canon F1.4 V F1.8

F1.4 or F1.8

  • Total voters
    18
  • Poll closed .
Bloodrunner

Bloodrunner

Suspended / Banned
Messages
334
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
No
Canon Lens - 50 mm - F/1.4 V Canon Lens - 50 mm - F/1.8 both look a very nice lens BUT cost is about £200 more for the 1.4
is the the lens £200 better when i don't do this as a job ???
:help:
I Know on paper I should get the 1.4 but !!!!!!!!!!
 
I've had the 50/1.8 and now have the 50/1.4. The 1.4 improves in a number of areas, but not by a great deal.

- Build is better, but the AF can get fracked if pressure is exerted on the front of the lens (perhaps in a bag or if knocked) when set to any focus distance other than infinity, so it surely no tank. The right lens hood offers good protection, but a cheapy which screws to the filter thread will do no favours at all for robustness.

- AF is a little better, but still poor, and not really up to the standards required for reliable shallow DOF photography.

- Of course it's 2/3 stop faster, but a little dreamy (soft) when wide open, so conceivably not offering the full advantage you might hope for.

- Bokeh is better when stopping down, avoiding the ugly pentagonal blur of the 1.8.

If it's only for occasional/amateur/casual use then I'd go for the 1.8 and put the money saved to good use elsewhere - e.g. a nice Nissin Di866 if you don't already have a flash. For the amount of use mine gets I might as well have kept the old lens. If you really want f/1.4 then consider the Sigma instead. So long as the AF is adjusted well I understand that it addresses all the shortcomings of Canon's effort. But that's even more money, and rightfully so.

I haven't voted, because a vote without an explanation is worthless, and now you have my reasoning explained the choice is very much up to you, not me.
 
What you need is a Sigma 50mm f1.4 (assuming that you can avoid or ignore internet Sigma QC tales of gloom and doom.) I doubt you'll find a single review which places the Canon 50mm f1.4 ahead of the Sigma.
 
I recently replaced my 1.8 with a 1.4 and the difference for me was like light and dark. I thought my 1.8 was decent wide open and better stepped down, but the 1.4 wide open is great.
This was the first photo I took with my 50 1.4 of a mate who was round when it came. It was on my 5D3, 1/125 @ ISO 100 and f1.4. It's a Jpeg SOOC, no PP apart from crop and resize. I've not got anything similar to compare with my 1.8, but this is far sharper than my 1.8 until stepped down to at least f2.8.

7263300714_e1c25082d8_z.jpg
[/url][/IMG]
 
I was going to upgrade from 50mm 1.8 to the 1.4....Sigma or Canon...?
 
Both are rubbish (mechanically), but 1.4 is better overall. The focusing is more precise, bokeh is smoother, and sharpness is better at f/2. I own f/1.4 version but wouldn't mind a better lens from Canon (or Zeiss with AF). I am not keen on 1.2L either, for the price it could be a bit sharper across the frame.

P.s. what is that black and white thing in your sig?
 
used the 1.8 for about a year and used it so much upgraded to the 1.4, found it much sharper and af a lot better.

Wouldn't buy it for the 1.4 though just to soft, same for the 1.8 wide open, use it around f2.0/2.8 and you start to get some sharp images.
 
Tyler138 said:
used the 1.8 for about a year and used it so much upgraded to the 1.4, found it much sharper and af a lot better.

Wouldn't buy it for the 1.4 though just to soft, same for the 1.8 wide open, use it around f2.0/2.8 and you start to get some sharp images.
Click to expand...

Had the 1.8 for three or four years, then replaced it with a 1.4, which I've had for about five now.

The 1.4 at 1.4 is better than the 1.8 at 1.8.

The 1.8 suffers halation at f/1.8 and f/2 IME. The 1.4 is just a little soft, but has less halation wide open and is rather more useable.

Stop the 1.8 down to 2.2 and it starts to work nicely; the 1.4 tightens up about f1.8.

I'd also add that I think I get better colour from the 1.4 than I did with the 1.8.
 
daugirdas said:
Both are rubbish (mechanically), but 1.4 is better overall. The focusing is more precise, bokeh is smoother, and sharpness is better at f/2. I own f/1.4 version but wouldn't mind a better lens from Canon (or Zeiss with AF). I am not keen on 1.2L either, for the price it could be a bit sharper across the frame.

P.s. what is that black and white thing in your sig?
Click to expand...

its a bar code for my Martial Art Academy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top