Is Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM much better than 50mm f/1.8 II?

[john_c.2]

The price is almost 4x higher for 1.4 USM. Is the f/1.4 USM a lot sharper and faster? Is it really

worth it? Thank you.

[jay_.]

1.4 is 2/3 stop faster, has USM and FTM. It is also much better constructed than the 1.8-II which IMO is appalling even in consideration of its price. I had a 50/1.8 AF Nikkor which was the same price but much better made and with a metal mount like the MK-I version of the Canon. Optically, the 1.4 is much better than the 1.8-- at f/1.4.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Unless you're planning on using it close to wide open, there's not a huge difference between the optics of the two. Mechanically, there's no contest; the 50/1.4 is way better.</p>

 

<p>See also <a href="http://cybaea.com/photo/lens-quality-50.html">http://cybaea.com/photo/lens-quality-50.html</a> for some samples.</p>

[patricks]

the short answer is yes, it is a better built/faster/higher quality lens. now, do you do the type of photography where that extra quality makes the difference? Is 50mm your favorite focal length or do you just use that prime once in a while?

 

I think you know the answer by now...

[k_t1]

The 50mm F1.4 is better built, but I have to say the F1.8II isn't at all a BAD lens. In fact its razor sharp, its more affordable, and I love this lens. As for build quality, I've said it before, I accidently dropped my 50mmF1.8 II lens 5 feet onto hard asfault road once (it fell from my bag) it hit and bounced, but it still works fine.

[bbc]

The 1.8 II may be poorly constructed, but compared to the 1.4 it's so light that it doesn't hit the ground with as much force if/when you drop it. Plus, it would absorb the impact quite well due to the fact that it is plastic. I've dropped mine onto concrete twice (oops), and it looks and works fine...

 

I don't think it's really worth paying four times more money for the 1.4 unless you really, really must have it. Otherwise, the 1.8 II is at least decent enough... for me anyway.

[the_macman]

Don't get too excited about that 2/3 stop difference. How often would you need

1.4? Wide open the 50/1.8 beats the 50/1.4 and both lenses reach their sweet

spot at 2.5 which is what 95% of people can afford to do in 95% of the

shooting situations. The overall construction of the 1.4 is a big plus,,, but not

for everyone.

 

As for metal mount, quite frankly, nobody gives a __. Can someone explain to

me why the concern? It must come from people who don't own it, I suppose.

It's Canon engineered plastic, the kind of plastic built with the intent to stick a

lens into a camera body. It's not Tupperware plastic. Why are people affraid of

plastic. I've never seen a mount destroyed because it was plastic. The mount

thing is purely an equipment fetishism fantasy, it won't make a difference. It's a

light lens, it won't fall off because it's plastic :-))

[mendel_leisk]

Had similar quandary with Pentax, 1.4 vs 1.8. In my case, I believe difference was about $350 vs $250 (Canadian), for lenses in comparable quality range. I went with the 1.4 because of the extra speed, brighter viewfinder, perception that it would be higher quality (rightly or wrongly), and last but not least, because I'd always wanted an f1.4 lens.

[scott_currie1]

The 50mm f1.4 takes 58mm filters so if you have other lenses which also take the 58mm filter then that might be something to think about.

 

Scott

[steve_dunn2]

<p>And the 1.8 takes 52mm, so if you have other 52mm ... :-)</p>

 

<p>58mm seems to be a more common filter size in the EF lens lineup than 52, so you're more likely to have 58mm filters already. But a 50/1.8 and a 52-58 step-up ring is still a lot cheaper than a 50/1.4!</p>

[anand_n._vishwamitran]

Youve read all the posts, heard all the arguments - you know by now that the 1.8 is <i>not</i> better than the 1.4. So get the 1.4, otherwise youll always wish youd got it instead of the 1.8.

[jim_mueller2]

The 50/1.4 has an 8 blade diaphram. The 50/1.8 has 5 blades. This DOES make a diference in bokeh, the out-of-focus image. That is one of the more important reasons to get the 50/1.4.

