50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.8 mk I

[gareth_pillans]

<p>Hi, I currently own a 50mm 1.8 mk II and I find its lack of a focal scale limiting. I'm also pretty useless with aperture preview, past a certain f stop. As I intend to shoot digital with the lens, I could use trial and error, to determined the depth of field, but I would rather be more precise and shoot as close to f8/11 as I can.</p>

<p>I intend to get a 50mm 1.8 mk I (£100 used), but I'm wondering if it's worth spending more and getting the 50mm 1.4 (£200 used, £250 New) .</p>

<p>The 50mm 1.8 mk I is 25 years old and can't be bought new, 2/3rds of a stop slower ( 1.4 would come in useful, as i prefer to shoot wide open than with flash), old af system (I hate the af in my mk II, but love the usm on my 100mm f2) and has a worse build quality (this has never been an issue with my mk II, which has an even worse build quality). As for IQ, they both hold their own and will do for my needs.</p>

<p>I'm a prime shooter. I own a 28-105mm 3.5/4.5. I find zooms useful, but not as enjoyable. Its focus scale also confuses the hell out of me. I shoot a Minolta x-700, so the lens more than likely would only be used on my 6D.</p>

<p>Selling the 50mm 1.8 mk II I already own, would get me about £50.</p>

<p>I know I'm the only one who can answer this question for myself, but I would like to hear what you would do in this situation. Pay an extra £50 for a focal scale and a better build quality, on an older lens? or pay £150/£200 more for a focal scale, better build, newer lens, better Af system and wider aperture?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br /> Gareth.</p>

<p>P.S. I shoot landscape, street, portraiture and family photography. Using a combination of long exposures, available light and flash. If I only took one lens with me, it would be a 50mm.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Despite the "plastic" mount, I don't think there is any optical difference between the Mk 1 and Mk 2 50mm.<br /> The "plastic fantastic" is also surprisingly rugged. The 50m f/1.4 my actually be a bit more fragile, but either is plenty good unless you are planning to dribble them down stone steps.</p>

<p>The f/1.4 lens, however, is one of the classics, IMHO and I'd recommend that.</p>

<p>As for focal scale? I honestly had forgot the f/1.8 lacked one, but that's sort of the reason for an SLR, ennit?</p>

<p>Other classic primes in this group include the 35mm f/2 and the 85mm f/1.8 - all very useful and not very expensive.</p>

[link]

<p>I have the classic 1.4 50mm. You should be warned that the auto focus on this lens is quiet, but not rugged. It can easily fail. When it fails, you can not manually focus either. Pressure on the lens barrel can also lead to focus sticking. So pack this lens carefully.<br>

I think there is a new version now, but of course, it would be quite a bit more expensive than the "classic" version. But one auto focus repair, and ... maybe you've paid for the new version?<br>

Also be warned that f1.4, especially with this lens, is a "look", not just more exposure than 1.8. It's rather hazy with sharp focus only in the center when set to f1.4. A dreamy look if you will, but not really like f2.8 with more exposure. As to the focus scale? Never used it. But I do have a manual focus ground glass in my 5D classic!</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>The DOF scales on these lenses are useless for precision work and I don't even know if they are accurate or what COF value they are based on. The 50 MkI only has markings at f11 and f22 and the distance scale is pretty short. I really can't see how few approximate DOF marks and a distance scale is going to be of any practical use.</p>

<p>I don't own one but I think the 50/1.4 also has a fairly short focus scale and only has DOF marks at f22. Again pretty useless.</p>

<p>The 50mm Mk1 and MkII do have the same optics.</p>

[david_john_appleton]

<p>if you wanted a lens just for the depth of feald scale why don't you keep the the 50 1.8 AF for AF use and look for a manual focus 50..<br>

Most apart from canon FD and minolta most will adapt cheaply to EF mount ..big choise for F2/1.8/1.7 for way less than £50 i have a 55mm f1.8 fuji i pay 10£ for with a free film camera that's as sharp or sharper than my ef 50 1.4 has better Bokeh and less fringing and a much better depth of field scale and a focus ring with no slop in it ...to buy a new lens built as nice as many of these old lenses you will have to spend leica money<br>

MF wide angel lenses work well with depth of field scale as a 28mm at F8 of the top of my head is in focus from 8 feet to infinity so just walk around snapping away </p>

<p>this is a good site for MF lens info http://forum.mflenses.com/manual-focus-lenses-f3.html</p>

[anthony_r.1]

<p>If you want precise depth of field, I suggest a DOF calculator. I have one on my iPhone I downloaded for free from the Apple app store.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>DOF calculators are fine, but they assume you know the distance to the subject and the distances to the near and far points you want within the DOF. So maybe a DOF calculator and a tape measure would be required.</p>

<p>Note also that DOF markings on EF and any older manual focus lenses you may adapt are calibrated for full frame images. DOF is not the same for APS-C. If you don't quite see how that can be true, please take a look at http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>If you want a good depth of field scale then you will need an old non_AF lens like a Nikon AI/AIS/Pentax/Zeiss/Yashica etc or you could consider splashing out on a Zeiss ZE, but they are pretty silly money.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"The "plastic fantastic" is also surprisingly rugged. The 50m f/1.4 my actually be a bit more fragile"</p>

