Canon 50 1.8 vs. 50 1.4

ulrikft

I'm looking at comparison charts at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=9&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=115&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

It seems like they are quite similar from f/2 and upwards.. other than build quality, is the 1.4-1.8 difference enough to validate 3x the price?

DavidTO

Search is your friend.

ulrikft

DavidTO wrote:

Search is your friend.

Thank you! My mistake.. Looks like it swings both ways in that thread too.. I guess I have to think long and hard!

DavidTO

ulrikft wrote:

Thank you! My mistake.. Looks like it swings both ways in that thread too.. I guess I have to think long and hard!

Good luck!

claudermilk

It is a tough choice. I own a 50/1.8 Mk I and have used a 50/1.4--I keep flip-flopping on whether to change out the 1.8 for a 1.4. In my case it will be 2x the price, but still the question is: is it worth it? I'm not sure. The 1.4 is definitely the better-built lens & has the USM AF motor.

rpcrowe

I agree with claudermilk
The f/1.4 lens is the better of the three 50mm lenses (f/1.8 Mark-I, f/1.8 Mark-II and f/1.4). However the choice would depend on several factors:

1. The amount of use you plan to for this lens
2. Your need for the wider aperture
3. Final use of your imagery
4. As always - your budget

Explanation of #1

I don't use my 50mm very often. I am not an available light lover, so I opted for the f/1.8 50mm. However, as with claudermilk, I opted for the 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I rather than the 50mm Mark-II.

IMO and in the opinion of many other photographers, the Mark-I is superior to the Mark-II in build and it also has a focus scale which I use frequently when shooting in very dim lighting conditions.

A used Mark-I (the only way you can get one) will cost a bit more than a new Mark-II (which indicates the regard in which photographers hold these two lenses). However, the cost differential between a used Mark-I and a new or used Mark-II is not great enough to be a deciding factor in the choice between these two lenses.

#2

If I planned to do a LOT of available light shooting I would opt for the f/1.4. It is a decidedly superior lens in focusing ability, and of course has the advantage of the f/1.4 versus f/1.8 aperture. If you are shooting the f/1.4 lens at f/1.8 aperture - you have stopped down a bit and should get better image quality than the f/1.8 wide open.

#3

If you don't plan to blow your images up much larger than 8x10 of if you primarily will use them for posting on the Internet or for emailing; you do not "NEED" ("NEED" is very different from "WANT") the quality of the f/1.4 lens

#4

The 50mm mark-II is definitely the least expensive lens of the trio which I have discussed.

The Mark-II on the used market will run somewhere between $25 and $50 more than the Mark-II which is probably not a large enough amount to be the deciding factor in any choice.

The most expensive of this trio is the f/1.4 which I would recommend if you can afford it and if #'s 1 through 3 above indicate a need for this lens.

ulrikft

rpcrowe wrote:

The f/1.4 lens is the better of the three 50mm lenses (f/1.8 Mark-I, f/1.8 Mark-II and f/1.4). However the choice would depend on several factors:

1. The amount of use you plan to for this lens
2. Your need for the wider aperture
3. Final use of your imagery
4. As always - your budget

Explanation of #1

I don't use my 50mm very often. I am not an available light lover, so I opted for the f/1.8 50mm. However, as with claudermilk, I opted for the 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I rather than the 50mm Mark-II.

IMO and in the opinion of many other photographers, the Mark-I is superior to the Mark-II in build and it also has a focus scale which I use frequently when shooting in very dim lighting conditions.

A used Mark-I (the only way you can get one) will cost a bit more than a new Mark-II (which indicates the regard in which photographers hold these two lenses). However, the cost differential between a used Mark-I and a new or used Mark-II is not great enough to be a deciding factor in the choice between these two lenses.

#2

If I planned to do a LOT of available light shooting I would opt for the f/1.4. It is a decidedly superior lens in focusing ability, and of course has the advantage of the f/1.4 versus f/1.8 aperture. If you are shooting the f/1.4 lens at f/1.8 aperture - you have stopped down a bit and should get better image quality than the f/1.8 wide open.

#3

If you don't plan to blow your images up much larger than 8x10 of if you primarily will use them for posting on the Internet or for emailing; you do not "NEED" ("NEED" is very different from "WANT") the quality of the f/1.4 lens

#4

The 50mm mark-II is definitely the least expensive lens of the trio which I have discussed.

The Mark-II on the used market will run somewhere between $25 and $50 more than the Mark-II which is probably not a large enough amount to be the deciding factor in any choice.

The most expensive of this trio is the f/1.4 which I would recommend if you can afford it and if #'s 1 through 3 above indicate a need for this lens.

Thank you for your nice input!

I went ahead and bought the 1.4 today. Mostly beacause i shoot quite a lot of indoor powerlifting/kicboxing and concerts. I'll let you guys know if I think it was worth it in a few months!

rpcrowe

Have fun with your f/1.4 lens
It is a honey of a lens. However, if you have any problems with it, just bring it or send it to a Canon Service Center.

I use this one:
Canon USA, Inc.
Factory service Center
15955 Alton Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618

949-753-4200

This center does a great job and I have always received my lenses back within a week from the time Canon, Irvine received them for repair.