Is it worth it ? 50-1.4 vs 50-1.8

[robert_b7]

is the extra cost for the 50mm 1.4 worth it with respect to picture

quality and consistency in comparsion to the picture quality and

consistency of the 50mm 1.8 lens ?

[bobatkins]

Not to me it isn't. Maybe to you?

[andrew robertson]

Picture quality is nearly exactly the same. As the Japanese might say, they both have a little

ni-sen bokeh.

 

I kind of want to upgrade from my 1.8 to the 1.4, but I am waiting for the 1.8 to bust first.

The damn thing just keeps on ticking!

 

Oh well.

[digitmstr]

It's p to you. I have owned all three versions and I ended up keeping the 1.4 because to me the difference in image quality was worth the extra cost and then some.

 

I should also say that I have owned serval samples of each of the 50s (except for the Macro) and in each case and without fail, the 1.4 was clearly superior in terms of AF, color, contrast and overall image quality, including bokeh.

[lester_wareham]

The 1.4 is sharper and should get sharper earlier for a given aperture. If you would notice this in a real life situation is I think moot.

 

The speed difference is not that much, but every bit helps when you really need it.

 

Having a distance scale, full time manual focus, or fast silent AF may be more significant to you.

 

For me the FTMF is important and handy.

 

I have the 1.4 but I did not have the 1.8. If I did have the 1.8 changing to the 1.4 would not have been a priority to me, I would have used the cash on some other lens on my roadmap.

[PuppyDigs]

Image quality is about the same, although the 1.4 is a wee bit sharper from F2-5.6 but no

biggy. Bokeh is a little smoother at larger apertures too. However, the 1.4 has a bit more

barrel distortion below 2 meters. I find the 1.4 worth the extra benjamins merely for the

metal mount, real MF ring, twist-on hood, distance & DOF scales, USM and FTM.

[lee_carruthers]

The 1.4 is a lot more money than the 1.8, but not really a lot of money, compared with some of the L primes. I've had them both and the 1.8 was stolen. I never replaced it. The 1.4 is so much superior in build quality, full-time-manual focus and bokeh. Unless you're really short of money, I'd definitely recommend the 1.4.

 

The only redeeming feature of the 1.8 to me was the extremely light weight, which is what motivated me to buy it for a backpack trip. But, if you're on a tight budget, the 1.8 gives very respectable performance for a pittance.

[medina photography cherry]

I wanted FTM and USM so to me it was worth it, plus you get an extra stop to boot.

[kbreak]

isn't it only a 1/2 stop?

[jcolwell]

I'm happy with my 50/1.4 and I think it's worth the extra cost. As Lee said, it's really not that much more, but that depends on your budget. The 50/1.8 offers excellent performance at a bargain price, but I think that the 50/1.4 is a better lens in almost every respect. Also, f/1.4 to f/1.8 is a about a half stop, the "real" half-way point in terms of aperture area is f/1.68 = sqrt(2)^(1.5).

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>is the extra cost for the 50mm 1.4 worth it with respect to picture quality and consistency in comparsion to the picture quality and consistency of the 50mm 1.8 lens ? </i> </p>

<p> Is the extra cost for the BMW or Mercedes worth it with respect to Mazda or Toyota? It's a personal question and thus what <b>I</b> or <b>he</b> think have nothing to do with what's suites <b>you</b> best. </p>

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

<p> <i> </i> </p>

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

<p> <i> </i> </p>

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

<p> <i> </i> </p>

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

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

It really depends on what you want to do with the lens. If shoot outdoors alot usually stopped down then you may not see any difference between the two lenses. If you like to shoot alot of indoor available light stuff then you way well enjoy the extra speed of the 50mm 1.4. I went for the 1.8 myself as I got it used for a very good price and have not found the 1.8 aperture to be any problem, but if money was no object I would get the 1.4

[nick_jenkinson]

I recently bought a 50mm 1.4 and found that any light coloured item looked like it was wrapped in cotton wool when used on my 20D on the widest apertures. I returned it to the shop and they couldn't explain the reason for this, bearing in mind the claims from the adds that it takes ﾓcrispﾔ photos on the widest apertures. The shop keeper actually asked me to define ﾓcrispﾔ. I personally think it didnﾒt suit the smaller sensor of the 1.6 crop camera. In the end I paid a bit more and walked out with an 85mm 1.8 (which is very sharp from f2 and still OK on f1.8), plus a 50mm 1.8 Mk11 - which is a pleasant surprise optically. Having said that, if the 1.4s performance had been a bit better on my body ﾖ Iﾒd probably still be using it today. The link below represents my own experiences. I think the differences between the 2 lenses are well documented i.e. colour, build quality, features and price but edge definition with the lens opened up isnﾒt an issue. Unless you take photos of concave surfaces or like to focus on something right at the edge of the frame, the shallow DOF is always going to blur the edge of a large aperture photo.

