Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II vs. EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

[downingp]

I have heard that a good lens for taking portrait-like photos is to get a 50mm lens. I currently have a 28-135mm lens for my Canon 40D. Would I benefit in using a 50mm lens for taking pictures of my 12 month old son? If the 50mm is the way to go, is there a BIG difference in the 1.8 vs. 1.4? The f/1.4 seems to be 3x the price of the f/1.8. Is the cost difference worth it?
I am by no means a professional photographer, I just enjoy taking pictures.

Thanks for your input.

[jaduffy108]

Hi,
Because of the APSC sensor on your 40D...a 50mm will be similar to a 77mm-ish on a full frame (FF) cam. Generally, the ideal FL range (*FF*) for portraits is 85-135...with 85 being very popular. So, the 50 gets you close to that range.

Since you're not depending on photography for income, I think you would be very happy with the 1.8 and saving the cash. It will be much sharper than your 28-135. The differences between the 1.8 and 1.4 are mostly subtleties in bokeh and such things. The return on investment for the 1.4 is very low for general photography imo.

The 1.8 will open many new creative possibilities too.

Enjoy!

[CATinHAWAII]

Hi,
Because of the APSC sensor on your 40D...a 50mm will be similar to a 77mm-ish on a full frame (FF) cam. Generally, the ideal FL range (*FF*) for portraits is 85-135...with 85 being very popular. So, the 50 gets you close to that range.

Since you're not depending on photography for income, I think you would be very happy with the 1.8 and saving the cash. It will be much sharper than your 28-135. The differences between the 1.8 and 1.4 are mostly subtleties in bokeh and such things. The return on investment for the 1.4 is very low for general photography imo.

The 1.8 will open many new creative possibilities too.

Enjoy!

just wondering, how would the 24-70 compare to the 50 1.8 or the 1.4?
i know it's a good lens, but would i notice much difference?

[superwoman]

I've used both. Picture-quality wise, I would say that it's hard to see a difference. So perhaps you can consider other factors.

A major difference between the 1.8 and 1.4 is that the latter is metal mount, while the former is plastic. The 1.4 feels better-built to me as an investment. The 1.8 feels plastic-ky and fragile. I also felt that 1.4 gives better balance weight-wise when mounted on the camera.

My suggestion is to try the 1.8 first, since it is so cheap. If you find yourself enjoy taking photos (especially portraits) with a prime lens, and like the results of the 1.8, then definitely start saving for the 1.4 as a longer term investment.

[CrackedButter]

Hi,
The differences between the 1.8 and 1.4 are mostly subtleties in bokeh and such things. The return on investment for the 1.4 is very low for general photography imo.

You're forgetting the poor build quality, lack of manual focus and duller colours.

The f1.4 isn't that expensive, and I would get it personally.

[WilliamG]

You're forgetting the poor build quality, lack of manual focus and duller colours.

The f1.4 isn't that expensive, and I would get it personally.

I have both the 1.4 and 1.8. The difference in build, bokeh etc is definitely there. At this point, given your equipment, I'd go with the 1.8.

[downingp]

Great comments so far. Thanks alot. It sounds like whether I get the 1.8 or the 1.4, there is a consensus that either lens would be great for portrait-type pictures?

For those of you with either of the lenses, would you mind posting a few shots using the various lenses?

[CATinHAWAII]

I've used both. Picture-quality wise, I would say that it's hard to see a difference. So perhaps you can consider other factors.

A major difference between the 1.8 and 1.4 is that the latter is metal mount, while the former is plastic. The 1.4 feels better-built to me as an investment. The 1.8 feels plastic-ky and fragile. I also felt that 1.4 gives better balance weight-wise when mounted on the camera.

My suggestion is to try the 1.8 first, since it is so cheap. If you find yourself enjoy taking photos (especially portraits) with a prime lens, and like the results of the 1.8, then definitely start saving for the 1.4 as a longer term investment.

actually , i meant picture quality wise between the 24-70 to the 50 primes?
actually, i would probably get the 1.4 if i did get the 50mm, as opposed to the 1.8, but would i see much difference between the 24-70 and the 50 1.4?
i have a 40D, 580ex flash and 10-22 canon...

i shoot mostly school events (indoor and outdoor) and daughters vollyball games and practices, and like the Christmas party we just had, took pics of the kids on Santa's lap... that kind of stuff...

and then of course when we go travelling..

[FX120]

Get the 1.4, it is worth the extra $200 easily. The colors, contrast, out of focus blur, and even sharpness are improved. Plus it is faster and quieter focusing, worlds better build quality, and overall just feels better to use.

Unless that extra $200 is really a stretch, you'll be much happier in the long run.

On a 40D it is probably my most used lens becides my 70-200 F/2.8L.

[CATinHAWAII]

Get the 1.4, it is worth the extra $200 easily. The colors, contrast, out of focus blur, and even sharpness are improved. Plus it is faster and quieter focusing, worlds better build quality, and overall just feels better to use.

Unless that extra $200 is really a stretch, you'll be much happier in the long run.

On a 40D it is probably my most used lens becides my 70-200 F/2.8L.

thanks! now just two lenses on my wish list,, the 501.4 and that same,, 70-20 2.8,, THAT WISHING is mostly just wishing,,, but .. if the stock market appreciates in the not too future future,,, (Obama syndrome...)

then there is a closer possibility... maybe by next round of rebates...:cool:

[Edge100]

Save for the 1.4

It's really a vastly better lens; better bokeh, better IQ, and most of all, better AF (especially in very low light, where I consider the 1.8 to be nearly useless).

If you REALLY need a 50, the 1.8 will be fine; it makes nice pictures. But the 1.4 is just so much better that it might be worth your while to save. They can be found for a song on Fred Miranda.