<p>Sorry JDM but the 1.4 is has a much better build than the f1.8. I once dropped the f1.8 on a plush rug and it came apart. </p>

[neill_farmer2]

<p>Both of Canon's lower priced 50 mm lenses, the 1.4 and 1.8, are relatively fragile. The 1.4 is sensitive to knocks on the front and the 1.8 won't put up with much abuse either, in both cases the AF stops working. The best way to get an idea of depth of field for a particular lens is to play around with a DOF calculator. Be aware that what some find acceptable DOF, others will not. The out of focus effects are gradual as the distance from the true focal plane increases. Experimentation might be the only way for you to come up with what you are happy with. The distance scales on lenses are not that good, I have never used them and they can be inaccurate anyway. Take pictures and learn what works for you.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Less than useful DOF scale on 50/1.4</p><div></div>

[ed_avis2]

<p>I can add a 'me too' to those warning that both the 50/1.8 and 50/1.4 lenses are fragile. The 1.4 autofocus can become stiff and seize up after a year or two.</p>

<p>If you want a 50mm lens, and very fast apertures are not important, consider the Sigma 50/2.8 macro or Canon 50/2.5 'compact macro'. The autofocus motor on these is noisy and a bit slow - but it *works*. They are optically very good and do macro as a bonus (1:1 for the Sigma, 1:2 for the Canon).</p>

<p>If you like manual focusing you may also consider the Zeiss 50/1.4, which is excellent from f/2 onwards and can sometimes be picked up cheaply, or the Zeiss 50/2, which is hard to fault optically but a bit more difficult to get hold of at a bargain price. Both have smooth manual focus with a fairly long throw and distance scale, although the 50/2's focus throw gives more space to very short distances (it does macro to 1:2 magnification).</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>IME using all three relevant lenses (50/1.8 I, 50/1.8 II, 50/1.4 USM), I found very little difference in the performance when it came to IQ. All pretty much the same in that anything from 1.4-2/2.2 was very poor, but by 2/2.2 the imagery became pretty darn good. Color,contrast, and crispness all are vastly improved.</p>

<p>In fact, I would say the biggest difference was the USM of the 50/1.4. specifically that you could FTM focus without flipping the switch. Of course it's incredibly (IME) unreliable (I went through 3 copies), but it allowed me to shoot in very dim areas while quickly MFing when the camera couldn't reliably grab focus. </p>

<p>That said, when I switched to the Sigma 50/1.4 HSM, I was thrilled with my 50mm FL again. Even WO I could get great contrast and color, with a very crisp center region (~3/4 of frame) even though the edges are terrible (which it seems largely a moot point for portraiture). I will probably end up grabbing up one of the new 50/1.4 Arts eventually, but the Sigma 50/1.4 HSM is still pretty darn good.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Forget about distance scales. Start using live-view for manual focusing.</p>

[joe_fikes]

<p>The focus system on the EF 50mm f/1.4 is perfectly lousy. It was a cobble-up in an attempt to put EF on an older lens (for the F-!, etc., I believe). Anyway, if it works at all it's not very good. Keep what you have and enjoy shooting pictures that actually ARE in focus.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry JDM but the 1.4 is has a much better build than the f1.8. I once dropped the f1.8 on a plush rug and it came apart.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First, did you try pushing it together again? That seems to work with the f/1.8. ;)<br>

However, I've been watching this site and others for a long time. There are a lot more f/1.8 plastic lenses out there than the f/1.4, but you will see mention of focus mechanism and other problems far more often for the f/1.4. Google™ and I think you will see what I mean. As I said, I think either lens is rugged enough if you're not slippery fingered.</p>

<p>Of course, I'll stipulate that people may just buy another f/1.8 when one goes kablooey and not bitch about it. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>+++error+++</p>

[polizonte]

<p>I always kept the lens hood attached to my 50mm f1.4, while shooting and in the camera bag to protect the front part of the lens; my copies were very sharp.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Later this caught my eye:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The focus system on the EF 50mm f/1.4 is perfectly lousy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>brings to mind one of my favorite exchanges from <em>Bank Dick </em>(1940)</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Og Oggilby: Oh... I knew this would happen! I was a perfect idiot to ever listen to you!<br /><br />Egbert Sousé: You listen to me, Og! There's nothing in this world that is perfect.</p>

</blockquote>

 

[alan_rockwood]

<p>Regarding the ruggedness of the f/1.4 lens, the mechanical design of the focusing system is fragile. The metal of the focusing cam is very thin in one place and subject to deformation if the lens receives a shock. After that the lens will not focus reliably. Ask me how I found out about that issue.</p>

<p>As to depth of field, in my experience the depth of field preview feature of an SLR camera is useful, but the depth of field is usually shallower than it appears in the viewfinder. That's just my experience. It might not be someone else's experience.</p>

<p>With regard to maximum aperture, I find an f/1.4 to be not that useful as a shooting aperture. It is mainly useful as a focusing aid. I try to use f/2.0 as my limit for a shooting aperture, though I will sometimes open the lens a little beyond f/2.0.</p>