I hope you get a sharp one whichever you choose.

 

http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~stelo/50vs50/

[affen_kot]

good question, robert. this dilemma isn't as cut and dried as that of, say, whether

to buy the €240 35mm 2.0 or the €1200 1.4 version.

<p>i would suggest... if you have the money and it won't tax your finances, get

the 1.4. it's marginally better in a few areas; but better is still better.

<em>on the other hand</em>, if you are going to stretch your budget at all or

spend more money than you feel comfortable spending, then stick with the 1.8

version. the difference in the two lenses' resolving power - as far as prints

are concerned - is more than easily overshadowed by user error/user ability.

cheers.</p>

[nickmeertens]

For me, the 1.4 gives a creamy smoothness to skins and pop to colour that i didn�t get with my 1.8. The difference wasn�t much though, but for me worth the money...

[vincent_j_m]

I sold my 50/1.4 at a loss. It had horrible barrel distortion. Focus speed was comparable with the 50/1.8. I didn't care if sharpness was 0.01% better than the 1.8 but distortion was very visible. I ended up buying the 1.8 after selling the 1.4. Frankly at that price it's a waste of money (to me).

[nabeeko]

Robert,

 

The first (tux shot) is from the 1.4 and

second "Jeju 2005" is from the 1.8.

 

I didn't see much of a difference when I compared sharpness between the two lenses on a tripod.. Although when it was

dark, 1.4 was useful.

QUESTION TO YOU:

How many times are you going to be shooting

at f/1.4?

 

<img src=http://s92499896.onlinehome.us/bbs/data/images/1130728222/IMG_6156.jpg>

 

<img src=http://s92499896.onlinehome.us/bbs/data/images/IMG_2292.jpg>

[oak_nj]

I think it would depend on how much you are going to use it, how you are going to us it, what other lenses you have and what your budget is. I considered getting either one of these for quite some time, and I am really happy that I picked the 1.4, as it is my "low light" lens and it has nice bokeh, and I like being able to use manual focus. I don't know if the quality is that much better or if the slightly larger maximum aperture has really helped that much, but it does focus at a noticeable rate faster than my friend's 50mm 1.8. Given my current lenses, I use it quite frequently w/ the digital multiplier putting it at about 80mm (I like this focal distance), which is nice for shooting inside at gatherings, or outside during night events. If I was using a film camera w/out the multiplier, then I probably wouldn't have used it as much as I do and I would have gotten the 1.8. If I was purchasing something like the 24-70 2.8 or 4.0 or the 24-105 at the same time as the 50mm, then I probably would have gone for the 1.8, since I would have used the zoom much more often. That being said, it is probably the lens I use the most on my 10D.

If it is going to be the staple lens in that range, then the 50mm 1.4 is a nice addition to a 16-35mm or 17-40mm and a 70-200 variety.

 

If I wanted to get a cheap EOS body (Elan II, etc.) to use on vacation, then I would probably get the cheaper 50mm to walk around with just in case it was stolen, etc..

 

 

I hope this helps.

 

Joe

[bennyboy]

Simplest thing I can find to say on this, is if you have the money for the 1.4 buy it, if not get the 1.8.

 

I chose the 1.4 because I had the money available. If I hadn't then I would probably have bought the 1.8.

 

What I do know is that I needed a faster lens than the kit 18-55 that came with my 350D.

[ky2]

<i>"Is the extra cost for the BMW or Mercedes worth it with respect to Mazda or Toyota?"</i> -- Oh, I'll definitely go for a BMW if it was $250 more expensive than my Honda.<br><br>

The 50/1.4 is better although the pseudo-FTM implementation, in plain words, SUCKS.