[jaduffy108]

Save for the 1.4

It's really a vastly better lens; better bokeh, better IQ, and most of all, better AF (especially in very low light, where I consider the 1.8 to be nearly useless).


While I agree with many of the comments suggesting the 1.4....it is the hyperbole that really cracks me up. Example...above: "vastly better"....and how in the world is a 1.8 "nearly useless" in very low light??!?!?!? (Bites tongue)

< big sigh>

The OP asked if there is a "BIG" difference between the two lens..noting the 1.4 costs 3x more $$. I think, for the intended uses, the answer is still..."no". Is the 1.4 3x better than the 1.8? Not even remotely. If *I* had to put a percentage value on it, I would say the 1.4 is 30% better at the most...considering all factors such as build quality, AF, etc. If quiet focusing and built like a tank aren't important to you or *needed*, then far less.

So..OP...is a 30% improvement worth 3x the price to you? There's no right or wrong answer imo. For my uses, the 1.4 would be worth it, but I need a lens that can take a beating in travel and harsh conditions, focus as fast and quietly as possible etc, etc. I need to sell photographs(!) in a competitive market...plus I can write it off my taxes. :)

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting the 1.4 is a mistake by any means....but imo, you don't *need* it.

Seems to *me*, the best path is to get the 1.8...maybe used...or rent one... and see if you find its results and performance adequate for your needs. If not, sell the 1.8 and try the 1.4. Blessedly, we're not talking about a $1600 lens investment.

Have fun!!

[ChrisBrightwell]

Get the 1.4, it is worth the extra $200 easily.

Agreed.

That said, the 50/1.8 tends to hold most of its value fairly well. If you get the 1.8 and decide to upgrade to the 1.4, you won't be out that much on the upgrade.

[jaduffy108]

just wondering, how would the 24-70 compare to the 50 1.8 or the 1.4?
i know it's a good lens, but would i notice much difference?

For me, the two are completely different animals.

Under "normal" circumstances, using the 24-70 at 50mm @f8, for example, will be practically indistinguishable from the 50mm prime @f8. It's the creative choices that come with the 1.8 (or 1.4) prime vs the 2.8 zoom that make the primes valuable...essential... to me.

[bking1000]

While I agree with many of the comments suggesting the 1.4....it is the hyperbole that really cracks me up. Example...above: "vastly better"....and how in the world is a 1.8 "nearly useless" in very low light??!?!?!? (Bites tongue)

< big sigh>

The OP asked if there is a "BIG" difference between the two lens..noting the 1.4 costs 3x more $$. I think, for the intended uses, the answer is still..."no". Is the 1.4 3x better than the 1.8? Not even remotely. If *I* had to put a percentage value on it, I would say the 1.4 is 30% better at the most...considering all factors such as build quality, AF, etc. If quiet focusing and built like a tank aren't important to you or *needed*, then far less.

So..OP...is a 30% improvement worth 3x the price to you? There's no right or wrong answer imo. For my uses, the 1.4 would be worth it, but I need a lens that can take a beating in travel and harsh conditions, focus as fast and quietly as possible etc, etc. I need to sell photographs(!) in a competitive market...plus I can write it off my taxes. :)

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting the 1.4 is a mistake by any means....but imo, you don't *need* it.

Seems to *me*, the best path is to get the 1.8...maybe used...or rent one... and see if you find its results and performance adequate for your needs. If not, sell the 1.8 and try the 1.4. Blessedly, we're not talking about a $1600 lens investment.

Have fun!!

Jaduffy, with all due respect, The 1.8 (at least the two copies I have had) is nearly useless in low light because it can't focus in low light AND it's not sharp even if you do get focus. What's the point of 1.8 if you can't get it to focus?

I am very un-enamored w/the 1.8, but I'm past the return date (which was only 7 days at my local shop. So, I paid a premium of 25% for a lens with only a 7 day return cycle. Though I like to support local business, I think I'll stick to B&H or Amazon from now on).

I can get good shots out of the 1.8 if in full light OR if stopped to at least 2.8, but it really prefers 4.0. My 35/2.0 is a much better lens in terms of focus and sharpness. (also, if you are doing portraits, you don't want to be down around 1.8 anyway, so you don't need a lens that stops that low).

So, though quite cheap, cheap is not a feature if the product doesn't work well in exactly the situation you want it for (i.e. low light).

Just my 2 cents. I hope for your sake you got a better copy than my two, but I can't abide "chasing" the perfect lens copy. I think I'll just move on to better lenses.

[downingp]

After reading over everyone's comments I found a used f/1.8 50mm on Craigslist in my area. I just picked it up from him about an hour ago.
So far, I am happy with it. I will definitely have to play around and get familiar with the aperture; my main subject in the photos seem to be more blurry than what I would like. What aperture do you recommend for portrait photos (i.e. photos with santa)? I plan on taking a few pictures with this lens over the holidays and don't want to miss "my shot" fiddling with the settings.

[jaduffy108]

After reading over everyone's comments I found a used f/1.8 50mm on Craigslist in my area. I just picked it up from him about an hour ago.
So far, I am happy with it. I will definitely have to play around and get familiar with the aperture; my main subject in the photos seem to be more blurry than what I would like. What aperture do you recommend for portrait photos (i.e. photos with santa)? I plan on taking a few pictures with this lens over the holidays and don't want to miss "my shot" fiddling with the settings.

Perfect...imo. Now you can always sell it for what you paid for it. You'll definitely want to stop it down to *at least* 2.8 for your portraits.

