Okee dokee.
To the OP....get the 1.4. You'll use that lens until the end of your days. You'll outgrow the 1.8 really quickly.
Plus, if you get the 1.4, my ego will be puffed up BIG TIME!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II vs. EF 50mm f/1.4 USM
- Thread starter downingp
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Okee dokee.
To the OP....get the 1.4. You'll use that lens until the end of your days. You'll outgrow the 1.8 really quickly.
Plus, if you get the 1.4, my ego will be puffed up BIG TIME!
I don't know where you're getting the feeling they're looking for a fight, but what the men said is exactly the case with the 2 lenses (or 3 if we venture into L territory.)
I personally bought a 50mm prime for:
1) sharpness of a prime lens
2) portrait-length lens
3) bokeh
4) fast indoor lowlight action shots
The 1.8 can satisfy 2 of my 4 needs (maybe 3, although the extra blades in the 1.4 produce FAR BETTER bokeh). But, the fact it can't AF in low light unless you have a flash attached (AF assist), renders it useless in that category.
That being said, the 50mm 1.8 is THE lens for amateurs and new-to-prime photographers, but once you start shooting lowlight, the 1.8 will make you miss countless photos.
IMO, for kid shots and family portraiture, go with the 50mm 1.8. Consider the 1.4 if your work depends on it, and buy the 1.2L if work really depends on it.
Cheers
P.S. I have the 1.8 in my sig, but I rent the 1.2L for work.
I personally bought a 50mm prime for:
1) sharpness of a prime lens
2) portrait-length lens
3) bokeh
4) fast indoor lowlight action shots
The 1.8 can satisfy 2 of my 4 needs (maybe 3, although the extra blades in the 1.4 produce FAR BETTER bokeh). But, the fact it can't AF in low light unless you have a flash attached (AF assist), renders it useless in that category.
That being said, the 50mm 1.8 is THE lens for amateurs and new-to-prime photographers, but once you start shooting lowlight, the 1.8 will make you miss countless photos.
IMO, for kid shots and family portraiture, go with the 50mm 1.8. Consider the 1.4 if your work depends on it, and buy the 1.2L if work really depends on it.
Cheers
P.S. I have the 1.8 in my sig, but I rent the 1.2L for work.
After playing around with the 1.8 lens, I am pretty happy with it. I am having a hard time getting my subjects focused on some of my shots though. I have been playing around with Aperture Priority, Program, and just for kicks "green light" full auto. I definitely find that using a flash in lower light does produce a better, focused subject.
I am sure after playing around with it more, I will start to understand better what settings are best in what situations.
I am sure after playing around with it more, I will start to understand better what settings are best in what situations.
Just thought you might want an opportunity to respond...so please know I edited my initial response ....probably as you were typing your post.
And...you're right, the OP may outgrow the 1.8 and eventually buy the 1.4. That..in itself...is a VERY valuable learning experience. How about allowing that learning process to unfold?
Just thought you might want an opportunity to respond...so please know I edited my initial response ....probably as you were typing your post.
I respond thus...
I stand by everything I said. The 1.4 is the better lens, for portraits, low light, everything. It costs a bit more, but unless you're really stretched, I would advise spending the extra money for a vastly better lens that you will not outgrow.
Not to long ago I sprung for a 1.2 from a 1.8. I'll tell ya, you can really appreciate the slightly wider aperture once you have it.
Not slight, in this case. There is a full stop of difference between f/1.2 and f/1.8
Same difference as f/4 to f/2.8, and people pay huge premiums for, say, the 16-35 f/2.8L vs. the just-as-optically-good-but-slower 17-40 f/4L.
Clearly...Edge...for you and bking...this thread is now about you. Your defensiveness and "strawman arguments" responses to my posts tell me you're looking for fight.
I'll pass (for the most
Edge you wrote: "It (the 1.8) gives nice shallow DOF, and for portrait photography on a budget with a 1.6x crop body, it could be fine. "
Please go read the OP's original post. Is that not exactly what he asked about???...thus making the 1.8 a legitimately *good* choice??? Do you see ANYTHING in his post that inclines you to believe he needs great AF in low light? ..and all of the rest of your strawman arguments???
Don't get me wrong....yours and other's general comments about the benefits of the 1.4 are correct in my opinion. I NEVER denied that. You and others act as if I have. I even said...for me, *I* would buy the 1.4!
