12-22-2009, 08:15 PM | #1 |
Justin Herass
355
Rep 1,205
Posts |
Canon 50mm F/1.8 or 50mm F/1.4
Obviously i know the differences, but has anyone had both? Is the F/1.4 worth the extra $300?
I want to get a 50mm lens, but dont know which one to get. If the pictures are that much crisper with the 1.4 then maybe ill spend the extra coin. Just looking for some input from fellow photographers. If anyone has some pictures of the same object with both lens' that would be awesome! Thanks!
__________________
|
12-22-2009, 08:33 PM | #2 |
Captain
139
Rep 679
Posts |
Depends what you want it for. What camera do you have? Are you just going to play around with it every once in a while or are you going to use it on a regular basis?
Personally i'd spend the extra and get the f1.4 for the higher appature, the usm and the build quality. You dont really want to cheap out on lenses and the f1.8 is incredibly cheap for a 50mm which is why i doubt it will be a very good lense. You know what, just buy the f1.2 L series lense hehe its only $1500... |
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2009, 09:20 PM | #3 |
Major General
3666
Rep 9,783
Posts |
Depends...if you're going to be using it a lot then get the 1.4 (much better quality). I have the 1.8 and I've only used it a few times. I don't even know if it's something I need but since it's cheap I'm gonna keep it.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2009, 09:33 PM | #4 |
Justin Herass
355
Rep 1,205
Posts |
i just want it to shoot my car, family stuff, anything really. im not a pro, but i think i take some decent pics with the stock lens.
I have a Canon XTI with the kit lens, and think i have reached the limit of my stock lens and want to explore some better glass. The photos i see people take look a lot better then mine and they dont do a lot of PP. I think my glass is really whats limiting my photography. I only need it for occasional use, so durability should not be a concern. 1500$ is a bit steep for me, as i only want it for personal use. Ive seen some pictures taken with the f/1.8 and they look great. I dont know if i have seen any pics with the F1.4, thats why im asking if its worth the extra cash. heres a pic i took in mexico with the kit lens. |
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2009, 09:40 PM | #5 |
Major General
3666
Rep 9,783
Posts |
As you already know the 1.8's DOF is very narrow. So I don't know how much that helps when shooting cars as I imagine it would be waaay too narrow (unless of course u focus on a certain part of the car). Portraits, on the other hand, might work depending on how you use it. Remember that it won't be sharp unless you adjust it to 2.0 or 2.2. Again the DOF is narrow so you need to know what you're doing. NOT EVERY PICTURE NEEDS TO BE AT 1.8!! The 1.4 is even narrower so take that into consideration. Of course you don't have to use it wide open but what's the point in having a 1.4 or 1.8 lens if you're never going to need anything less than say 2.8?
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2009, 09:48 PM | #6 | |
Justin Herass
355
Rep 1,205
Posts |
Quote:
With the F/1.8 only going for just over 100 bucks, i cant really go wrong if i dont like it.
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2009, 10:04 PM | #7 |
Major General
3666
Rep 9,783
Posts |
To be honest, you can buy either the 1.4 or 1.8 and try it out. You usually have 30 days to return it if you don't like it. You can even use it for a few months or a year and sell it back for close to the purchase price. But yeah give it a shot and see how you like it. Just be sure to keep the receipt. lol
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-23-2009, 03:15 AM | #8 |
Freude am Fahren.
844
Rep 1,290
Posts
Drives: F15 X5 xDrive35i
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
|
I have 50mm 1.8, I like it and use a lot, but regret that I haven't bought 1.4.