Here's what the digital picture review site conclusion had to say about the lens:

"The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens is a good low-light indoor photography lens - especially when a flash is not appropriate or desired. It works very well in a church or gym for example. Aside from having mediocre bokeh, the 50 f/1.8 makes a good focal length for full-body portraits. If mounted on a 1.6x FOVCF camera, you will need some extra space to accomplish a full-body portrait and might also want to capture head/shoulder portraits with this lens.

Need to travel light? Mount the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens on a small DSLR and you have one of the smallest, lightest and least expensive low-light combinations available.

The drawbacks of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens are easily overlooked when one looks at the price. This lens is not for everyone, but I don't know of a better lens available for twice this price."

==================

[AlaskaMoose]

If I had to choose between the 1.8 and 1.4, I would pick the better constructed one, in this case, the 1.4.

[OreoCookie]

I'd add the Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/392-sigma_50_14_canon?start=2) to that list. It's optically superior to both Canons (it's the latest design with much larger glass). The built quality is better than either of the Canons, too. Whether it's worth it really depends on what you shoot.

[PCMacUser]

So, though quite cheap, cheap is not a feature if the product doesn't work well in exactly the situation you want it for (i.e. low light).

Just my 2 cents. I hope for your sake you got a better copy than my two, but I can't abide "chasing" the perfect lens copy. I think I'll just move on to better lenses.
I think build quality - and build consistency has something to do with this. I bought a 50mm 1.8 from Adorama in 2004, and it's never had any significant problems focussing in low light. The quality of the images it produces are very sharp.

However, I'd have the 1.4 over it any day, due to the quality and full time manual focus option. I also don't like the grinding noise the 1.8 makes when autofocussing.

[PCMacUser]

I'd add the Sigma 50 mm f/1.4 (http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/392-sigma_50_14_canon?start=2) to that list. It's optically superior to both Canons (it's the latest design with much larger glass). The built quality is better than either of the Canons, too. Whether it's worth it really depends on what you shoot.

I'm not sure if it's superior to Canon's 1.4. Especially after reading the comments in that article you linked to:

The tested sample had a fairly strong back-focus problem but this may be an isolated issue and not a general characteristic of the series....All-in-all - highly recommended but watch out for focus accuracy problems.

The Sigma's greatest strength is its sharpness at f/1.4. The Canon cannot compete. Once things get to f/2 and smaller, the lenses become comparable.

[OreoCookie]

I'm not sure if it's superior to Canon's 1.4. Especially after reading the comments in that article you linked to:
Nikon and Canon use (high-quality) plastic for their f/1.4 lens and the optical designs are rather dated (I'm talking about the AF-D Nikkor). Sigma's design is brand-new and includes much larger lenses (it's a full frame lens). And it's consistently rated higher than both, Nikon's old AF-D f/1.4 Nikkor and Canon's f/1.4 lens.

From dpreview's review of the Canon (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/page6.asp):
So what's not to like? Obviously the biggest problem is a lack of sharpness at those wider apertures; F1.4 is distinctly soft and 'dreamy', especially on APS-C, and whilst central sharpness increases rapidly on stopping down, the corners do lag behind by a couple of stops. (Of course it's important to bear in mind that depth of field at these apertures is so shallow that corner softness is rarely a real problem; unless you're in the habit of placing your main subject towards the corner of the frame, the chances are that these regions will be well out of focus anyway.) The lens is somewhat susceptible to flare with strong light sources in or near the frame, and some users may find the vignetting at wide apertures on full frame problematic, especially if they have been brought up on relatively unaffected APS-C cameras; then again others may appreciate the framing effect it can bring to a shot. Barrel distortion on full frame is also sufficiently strong that it could occasionally be annoying in real-world shooting, although to be fair, RAW shooters can correct it in the lens aberration correction module of Canon's free Digital Photo Pro RAW processing software when required. Finally, build quality still leaves a little to be desired, and it would be nice to have 'real' ring-type USM for silent AF. These are all areas where the Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM trumps the Canon, so if you're planning on buying a 50mm to use predominantly at the widest apertures, it's likely the better bet.

Or taken from their list of pros and cons of the dpreview of the Sigma (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/page6.asp):

Class-leading image quality
Relatively low vignetting even at wide apertures on full frame
Reasonably fast and positive autofocus, with full-time manual override
Very good build quality
The Sigma's greatest strength is its sharpness at f/1.4. The Canon cannot compete. Once things get to f/2 and smaller, the lenses become comparable.
Comparable ≠ better.

BTW, I'm usually rather sceptical of Sigma lenses (I prefer the feel of Tokina lenses or pro-grade lenses). But this time, Sigma has produced something really good and if Canon wants to compete, they should update their 50 mm f/1.4 lens.

[Edge100]

While I agree with many of the comments suggesting the 1.4....it is the hyperbole that really cracks me up. Example...above: "vastly better"....and how in the world is a 1.8 "nearly useless" in very low light??!?!?!? (Bites tongue)

Not a word of hyperbole in my original post. I find the 50/1.8mkII to be virtually useless in very low light, because the damn thing can't focus. On manual focus, it's fine; it'll produce good images. But AF performance on this lens is crap, especially when compared with the 50/1.4, which doesn't hunt nearly as much, and locks on quickly and accurately in all but the dimmest of light.

The 1.4 is simply better. That's not to say that the 1.8 is worthless; it's just that the 50/1.4 can be picked up used for so little (mid-$200s on Fred Miranda), that it makes no sense to spend $100 to get a lens with obvious deficiencies. If the 1.8 is all you can afford, then go for it; I still have one in my bag and it takes pictures that are head and shoulders above most kit lenses. But the 1.4 is, I'm sorry to say, "vastly better".

< big sigh>

Don't sigh; it's just a lens. Nothing serious.

The OP asked if there is a "BIG" difference between the two lens..noting the 1.4 costs 3x more $$.