That you and others pointed out the benefits of investing in the "better" lens is absolutely appropriate, but... this thread was suppose to be about the OP's needs....not yours...or mine.
Personally, I didn't mean to spoil for an argument, but someone said the 1.8 isn't good in low light, and you made a comment with a sigh that it does work in low light. So, my response was to that specific issue.
You are right. The OP's question was specifically on portrait work. The 1.8 might work fine with plenty of light and f/4.0. But why buy another standalone lens for a small ap at 50mm? The IS Kit lens might be just as good for this. I know my 55-250 would take the same shot, and I could use it at 85mm (135mm equivalent), and get a better FL for portraits.
However, usually a person buys a fast prime for a certain subject AND for low-light use. Granted, the 50 is light in weight, but a lens that is 85mm equivalent (too long indoors, too short outside) AND that is useful only in full light is, IMO, not a great investment. So, I was just trying to help the OP avoid some frustration by sharing my experience.
Also, I'd rather help save someone the time AND money of buying a questionable lens, instead of figuring it would be a good "learning experience" for them. I don't understand that concept at all. When I was a kid, I put my finger in an electrical outlet. Believe me, I remember it vividly. However, that means I tell me kids not to. I don't tell then to do it, so they can learn from it.
I used a friends 30D + 50mm 1.8 in Australia last year, loved the lens but pretty much everything I did was outside in full daylight, or inside with a good amount of natural light.
When it came time for me to get my 40D and pick up a 50mm I decided to opt for the 1.4 straight away for better build quality, faster lens & manual focus amongst other factors. Unless I won the lottery I would not go and spring for the 1.2, then again my job isn't photography so the odd miss doesn't = missing $$
When it came time for me to get my 40D and pick up a 50mm I decided to opt for the 1.4 straight away for better build quality, faster lens & manual focus amongst other factors. Unless I won the lottery
I would not go and spring for the 1.2, then again my job isn't photography so the odd miss doesn't = missing $$
Well, slight as in comparison to 5.6 vs. say 1.4
IMHO hands down spending a little more on a faster lens is almost always the way to go. For me the step from 1.8 to 1.2 opened up a lot for my photos, mainly artistically.
For me, this is getting pretty silly...but in the spirit of coming to an understanding....
What was said was, it is "nearly useless" in low light situations. "low light" is incredibly vague..for starters. Secondly, having a fast lens is NEVER "nearly useless" except in "useless" circumstances.
[/QUOTE] You are right. The OP's question was specifically on portrait work. The 1.8 might work fine with plenty of light and f/4.0. But why buy another standalone lens for a small ap at 50mm? The IS Kit lens might be just as good for this. I know my 55-250 would take the same shot, and I could use it at 85mm (135mm equivalent), and get a better FL for portraits. [/QUOTE]
There are numerous creative advantages with the faster prime over the zoom...in "low light" and "full light".
[/QUOTE]However, usually a person buys a fast prime for a certain subject AND for low-light use. Granted, the 50 is light in weight, but a lens that is 85mm equivalent (too long indoors, too short outside) AND that is useful only in full light is, IMO, not a great investment. So, I was just trying to help the OP avoid some frustration by sharing my experience. [/QUOTE]
Sharing your experience is appreciated and valued. I am arrogant enough though to suggest, if you feel the 1.8 is only useful in "full light" situations, you didn't explore the capabilities of the lens. Again, I'm not saying the lens didn't fail to meet YOUR needs, but what I'm getting an attitude about...is that to me...you and Edge are taking those valid experiences and concluding the lens is practically worthless. That is simply hyperbole and flat out wrong. In fact, the 1.8 is an incredible value. No one is denying its limitations.
[/QUOTE]Also, I'd rather help save someone the time AND money of buying a questionable lens, instead of figuring it would be a good "learning experience" for them. I don't understand that concept at all. When I was a kid, I put my finger in an electrical outlet. Believe me, I remember it vividly. However, that means I tell me kids not to. I don't tell then to do it, so they can learn from it.[/QUOTE]
Regarding your "finger" comparison....this is a strawman argument imo...or at least a poor analogy. I believe I understand your intentions though, which are obviously good and valid.
"Questionable lens"...incredibly subjective and relative. Where does this stop? Maybe we should start comparing the build(!), color and contrast characteristics of the Canon 50mm to the Zeiss ...so everyone should get the zeiss?
