canon lenses

[dcw@pr]

hypothetically speaking....

If I were looking for a 50mm Canon lens, is the f/1.4 that much better than the f/1.8? has anyone used both? From a lot of what i have read, the 1.4 isn't up to much

[beano500]

...see if you'd asked about Nikon, we could 'ave told ya!

[dcw@pr]

unfortunately I already know about Nikkor

[beano500]

OK

And a bit more seriously, what's wrong with the 1.4?

I would have guessed, without any prior knowledge, that the determining factor was price. (I.e. when you try and stack up "F's per £" it doesn't look so good)

Sort of off on a tangent, but, I handled a Nikon 300mm F4 today/yesterday. I had heard pretty average things about the predecessors, but the AF-S is lightning fast to focus and a manageable handful to handhold. I've lost my rose-tinted glasses over the F2.8. That's because I actually saw/felt/used them in the flesh, so to speak. (Now the 80-400VR feels like a cheap Bakelite/plastic blob in comparison....) Guess I'm saying, don't take other people's word - can you hire these little beasts somewhere for a test drive?

[dcw@pr]

beano500 said:

OK And a bit more seriously, what's wrong with the 1.4?

basically people saying it's not very sharp. obviously at 1.4 it's never going to be good, but if you have to go down to f/8 to get results as good as the f/1.8 version then I probably wouldn't be willing to trade that for 2/3rds of a stop (not worried about price too much, not a huge difference)

beano500 said:

Now the 80-400VR feels like a cheap Bakelite/plastic blob in comparison....

Oi don't be rude! I like my 80-400, was the first decent lens I bought...Still comes in very useful with it's great variety of zoom. having said that, I don't think I would replace it with a Canon 100-400mm if the situation arose

[ehasler]

dcw@pr said:

hypothetically speaking.... If I were looking for a 50mm Canon lens, is the f/1.4 that much better than the f/1.8? has anyone used both? From a lot of what i have read, the 1.4 isn't up to much

Where have you been reading this - The Sun?

Seriously though, most of what I've read about the f1.4 has been just the opposite, and I've found it to be a very good lens. Saying that, I believe that most of the people who spend their lives writing lens reviews need to get out and take some photos!

I've not tried the f1.8, but the f1.4 is one of my favourite lenses.

I very much doubt that you could have shot this with any other lens:

[srider]

dcw@pr said:

beano500 said: OK And a bit more seriously, what's wrong with the 1.4? basically people saying it's not very sharp. obviously at 1.4 it's never going to be good, but if you have to go down to f/8 to get results as good as the f/1.8 version then I probably wouldn't be willing to trade that for 2/3rds of a stop (not worried about price too much, not a huge difference)

I had one, it was amazingly sharp from about f2 onwards. Only problem was the AF isn't too quick, it has an older version of USM.

I'd have to say though, got a 1.8 for a friend last year. Build quality is very cheap, but optically it's close to the 1.4. Bargin for £70!

[Captain Beaky]

dcw@pr said:

If I were looking for a 50mm Canon lens, is the f/1.4 that much better than the f/1.8? has anyone used both? From a lot of what i have read, the 1.4 isn't up to much

There's a detailed review on this very topic on photo.net

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

beano500 said:

I would have guessed, without any prior knowledge, that the determining factor was price. (I.e. when you try and stack up "F's per £" it doesn't look so good)

That's the only reason I've ever heard of. It'd be interesting to see how many times you really need the extra F.

[rj_vaughan]

I have a f1.8, very very pleased with the sharpness. Best £70 I ever spent.. on a lens.

I didn't buy the f1.4 after reading a comparison as there wasn't very much in it optically and I'd rather save some £ over build quality at this stage