The value of a lens is not cost-dependent. The 5DmkII is a better camera than the XSi, for example; sure, it costs 5 times the price, but that's not the point. Whether the cost difference is worth it FOR YOU is a different concern, but there is a BIG difference between the 1.8 and 1.4, no matter what the price. And low light AF is a huge part of that difference.

I think, for the intended uses, the answer is still..."no". Is the 1.4 3x better than the 1.8? Not even remotely.

Sooooo not the point. To use my above example, is the 5dmkII 5x better than the XSi? How do you even quantify "X-times better"? If the features of a product are necessary for you, then you spend the money.

I'll give you another example: the 85/1.8 is a wicked lens, and costs $350ish. The 85/1.2L is better lens, and costs 4-5 times the price. Is the extra stop of light worth the cost? Is the MUCH shallower DOF worth the cost? Is the better bokeh worth the cost?

The answer to all of these questions is: maybe. If you need an extra stop of light, shallower DOF, orthe best bokeh you can buy, the answer is yes. If not, the answer is no. Can the 85/1.8 take amazing shots? Sure it can, but it cannot do all the things the 1.2L can do, and the 1.2L will be worth the money to some people.

And I think the difference between the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.4 is far bigger than the 85/1.8 vs. 85/1.2L example. It's a huge difference, especially when you're shooting in low light and getting 10% keepers because the 1.8 can't focus on anything.

If *I* had to put a percentage value on it, I would say the 1.4 is 30% better at the most...considering all factors such as build quality, AF, etc. If quiet focusing and built like a tank aren't important to you or *needed*, then far less.

Again, this is totally context-dependent. If the extra features of the 1.4 are necessary for you, then the difference in cost is worth it (and let's not kid ourselves, the 1.4 is still a very cheap lens...we're only having this discussion because the 1.8 is insanely cheap). For some people, the 50/1.2L is the only way to go; is THAT lens worth the cost?

So..OP...is a 30% improvement worth 3x the price to you? There's no right or wrong answer imo. For my uses, the 1.4 would be worth it, but I need a lens that can take a beating in travel and harsh conditions, focus as fast and quietly as possible etc, etc. I need to sell photographs(!) in a competitive market...plus I can write it off my taxes. :)

Exactly. Everyone needs to decide for him or herself what lens is "enough". For me, the 1.8 is not good enough because it is severely crippled for one of the main things you buy a fast prime for; low-light shooting. It gives nice shallow DOF, and for portrait photography on a budget with a 1.6x crop body, it could be fine. But for those who want big apertures for low light, the 1.4 is better.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting the 1.4 is a mistake by any means....but imo, you don't *need* it.

Seems to *me*, the best path is to get the 1.8...maybe used...or rent one... and see if you find its results and performance adequate for your needs. If not, sell the 1.8 and try the 1.4. Blessedly, we're not talking about a $1600 lens investment.

Agreed. Rent before you buy. Put the 1.8 through its paces, and see if it's enough lens for you. I'm not advocating overbuying; I'm advocating buying the right lens.

Have fun!!

100% agreed.

[Edge100]

Jaduffy, with all due respect, The 1.8 (at least the two copies I have had) is nearly useless in low light because it can't focus in low light AND it's not sharp even if you do get focus. What's the point of 1.8 if you can't get it to focus?

Ahem...indeed.

So, though quite cheap, cheap is not a feature if the product doesn't work well in exactly the situation you want it for (i.e. low light).

Exactly my point. The 1.8 is cheap; the 1.4 is inexpensive. Again, we wouldn't be having this conversation if Canon weren't essentially giving away the 1.8; we'd be talking about the 1.4 as a stellar lens, that focuses well in low light, is a bit dreamy at 1.4 (esp. in FF or 1.3x corners) but is tack sharp at f/2.0 or higher, and is extremely well-priced.

Just my 2 cents. I hope for your sake you got a better copy than my two, but I can't abide "chasing" the perfect lens copy. I think I'll just move on to better lenses.

Isn't it funny how little you hear people complaining about bad copies of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, for instance? Could it be that quality control is a big part of why you're paying the big bucks?

Buy once, buy right.

[jaduffy108]

Not a word of hyperbole in my original post. I find the 50/1.8mkII to be virtually useless in very low light, because the damn thing can't focus. On manual focus, it's fine; it'll produce good images. But AF performance on this lens is crap, especially when compared with the 50/1.4, which doesn't hunt nearly as much, and locks on quickly and accurately in all but the dimmest of light.

The 1.4 is simply better. That's not to say that the 1.8 is worthless; it's just that the 50/1.4 can be picked up used for so little (mid-$200s on Fred Miranda), that it makes no sense to spend $100 to get a lens with obvious deficiencies. If the 1.8 is all you can afford, then go for it; I still have one in my bag and it takes pictures that are head and shoulders above most kit lenses. But the 1.4 is, I'm sorry to say, "vastly better".



Don't sigh; it's just a lens. Nothing serious.



The value of a lens is not cost-dependent. The 5DmkII is a better camera than the XSi, for example; sure, it costs 5 times the price, but that's not the point. Whether the cost difference is worth it FOR YOU is a different concern, but there is a BIG difference between the 1.8 and 1.4, no matter what the price. And low light AF is a huge part of that difference.



Sooooo not the point. To use my above example, is the 5dmkII 5x better than the XSi? How do you even quantify "X-times better"? If the features of a product are necessary for you, then you spend the money.

I'll give you another example: the 85/1.8 is a wicked lens, and costs $350ish. The 85/1.2L is better lens, and costs 4-5 times the price. Is the extra stop of light worth the cost? Is the MUCH shallower DOF worth the cost? Is the better bokeh worth the cost?

