What would I gain from swapping 50mm 1.8 to 50mm 1.4?

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok so I hadn't used my 50mm 1.8 in ages, and this weekend it was my daughters first birthday and I was filming and taking shots at the same time so thought 50mm might be the right focal length. I have acquired a lot more higher quality glass recently so had snubbed my 50 for a while. The range was great and I started thinking maybe I should swap it for its bigger brother, the 50mm 1.4

Then I saw the results and I thought, my god, this little lens really is a beauty what would I gain, apart from slightly wider open from the upgrade. I understand the build quality is better but that never bothered me, would the actual image quality be improved from this:

both at 2.2 ISO 400

4862150729_456da6a22f_b.jpg


4862769266_750aefb05d_b.jpg
 
Typically I don't think either lens is great wide open. To get decent results I tend to use the 1.4 at 1.8 or smaller. I imaging the same principal applies to the 1.8 as well.

The point being - you can shoot at larger apertures with the 1.4. :bang:
 
In my experience, the bokeh is better on the 1.4, and the build quality is vastly superior to the very plasticky and noisy 1.8.

The 1.4 is my most used lens by a mile.
 
Coolhand said:
In my experience, the bokeh is better on the 1.4, and the build quality is vastly superior to the very plasticky and noisy 1.8.

The 1.4 is my most used lens by a mile.
Click to expand...

thats on a nikon though right? or do you have canon too?
 
bokeh and usm

small increase in build quality but its still ****

the sigma 50/1.4 is a superior lens if you can get a good copy
 
I owned both but didn't extensively use them. The main benefits of the 1.4 were; more pleasing out of focus areas, focusing was slightly better in low light (still not great though), the 1/3 stop of light and the fact it's not made from recycled bin bags - although the build quality and feel of the 1.4 still isn't fantastic.
 
Last edited:
I've had both the 1.8 and 1.4 - The 1.8 didn't really hand around for long as I don't think I was at a stage where I understood it too well. I didn't like the focal length on my crop sensor and neither did I feel the need to walk as I had a perfectly adequate zoom!!

So that went and about a year later I decided to get the 1.4. Now I like that, but do prerer it on my full frame body as I still don't hugely like the range on the 7D. I love the shallow dof on it, it's utterly great and creates some really nice shots (Generally not mine I hasten to add!!!!). I can't really comment on the build comparison, as my 1.8 is long gone, but the 1.4 feels OK, no moans or comments either way (Unless you had an L to compare it with I guess!!)
 
I upgraded recently from the 50mm f/1.8 ii to the 50mm f/1.4.

So in my experience...

The 1.4 is faster, has better colour, much better bokeh, nicer handling, quieter focussing, much better build, takes lens hoods properly (rather than screwing them into the front element). It also focusses a bit more reliably - though not as much of an improvement as I was hoping for (might be the 400d rather than the lens though).

The 1.4 might be a bit sharper at wide apertures, but I don't think the difference is massive.

The 1.8 is lighter.
 
I have owned both lenses and neither are particularly amazing by any stretch of the imagination. Both are rather 'hazy' when wide open, with the f/1.4 suffering typical 'fast fifty' spherical abberation. it works almost like a soft focus lens wide open and I suppose you could see this as being beneficial for portraits. Otherwise, it's a step up to at least f/2 for anything larger than web sized photos. The f/1.8 is getting good at f/2.2, better at f/2.5 and very good by f/2.8. Both are stunning at f/4 -f/5.6 (100% size sharpness) and gradually start to decline in quality again at f/8 ~

The USM motor in the f/1.4 isn't a proper ring ultrasonic system like almost every other ultrasonic Canon lens out there, but instead some crappy pseudo USM motor. For me, it's akin to kit lens focus speed and accuracy, and in all honesty, isn't that much quieter! Focussing indoors under typical ambient lighting is slow and sometimes wouldn't lock at all; outdoors though in light focus is fine. The build quality isn't exactly great, for the £300~ you will pay for one, and the front of the barrel extends slightly as you focus, so you MUST put a hood on it as an accidental knock to the front will kill the lens.