 

Besides that, better build quality, FTM and a silent-fast USM motor makes a difference in handling in a big way. The 50/1.4 wins on all counts.

 

Optically, they are similar but not identical. There is an argument to be made for saving the $230 with a 50/1.8 and buying a 28/2.8 in addition. It's your call!

[martin_k1]

I decided for the 1.4, because of:

- USM with full time manual focus (no ring-USM tough)

- better build quality (e.g. metal mount, 8 aperture blades)

- 58mm filter size fits other lenses, too

 

I do not use it quite often full open, but the 1.4 is supposed to be wide open better than the 1.8

[k_t1]

Jim's right its your money so its your call. However it depends what your applications are: Do you NEED FTM? The AF is pretty fast on the 1.8 even though its not USM. Its AFFORDABLE come on guys, for its price its a Steal in my opinion.

[olivier_de_lame]

Hi,

 

I think this question has already been asked 100 times, so my answer stays the same: I have the 50 mm f/1.8 Mark I (in metal, with a distance scale (II does not have one), ...) in general it is considered has having the same optical quality as Mark II, but much better build. I know for sure I will replace it once with a 50mm f/1.4 USM, because the AF of f/1.8 if very, very, very slow. If you are photographing landscape, it is less important; if you are doing portrait you will miss photos with f/1.8 . BUT f/1.8 is cheeper.

 

Regards,

 

Olivier.

[matt miller cambridge, ia]

One thing to consider is the weight. The 1.8 is almost 6 ounces lighter. When I want to go light weight, I take a Rebel G and the 50 1.8II. Light as a feather. With a lighter lens, I can successfully handhold at slower shutter speeds as well. The 1.8II is about 1/2 inch shorter than the 1.4 too.

[rob de la selva]

I just bought the 50mm f/1.8. I guess I will have to live with the derision of those fortunate enough to have the f/1.4 :)

Seriously, I've read several previous versions of this debate, but I haven't seen an actual side by side lens test done. It would be interesting to see if you can actually spot the difference in terms of optical quality.

For my two bits, the f/1.4 is undoubtably a good lens at a reasonable price, and I'll buy one one day. But if you're not sure if you need a 50mm prime or not, you might as well buy the f/1.8. I payed $64.95 at B&H. That's less than most of my filters cost! If I dropped it and it did break, who cares. (BTW, what gives with you guys who have dropped this lens on multiple occasions? Do you save this treatment for your 50mm f/1.8's only, or do you bounce your 1Ds and 300mm f/2.8 IS off the concrete as well?!?)

 

:)

cheers,

Rob

[brian_tao]

I actually just picked up the 1.8 Mk I a week ago (I already own the 1.4). Not sure why, except I wanted some simple, inexpensive lenses to play with (also picked up the 35mm f/2). $100 Cdn for it, and I can always return it if I decide to keep my 1.4. Haven't had much chance to shoot with either 50's since then though, but perhaps this weekend...

[kenghor]

I have just done a test on these 2 lenses and have submitted it for Photo.net use. Still waiting for Bob Atkins to edit and suit it for photo.net.

Anyway, the article can also be found <a href="http://www.geocities.com/~kenghor/article/50mm/50mm.htm">here</a>.

[yakim_peled1]

I had the 50/1.8 for 11 trouble-free years and it gave me nothing but thousands of excellent pictures.

[eos 10 fan]

Wee Keng Hor wrote: <i>I have just done a on these 2 lenses...</i> <p>

 

Very nicely done! <br>

A recommended read for all EOS owners. <p>

 

--

[horst_santihanser]

John,

 

don´t forget the 2,5/50 macro. Very good optical quality. If you

don´t need the fast 1,4 get the macro. If you buy it used at ebay

you will get a very good lens for low money. Cons are af-speed

and af is a little noisy.

 

Regards

 

Horst