The answer to all of these questions is: maybe. If you need an extra stop of light, shallower DOF, orthe best bokeh you can buy, the answer is yes. If not, the answer is no. Can the 85/1.8 take amazing shots? Sure it can, but it cannot do all the things the 1.2L can do, and the 1.2L will be worth the money to some people.

And I think the difference between the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.4 is far bigger than the 85/1.8 vs. 85/1.2L example. It's a huge difference, especially when you're shooting in low light and getting 10% keepers because the 1.8 can't focus on anything.



Again, this is totally context-dependent. If the extra features of the 1.4 are necessary for you, then the difference in cost is worth it (and let's not kid ourselves, the 1.4 is still a very cheap lens...we're only having this discussion because the 1.8 is insanely cheap). For some people, the 50/1.2L is the only way to go; is THAT lens worth the cost?



Exactly. Everyone needs to decide for him or herself what lens is "enough". For me, the 1.8 is not good enough because it is severely crippled for one of the main things you buy a fast prime for; low-light shooting. It gives nice shallow DOF, and for portrait photography on a budget with a 1.6x crop body, it could be fine. But for those who want big apertures for low light, the 1.4 is better.



Agreed. Rent before you buy. Put the 1.8 through its paces, and see if it's enough lens for you. I'm not advocating overbuying; I'm advocating buying the right lens.



100% agreed.

Clearly...Edge...for you and bking...this thread is now about you. Your defensiveness and "strawman arguments" responses to my posts tell me you're looking for fight.

I'll pass (for the most :) )....but please do note this...

Edge you wrote: "It (the 1.8) gives nice shallow DOF, and for portrait photography on a budget with a 1.6x crop body, it could be fine. "

Please go read the OP's original post. Is that not exactly what he asked about???...thus making the 1.8 a legitimately *good* choice??? Do you see ANYTHING in his post that inclines you to believe he needs great AF in low light? ..and all of the rest of your strawman arguments???

Don't get me wrong....yours and other's general comments about the benefits of the 1.4 are correct in my opinion. I NEVER denied that. You and others act as if I have. I even said...for me, *I* would buy the 1.4!

That you and others pointed out the benefits of investing in the "better" lens is absolutely appropriate, but... this thread was suppose to be about the OP's needs....not yours...or mine.

[Edge100]

Clearly...Edge...for you and bking...this thread is now about you and your egos. Your defensiveness and "strawman arguments" responses to my posts tell me you're looking for fight.

I'll pass.

Okee dokee.

To the OP....get the 1.4. You'll use that lens until the end of your days. You'll outgrow the 1.8 really quickly.

Plus, if you get the 1.4, my ego will be puffed up BIG TIME!

[SimD]

I don't know where you're getting the feeling they're looking for a fight, but what the men said is exactly the case with the 2 lenses (or 3 if we venture into L territory.)

I personally bought a 50mm prime for:

1) sharpness of a prime lens
2) portrait-length lens
3) bokeh
4) fast indoor lowlight action shots

The 1.8 can satisfy 2 of my 4 needs (maybe 3, although the extra blades in the 1.4 produce FAR BETTER bokeh). But, the fact it can't AF in low light unless you have a flash attached (AF assist), renders it useless in that category.

That being said, the 50mm 1.8 is THE lens for amateurs and new-to-prime photographers, but once you start shooting lowlight, the 1.8 will make you miss countless photos.

IMO, for kid shots and family portraiture, go with the 50mm 1.8. Consider the 1.4 if your work depends on it, and buy the 1.2L if work really depends on it.

Cheers

P.S. I have the 1.8 in my sig, but I rent the 1.2L for work.

[downingp]

After playing around with the 1.8 lens, I am pretty happy with it. I am having a hard time getting my subjects focused on some of my shots though. I have been playing around with Aperture Priority, Program, and just for kicks "green light" full auto. I definitely find that using a flash in lower light does produce a better, focused subject.
I am sure after playing around with it more, I will start to understand better what settings are best in what situations.

[jaduffy108]

Okee dokee.

To the OP....get the 1.4. You'll use that lens until the end of your days. You'll outgrow the 1.8 really quickly.

Plus, if you get the 1.4, my ego will be puffed up BIG TIME!

Just thought you might want an opportunity to respond...so please know I edited my initial response ....probably as you were typing your post. :)

And...you're right, the OP may outgrow the 1.8 and eventually buy the 1.4. That..in itself...is a VERY valuable learning experience. How about allowing that learning process to unfold?

[Edge100]

Just thought you might want an opportunity to respond...so please know I edited my initial response ....probably as you were typing your post. :)

I respond thus...

Okee dokee.

To the OP....get the 1.4. You'll use that lens until the end of your days. You'll outgrow the 1.8 really quickly.

Plus, if you get the 1.4, my ego will be puffed up BIG TIME!

I stand by everything I said. The 1.4 is the better lens, for portraits, low light, everything. It costs a bit more, but unless you're really stretched, I would advise spending the extra money for a vastly better lens that you will not outgrow.

[synth3tik]

Not to long ago I sprung for a 1.2 from a 1.8. I'll tell ya, you can really appreciate the slightly wider aperture once you have it.

[Edge100]

Not to long ago I sprung for a 1.2 from a 1.8. I'll tell ya, you can really appreciate the slightly wider aperture once you have it.

Not slight, in this case. There is a full stop of difference between f/1.2 and f/1.8

Same difference as f/4 to f/2.8, and people pay huge premiums for, say, the 16-35 f/2.8L vs. the just-as-optically-good-but-slower 17-40 f/4L.

[bking1000]

Clearly...Edge...for you and bking...this thread is now about you. Your defensiveness and "strawman arguments" responses to my posts tell me you're looking for fight.

I'll pass (for the most :) )....but please do note this...

