I need a "Nifty Fifty" f/1.8 vs f/1.4 vs f/1.2 - can't decide

DI-Joe

So, I've been in the market for a 50mm prime lens for quite some time. After having used the Canon EF50mm 1.8 II at a wedding, i sort of liked it's bokeh and such..

All that being said, I'm really torn between the 1.4 and the 1.8. I'd have to be sold pretty hard to drop the green on the 1.2L, but try if you like.

The cost difference is the only thing holding me between the 1.4 and 1.8

What else can you tell me other than the obvious about the speed and light gathering abilities?

ChrisJ

I think it's just build quality. The 1.4 doesn't feel "cheap" in the same way. Then again, you could drop and break three 1.8s for the cost of one 1.4.

I have the 1.4 and have been happy with it as a portrait lens on my 20D. For photographing my kids, I wished I had bought something wider initially (24 or 28).

If you can afford it, I'd get the 1.4. Otherwise, the 1.8 is probably going to be fine. I'd never consider the 1.2 unless I was a pro.

TaDa

This review pits all three of them against each other - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.4-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I love my 1.4 and would never ever consider the 1.2 at 5x the price, but then again, I'm not a pro.

As for your question about gathering of light, the 1.4 has an aperture that will allow in double the light of the 1.8 and the 1.2 allows in double the light of the 1.4. That being said, from everything I've read about the 50, they're all a little soft wide open. My 1.4 is pretty sharp at 1.8 and tack sharp at f/2 and beyond. Main reason that this lens is my fave is because of the low light situation I shoot in very often. This lens allows for very good shots in low light.

DI-Joe

TaDa wrote:

This review pits all three of them against each other - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.4-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I love my 1.4 and would never ever consider the 1.2 at 5x the price, but then again, I'm not a pro.

Oh, that's awesome.

Well I'm trying to cover every range and task in L glass, so I'll read this review and if it sings the praises of the 1.2 I'll get that. I'm probably going to get the 1.4 as of now, but I haven't read the review yet. THANK YOU very much for linking me!

Regards,
Joe

Elaine

I have my eye on a 50 1.4. From what I understand, the build quality is much better than the 1.8, but the clinchers for me are the quicker, more accurate auto-focus (or so I've read) and the shape of the specular highlight bokeh. The 1.4 basically has circular highlights (produced by 8 blades) whereas the 1.8 has pentagonal shaped highlights (produced by 5 blades).

Also, have you seen this review/comparison here at DGrin?

And here's another comparison.

zacker

this is funny as i have the 1.8 and since i got my sigma 50mm macro, i never touch it..lol the sigma macro is just sooo much sharper, maybe not as fast but if im out with it, i can also shoot macro, nifty cant do that..lol

good luck with your choice..glad i dont have to make it, i hate choosing..lol

ziggy53

Elaine wrote:

... the clinchers for me are the quicker, more accurate auto-focus (or so I've read) and the shape of the specular highlight bokeh. The 1.4 basically has circular highlights (produced by 8 blades) whereas the 1.8 has pentagonal shaped highlights (produced by 5 blades).

...

Yep, I have them both and the "keeper rate" is higher for the f1.4 version. I will keep the "plastic fantastic" f1.8 as a backup and when I don't want to put the f1.4 in jeopardy.

Tee Why

Here is a review of the 50mm f1.2L vs the 50mm f1.4 lens.
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2217311

Personally, if you intend to use this as a once in a while lens, I'd get the 50mm f1.8.

If you intend to use this regularly, then I'd probably get the f1.4 as it's built much nicer, has a USM AF motor, FTM, and a nicer bokeh.

I personally would not get a 1.2L version unless money is not a concern.

rpcrowe

I agree with Tee Why and...
"Personally, if you intend to use this as a once in a while lens, I'd get the 50mm f1.8.

If you intend to use this regularly, then I'd probably get the f1.4 as it's built much nicer, has a USM AF motor, FTM, and a nicer bokeh.

I personally would not get a 1.2L version unless money is not a concern."

I agree with all of the ebove statements with this one addition. Instead of a new f/1.8 Mark-II, look into a used 50mm f/1.8 Mark-I. It will be about $50 or so more but, that isn't enough to break the bank for most folks.

The Mark-I is built quite a bit better than the Mark-II which replaced it and the Mark-I has a focusing scale which I find very useful when shooting in lower light levels.

The very fact that a used lens costs more than the new lens which replaced it should give you an idea of the relative esteem in which these two lenses are generally held.

Finally, I have not used my 50mm Mark-I since I bought the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens which in itself, due to the constant f/2.8 and IS capablity, is a pretty nifty available light lens.

claudermilk

I've used all three and currently own the 50/1.8 Mk I.

The 1.8 indeed has excellent optics and is built about as cheaply as any lens in Canon's lineup. It gets a little frustrating with the older, slow motor as it start hunting in the very low-light situation in which it should shine.

The 1.4 is built much nicer and boasts a USM AF motor. That makes a huge difference. I will likely swap my 1.8 for the 1.4 eventually.

The 1.2, while a very nice lens, is not worth the massive price premium IMHO. The image quality it produces isn't all that much better than either of the previous two. Even if money is no object, I'd have a hard time justfying this over the 1.4.

So, I also agree with TeeWhy. If it's going to be for occasional use, the 1.8 should be fine; if you're going to use it fairly frequently, the 1.4 is a nicer lens to work with.

DI-Joe

Well thanks to you all here and the links provided, I'm going to snag the 1.4 as it seems to be the biggest bang for the buck all around.

thanks ever so much!

BenA2

TaDa wrote:

As for your question about gathering of light, the 1.4 has an aperture that will allow in double the light of the 1.8 and the 1.2 allows in double the light of the 1.4. That being said, from everything I've read about the 50, they're all a little soft wide open. My 1.4 is pretty sharp at 1.8 and tack sharp at f/2 and beyond. Main reason that this lens is my fave is because of the low light situation I shoot in very often. This lens allows for very good shots in low light.

I hate to be a stickler, but this is inaccurate and it would be a shame if people got the wrong impression.

The f/1.4 allows in 1.65 times the light of the f/1.8 and the f/1.2L allows in 1.36 times the light of the f/1.4.

I don't know about everyone else, but that really makes me wonder how Canon justifies the price of the 1.2L. It barely offers any additional speed, its image sharpness seems only marginally better than the 1.4, and if focuses slower. People are willing to pay, though...

claudermilk

It's the magic red ring and the "L" in the name. That's all some collectors care about. I'm sure there is a small part of the market that really needs that ultra-fast, paper-thin DOF capability & cost doesn't matter.

bham

I have the 1.8 and was considering the 1.2 so I rented it from borrowlenses.com I was disappointed. After doing some shots using shallow depth of field on both lenses, I really couldn't see a need for a 1.2 or the 1.4 for my use. The depth of field is so narrow, that very little is in focus, and while that occassionaly is handy, its not practical for the price IMHO. Even when shooting with the 1.8 I find that I shoot most images at 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.5, etc and then choose later. I find that I usually use at least the 2.2 if not higher, because the DoF is too shallow in the others. The build quality of the 1.2 is awesome but in the end it does a specific job, at a extremely high price.