Upgrade 50mm f/1.8 to 50mm f/1.4?

Is it worth it for me to get rid of the 1.8 for the 1.4? I have recently started doing more and more portraits. I will be getting the 85mm f/1.8 soon and was thinking it might be time to move up from the 50mm 1.8. Any thoughts? I would love to hear from someone that has had both lenses or at least had a chance to compare them. I bought the 1.8 back when I was in high school and didn't have the money for the 1.4, but now that I have the cash I'm thinking I should upgrade. Better build quality, wider aperture, slightly sharper, FTM focus.

It

Am I the only guy happy with his canon 50 f/1.4?


No, it isn't razor sharp at f/1.4, but the even the 35 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2 aren't either (they're sharper than the 50, I admit). No, the build quality isn't as good as some lenses, but it's fine with me. The bokeh isn't as good as the 50 f/1.2, but it is far better than that of the 50 1.8. (The vignetting is pretty bad at f/1.4, no question).


I've never used the sigma- so I'm not comparing the canon to that. But it's hard to imagine someone upgrading from the canon f/1.8 (as I once did) being disappointed. I've taken lots of nice pictures with my 50. IMO an upgrade (be it to canon or sigma) is worthwhile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Am I the only guy happy with his canon 50 f/1.4?


No, it isn't razor sharp at f/1.4, but the even the 35 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2 aren't either

---

They aren't?


If it gets sharper than the 85 1.2 I don't need to know about it.

I'm relatively happy with my Canon 50mm f/1.4. I've never owned the 50mm f/1.8, but the reason I bought the f/1.4 version is because I borrowed the f/1.8 from a friend and absolutely hated the build quality and loud/cheap AF.

<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

I borrowed the f/1.8 from a friend and absolutely hated the build quality and loud/cheap AF.

---

Another reason why I am thinking of upgrading
</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by salazarbrujo

dont forget the other choices as well~ the 100mm maco and non macro are very good! the 85mm 1.8 is excellent from what i have read,and seen! i personally have used the 100mm macro non is and it is very nice!

---

I want the 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro but that can wait. If I replace my 50mm f/1.8 it will be with another 50mm

I had the f/1.8. It was cheap, awful AF. Sold it for how much i paid for it. I have f/1.4. I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

No, it isn't razor sharp at f/1.4, but the even the 35 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.2 aren't either
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

They aren't?


If it gets sharper than the 85 1.2 I don't need to know about it.

---

I'm not talking about stopped way down, I mean at f/1.4. My new 85 f/1.2 is definitely sharper at f/4 than f/1.4. And it has major CA at f/1.2. (gone when stopped down).


I'm not saying I've used a sharper lens at f/1.4, but it isn't what I call "razor sharp".


Are you telling me your 85 f/1.2 is super sharp wide open?

I'd like to reply here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baker

Is it worth it for me to get rid of the 1.8 for the 1.4?

---

Definitely. I had the 50mm f1.8 for quite some months, but I haven't enjoyed it once. It's not a bad lens at all if you know how to work with it, but I can't imagine anyone really enjoying shooting with one after having a taste of the "big brothers".


Honestly, the AF sound, build-quality and very poor and breakable character of this lens turned me down enourmously. I must also admit that the focal length wasn't my thing that time. At the time I was shooting with a crop-camera and I didn't like the 50mm focal length. Plus the 50mm of my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 at the time was more pleasingand useful to me for 99/100 situations back then.


When I upgraded to full-frame and I was in search of something low-light I examined my favorite focal length and I started to see that I shoot a lot around the 50mm range so I decided to look there.


The amateur photographer that I am doesn't need and doesn't have the money for a 50mm 1.2L so I was down to a quest [;)] It came down to the Canon f1.4 USM or the Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM. Both are in the same category and class. However there are some differences.


I tried both lenses in a store. Inside unfortunately so my testing might not be the most accurate, but I instantly saw the difference in sharpness between both lenses. Wide open the Sigma looked much sharper to me. And it's actually very usable at f1.4. And I like to have the opportunity to use a lens at it's maximum setting. That's what I pay for right?


Anyway sharpness was not the only thing. I also like the build quality of the Sigma much better. It has a metal body vs a plastic one. It's bigger and in this case bigger is better. I like the extra weight and the larger focus ring. It just feels more natural on the camera. I like to hold the camera with both hands. With the 50mm f1.8 this was practically impossible [:P]


The 77mm filter thread was also appealing to me since I have more lenses with this size and so I don't have to buy a different polarizer etc for each lens.


All in all I prefered the Sigma over the Canon so I bought it.


Here's the catch...it has focus-issues. In my case it front-focussed, but with a +9 micro-focusadjustment this was solved and it left me with a great lens. However when reading some reviews and user-experiences, the fcusissues are a Sigma-quality. So for that fact I personally wouldn't buy one without any gaurantee or return-policy. It's a risk you can take and it can turn out great or it can eat you.


It was worth the risk for me and I enjoy the fact that I did. Economically speaking, both lenses cost practically the same at the moment (that was a major con for the Sigma when it was released) so that's solved now.