The bokeh off the f/1.4 is more rounded than the f/1.8 as it has 8 aperture blades vice the mere 5 of the cheaper lens. The colour rendition is definitely better (I found my f/1.8 gave a magenta tint - which is also evident on your pics unless it's your PP work) and at f/2 and up the sharpness is quite good in the centre and thirds. vignetting wide open on a full frame camera is actually in some situations rather effective at helping frame the subject - but of course undesirable otherwise.

The only thing about both lenses that impressed me was the IQ - just about everything else is poor. I am selling my 50mm f/1.4 with ES 71II hood imminently - but if I were you, I'd stick with your f/1.8. The build quality sucks, but the IQ isn't all that far behind the much more expensive offering. If you wanted to spend the extra, get an 85mm f/1.8. Arguably better IQ wide open, a proper USM motor, build quality is better (I have held both, and it is true) - what more needs to be said?
 
Last edited:
I own the 1.8 and have used the 1.4. I didn't feel the upgrade was worth it for now. The nifty is still the benchmark for image quality for my lenses.
 
SixToes said:
I don't agree. The 1.4 build quality while not great is at least OK, and a massive improvement on the 1.8 ii..
Click to expand...

Lol... that placebo is exactly why Canon sell so many of them. In reality the f/1.4 build quality isn't much better than the IS kit lens (I'm being serious) - even the focus ring is horribly damped due to the FAIL USM motor not being a true ultrasonic one.
 
While I can't really speak for the Canon optics, but the difference between the Nikon f/1.8 and f/1.4 is quite noticable - better colour, better contrast, better build-quality (both the AF-D and AF-S variants, which differ in price by about £40, I think)...

Better...

Oh and that Blokey is better as well apparently...
 
neil_g said:
wouldnt say its that big or heavy to be honest but even so its worth it for the sharpness wide open.
Click to expand...
I can totally understand the appeal of the Sigma - I was very tempted by it, but went for the Canon in the end because of the size/weight thing. I'm sure it's fine on a 1d3 but it seems huge on a little 400d!
 
trencheel303 said:
Lol... that placebo is exactly why Canon sell so many of them. In reality the f/1.4 build quality isn't much better than the IS kit lens (I'm being serious) - even the focus ring is horribly damped due to the FAIL USM motor not being a true ultrasonic one.
Click to expand...
joescrivens was asking about the difference between the Canon 50mm 1.4 and 1.8ii.

I've never handled the IS kit lens so can't comment on that - but are you seriously trying to suggest that the 1.4 isn't better built than the 1.8 ii? And I agree that the micromotor USM isn't as nice as ring USM, and that the focus ring handling on the 1.4 isn't as good as some other primes, but again both are a big step up from the 1.8 ii.

That said, as others have suggested I think it's a good idea to consider the Sigma as well.
 
The biggest difference is noise..............or the lack of it with the 1.4 !

Personally didn't like the toy-town feel of the 1.8 or the IQ when i used it on the 50D - upgraded to the 1.4 much better build quality compared with the 1.8 and a slight IQ improvement and you don't get that horrible focus noise.
 
SixToes said:
joescrivens was asking about the difference between the Canon 50mm 1.4 and 1.8ii.

I've never handled the IS kit lens so can't comment on that - but are you seriously trying to suggest that the 1.4 isn't better built than the 1.8 ii? And I agree that the micromotor USM isn't as nice as ring USM, and that the focus ring handling on the 1.4 isn't as good as some other primes, but again both are a big step up from the 1.8 ii.

That said, as others have suggested I think it's a good idea to consider the Sigma as well.
Click to expand...

I think you have misunderstood my post. I was suggesting that the build quality of the 50mm f/1.4 isn't that much better than Canon's 18-55 kit lens. The kit lens is actually better build than the 50mm f/1.8 which really is shocking - but what can you expect for such a low price. The build quality of the f/1.8 is so bad that people upgrade to the f/1.4 and think it's good, when it really isn't, hence my comment about the placebo... Canon ain't stupid - I fell for it among many people :lol:

I have owned both fifties and an IS kit lens so I do know what I am saying here... for what one pays for the f/1.4 fifty the build quality does not reflect that. Yes it's better than the f/1.8 (this is NOT hard) but hardly better than a cheap kit lens. The only thing it has going for it is the image quality, which as I have said is not noticeably better than the f/1.8 ... simples
 
Last edited:
I agree that the build quality is a bit naff, the focus ring particularly is horrible and put next to my 70-200mm it does look like and feel like a kit lens. That said it produces beautiful photos and I prefer it to my old 50mm f/1.8 II. In fact the 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200mm are my favourite lens combo. You just have to look at how many people are willing to pay for the 35L and yet turn a blind eye to the 50L to know that the 1.4 must be alright.

