Canon 50mm differences

Scottsmadness

Hi all,

Just wondering, what is the difference between the canon 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8. I am thinking about getting one of the primes because they are affordable and tack sharp. It will be used on a 20D. Also, I am new to photography (read: not a professional) so, am I going to notice a huge difference between these lenses? Does one have a distict advantage over the other?

Scott :thumb

cmason

Scottsmadness wrote:

Hi all,

Just wondering, what is the difference between the canon 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8. I am thinking about getting one of the primes because they are affordable and tack sharp. It will be used on a 20D. Also, I am new to photography (read: not a professional) so, am I going to notice a huge difference between these lenses? Does one have a distict advantage over the other?

Scott

the 1.4 is USM and has a metal lens mount. Oh and it is a 1.4...brighter lens

Bob Bell

Scottsmadness wrote:

Hi all,

Just wondering, what is the difference between the canon 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8. I am thinking about getting one of the primes because they are affordable and tack sharp. It will be used on a 20D. Also, I am new to photography (read: not a professional) so, am I going to notice a huge difference between these lenses? Does one have a distict advantage over the other?

Scott

Well there are really 5 50mm's from Canon. The 1.8 model as 2 versions. The optics are very similar. The mk1 version has a metal mount and a distance scale. The mk2 has a plastic mount. This isn't really that important because of how light the lens is. I have had the mk1 since 1987 and I think its really nice. The mk1 is around $135 used and the mkII is around $75 new.

The 50/1.4 version has a little bit better build quality. It is the professional version I guess but it is only $300 or so. The 1.4 gives you more light inside. I also think it has better optics.

The 4th 50mm is a 50mm macro. This lens is in the $200 range. Is used for copy work and macro work. It is awesome with electronics and things like stamps or coins.

The alst 50mm is the 50/1.0. This is the biggest aperture you can get in Canon. Its open all 36mm of the sensor. They run in the $3-4000 range.

Like I said, I own the 50/1.8 mk1 and the 50/1.4. So your answer is really with how much you want to spend because worst case you have a very nice lens. The default answer from many will be the 50/1.8 mkII which is ~$75

mercphoto

As noted the 50/1.4 has USM, but in my experience its not a fast-focusing lens. I've also been dis-pleased with its ability to auto-focus in dim light, which is odd. Otherwise the lens is great. The other difference not mentioned yet between the 1.4 and the 1.8 is the number of aperture blades. The 1.4 has more of them. More blades makes for more pleasing bokeh.

Bob Bell

mercphoto wrote:

As noted the 50/1.4 has USM, but in my experience its not a fast-focusing lens. I've also been dis-pleased with its ability to auto-focus in dim light, which is odd. Otherwise the lens is great. The other difference not mentioned yet between the 1.4 and the 1.8 is the number of aperture blades. The 1.4 has more of them. More blades makes for more pleasing bokeh.

Bill, I never made that connection between more blades and bokeh, I always thought it was only the shape of highlights. Nice bit of info there.

Scottsmadness

Bokeh.................................what in the hell is bokeh? (again.......I'm green!)

Bob Bell

Scottsmadness wrote:

Bokeh.................................what in the hell is bokeh? (again.......I'm green!)

bokeh is a japanese word. Not sure how to translate it correctly. Anyway, when you look at a picture and see how the details of the background blend together into soft shapes or a single color. That smooth background is called bokeh.

ScottMcLeod

1.8 -->1.4 = 200% more light... (not "a little" as some put it...)

TristanP

It's only 2/3 stop difference so it's less than twice the brightness. I'm guessing ~70% brighter?

Bob Bell

TristanP wrote:

It's only 2/3 stop difference so it's less than twice the brightness. I'm guessing ~70% brighter?

It is 2/3 but you don't take a picture with only your aperture, you take it in accordance with your shutter speed. So in reality, its not a ton since most pictures aren't taken at max aperture, especially since most lenses are their sharpest stopped down 2 stops.

anyway, this thread comes down to ~$225 dollars. Which is the difference between 1.4 and 1.8 in this case.

pathfinder

For me, the difference between the Canon f1.8 and the f1.4 comes down to the fact that the f1.4 has a sigificantly better build quality, and a USM focusing motor.

There is not really that much difference between the speeds of the apertures to get that excited over - unless you plan to shoot wide open most of the time.

Kind of like the difference between the f1.2 and the f1.4 lenses that Olympus made for the Zuicko mount on the OM system cameras. I posted this image before showing the difference in diameter between a Zuicko 50mm f1.2 and an f1.4 lens



I can't show this with the f1.8 Canon as I chose to buy the f1.4 - but optically, they are both very good.

ScottMcLeod

TristanP wrote:

It's only 2/3 stop difference so it's less than twice the brightness. I'm guessing ~70% brighter?

Doesn't it go

1
1.2
1.4
1.8
2.8
4
5.6
8
11
16
etc?

And by "200% more light" I meant 100% more, sorry ^_^

mercphoto

ScottMcLeod wrote:

Doesn't it go

1
1.2
1.4
1.8
2.8
4
5.6
8
11
16
etc?

Not quite. It jumps by square roots of two, which is approximately 1.4. So it goes 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11, 16, etc.

ScottMcLeod

mercphoto wrote:

Not quite. It jumps by square roots of two, which is approximately 1.4. So it goes 1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0, 11, 16, etc.

Ah, thank you. I knew it was something like that.

*DROOL MOMENT*

That olympus Zuiko 1.2 is nice. I wish canon could make its glass go that colour...

Michiel de Brieder

Bob Bell wrote:

It is 2/3 but you don't take a picture with only your aperture, you take it in accordance with your shutter speed. So in reality, its not a ton since most pictures aren't taken at max aperture, especially since most lenses are their sharpest stopped down 2 stops.

Bob, 2 stops stopped down doesn't change the difference of 2/3 of a stop

Bob Bell

Michiel de Brieder wrote:

Bob, 2 stops stopped down doesn't change the difference of 2/3 of a stop

Michiel, obviously that is true, but in reality most shots taken with a 50/1.4 are not taken at 1.4. They are taken around F2 or 2.8 or slower, aka 2 stops slower

ScottMcLeod

Bob Bell wrote:

Michiel, obviously that is true, but in reality most shots taken with a 50/1.4 are not taken at 1.4. They are taken around F2 or 2.8 or slower, aka 2 stops slower

Except me.

I shoot wide open for dance & theatre stuff, unless I have a reason not to. (IE: enough light... which never happens.)

And if I have enough light, I bump the shutter speed up, or the ISO.

THEN, I stop down.

DavidTO

I've linked this one before, but here's a demonstration of the difference in bokeh between the two lenses.

The 1.4 is much nicer lens.

Bob Bell

ScottMcLeod wrote:

Except me.

I shoot wide open for dance & theatre stuff, unless I have a reason not to. (IE: enough light... which never happens.)

And if I have enough light, I bump the shutter speed up, or the ISO.

THEN, I stop down.

I am curious, I see a 50/1.8 in your lens list but not a 1.4. Do you use it and not list it or are you meaning 1.8?

I have a real love for the theatre and spent a lot of time around it. One of my minors was in technical theatre, more specifically lighting and I lit a couple shows in the early 90's. It was sooo much fun. If I didn't go to work for an investment banking company with my degrees in Finance and Econ I probably would of done stagecraft and lighting. I still have my velum and blueprints from my first show: The Marriage of Figaro.

The point of this is I haven't seen many shows needing 1.4, so I am curious if you are trying for a super thin DoF or don't like using ISO 400 or 800.