Now that I have used the micro-focus adjustment I must say that this might also have worked for the Canon. But I will never know.


I'm voting for the Sigma. You're going to love the image-quality! The bokeh is just lovely...devine compared to the 50mm f1.8 you're using now [;)] But I recommend it with two side-notes:


1 - The Sigma might have focus-issues. Chances are real so be prepared if you're going here.


2 - Try both lenses out if you have the chance.





Good luck,


Jan


PS: check out revies on both lenses at dpreview.com for example. But look only to reviews when both lenses are reviewed by the same site/person. This will give you the most objective view.

the 1.4 is a well worthed upgrade from the 1.8. not only sharper but the full time manual is a must have feature with such a shallow DOF, it made the difference for me


but the question here is not which 50mm gives you the more bang for your buck it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gred

but the question here is not which 50mm gives you the more bang for your buck it's to decide if he should upgrade or go for the 85 f1.8.

---

That's not how I read the initial post where he states that he's buying the 85mm soon anyway...and he's questioning if he should also upgrade the 50mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gred

in this case I would get the 85mm it's a better portrait lens then the 50 1.4

---

Depends on your own likingsdon't you think? I personally think I would prefer the 85mm on a crop body, but on a full frame camera the 50mm is a "better" portrait lens for me. But manywill disagree with me on this one, it's a personal thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

I personally think I would prefer the 85mm on a crop body, but on a full frame camera the 50mm is a "better" portrait lens for me. But manywill disagree with me on this one, it's a personal thing.

---

Do you mean 85 on ff and 50 on crop?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

I'm not talking about stopped way down, I mean at f/1.4. My new 85 f/1.2 is definitely sharper at f/4 than f/1.4. And it has major CA at f/1.2. (gone when stopped down).


I'm not saying I've used a sharper lens at f/1.4, but it isn't what I call "razor sharp".


Are you telling me your 85 f/1.2 is super sharp wide open?

---

Yeah that is pretty much what I'm saying.


This shot is 1.4 solely to get a little more depth. My 85 1.2 is nails.


800px portion taken from a larger image and displaying at 100%. No sharpening applied.


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/5861._5F00_MG_5F00_1057alt2C.jpg[/img]

That was a really stupid joke and I did NOT appreciate it.

Maybe keep the 50mm f/1.8 and get a 60mm f/2.8 macro? That would be a good portrait lens wouldn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baker

Maybe keep the 50mm f/1.8 and get a 60mm f/2.8 macro? That would be a good portrait lens wouldn't it?

---

Yes, the EF-S 60mm Macro makes a good portrait lens - the focal length is a nice compromise between full body and closer portrait styles. The aperture is 1.3 stops slower than the 50mm f/1.8, and 2 stops slower than the 50mm f/1.4, which means less of the out-of-focus blur that is often desirable in portraits. But f/2.8 will do well, especially if you can have a little distance between your subject and the background.

I was just thinking of this lens because I realized that I shoot my 50mm f/1.8 at f/2.8 a lot when doing portraits. And if I needed or wanted to shoot at f/2 or f/1.8 I still can with the 50mm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baker

Maybe keep the 50mm f/1.8 and get a 60mm f/2.8 macro? That would be a good portrait lens wouldn't it?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

this is not a bad idea at all!, in terms of IQ, the 60mm macro should be a lot better than the 50mm 1.4, especially the quality of the bokeh(I don't have the 60mm but the 100mm macro) plus you get macro function. when you really need wide aperture, your 50mm1.8 and/or 85mm1.8 can do the job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baker

I was just thinking of this lens because I realized that I shoot my 50mm f/1.8 at f/2.8 a lot when doing portraits. And if I needed or wanted to shoot at f/2 or f/1.8 I still can with the 50mm.

---

Is that because of the lens-specifications aka sharpness etc or because you like the depth of field of f2.8?


Anyway I don't know how the 60mm macro performs, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea. And quickly looking trough the review...it looks good. However the difference in field of view between 60mm and the 85mm is obviously smaller than the the difference between the 50 and the 85...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheiky

I personally think I would prefer the 85mm on a crop body, but on a full frame camera the 50mm is a "better" portrait lens for me. But manywill disagree with me on this one, it's a personal thing.

---

Do you mean 85 on ff and 50 on crop?

---

Nope I meant it like I said it[;)] I was arguing between these lenses and I know they would serve different purposes on both camera's. It's just that 50mm on a crop body is not really my thing[;)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Am I the only guy happy with his canon 50 f/1.4?

