50mm 1.4 vs. 1.8

[larrystraus]

I know, this question has been posted before, but here goes one more time. I

just ordered both (don't ask me why) and can return 1 or both. I thought I'd

like to have a 50mm for my Rebel xt for those times I'd want portraits, sharp

shots etc. I do usually shoot outdoor and prefer landscapes and might just get

the 10-22 or the newer efs 17-55 is. I have the original kit lens and a 28-70

2.8L Any thoughts?

[johnson_d.]

What's the question?

[hjoseph7]

Why buy 2 50mm lenses that ridiculous ?

[mr._b]

Thoughts? ...keep the better one.

[davyjo]

Keep the 1.8 and send me the 1.4

I already have the 1.8

 

Just kidding (unless you'd like to send me the 1.4), my 1.8 doesn't get a lot of use since buying the 17-55mm. But if my kids were just starting their high school years I'd want the 1.4 to shoot basketball games stopped down a stop or two and focusing fast.

 

I love the 1.8. Fast and sharp and light and cheap. Great portrait lens. It'll be in my bag always.

[bueh]

I have both, too. Having a backup is a blessing. But since I got the expensive 24mm f/1.4 L USM I try to use that lens more to justify its purchase. It's definitively sharper than the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM below f/2 (no surprise).

 

But back to the lenses you mentioned. Keep the f/1.4, it will come handy if you just need the speed to get a low-light shot. The USM and full-time manual focusing on the f/1.4 lens is a big advantage over the regular f/1.8 version in my humble opinion, but still I find it quite overpriced for its performance (and build quality). The EF 50mm f/1.8 is a real gem, on the other hand.

[thomas_hardy1]

What's the big deal? It's only 2 of the same focal length. There are some RF shooters who

have 4-5 of the same focal length, for different reasons.

[trothwell]

50mm on a full-frame camera has a field of view of 50mm. On a 1.6 crop camera, it has a field of view of 80mm. Either way, I find it to be a useful focal length, and either of them will give you a wider aperture than the zoom lenses.

 

For the particular lenses that I have owned, I found the 50/1.8 to be a little sharper at wide apertures, and the 50/1.4 has a more pleasant bokeh (out-of-focus blur). To wit, I personally prefer the 50/1.4 overall, but they're both good.

[mrossi]

I honestly don't understand why people don't research lenses on this site and the internet in general. There's so much information from user/owners, lots of opinions, yet there's constantly a question posted that could be answered with a little goggling. I find Amazon user reviews to be helpful, and of course searching here. As for which lens to pick, if you bought both then $ isn't an issue, so why would you bother with the lesser of the two in the first place?

[photo_dark]

you'll probably keep the 1.4 although both work well.

[jon_worth]

An argument to keep both could be made. The 50/1.8 is so small and light -- mounted on an XT, it makes a very *discreet* kit.

 

Nice for street photography and environmental portraits if you don't want to get into people's faces and/or draw attention to yourself.

 

Plus, if it breaks (which it probably will at some point) or gets ripped off, you're only out $85.

 

You may find yourself more willing to bring this XT/lens combo to places/situations where you might hesitate bringing a more expensive kit.

 

--Jon

[mike_sinquefield]

I would personally keep the 50/1.8. It's a very sharp lens (I keep it hand y almost all the time). Most of my favorite shots of my daughters have been made with this lens. Also, if anything happens to it, you can replace it 3 or 4 times to justify the cost. Can't go wrong with either, though...