.4. The 1.4 has much better quality build, faster focus system and the bokeh is magical.

It is really the case of you get what you pay for .
 
malla1962 said:
I have had both and to me the 1.4 was worth the extra, it was sharper and had better contrast right up to f5.6, focus is a lot faster and more accurate, the 1.4 also has FTM focusing and a 8 blade aperture giving better Bokeh.
Click to expand...

:agree: - I found the build quality and noise from the 1.8 awful also the IQ on the 50D left a lot to be desired.
 
I'd say if your photography is a hobby then the 1.8 is probably fine, but if you're doing it commercially then get the 1.4 as the build quality, extra stop and faster focussing is worth the extra ££.
 
i have been thinking the same but for nikon

as i haven't used one before and is only for occasional use i think i'm going to save the money and buy the cheaper 1.8 model

the extra money saved could go towards a flash i'm thinking
 
You can list many reasons why the f/1.4 is better, and why shouldn't you be able to...it is 3 times the price. Yes it is better built, focuses with better speed and is less noisy. I would not say it focuses with any more accuracy. All of these things are nice yes, but for 3 times the price you are effectively having "nice to haves" when the resulting image quality will be so similar you won't notice the difference imo.
 
My experience is that the whole focus system of the 1.4 is far superior to the 1.8. In low light the 1.8 will hunt like a dog whilst the 1.4 will just lock on. Is it worth 3 times the price? To me, a definite yes. Do I think it should be cheaper? Again a definite yes.

If you are specifically buying for low light work then the 1.4 is the one to go for. If it is to be a general purpose 50mm daylight walkabout then image quality wise there is little to choose between them and the 1.8 will do fine.

John
 
i have had both and settled on the 1.4, the focus accurancy without th e hunting is worth the money alone... also by the time you have stopped down to 1.8 even better 2.8 its sharper than its smaller brother... if you like manual focus then forget the 1.8 the ring is just to small (for my fingers anyway)
 
I have to be completely honest, for me the 1.4 is simply not noticeably sharper than the 1.8 in any situation including test shots. I found them completely equal.
 
the 1.8 doesnt have a full focusing ring either. i went for the 1.4 myself but use it quite regularily
 
clicktor said:
I have to be completely honest, for me the 1.4 is simply not noticeably sharper than the 1.8 in any situation including test shots. I found them completely equal.
Click to expand...

When i went through this i was disappointed with the 1.8 MK II on a 50D, i found the difference with the 1.4 very noticeable - not just sharpness but also contrast / colour rendition .
 
It's worth it just for USM. It will focus with incredible speed even under low light but the accuracy is down to the camera body, which is the part that detects contrast. I borrowed a friend's 1.8 and compared it to my 1.4 at f/1.8 and found it noticably sharper when viewed at 100%. Better colour and bokeh, too.

I'd say if you can afford it and you're after the best shots, go for the 1.4.

George.
 
I have a 1.8, I really want to swap it for a 1.4. The 1.8 is fantastic for the price but the speed of focus is what lets it down IMO. If it has to hunt you could miss the shot as it grinds away.
 
go with the 1.4....the 1.8 maybe the nifty fifty...but the 1.4 is a far better lens alround, although make sure your going to utilise that lens prior to buyin the 1.4, would rather a 1.8 in my kit bag doing nothing and money in my pocket
 
This has answered a question I was pondering. I was going to get the nifty fifty, but wanted it for candid low-light shots, such as parties and whatnot. Think my mind has been changed now, if the focus is that slow.
 
clicktor said:
You can list many reasons why the f/1.4 is better, and why shouldn't you be able to...it is 3 times the price. Yes it is better built, focuses with better speed and is less noisy. I would not say it focuses with any more accuracy. All of these things are nice yes, but for 3 times the price you are effectively having "nice to haves" when the resulting image quality will be so similar you won't notice the difference imo.
Click to expand...

Kind of agree, but as I said earlier, if you are taking pics as a hobby, then you can save the money and get the 1.8. If you're taking pics commercially you simply cannot afford to be using equipment that is fragile or slow to focus when there's a better alternative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top