---

No Jon you're not. I love my 50 1.4. It presently is my favorite lens used on my 5D for photojournalistic style photography. I own the 2.8 L trio of old and certainly get a lot of great shots with those. I use my 28-70 f2.8 L at 70mm @ around f4.0 - f5.6 for portraits most of the time. On a crop the 50mm works great for waist up portrats. I'm not sure but most of the portraits I do for people requires a little more DOF than even f3.5 will yield on a FF camera. I like f4.0 the best. It's a great compromise of dof vs. bokeh vs. sharpness. Trying to shoot @ f1.4 or even f2.8 requires critical focus that not only taxes the photographer but the subject as well. So, should the OP upgrade? I have never used the 50 1.8, but I can say from experience as well as the examples I've posted on this forum that the 50 1.4 is an extremely good lens. I got second place or something a couple of years ago over at the digital photography school site for shooting wide open with this shot:


http://ChuckLee.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v0/p292216775-4.jpg


Canon EOS 40D, EF50 f1.4- <span class="nowrap"]f/1.4 @ <span class="nowrap"]50 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/400, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 800, <span class="nowrap"]No Flash


<span class="nowrap"]Also, Shieky, it may be a your personal preference, but the norm that I see followed is 85mm on FF and 50mm on crop for waist up portraits. Personally, I do not like the 50 1.4 on FF for portrait. I much prefer 70mm plus. The 85 1.8 has been on my list for quite some time. I would think that lens rather long for a crop sensor T2i camera.


<span class="nowrap"]Here is a recent shot. Standard, classic upper body portrait. May be typical, but works every time. The sharpness of a lens is always overated IMHO. A 8 x 10 will hardly begin to test the 12.8meg resolution of my 5D with the old 28-70 f2.8 lens. If I wanted to soften the whole thing up a little I could've dialed down the lights and shot at f2.8. Older women love the smoothing effect. Question is do I want the end of her nose to her eyes to be in focus or her eyes to her ears? There's not much worse than finding out afterwards that you slightly back focusedor front focused and the perfect shot with the perfect smile is all out of whack. There used to be a saying... something like "f8 is safe" or "safe at f8" After thousands of photo's I understand why.


<span class="nowrap"]<span class="nowrap"]http://ChuckLee.zenfolio.com/img/s10...02306971-4.jpg


<span class="nowrap"]Canon EOS 5D, EF 28-70 f2.8 L- <span class="nowrap"]f/4 @ <span class="nowrap"]70 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/160, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 200, Strobist three light setup.


<span class="nowrap"]<span class="nowrap"]Baker, don't sweat the details too much. Get a selection of good zooms and a few primes and take thousands of photos...you'll see the strengths and weaknesses of each and learn where each works best. You're 50 1.8 @ f4.0 is an assume lens for the price. The bokeh leaves a little to be desired so stay away from high contrast busy backgrounds. Search over at pbase for examples of what each of those lenses can do and you may find that you're money may be better spent on something else.


<span class="nowrap"]


<span class="nowrap"]<span class="nowrap"]P.S. It's good to post again... I've been away for quite a while. I'm still shooting plenty, just busy with losts of cool things. Hey Daniel B., Hey Sean S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Yeah that is pretty much what I'm saying.

---

Impressive. Does your copy have a lot of CA at f/1.2? Mine sure does. Not so bad that it would be apparent in this pic, but it is often quite apparent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

I got second place or something a couple of years ago over at the digital photography school site for shooting wide open with this shot:

---

Nice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Impressive. Does your copy have a lot of CA at f/1.2? Mine sure does. Not so bad that it would be apparent in this pic, but it is often quite apparent.

---

Thanks. In all honesty the 85L is the sharpest, most vivid lens I have ever shot with.


It does have a bit of CA wide open (not as bad as my 35L though). I haven't experienced train wreck CA like I have seen others. I guess it is entirely possible I have a (dern near) perfect copy.

And maybe my 50 f/1.4 is better than some.


When I get some time I'll post pics from my 85 to give an idea of sharpness and CA as a comparison to yours.


I'll say this: Ken Rockell's suggestion that the 85 f/1.2 be used wide open for astrophotography is seems even more laughable to me now than when I first read it (before I tried the 85 f/1.2)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

<span class="nowrap"]Also, Shieky, it may be a your personal preference, but the norm that I see followed is 85mm on FF and 50mm on crop for waist up portraits. Personally, I do not like the 50 1.4 on FF for portrait. I much prefer 70mm plus. The 85 1.8 has been on my list for quite some time. I would think that lens rather long for a crop sensor T2i camera.

---

Thanks for replying Chuck. I know what the norm is, but I just didn't like 50mm on a crop-camera at all. Of course at the time I was using the 50mm 1.8 which I didn't like anyway. But honestly I really like the 50mm on full frame. It totally madesense to me why this was "the" standard lens for 35mm camera's. I haven't used an 85mm lens on full frame yet, but I must say that the 100mm macro is also a very nice portrait lens [A]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

<span class="nowrap"]There used to be a saying... something like "f8 is safe" or "safe at f8" After thousands of photo's I understand why.

---

Well...safe isn't always exiting is it? [:P]


Ps: welcome back [Y]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jan "Sheiky" Paalman

Is that because of the lens-specifications aka sharpness etc or because you like the depth of field of f2.8?

---

I think it's a little bit of both

I see. I think f2 is my favorite aperture for my 50mm 1.4. For the same reasons ;)