__________________
Freude am Fahren.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-23-2009, 04:28 AM | #9 |
Colonel
102
Rep 2,012
Posts |
I have the 1.4, and I have used the 1.8. The AF is better on the 1.4 and better construction. There's 8 blades in the 1.4 and only 5 in the 1.8 making light bokeh pentagon looking for the 1.8 instead of circular. If you plan to keep it, i'd say go for the 1.4. Either that, or try the 1.8 first, see if you like the focal length. Then move up to the 1.4.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-23-2009, 11:29 AM | #10 | |
General
1586
Rep 29,215
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
F10 520d M-Sport Alpine White | HRE P43SC 20x9+20x11 | Michelin PSS 255/35+295/30 | KW V3 Coilover | M5 Front Sway Bar + M550d Rear Sway Bar | 3DDesign Front Lip | BMW M Performance CF Spoiler | BMW M Performance Diffuser | BMW M Performance Black Grills | BMW M Performance Pedals | |
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-23-2009, 01:19 PM | #11 |
Apex Everything!
1007
Rep 4,378
Posts
Drives: 2007 Honda S2000, 2017 GT350
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cedar Park, TX
|
Not necessarily true. It really depends on how far your subject is. You'll get a bit more depth of field the further away you are from your subject.
__________________
2011 E92 M3(Sold). 2007 Honda S2000 (Track Car). 2016 Cayman GT4 (Sold). 2017 Shelby GT350 (AKA Crowd Killer).
My pet project: https://stickershift.com |
Appreciate
0
|
12-23-2009, 07:46 PM | #12 |
Captain
56
Rep 816
Posts |
As a 50/1.4 owner I'm actually not that big an advocate of this lens. It's kind of soft wide open (though very sharp by f/2.0). Also many folks seem to complain of problems with the focus motor - though mine hasn't given me any trouble in 6 years of use. I used to use this as my main portrait lens when I shot on crop bodies, but since moving to FF the 135L has taken over this role and the 50 has been relegated to the occasional product shot when I want to sell something online.
Having the extra stop to play with is handy in low light, but I typically shoot it at f/2 or higher for the increased sharpness and DOF. I don't own the 1.8, but it seems to me that I'd get most of the use out of a 1.8 that I do out of the 1.4. If you really want sharpness at f/1.4 then the best solution may be to go for a Sigma, but be prepared to go through several copies to get a sharp one that focuses properly... |
Appreciate
0
|
12-31-2009, 03:24 AM | #13 |
我的車車有Turbo&!!!
157
Rep 2,597
Posts
Drives: 빠른차
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: ?????
|
I've been asked this question many times before, the obvious answer is that the 1.4 is better but is it really worth the $$$?? well, in my opinion if you really are into quality > quantity, you wouldn't even look at the 1.4 or 1.8, I'm running the 1.2L and I love it, just my opinion.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-31-2009, 02:37 PM | #14 |
Banned
651
Rep 24,685
Posts
Drives: '04 330i ZHP
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Chicago Burbs
|
I traded up from the 1.8 to the 1.4 a few months back and glad I did. The 1.8 has a bad autofocusing problem which gets really annoying, I had it on MF at least 2/3rds of the times I used it. The 1.4 hasn't given me any problems as of yet. For the money, the 1.4 is still a pretty damn good deal @ about $350 (amazon) and who couldn't use the extra stop for low light photos right? Of course the 1.2 L is miles and miles apart because of its build quality but at 3x the price of the 1.4 its a bit out of reach and unnecessary unless you are going to use it to put food on your table.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-04-2010, 06:31 PM | #15 | |
我的車車有Turbo&!!!
157
Rep 2,597
Posts
Drives: 빠른차
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: ?????
|
Quote:
50 1.2L is insanely good... I prefer it over my 85 1.2L (which I might put up for sale soon) If you do videos, the 50mm by Carl Zeiss is quite good, manual focus, great for film
__________________
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-04-2010, 07:11 PM | #16 |
no longer a BMW owner
174
Rep 1,463
Posts |
I think you might get more use out of a wide prime than you would a 50. I have a 35 f/2, and it's a solid little lens. My copy isn't that great, but it's alot wider than my 50 1.4 and you can focus closer. I'm considering a 20mm prime by Sigma, as the 14mm f/2.8LII is quite a bit of coin.
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|