Can we agree...all lenses have their strengths and weaknesses? For the OP, he made zero mention of low light photography. He *did* make mention of price / value. He *did* mention portraits. He also didn't express a deep knowledge or experience with photography. So...maybe it makes more sense for him to explore using fast glass on a $75, no risk investment versus over $300?
I prefer to make suggestions based on the OP's stated needs and priorities versus guessing what they might or might not need in the future...especially when we're talking about a lens he probably paid $75 for..and can resell at zero loss. That you and Edge pointed out some of the limitations of the lens...that's great, but you guys, especially Edge, denied the 1.8 the value it *does* have for the uses the OP needs. That's unfair, inaccurate and doesn't serve the OP imo.
I've switched back to Nikon, but I know both lens very well. I have been in what I would call "low light" circumstances and the 1.8 saved the freakin' day! After many years in this business, I'm just not concerned about the red or gold ring around my lens. I still have MF Nikkors that you can get for a song...sung badly... and that kick booty! This digital age of photography has launched a MASSIVE "gearhead" community. Not my cup o' tea.
1/45s, f/1.8, ISO3200...THAT is what I mean by "low light". The 1.4 can do this with ease; the 1.8 simply cannot.
Yes, like the 50/1.8 is useless at 1/45s, f/1.8, ISO3200. 10% keepers is not enough for me.
The 1.8 has the following good traits:
1. Cheap
2. Better-than-average sharpness and contrast
3. Cheap
4. f/1.8 allows much shallower DOF than an expensive f/2.8 zoom
Other than that, I think I've used that lens enough to know that there are better options out there. We're all wooed by items 1 and 3; but there is a difference between cheap and inexpensive. I think the 50/1.8 cuts too many corners, and could be made MUCH better by the addition of a decent, modern AF system like USM.
Oh wait, that lens already exists: it's the 50/1.4.
I still contend that the 50/1.4 would be considered an absolute steal at $315ish new, if the 50/1.8 did not exist. We make excuses for the 1.8 because it's cheap.
It's not worthless, given the right set of circumstances. And there's the rub...why be limited by circumstance? In the 50/1.4, you get a lens that can do everything the 50/1.8 can do, do it better, and do a few other things that the 1.8 can't do.
We're making excuses for a cheap lens, when an inexpensive choice is available.
In very low light, the 1.8 is useless unless you're willing to use MF. Perhaps you wont shoot in very low light too often; but why handicap yourself with a lens that cannot be used at all, when another choice is available for not much more? The 1.8 is false economy, in my opinion.
Dude, you are totally missing the point, despite having it repeated to you over and over. If Zeiss quality is necessary for you, then you get the Zeiss. If 50/1.2L quality is necessary for you, you get the 50/1.2L.
What I'M saying is that the 50/1.8 is a decent lens, given the right circumstances. And those circumstances are the following: you absolutely cannot afford the vastly superior 1.4.
Yup. The 400/2.8L is a brilliant telephoto prime, but is heavy and expensive. The Canon TS lenses are terrific for architecture photography, but are MF only.
The 50/1.8 is crap in low light, but produces better-than-average (better than kit for sure) IQ in good light.
Exactly. And the 1.8, while cheap, is poor value.
Naaah...nothing holds its value as well as well-cared for glass...especially good quality glass like the 50/1.4 Decide you want to try basket-weaving after a year? Sell the 1.4 on FM.com and make back 95% of your money.
I should point out that even if the OP only ever shoots in studio lighting, the 1.4 is STILL better.
How do you square this with your previous statement that ..maybe it makes more sense for him to explore using fast glass on a $75, no risk investment versus over $300??
Never, ever did I deny this. The 1.8 may be wonderful for portraits on a 1.6x crop body (it isn't, in my opinion, better than the 1.4 in this regard...). But again, why be constrained?
As I said before, buy once, buy right.
Good for you. I've got a Fujinon 55/1.8 M42-mount prime on my Fujica ST-801 that is absolutely superb.
This is not about a red ring. I didn't tell the OP to get a 50/1.2L no matter what because everything else is useless. I told the OP to buy smart; that the 1.8 would get old fast; that the 1.4 is a better investment.
... Why not?
The f/1.4 is 2/3 of a stop faster than the f/1.8, but what you said above is pretty much useless and/or not true.
The 50/1.4, at those settings, will have the same problem!
