Is it worth upgrading?

[terence_tong1]

Hi,

I am wondering if it's worth upgrading from 50mm f1.8 MkI to a f1.4USM

 

For my purpose, the 1 stop is ok but it's mostly the USM that attracts me.

 

I am in the process of upgrading to 17-40+50+70-200.

These are being used on a 350d for my kids mostly.

Currently i am using the tamron 28-75 and i've got the 70-200 f/4 already.

 

So, been looking at the 50mm.

 

Any pointers?

 

thanks

TT

[v.anisimov]

No.

[carl_weller]

I looked long and hard at this myself...

 

and in the end concluded that I wouldn't pay 4-5 times the price for a lense that offers, by

all accounts, only marginally better image quality. Yes, the f1.8 is that good! You will never

spend a better $70-80 dollars on any other bit of glass.

 

I don't care so much about the build quality - I can buy a lot of replacement f1.8 lenses for

the price difference!

 

Had the f1.8 for 5 years now and am completely happy with it. I just can't talk myself into

'upgrading' to the f1.4 - I'd rather get extra CF cards or something else.

 

If you have very deep pockets, then go for it, but otherwise the humble 1.8 can't be beat.

 

regards,

[terence_tong1]

Cool, i like the straight forward answers :D

 

thanks! I'll wait till the day my pockets are deeper than.

 

TT

[dogbert]

what do you value?

 

with the 50 f1.4 you get nice build (good for fondling). Focus speed is about the same. Full time manual focus - nice if you use it, worthless if not. Slightly better bokeh, and arguably a tiny bit sharper.

[PuppyDigs]

I just sold my EF 50 1.8 and ES-65 hood for $150 USD. I just didn't use it after buying an

EF

50 1.4 USM. I think it's worth it: distance and DOF scales, FTM, silent USM, faster aperture,

large dedicated

manual focus ring, dedicated hood and mount mount and, of course, a metal lens mount.

 

Yes, focus speed is about the same although the 50 1.4 feels faster because it's silent. It's

also a little sharper at large apertures. Both suck wide open.

 

Of all Canon current 50s, the EF 50 2.5 CM is the sharpest and most distortion free. Heck

it's deadly sharp wide open and, although lacking FTM, has the smoothest MF of the

bunch.

[roger.a]

Possibly keep the 50/1.8 and add the 85mm 1.8 for kids. Light, small, quick focusing, usable indoors without flash.

[j.kivekas]

I just bought recently the EF50/1.8. It feels like a plastic toy, but it does work well, indeed very well. The photos are fantastic. I even like very slight warm tone it gives. Some have said it breaks easily, but you can buy another one and it's still well under the budget for f/1.4 version. Besides, even if it has a dc focus motor, the mechanism is light and quite fast. Say, in sports a 200 mm lense is much more dependant on good/fast focus than a short 50 mm lense, because you seldom shoot at close range. I've had no problems servoing with the 50/1.8 a two year old quick-silver kid.<p>

The EF85/1.8 is another fantastic lense. I tried it for a few days, but then had the opportunity to purchase a second hand EF85/1.2 at a very low price - and frankly - very little difference. The f/1.8 version actually has a little bit better resolution (hi lpm) whereas the f/1.2 has better contrast (low lpm).<p>

The EF50/1.8 is quite a thing. It appears as a toy, but heck, it really works like pro lense.

[pjmeade]

Hello Terence, I think that unless you just can't live with the 1.8, for whatever reason, it's probably not worth several times the cost to replace it. Unless of course, your funds are abundant.

 

Putting the budget towards something else, such as a good flash gun or the 85/f1.8 may be more rewarding.

 

Just my 2p.

 

Regards. Pete

[gdanmitchell]

I have the 50mm f/1.4 and it is a fine lens. However, if I already had the 50mm f/1.8 and was

a happy with it I would not be in any rush to "upgrade" to the f/1.4 version. I'd place a higher

priority on the wide and tele zooms at this point.

[todd_fox]

Actually, f/1.8 to f/1.4 only buys you a half stop. I think it would be more useful to ad a 35mm or 85mm lens since you have a 50mm that works well.

[terence_tong1]

Thanks for all the replies!

 

I do have the 85 1.8 already, it's a bit too long for indoor (Condo).

 

Flash, i am using a refurb EX420 with a omni bounce so that's alright for now also.

 

What got me started thinking about the 50 USM is that, when I completed my 'package', the aged 50 1.8 would seems (not really, but...)to be the weakest link.

 

Also, it's possible that my copy of the 50 1.8 is not the best because i am not blown away by it, (my 85 & 70-200, YES!)

