Canon 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4

Nyarthlopic

Hi all,

I'm planning to buy a Canon 50mm lens, but I'm not sure if I want to go with the f/1.8 or the f/1.4 flavor of it. I plan to use this mostly indoors where flash isn't allowed or where a flash would be really distracting. I'll be photographing people, mostly. I'm more interested in the extra speed than the focal length (very happy with my EF-S 15-85mm, but it's a little slow at f/3.5-5.6). The camera body is the Canon Digital Rebl XTi (400D). That's going to be stepped up to the 7D at some point in the relatively near future.

I don't know how much I'm going to use it, but when I do use it, I want a really good image quality.

Ultimately, either lens will work for what I want to do, but I'm trying to figure out if the f/1.4 is worth the extra ~$250. Anyone here have experience with both lenses and would like to weigh in?

ivar

I had both, i still have the 1.4; to me the price difference is well worth it. The 1.8 is not bad, the 1.4 is much better in all regards (except price ). Not much help, but i think in the end i think it depends on what it is worth to you.

divamum

They both take good pictures (and in some ways I almost prefer the IQ on the 1.8), but the 1.4 is MUCH faster and more reliable to focus. If that speed and accuracy going to be important to you, then the 1.4 will definitely be worth the extra.

I don't have one, but general view is that that Sigma 1.4 is better than either of them, although heavier and more expensive.

GEneral opinion seems to be that the Canon 50mm 1.4 seems is the best compromise between the three lenses on speed, weight and price.

ziggy53

I have both the EF 50mm, f1.8 and the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM. The f1.4 is a little faster to focus but no speed demon. The important advantage is that the f1.4 has been much more accurate to autofocus. I can use it even wide open with some assurance that the focus will be correct most of the time. With the f1.8 I can be more sure that autofocus will be incorrect. The f1.8 is better using manual focus and af confirmation or, if your camera has it, use the live view and magnify. Manual focus using live view works extremely well in those situations where it's appropriate.

The f1.4 does have some halation wide open, but that clears up pretty well by f2.2, if it's a problem. Otherwise I do shoot wide open and then add some USM sharpening in post.

My f1.8 is now mostly just a backup lens, although it should be a better choice for my IR converted XT/350D.

Mark1616

I use the 50mm f1.8 on both full frame and crop and it does OK, or if you bring the price into consideration then it is amazing value. I'm going to be getting the Sigma 50mm f1.4 in the future as I want more low light/natural light shooting and it is the winner over the Canon 50mm f1.4 for wide open/nearly wide open sharpness.

I will agree that the AF on the 50mm f1.8 isn't great so I always go for a couple of shots if they are critical.

cmason

If you have never handled either, when you first get the 50 f1.8, you are going to feel ripped off. It weighs nothing, and sounds like a rusty turnstile when focusing. But the images are just amazing! You will never regret spending so little.

The 50 1.4 feels like a proper lens, is much quieter to focus. To me, I can't pixel peep and find a difference, so I stayed with the f1.8.

Nyarthlopic

Hey guys, thanks a ton! Considering that I am planning on utilizing AF as much as possible (I stink at manual focusing), with your feedback, I think I'm going to go with the f/1.4. I'll definitely check into the Sigma 1.4, too. I hadn't even thought to look outside Canon glass.

cmason

Nyarthlopic wrote: »

Hey guys, thanks a ton! Considering that I am planning on utilizing AF as much as possible (I stink at manual focusing), with your feedback, I think I'm going to go with the f/1.4. I'll definitely check into the Sigma 1.4, too. I hadn't even thought to look outside Canon glass.

Do note that the f1.8 does AF, its just that it does not have as good a focus motor as does the f1.4. In fact, manual focus really isn't much of an option on the f1.8, as the 'focus ring' is so tiny. Manual focus is a bit more plausible on the f1.4.

SamirD

I almost started into a Canon setup with this lens and then thought about the crop factor--at 1.6x, a 50mm turns out to be almost 80mm! You need to look at the 35mm or even shorter lenses to be able to have a decently wide lens on a crop camera, which would be important for the short distances commonly found indoors.

photogreen

also note that 1.8 has 5 diaphragm blades vs. 8 on 1.4 version. this has a significant effect on bokeh.

Manfr3d

The 50mm 1.8 has just fine bokeh when shooting between f/1.8 and f/2.2 after that you will notice the geometric shape of the oof highlights.
This why I mostly shoot this 50 wide open or all stopped down to f8. When I want to shoot wider or want a smother bokeh I take my Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX.

span

You serious need to give up shooting photos if you buy a lens based on how it sounds or weighs. The visual difference to me from all the photos I have seen between the 1.4 and 1.8 are almost unnoticeable. I guarantee I can take a photo that looks as good as the 1.4 at the same f stops 1.8+.

Jeremy Winterberg

I agree with Samir, 50mm is really an odd focal length on cropped cameras. I used to have the 50 1.8 a long time ago, and I hated it with my XSI. It was cheap, in price and build quality. I now have a Nikon D700 (FF) and a 50mm f/1.4G, I LOVE it! Its the perfect focal length on full frame. I'm selling my nikon gear and coming back to a Canon 5DMKII and the 50mm f/1.4 is on my list of lenses to get.

ripbob

I have the mark 1. I've used it indoors, and so far I'm impressed with the bokeh and sharpness of the images. I thought I'd miss my 1.4, but I don't.