Just as a side note isn't f/1.4 to f/1.8 two 3rds of a stop not one 3rd? 1.4 - 1.6 - 1.8?
 
Fair enough - I briefly had the non-IS kit lens which was plastic (I think? It was a while ago now!) and definitely had pretty grim handling (for example manual focusing was barely possible) - they must have significantly improved the IS version.

Maybe I haven't handled enough lenses to be able to make a good quality comparison. But based on what I've used I don't think the 1.4 is that much worse than the Sigma EX lenses I own. Sure, it's no L prime but then it's a fraction of the price ;)
 
Compared to the Sigma 10-20 the 50 f/1.4 feels like a toy to me. The kit lenses are plastic, but so is the Canon 50 f/1.4 - apart from the mount.

Ian maybe the reason people turn a blind eye to the 50L is that it too has its own problems... focus shift, noticeable loss of quality wide open, the front element falling off... all in all it's not much of an improvement over the 1.4, yet it costs a hell of a lot more. Canon just really needs to get their act together with their fifties.

and yes, yes it is two thirds of a stop faster.
 
Last edited:
trencheel303 said:
yes it is two thirds of a stop.

Ian maybe the reason people turn a blind eye to the 50L is that it too has its own problems... focus shift, noticeable loss of quality wide open, the front element falling off... all in all it's not much of an improvement over the 1.4, yet it costs a hell of a lot more. Canon just really needs to get their act together with their fifties.
Click to expand...


Thought I was going crazy there, that half hour I spent memorising the apertures would've been wasted lol.

Oh yeah I agree totally, I guess what I'm saying is that you can pick up a 50mm f/1.4 for £200 mint condition used and for me it's worth the extra over the f/1.8 II. Whereas I wouldn't pay the extra for the 50L, even a used copy. So in that respect the 50mm f/1.4 is the best compromise in a bad bunch. It has good colour rendition, sharpness etc and isn't too heavy or large. The primitive USM is it's biggest problem imo.
 
I too was thinking of upgrading my 1.8 to a 1.4. The searches I have done so far would indicate that the Sigma is a much better performer than the Canon lens.

The only doubts I have concern some reports of dodgy copies having an inconsistent focus; moving from front focussing to back focussing on the same lens, which would be impossible to dial out using micro adjust.
 
I'm pretty sure that there's a large dose of internet rumour and exaggeration attached to Sigma sample variation and that at least some complaints of front / back focus are down to user error. I've seen this myself first hand.

Just buy the Siggy 50mm f1.4 and if you're not happy, after taking care to make sure that any problems are not user error, take it back.
 
woof woof said:
I'm pretty sure that there's a large dose of internet rumour and exaggeration attached to Sigma sample variation and that at least some complaints of front / back focus are down to user error. I've seen this myself first hand.

Just buy the Siggy 50mm f1.4 and if you're not happy, after taking care to make sure that any problems are not user error, take it back.
Click to expand...

agreed. if you're happy,you'll be very happy i think..
 
trencheel303 said:
Compared to the Sigma 10-20 the 50 f/1.4 feels like a toy to me. The kit lenses are plastic, but so is the Canon 50 f/1.4 - apart from the mount.

Ian maybe the reason people turn a blind eye to the 50L is that it too has its own problems... focus shift, noticeable loss of quality wide open, the front element falling off... all in all it's not much of an improvement over the 1.4, yet it costs a hell of a lot more. Canon just really needs to get their act together with their fifties.

and yes, yes it is two thirds of a stop faster.
Click to expand...