This is basically ********.
Well, this has, indeed, gotten silly. But, if you can laugh a bit about it, here's a posting from POTN on the 50/1.8 from JefferyG: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=613002&page=5 (the thread is entitled, "biggest lens regret" -- several votes for the 50/1.8)
For those who don't want to click, here's the text:
"50/1.8 evolution for newbies:
Holy crap! I can shoot in the dark.
Holy crap! Look at this super thin DOF
Wow! If I stop it down some it is really sharp
Boy! This thing sure misses focus frequently
Whoops! I dropped it and it broke in two"
For those who don't want to click, here's the text:
"50/1.8 evolution for newbies:
Holy crap! I can shoot in the dark.
Holy crap! Look at this super thin DOF
Wow! If I stop it down some it is really sharp
Boy! This thing sure misses focus frequently
Whoops! I dropped it and it broke in two"
At 50mm, the 50mm 1.8 will outperform the 24-70mm. The 24-70's chromatic aberration as you get further from the centre of the image is its weakness. However, the 24-70 has better contrast in the centre.
You can do a direct comparison here. Choose the lenses and the focal length and apertures (make sure they match) and do your comparison.
Seriously, are you paying attention??? The 1.8 can't focus at that level of light. Yes, you can set the camera to those settings, but the AF on the damn lens wont work without good enough light!
No, it wont. The 1.4 can focus down to almost total darkness. It has to be VERY dark for the 1.4 to miss AF; certainly at least a stop or two darker than the 1.8.
Try to keep up, k?
I'm done with this thread. The OP knows my $0.02, for what it's worth. Get whatever lens makes you happy/you can afford and go take some pictures.
The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is a beauty, but only if your copy of it focuses accurately when it's wide open. That's a razor thin DOF zone, and if yours is accurate you have a winner.
However, it seems that Sigma can take care of the problem (at least that's what Sigma users say). I am certainly going to consider this lens as a future purchase. Now, the EF 50mm f/1.4, according some reviews, is sharper at the corners than the Sigma approaching f/4.0.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=614000&Sigma+50mm+f/1.4
However, it seems that Sigma can take care of the problem (at least that's what Sigma users say). I am certainly going to consider this lens as a future purchase. Now, the EF 50mm f/1.4, according some reviews, is sharper at the corners than the Sigma approaching f/4.0.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=614000&Sigma+50mm+f/1.4
I started with a 50/1.8 but was not impressed with the plastic lens mount. The 1.4 has more robust construction and quality of sharpness and color. If you own a cropped body the 35/2 would be a good choice.
I just wanted to update everyone who has made comments on this thread. I took a bunch of pictures with the 50mm f/1.8 lens for my son's one year birthday last night. I am really impressed with some of the shots I was able to get with this lens. I definitely feel like it was worth the $75 for this lens. However, now I am wondering what I could expect to see with the f/1.4? I know, I know its a curse.
Anybody out there with a 50mm f/1.4 they may want to sell?
Anybody out there with a 50mm f/1.4 they may want to sell?
I just wanted to update everyone who has made comments on this thread. I took a bunch of pictures with the 50mm f/1.8 lens for my son's one year birthday last night. I am really impressed with some of the shots I was able to get with this lens. I definitely feel like it was worth the $75 for this lens. However, now I am wondering what I could expect to see with the f/1.4? I know, I know its a curse.
Anybody out there with a 50mm f/1.4 they may want to sell?
Check the Fred Miranda equipment exchange, they can usually be found for ~$275 in excellent condition. eBay of course is also an option.
But IMO it's worth it just to buy it new, it's still pretty inexpensive at $325 off Amazon.
The focusing ability depends on the camera sensor surely? I have a 5D and I've never used it in total darkness but near darkness/dimly lit room and my f1.4 misses focus quite a lot.
Yes, it does. But remember, with the Canon EOS system, the AF mechanism is in the lens, not the body. Yes, the body may have better or worse AF (the 5D is about average; better than some, not as good as the 1D-series bodies), but the lens is a major determinant.
The 50/1.4 isn't perfect; it still needs some light to focus well. But the keeper rate is much, much higher at the same (low) light than with the 50/1.8, and the 1.4 can go much dimmer before it loses the ability to AF well.
Portraits mostly. The f1.2 version is known as the 'portrait lens'
@Edge100, thanks for the clarification.