50mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.8

[davideglasgow]

Could have either one (see previous thread). f/1.4 is backordered almost everywhere. Getting antsy. What about the f/1.8? I could have it by this weekend. Should I just wait it out for the f/1.4?

[Steve Eisenberg]

Patience. You've been cleared for the 1.4!

[mattsartin]

never used the 1.4 but the 1.8 is a great lens for the price, have taken some excellent pic with it, you could always sell it after your 1.4 comes in since Canon lenses have such great resale value, here is a samplehttp://lh5.ggpht.com/_txxcOCWRgac/SRhjQKoY3GI/AAAAAAAAD0k/sxxoB66W3gQ/s640/IMG_6889.jpg.

[Colin]

Just get the 1.4 and be done with it...


The 1.8 might be the indisputable value champion for image quality, but you heart wants the 1.4, PLUS it's significantly faster. I bought my fianceeeee (spelling) the 1.4, and she LOVES it. Her kids love it. I love it. I want to try it back to back with my 1.2L, and see if there's a trade for me in the future (especially if the PCB mod hasn't fixed the focus shift issue, which I'm guessing it hasn't...)


You'll just feel better [:)]

[davideglasgow]

You know, it's funny reading reviews and reading here. Some say it's "significantly faster," while others say "you're paying $300 for 1/3 of an f-stop." Interesting how the two interpretations of those numbers exist.

[Jon Ruyle]

I agree... there is some question as to wheather the 1.4 is worth the money (since it depends on your camera budget).


But it is without a doubt (IMO) worth the wait.

[Colin]

That's 2/3 of an f-Stop.


I tried it on my 30 d, and from f/1.8 to f/1.4, it was a difference of 1/160 to 1/250.


Stop action indoors, keeping the ISO reasonable dude!





*chanting*


1.4!


1.4!


1.4!


*end chant*

[davideglasgow]

Yes, 1.4 it is. I will rent it in the meantime. Where is the best place to rent?

[peety3]

Interestingly, in Bryan's reviews, the f/1.8 is sharp when stopped down to f/2.8, and the f/1.4 is sharp when stopped down to f/2.8. If sharpness is key, you don't get anything for your money, but so many other parameters factor in that it's probably worth it - background blur should be better in almost any shot taken with the 1.4 over the 1.8, focus speed (and feel), etc.


I have the f/1.8, haven't sprung for the 1.4 yet. Don't know that I will, unless/until I have full-frame. On my 1D3, 50mm is a little long; on a 40D or similar it's a little longer still. I don't like using the 1.8 in low light, as focus hunting becomes a physical experience (imagine the little motor going errrt....errt....errrt....ert until it finally hits focus). That said, the 1.8 can take great shots at 2.8 and beyond:


[View:http://photos.templin.org/gallery/tgiving2008B/426C0007]


[View:http://photos.templin.org/gallery/DoF-example01/426C1812]


[View:http://photos.templin.org/gallery/tgiving2008A/426C0140]


[View:http://photos.templin.org/gallery/X08-esquivel/IMG_6319]


[View:http://photos.templin.org/gallery/X08-jaramillo/IMG_6315]


First two are non-flash, essentially unprocessed. Third is bounce flash, last two are multiple flashes.

[Jon Ruyle]

Very nice pics, peety3.


The f/1.4 is better lens IMO. But the photographer is more important than the lens.

[Madison]

The photographer is more important than the lens.





True that.
I'd still take the 1.4 over the 1.8 though. The 1.4 is still very affordable, faster, better built, has nicer bokeh (see the comparison of bokeh in the review that Brian did over in the reviews section) and is a very fast and good performer in low light situations. Image quality is also noticably better than the 1.8.

[I chase light]

I may be stating the obvious, but prime lenses (those with one focal length) give L image quality at a fraction of the price. Either one of these lenses is worth much more than its cost. The 1.8 is a blast, don't get me wrong, but just for a couple hundred bucks more, I prefer the 1.4.


Other than the speed issue, whichis significant IMO, the main reason I vote for the 1.4 is that it has a UltraSonic (versus micro, right?) motor. I find the 1.8 motor to be slow, noisy and clumsy to focus at times. The cost/quality ratioof this lens far outweighs its drawbacks, but I notice the motor, which I never notice with a USM.


To me, each f stop below 4 becomesmore useful for 2 things: shots you don't set up but "get," like parties (weddings), sports, street life, and other "events;" and DOF issues like portraiture. The USM of the 1.4 is better for the first and its eight blades produce bokeh considered to be more pleasing than the five of the 1.8.


---James

[greggf]

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/IMG_5F00_0002bw-_5B00_1600x1200_5D00_.JPG


The 1.4 is quite the awesome lens...I have used both, and for the price, the 1.8 is nice...but the 1.4 absolutely shines, especially on FF!!! Here is one of the very first pics I took with it when I got my first 5d...and some of my little guy, later on. the first one of my dog taken at 1.4, the one of my son taken at 2.0./cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.00/IMG_5F00_5331-_5B00_1600x1200_5D00_.jpg

[Colin]

Question...





Does anybody know if the 50mm f/1.4 DOESN't have the back focus behavior exhibited with the 50mm f/1.2L ?


I should just check to see if the f/1.2 still has that problem now that it's back from the factory... Then I can stop wondering if it's simply doomed [U]

[Tim]

I've never used the 1.4, but I can say that 1.8 is just about the best bang for the buck. I just don't have the extra few hundred dollars, definitely if the additions are mostly not related to optical quality.

[ShutterbugJohan]

The 50/1.8 is a great lens. I just wish it had the super-quick USM. It's autofocus is faster than my Tamron 70-300s, though. :-)

[davideglasgow]

f/1.4 purchased! Found it at buy.com for $336 with shipping. Soooo excited!