I've not had mine that long - maybe I've over estimated it's build quality. I'll have a closer look when I get home this evening :thinking: :)
 
ok thanks all, build quality means nothing to me, I don't heavy handle or bounce my lenses, and if the IQ isn't much improved then I think I'll probably stick with what I have.
 
trencheel303 said:
Compared to the Sigma 10-20 the 50 f/1.4 feels like a toy to me. The kit lenses are plastic, but so is the Canon 50 f/1.4 - apart from the mount.
Click to expand...
Hmm, you're right. The Sigma EX lenses look way better built. Who'd have thought? So yeah, thanks for ending my honeymoon period with my new Canon 50mm f/1.4! ;)

Judging by the classified forum you're about to switch to the Sigma? Let us know how it compares when you get it.



joescrivens - apologies for the partial thread hijack. Also, whether or not you switch to a 1.4, going on the samples in your first post you're getting some really nice work from your current 50mm. :)
 
It really depends on which 50 F1.4 you are considering.

Canon 50 F1.4 USM you get:
- Better build
- Better bokeh and better out of focus transition
- Better contrast and sharpness out of the box
- Better and faster auto focus
- Full time manual overide
- Better flare resistance

Sigma 50 F1.4 HSM
- Much better build
- Full time manual focusing
- Much better and faster auto focus
- Included lens hood which is much better designed than the canon ones.
- Included pouch
- Almost Lieca like resolution and bokeh
- This is probably the best 50 currently available for EF mount, so much so that people have doubed it the Sigmalux.

Then there are the manual focus options from Zeiss (contax the ninja star), Lieca (Needs a mod), Olympus OM (cheap and very nice).

I owned all the Canon versions (before the Sigma came out) and did not really like any of them. So the only 50 I currently own is a CY Ziess 50 F1.7.
 
SixToes said:
Hmm, you're right. The Sigma EX lenses look way better built. Who'd have thought? So yeah, thanks for ending my honeymoon period with my new Canon 50mm f/1.4! ;)

Judging by the classified forum you're about to switch to the Sigma? Let us know how it compares when you get it.
Click to expand...


Sigma EX lenses are very nice. The rings are so so smooth like butter, and the build too. Basically like Canon L lenses, although I don't think Sigma lenses include as much metal . I am actually dumping the fifty and replacing it with a 17-40/85 combo, as I quite often find I could go a bit wider, or a bit longer. The 17-40 will be the walkabout and the 85 will be the cream machine...
 
trencheel303 said:
Sigma EX lenses are very nice. The rings are so so smooth like butter, and the build too. Basically like Canon L lenses, although I don't think Sigma lenses include as much metal . I am actually dumping the fifty and replacing it with a 17-40/85 combo, as I quite often find I could go a bit wider, or a bit longer. The 17-40 will be the walkabout and the 85 will be the cream machine...
Click to expand...

if its the 85mm f1.8, thats the same build quality as the 50mm 1.4 you dont appear to like very much so i wouldn't get your hopes up to much
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
if its the 85mm f1.8, thats the same build quality as the 50mm 1.4 you dont appear to like very much so i wouldn't get your hopes up to much
Click to expand...

but it isn't though - I used to think this and then held one in Jessops, and it's immediately got a more solid, heavier, better constructed feel. Sure it's still plastic, but there are 'little things' which add up to make it nicer. Of course that's my opinion but when I held it (and then focussed it) I did fall in love. The focus ring is also properly damped as the lens uses ring USM, rather than feeling like it's meshing with pebbles inside.
 
Last edited:
trencheel303 said:
but it isn't though - I used to think this and then held one in Jessops, and it's immediately got a more solid, heavier, better constructed feel. Sure it's still plastic, but there are 'little things' which add up to make it nicer. The focus ring is also properly damped as the lens uses ring USM, rather than feeling like it's meshing with pebbles inside.
Click to expand...

I've got both on my desk in-front of me - very very little difference between the focus rings, still made of the same plastic, doesn't feel any more solid- yes its heavier but its bigger ! is your 50mm knackered ?
 
Last edited:
The Canon 1.4 is better in many ways than the 1.8. But it's 4 times the price. Whether it's worth the extra is going to have be down to personal preferences. I love my 1.4.
 
can someone with a canon 1.4 or a sigma 1.4 post their best sample images so i can compare them to the ones i recently got witht my 1.8

id like to compare the contrast sharpness and bokeh that people are mentioning
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top