 

As far as 50 Macro, i have the old 100 2.8 Marco with AFD motor already. So that's out of the question.

 

TT

[mvgals]

I took the plunge and upgraded as I wanted the faster autofocus..

 

it's worth it if you shoot in low-light situations.

-mark

[lovcom_photo]

Terence, it would be foolish to appreciate the short yes/no responses.

 

Upgrading to the better F1.4 is worth it, for sure, and for all the listed reasons above.

 

It would be foolish to bring the $$ difference into the decision because $70 versus $290 is not a lot of money for most folks with a minimum wage job.

 

To compare $70 vs. $290 is the wrong metric, to be sure. Instead use image quality, and build as metrics to help you decide.

 

Terence, we're not talking about buying a consumable product; something that you use once and then it's gone. A lens is something that you should keep for a very long time, and over many camera bodies, perhaps decades. So when putting that in perspective the difference between $70 and $290 is profoundly insignificant, to be sure.

 

The better metric is: What are the image quality differences, and what are the build and feature differences?

 

More shutter blades for better bokeh.

Faster aperture (not 1 stop like you mentioned, by the way).

Better build.

USM AF drive.

Better contrast and color rendition.

 

And if you use those more beneficial metrics, you'll probably run out and get the F1.4 for all the reasons already listed in prior responses above.

[j.kivekas]

Dan, that is an extremely arrogant and insulting US well off attitude. You are living off the ground. 220 dollars is a lot money when you have to pay the food for the kids, rent, bank loans what ever. Photography is not the center of life. First things first. My god, ...

[lovcom_photo]

Juha,

 

Nobody would blame one for buying the F1.8 version. The original poster asked us our opinions about F1.8 vs F1.4 and I gave mine. He did not give his social-economic standing, nor did I ask, nor do I want to know.

 

I'm not a millionaire, nor does my daddy have a trustfund waiting for me to dip into. It's about delayed gratification. If one doesn't have the $ now, wait a week, month or so.

 

I think your response is over the top, and excessive. I have kids. I have a mortgage. I have bills. I have many of the responsabilities that you all have out there, so as you can see, my feet are planted firmly on the ground.

 

Sorry my opinions are not as left-wing/socialistic as you might want.

 

Perhaps you should be more tolerant of other ideas, opinions and the like.

[steve torelli]

Dan, as one fat cat American Capitalist to another, I agree with your advice. I also went from the 1.8 to the 1.4 and find the 1.4 a more satisfying ( and a little sharper) lens to use. Many people happily use the 1.8 but I was not one of them, the build quality just left me cold. To pay for the differance I shut down one of my factories and threw 150 people out of work,but I still think it was worth it.Good luck Comrades.

[lovcom_photo]

LOL....I guess we're what some Europeans call "Ugly Americans". ;-)

 

I'm just sorry Canon doesn't offer the F1.4 in gold or silver plating...if they did, imagine what the chicks would think! ;-)

 

Perhaps we could bolster up our social standing if we paint a nice red strip around the barrel of the F1.4...imagine the enviable looks we'd get!

 

Happy Shooting ;-)

[savas_kyprianides]

I bought the 50mm f/1.4 , unaware of any stigma that comes with that decision. Have I done

something wrong?

[keith_lubow]

Hello,

 

Just thought you should realize that 1.8 is not a full f-stop. F1.8 is more like f1.4 + 2/3. The next full f-stop after 2.0 is 1.4.

 

This means that you would not be gaining a full f-stop, but about 2/3 of one. From what you desribe yourself doing with the camera, I wouldn't bother selling your lens and getting the 1.4. The money might be better spent on a high quality flash or a battery grip for shooting verticals faster and more battery time...gotta be fast to keep up with the kiddies!

 

Keith

[yakim_peled1]

<p> I had both and decided to keep the 50/1.8. Reasons: Testing proved to me that sharpness wide open and AF speed were identical (neither was great, I'd rate both as good). For me, all other features (better build quality, silent AF, FTM, better bokeh etc.) were not worth the added price. As always, YMMV.</p>

<p> As this is a FAQ, I suggest a search. Here are some links to get you started.</p>

<p> <a href="http://www.aeimages.com/learn/lens-quality-50.html">http://www.aeimages.com/learn/lens-quality-50.html</a> </p>

<p> <a href="http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~stelo/50vs50/">http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~stelo/50vs50/</a> </p>

<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/</a> </p>

<p> <a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html">http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html</a> </p>

<p> <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox5.htm">http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox5.htm</a> </p>

<p> HTH.</p>

 

<p> Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim. </p>