Edge you wrote: "It (the 1.8) gives nice shallow DOF, and for portrait photography on a budget with a 1.6x crop body, it could be fine. "

Please go read the OP's original post. Is that not exactly what he asked about???...thus making the 1.8 a legitimately *good* choice??? Do you see ANYTHING in his post that inclines you to believe he needs great AF in low light? ..and all of the rest of your strawman arguments???

Don't get me wrong....yours and other's general comments about the benefits of the 1.4 are correct in my opinion. I NEVER denied that. You and others act as if I have. I even said...for me, *I* would buy the 1.4!

That you and others pointed out the benefits of investing in the "better" lens is absolutely appropriate, but... this thread was suppose to be about the OP's needs....not yours...or mine.

Personally, I didn't mean to spoil for an argument, but someone said the 1.8 isn't good in low light, and you made a comment with a sigh that it does work in low light. So, my response was to that specific issue.

You are right. The OP's question was specifically on portrait work. The 1.8 might work fine with plenty of light and f/4.0. But why buy another standalone lens for a small ap at 50mm? The IS Kit lens might be just as good for this. I know my 55-250 would take the same shot, and I could use it at 85mm (135mm equivalent), and get a better FL for portraits.

However, usually a person buys a fast prime for a certain subject AND for low-light use. Granted, the 50 is light in weight, but a lens that is 85mm equivalent (too long indoors, too short outside) AND that is useful only in full light is, IMO, not a great investment. So, I was just trying to help the OP avoid some frustration by sharing my experience.

Also, I'd rather help save someone the time AND money of buying a questionable lens, instead of figuring it would be a good "learning experience" for them. I don't understand that concept at all. When I was a kid, I put my finger in an electrical outlet. Believe me, I remember it vividly. However, that means I tell me kids not to. I don't tell then to do it, so they can learn from it.

[jbernie]

I used a friends 30D + 50mm 1.8 in Australia last year, loved the lens but pretty much everything I did was outside in full daylight, or inside with a good amount of natural light.

When it came time for me to get my 40D and pick up a 50mm I decided to opt for the 1.4 straight away for better build quality, faster lens & manual focus amongst other factors. Unless I won the lottery :rolleyes: I would not go and spring for the 1.2, then again my job isn't photography so the odd miss doesn't = missing $$

[synth3tik]

Not slight, in this case. There is a full stop of difference between f/1.2 and f/1.8

Same difference as f/4 to f/2.8, and people pay huge premiums for, say, the 16-35 f/2.8L vs. the just-as-optically-good-but-slower 17-40 f/4L.

Well, slight as in comparison to 5.6 vs. say 1.4

IMHO hands down spending a little more on a faster lens is almost always the way to go. For me the step from 1.8 to 1.2 opened up a lot for my photos, mainly artistically.

[Edge100]

Well, slight as in comparison to 5.6 vs. say 1.4

IMHO hands down spending a little more on a faster lens is almost always the way to go. For me the step from 1.8 to 1.2 opened up a lot for my photos, mainly artistically.

No doubt about it. I would much sooner skimp on a body than on glass.

[jaduffy108]

Personally, I didn't mean to spoil for an argument, but someone said the 1.8 isn't good in low light, and you made a comment with a sigh that it does work in low light. So, my response was to that specific issue.

For me, this is getting pretty silly...but in the spirit of coming to an understanding....

What was said was, it is "nearly useless" in low light situations. "low light" is incredibly vague..for starters. Secondly, having a fast lens is NEVER "nearly useless" except in "useless" circumstances.

[/QUOTE] You are right. The OP's question was specifically on portrait work. The 1.8 might work fine with plenty of light and f/4.0. But why buy another standalone lens for a small ap at 50mm? The IS Kit lens might be just as good for this. I know my 55-250 would take the same shot, and I could use it at 85mm (135mm equivalent), and get a better FL for portraits. [/QUOTE]

There are numerous creative advantages with the faster prime over the zoom...in "low light" and "full light".

[/QUOTE]However, usually a person buys a fast prime for a certain subject AND for low-light use. Granted, the 50 is light in weight, but a lens that is 85mm equivalent (too long indoors, too short outside) AND that is useful only in full light is, IMO, not a great investment. So, I was just trying to help the OP avoid some frustration by sharing my experience. [/QUOTE]

Sharing your experience is appreciated and valued. I am arrogant enough though to suggest, if you feel the 1.8 is only useful in "full light" situations, you didn't explore the capabilities of the lens. Again, I'm not saying the lens didn't fail to meet YOUR needs, but what I'm getting an attitude about...is that to me...you and Edge are taking those valid experiences and concluding the lens is practically worthless. That is simply hyperbole and flat out wrong. In fact, the 1.8 is an incredible value. No one is denying its limitations.

[/QUOTE]Also, I'd rather help save someone the time AND money of buying a questionable lens, instead of figuring it would be a good "learning experience" for them. I don't understand that concept at all. When I was a kid, I put my finger in an electrical outlet. Believe me, I remember it vividly. However, that means I tell me kids not to. I don't tell then to do it, so they can learn from it.[/QUOTE]

Regarding your "finger" comparison....this is a strawman argument imo...or at least a poor analogy. I believe I understand your intentions though, which are obviously good and valid.

"Questionable lens"...incredibly subjective and relative. Where does this stop? Maybe we should start comparing the build(!), color and contrast characteristics of the Canon 50mm to the Zeiss ...so everyone should get the zeiss?

Can we agree...all lenses have their strengths and weaknesses? For the OP, he made zero mention of low light photography. He *did* make mention of price / value. He *did* mention portraits. He also didn't express a deep knowledge or experience with photography. So...maybe it makes more sense for him to explore using fast glass on a $75, no risk investment versus over $300?

