Canon 50mm f1.8 v f1.4

steve burnett

steve burnett

Suspended / Banned
Messages
200
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to buy a fixed 50mm lens for indoor pictures.
I'd guess that the f1.8 will be more than enough but can someone explain why you might opt for the f1.4.

Thanks
 
steve burnett said:
I'm looking to buy a fixed 50mm lens for indoor pictures.
I'd guess that the f1.8 will be more than enough but can someone explain why you might opt for the f1.4.

Thanks
Click to expand...

The f1.4 is a superior lens in terms of build quality, the f1.8 is made of plastic.

Also, the f1.4 uses more blades in the aperture which gives a smoother Bokeh (blurry background)

Whether those points and better IQ warrant the extra few hundred quid price tag is a personal thing ;)
 
The 1.4 also has USM focussing, so will focus quicker than the 1.8 version :)
 
I find the 1.8 rather prone to flare.
 
As a beginer I thnk in terms of price and my ability the f1.8 will be best then.

Thanks
 
steve burnett said:
As a beginer I thnk in terms of price and my ability the f1.8 will be best then.

Thanks
Click to expand...

I would agree :)

You may also find 50mm too long for general indoor use as the field of view isn't very great, however it is a cracking lens for the money if you want some nice portrait shots or even just experiment with shallow DoF.

It's been recommended on here that everyone should have a "nift fifty" and use it to develop creativity rather than rely on a zoom.
 
Go for the 1.4. Hands down no argument.

The 1.8, as good of a lens as it is, is noisy, surprisingly slow at focusing and very very plasticky. It has brilliant image quality for the price, but compared to the 1.4.. it's not even in the same league.
 
farrance said:
Go for the 1.4. Hands down no argument.

The 1.8, as good of a lens as it is, is noisy, surprisingly slow at focusing and very very plasticky. It has brilliant image quality for the price, but compared to the 1.4.. it's not even in the same league.
Click to expand...

I would disagree - for the OP's requirements unless she wants to spend more, a 1.8 is more than enough for start... and your 'hands down no argument' statement is rather brash -

look at this:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

If I were buying one or the other now I would prefer the 1.4 but there certainly isn't day and night difference in picture quality between those too.

I wouldn't buy Canon's 50mm 1.4 anyway, reliability and build quality is actually an issue, with quite a lot of people experiencing motor failure, and frankly its not stellar IQ-wise - I get better results out of my £50 Olympus 1.4, which is why I refuse to spend £270 on something which has a fair chance of failing me......That is of course if you are willing to be old school like me and only MF.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the Canon f/1.4 is good enough for the price difference.
It only has micro motor USM instead of proper ring USM, it's infamous for having some metal parts inside the AF mechanism get bent and break the AF operation, it's not as well built as a lot of other lenses that cost roughly the same amount and it's not that much better than the f/1.8 optically.
I went from an f/1.8 to an f/1.4 and then back to an f/1.8, the f/1.4 is better than the f/1.8 but it's not £200 better.

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 sounds good but Sigma seem to have a lot of autofocus issues with Canon cameras.
 
From a personal point of view, I would go for the 50mm 1.4 everytime.

I have had x2 faulty 50mm 1.8's.
First one had autofocus jammed and second one did the same. They also have nasty cheap plastic mounts, not metal like the 1.4.

The 50mm 1.4 has been excellent. USM focus which is quieter and faster and does not hunt as much in low light.

Unfortunately you do get what you pay for and if you get the 1.8 you will probably end up upgrading in the end anyway.

Have you considered the original MKI 50mm 1.8??? From memory I think they are a lot better build quality.

Good Luck whatever you do.
 
f1.8 is ok if you're not a paid job. but even then you could quietly take it out for some pics.

a mint MKI I think would be the best idea, although much, much more expensive than mkII.

p.s. I'm eager to see the f1.4 MKII .
 
The 1.8 is indeed fantastic for its price and was considering the 1.4 version for the USM, as i find my copy is about 50% hit rate for the autofocus - and the manual focus is a little hard to get spot on.

For the price though it is very hard to beat. And the question is really around the extra fraction of a stop - as £200 only gets you one (plus usm of course) and if this is the first foray into the 50mm primes the OP may not know if they need 1.4 anyway.

But yes, a Mk2 1.4 would be interesting!
 
For build quality, quicker autofocusing, and extra light gathering it is worth it. I own both and never really use the 1.8 version.
 
I am a beginer .... and opted for the 1.4 and glad I did .... for indoor shots, the amount of times I use f1.4 or f1.6 just to get a low iso and nice shot without needing flash is unreal

if you can afford it go 1.4
 
I've got the 1.4, I did think about getting the 1.8 (ive had the 1.4 for over a year), however I had the spare money so opted for the 1.4 as I wanted something that would be good in low lights.

I wasnt let down, its been a great lens, hardly off my camera (bearing in mind I've only got two lens anyway....). I do find the focusing to be noisy but I'm not sure how quiet it should be anyway.
 
I cannot compare the two choiced you have, but I recently bought a 50mm 1.4 second hand and have been hit by the apparantly very common auto focus problems!
 
I'm a beginner and the 50mm 1.8 was the first lens i purchased. As others say, for the price it's a real winner. Once i'd used it for a few months and realised that a 50mm prime was all i needed (for now at least) i decided to upgrade to the 1.4. For me the build/image/AF quality is definitely better and I was able to justify the extra cost because i use it so much.
If it's only for occassional use i think the 1.8 would be more than enough.
 
ltchippy said:
If it's only for occassional use i think the 1.8 would be more than enough.
Click to expand...

I think that's the key here.........

Had mine for just over a year and only had it on my camera 3-4 times, on one occasion it really got me out of a scrape when the light was awful and I couldn't use a flash.

Well worth £80 but certainly couldn't justify £300 for that kind of usage ;)
 
Just got the 50mm 1.8 last night. Had a little play with it and really liked it. Wish I could afford a 10mm though as I always wanted to zoom out.
 
steve burnett said:
Just got the 50mm 1.8 last night. Had a little play with it and really liked it. Wish I could afford a 10mm though as I always wanted to zoom out.
Click to expand...

You might find as you go that you prefer to use zooms over primes in general so in that case, the smaller spend on the 1.8 may be the more prudent choice. I prefer primes over zooms :)
 
Spending money is easy, learning how to use it is much much harder. I need to take one step at a time.
 
steve burnett said:
Just got the 50mm 1.8 last night. Had a little play with it and really liked it. Wish I could afford a 10mm though as I always wanted to zoom out.
Click to expand...

I've had this but i've got used to the fixed zoom on it. I now find because i use my 50mm so much, i rarely zoom on my other lenses and just tend to move my position rather than zoom.
 
For the amount of times I've actually used my 50 I'm glad I went for the 1.8 and not the extra cost of the 1.4. I'm sure the 1.4 is superior in build but, as I've only used mine a handful of times since I got it I'm sure it'll last me long enough, and it gives me good enough IQ when I do use it. Until I bought my 5D2 in november I'd used it twice in 3 months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top