Are 50 1.8s better than 1.4s?
ThatCanonGuy
Registered Users Posts: 1,778 Major grins
http://www.adorama.com/alc/article/50mm-lens-shoot-out-f18-or-f14
Interesting. Of course, they don't mention that the 1.4s have better AF and build. I think some of the comments do. For me, it doesn't change anything: if I ever want a 50mm, I'll buy a 1.4. More because of the AF than anything else.
Interesting. Of course, they don't mention that the 1.4s have better AF and build. I think some of the comments do. For me, it doesn't change anything: if I ever want a 50mm, I'll buy a 1.4. More because of the AF than anything else.
0
Comments
I like the quality and low light performance, got to use it at the Children's museum today with the kids. Just have to exercise a little more patience to get the shot.
I have not used the Nikon 1.4D or 1.8 to compare. I wanted the fastest since this was a lens I would keep, but wish I had tested it before I spent the $450.
Website
Facebook Twitter Google+
I have used Canon's EF 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses. In general I don't find apertures greater than f/2 all that usable, not so much because of reduced sharpness as because of increased spherical aberration and insufficient depth of field. But every once in a while you find yourself in some incredibly dark situation where f/1.4 is the only way to get a reasonable chance at a decent exposure without using a flash.
The main differences between the Canon f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses are build quality, autofocus, and bokeh. The f/1.8 (the current II version) is very cheaply made; the f/1.4 is much better. The f/1.4 has a USM autofocus motor and focuses quickly and silently. The f/1.8 does not have USM and focuses somewhat noisily but still reasonably quickly. The f/1.4 does a good job of locking focus even in very poor light, while the f/1.8 tends to get lost in poor light. The f/1.4 has eight aperture blades, giving octagonal bokeh, which are less distracting than the pentagons produced by the f/1.8's five blades. The f/1.8 II is also unpleasant to focus manually because not only do you have to flip the A/M switch, but the focus ring is at the front edge of the lens, is very thin, and has a cheap feel to it. The f/1.4 lets you focus manually at any time and its focus ring feels much nicer. The f/1.4 also has a distance window, which the f/1.8 II lacks.
There is also, of course, the older, original EF 50mm f/1.8, which you can find used. It is better built than the II version and has a distance window, but is otherwise pretty much the same.
So for Canon, I think the extra cost of the f/1.4 lens is well worthwhile. I haven't used anyone else's modern autofocus 50mm lenses, so I can't offer an opinion about Nikon, Pentax, etc.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
It could be that the micro lenses are part of the problem. If light is coming to the sensor from a larger variety of angles (as it would be with a wider aperture) the micro lens may well not direct all of it onto the sensor sight. I think the testers probably do have a good understanding of optics BTW. I agree that the angles should not be very oblique, but they would be more so than with a slower lens.
Still wand a 50mm 1.2 though.
The 50 1.8 is OK for the extremely budget minded but its plastic build, slow AF and 6 blade aperture leaves a lot to be desired.
When tossing the build quality aside the AF and difference in bokeh from 6 blade to 8 blade makes a huge difference in IQ.
The 50 1.2L has a superior build quality but it only tops the other to from f1.2 to f2, after that the 50 1.4 is sharper and past 2.8 both the 1.4 and 1.8 are sharper.