I prefer to make suggestions based on the OP's stated needs and priorities versus guessing what they might or might not need in the future...especially when we're talking about a lens he probably paid $75 for..and can resell at zero loss. That you and Edge pointed out some of the limitations of the lens...that's great, but you guys, especially Edge, denied the 1.8 the value it *does* have for the uses the OP needs. That's unfair, inaccurate and doesn't serve the OP imo.

I've switched back to Nikon, but I know both lens very well. I have been in what I would call "low light" circumstances and the 1.8 saved the freakin' day! After many years in this business, I'm just not concerned about the red or gold ring around my lens. I still have MF Nikkors that you can get for a song...sung badly... and that kick booty! This digital age of photography has launched a MASSIVE "gearhead" community. Not my cup o' tea.

[Edge100]

What was said was, it is "nearly useless" in low light situations. "low light" is incredibly vague..for starters.

1/45s, f/1.8, ISO3200...THAT is what I mean by "low light". The 1.4 can do this with ease; the 1.8 simply cannot.

Secondly, having a fast lens is NEVER "nearly useless" except in "useless" circumstances.

Yes, like the 50/1.8 is useless at 1/45s, f/1.8, ISO3200. 10% keepers is not enough for me.

Sharing your experience is appreciated and valued. I am arrogant enough though to suggest, if you feel the 1.8 is only useful in "full light" situations, you didn't explore the capabilities of the lens.

The 1.8 has the following good traits:

1. Cheap
2. Better-than-average sharpness and contrast
3. Cheap
4. f/1.8 allows much shallower DOF than an expensive f/2.8 zoom

Other than that, I think I've used that lens enough to know that there are better options out there. We're all wooed by items 1 and 3; but there is a difference between cheap and inexpensive. I think the 50/1.8 cuts too many corners, and could be made MUCH better by the addition of a decent, modern AF system like USM.

Oh wait, that lens already exists: it's the 50/1.4.

I still contend that the 50/1.4 would be considered an absolute steal at $315ish new, if the 50/1.8 did not exist. We make excuses for the 1.8 because it's cheap.

Again, I'm not saying the lens didn't fail to meet YOUR needs, but what I'm getting an attitude about...is that to me...you and Edge are taking those valid experiences and concluding the lens is practically worthless. That is simply hyperbole and flat out wrong. In fact, the 1.8 is an incredible value. No one is denying its limitations.

It's not worthless, given the right set of circumstances. And there's the rub...why be limited by circumstance? In the 50/1.4, you get a lens that can do everything the 50/1.8 can do, do it better, and do a few other things that the 1.8 can't do.

We're making excuses for a cheap lens, when an inexpensive choice is available.

In very low light, the 1.8 is useless unless you're willing to use MF. Perhaps you wont shoot in very low light too often; but why handicap yourself with a lens that cannot be used at all, when another choice is available for not much more? The 1.8 is false economy, in my opinion.

"Questionable lens"...incredibly subjective and relative. Where does this stop? Maybe we should start comparing the build(!), color and contrast characteristics of the Canon 50mm to the Zeiss ...so everyone should get the zeiss?

Dude, you are totally missing the point, despite having it repeated to you over and over. If Zeiss quality is necessary for you, then you get the Zeiss. If 50/1.2L quality is necessary for you, you get the 50/1.2L.

What I'M saying is that the 50/1.8 is a decent lens, given the right circumstances. And those circumstances are the following: you absolutely cannot afford the vastly superior 1.4.

Can we agree...all lenses have their strengths and weaknesses?

Yup. The 400/2.8L is a brilliant telephoto prime, but is heavy and expensive. The Canon TS lenses are terrific for architecture photography, but are MF only.

The 50/1.8 is crap in low light, but produces better-than-average (better than kit for sure) IQ in good light.

For the OP, he made zero mention of low light photography. He *did* make mention of price / value.

Exactly. And the 1.8, while cheap, is poor value.

He *did* mention portraits. He also didn't express a deep knowledge or experience with photography. So...maybe it makes more sense for him to explore using fast glass on a $75, no risk investment versus over $300?

Naaah...nothing holds its value as well as well-cared for glass...especially good quality glass like the 50/1.4 Decide you want to try basket-weaving after a year? Sell the 1.4 on FM.com and make back 95% of your money.

I prefer to make suggestions based on the OP's stated needs and priorities versus guessing what they might or might not need in the future

I should point out that even if the OP only ever shoots in studio lighting, the 1.4 is STILL better.

...especially when we're talking about a lens he probably paid $75 for..and can resell at zero loss.

How do you square this with your previous statement that ..maybe it makes more sense for him to explore using fast glass on a $75, no risk investment versus over $300??

That you and Edge pointed out some of the limitations of the lens...that's great, but you guys, especially Edge, denied the 1.8 the value it *does* have for the uses the OP needs. That's unfair, inaccurate and doesn't serve the OP imo.

Never, ever did I deny this. The 1.8 may be wonderful for portraits on a 1.6x crop body (it isn't, in my opinion, better than the 1.4 in this regard...). But again, why be constrained?

As I said before, buy once, buy right.

I've switched back to Nikon, but I know both lens very well. I have been in what I would call "low light" circumstances and the 1.8 saved the freakin' day! After many years in this business, I'm just not concerned about the red or gold ring around my lens. I still have MF Nikkors that you can get for a song...sung badly... and that kick booty! This digital age of photography has launched a MASSIVE "gearhead" community. Not my cup o' tea.

Good for you. I've got a Fujinon 55/1.8 M42-mount prime on my Fujica ST-801 that is absolutely superb.

This is not about a red ring. I didn't tell the OP to get a 50/1.2L no matter what because everything else is useless. I told the OP to buy smart; that the 1.8 would get old fast; that the 1.4 is a better investment.

[ChrisBrightwell]

1/45s, f/1.8, ISO3200...THAT is what I mean by "low light". The 1.4 can do this with ease; the 1.8 simply cannot.

... Why not?

The f/1.4 is 2/3 of a stop faster than the f/1.8, but what you said above is pretty much useless and/or not true.

Yes, like the 50/1.8 is useless at 1/45s, f/1.8, ISO3200. 10% keepers is not enough for me.

The 50/1.4, at those settings, will have the same problem!

In very low light, the 1.8 is useless unless you're willing to use MF.

This is basically ********.

[bking1000]

Well, this has, indeed, gotten silly. But, if you can laugh a bit about it, here's a posting from POTN on the 50/1.8 from JefferyG: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=613002&page=5 (the thread is entitled, "biggest lens regret" -- several votes for the 50/1.8)

For those who don't want to click, here's the text:

"50/1.8 evolution for newbies:
Holy crap! I can shoot in the dark.
Holy crap! Look at this super thin DOF
Wow! If I stop it down some it is really sharp
Boy! This thing sure misses focus frequently
Whoops! I dropped it and it broke in two"

:D

[PCMacUser]

actually , i meant picture quality wise between the 24-70 to the 50 primes?

At 50mm, the 50mm 1.8 will outperform the 24-70mm. The 24-70's chromatic aberration as you get further from the centre of the image is its weakness. However, the 24-70 has better contrast in the centre.

You can do a direct comparison here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=473). Choose the lenses and the focal length and apertures (make sure they match) and do your comparison.

[Edge100]

... Why not?

The f/1.4 is 2/3 of a stop faster than the f/1.8, but what you said above is pretty much useless and/or not true.

Seriously, are you paying attention??? The 1.8 can't focus at that level of light. Yes, you can set the camera to those settings, but the AF on the damn lens wont work without good enough light!

The 50/1.4, at those settings, will have the same problem!
This is basically ********.

No, it wont. The 1.4 can focus down to almost total darkness. It has to be VERY dark for the 1.4 to miss AF; certainly at least a stop or two darker than the 1.8.

Try to keep up, k?

I'm done with this thread. The OP knows my $0.02, for what it's worth. Get whatever lens makes you happy/you can afford and go take some pictures.

[AlaskaMoose]

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is a beauty, but only if your copy of it focuses accurately when it's wide open. That's a razor thin DOF zone, and if yours is accurate you have a winner.

However, it seems that Sigma can take care of the problem (at least that's what Sigma users say). I am certainly going to consider this lens as a future purchase. Now, the EF 50mm f/1.4, according some reviews, is sharper at the corners than the Sigma approaching f/4.0.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=614000&highlight=Sigma+50mm+f%2F1.4

[tcphoto]

I started with a 50/1.8 but was not impressed with the plastic lens mount. The 1.4 has more robust construction and quality of sharpness and color. If you own a cropped body the 35/2 would be a good choice.

[downingp]

I just wanted to update everyone who has made comments on this thread. I took a bunch of pictures with the 50mm f/1.8 lens for my son's one year birthday last night. I am really impressed with some of the shots I was able to get with this lens. I definitely feel like it was worth the $75 for this lens. However, now I am wondering what I could expect to see with the f/1.4? I know, I know its a curse. :D
Anybody out there with a 50mm f/1.4 they may want to sell?;)

[FX120]

I just wanted to update everyone who has made comments on this thread. I took a bunch of pictures with the 50mm f/1.8 lens for my son's one year birthday last night. I am really impressed with some of the shots I was able to get with this lens. I definitely feel like it was worth the $75 for this lens. However, now I am wondering what I could expect to see with the f/1.4? I know, I know its a curse. :D
Anybody out there with a 50mm f/1.4 they may want to sell?;)

Check the Fred Miranda equipment exchange, they can usually be found for ~$275 in excellent condition. eBay of course is also an option.

But IMO it's worth it just to buy it new, it's still pretty inexpensive at $325 off Amazon.

[downingp]

Would an 85mm f/1.8 complement the 50mm f/1.8 nicely? What is the 85mm f/1.8 mainly used for?

[CrackedButter]

Seriously, are you paying attention??? The 1.8 can't focus at that level of light. Yes, you can set the camera to those settings, but the AF on the damn lens wont work without good enough light!



No, it wont. The 1.4 can focus down to almost total darkness. It has to be VERY dark for the 1.4 to miss AF; certainly at least a stop or two darker than the 1.8.

Try to keep up, k?

I'm done with this thread. The OP knows my $0.02, for what it's worth. Get whatever lens makes you happy/you can afford and go take some pictures.

The focusing ability depends on the camera sensor surely? I have a 5D and I've never used it in total darkness but near darkness/dimly lit room and my f1.4 misses focus quite a lot.

[Edge100]

The focusing ability depends on the camera sensor surely? I have a 5D and I've never used it in total darkness but near darkness/dimly lit room and my f1.4 misses focus quite a lot.

Yes, it does. But remember, with the Canon EOS system, the AF mechanism is in the lens, not the body. Yes, the body may have better or worse AF (the 5D is about average; better than some, not as good as the 1D-series bodies), but the lens is a major determinant.

The 50/1.4 isn't perfect; it still needs some light to focus well. But the keeper rate is much, much higher at the same (low) light than with the 50/1.8, and the 1.4 can go much dimmer before it loses the ability to AF well.

[CrackedButter]

Would an 85mm f/1.8 complement the 50mm f/1.8 nicely? What is the 85mm f/1.8 mainly used for?

Portraits mostly. The f1.2 version is known as the 'portrait lens'

@Edge100, thanks for the clarification.