50mm F1.4 v F1.8
Discussion
Gents - just after a quick bit of advice please. I am considering a 50mm prime after struggling to do some low-light indoor people snapping in a mate's house (didn't want to use flash and couldn't get a fast enough shutter even with lens wide open). The F1.8 can be had new for around £80 which seems amazing value but then there is the F1.4 which can be had for a bit under £300.
Question is would a (very!) amateur snapper like me notice the difference ?
Cheers, DD
Question is would a (very!) amateur snapper like me notice the difference ?
Cheers, DD
The 1.8 is certainly a great lens for the money. But it has a lot of shortcomings.
Manual focus is terrible, autofocus in lwo light is poor, bokeh when not wide open is dodgy and its not sharp untill f2.5 or so (f2.2 at a push).
The 1.4 fixes a lot of those things and is faster to boot.
Manual focus is terrible, autofocus in lwo light is poor, bokeh when not wide open is dodgy and its not sharp untill f2.5 or so (f2.2 at a push).
The 1.4 fixes a lot of those things and is faster to boot.
You'd certainly notice the difference if you looked at both at the same time, but if its going to be a lens that won't get regular use then the 50mm f1.8 will probably be ideal. Nothing else divers that sort of image quality for relatively little cost
(especially if you start looking at the prices of other prime lenses
)
If you plan to use it more regularly then I'd look at the 50mm f1.4, Sigma 30mm f1.4, Sigma 50mm f1.4, etc.
(especially if you start looking at the prices of other prime lenses
)If you plan to use it more regularly then I'd look at the 50mm f1.4, Sigma 30mm f1.4, Sigma 50mm f1.4, etc.
Brand specifics aside, f1.4 gives you faster shutter speeds but at the price of DOF. Although I have a Nikkor 50mm f1.4, in practice I never use it faster than f2 because DOF is so (a) shallow (b) easy to miss. So I have to conclude that (all else being equal) the f1.8 is better value for money.
I'm using Sigma 50mm F1.4 for 90% of my shots and I thing the IQ is just stunning, much better than nifty fifty.
Not even mentioning the AF performance.
Apparently Canon's 50mm 1.4 is much worse, older design, worse bokeh etc. That's what tinternet says, I haven't used one.
I have both - Sigma 1.4 and Canon 1.8, let me know if you want me to take some pictures to compare.
Not even mentioning the AF performance.
Apparently Canon's 50mm 1.4 is much worse, older design, worse bokeh etc. That's what tinternet says, I haven't used one.
I have both - Sigma 1.4 and Canon 1.8, let me know if you want me to take some pictures to compare.
Edited by rottie102 on Sunday 10th October 22:52
RobDickinson said:
rottie102 said:
Not even mentioning the AF performance.
Thats what I need to be happy about. Opticaly it seems great (though I've had reports the canon 1.4 is sharper if you get a good one), the bokeh is amazing.Just too many reports of poor or inconsistent autofocus.
Ah, but ....
Back in the old days of film I had a couple of f1.8 (they seem to breed) and an f1.4.
Indeed I still have them and sometimes play with the f1.4 on the digital kit via an adapter.
I don't have a problem with AF that way - it doesn't have AF.
However the 50mm on a crop body is not the 50mm I remember in terms of coverage and DoF and so on.
For a start there is the 'crop factor' to take into account - that makes it an 80mm lens on my 400D. Or would do but for the adapter adding about another 20%, apparently. So I actually have a manual focus f1.4 96mm lens. Or something along those lines.
Anyway, the point is that if you really want a flexible lens that allows you to move to full frame at some point and offers top quality ... well, you already know that you need to be looking at an L spec and that for the crop sensors you really need something perhaps in the 24 to 28mm or maybe 35 mm range to get a proper 50(ish) result.
So you will need something like this;
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cam...
or this;
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cam...
in order to get the f1.4 you crave.
You know it makes sense.
Back in the old days of film I had a couple of f1.8 (they seem to breed) and an f1.4.
Indeed I still have them and sometimes play with the f1.4 on the digital kit via an adapter.
I don't have a problem with AF that way - it doesn't have AF.
However the 50mm on a crop body is not the 50mm I remember in terms of coverage and DoF and so on.
For a start there is the 'crop factor' to take into account - that makes it an 80mm lens on my 400D. Or would do but for the adapter adding about another 20%, apparently. So I actually have a manual focus f1.4 96mm lens. Or something along those lines.
Anyway, the point is that if you really want a flexible lens that allows you to move to full frame at some point and offers top quality ... well, you already know that you need to be looking at an L spec and that for the crop sensors you really need something perhaps in the 24 to 28mm or maybe 35 mm range to get a proper 50(ish) result.
So you will need something like this;
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cam...
or this;
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cam...
in order to get the f1.4 you crave.
You know it makes sense.
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 10th October 23:52
Assuming he wants a crop FOV wider than a 50mm gets him! He may be happy with 50mm on a crop!
Canon has some cheaper wider options than the L's - 28/1.8 and 35/2.0 which are ok.
Theres always the sigma 30/1.4 too though I'm not keen on its off center sharpness.
Alternativly a proper flash will make much more of a difference than a fast lens...
Canon has some cheaper wider options than the L's - 28/1.8 and 35/2.0 which are ok.
Theres always the sigma 30/1.4 too though I'm not keen on its off center sharpness.
Alternativly a proper flash will make much more of a difference than a fast lens...
RobDickinson said:
Assuming he wants a crop FOV wider than a 50mm gets him! He may be happy with 50mm on a crop!
I am. I've sold 85mm 1.8 recently after not using it even once in 6 months. Shorter than 50mm on a crop body is not too good either for the portrait which is what I mainly shoot.rottie102 said:
RobDickinson said:
Assuming he wants a crop FOV wider than a 50mm gets him! He may be happy with 50mm on a crop!
I am. I've sold 85mm 1.8 recently after not using it even once in 6 months. Shorter than 50mm on a crop body is not too good either for the portrait which is what I mainly shoot.The 70-200 might be better at f2.8 ... but it's a hell of a thing to consider sticking into someones face from close range! Maybe my old manual 50mm f1.4 ...?
LongQ said:
The 85mm would take you up to the longer end of the typical portrait lens recommendations.
Upto 200mm on a FF is good potrait length, longer tends to be better but you need to be in the same street as the subject. 70-200 does make a good potrait lens but a prime is sharper (usualy..) faster (often) and squarer if you have verticles and dont correct in post.
I'm after a new fast prime sometime soon, if I didnt have a 50/1.8 it'd be a done deal but looking at
24L
35L
50/1.4 or sigma 50
canon 85 or sigma 85
L's would have to be used if at all.
RobDickinson said:
Assuming he wants a crop FOV wider than a 50mm gets him! He may be happy with 50mm on a crop!
He may indeed be happy with a 50mm on a crop body but that's really not the point, as DD well knows. Experiencing the full force of photographic reality is what this is all about. I mean how can one discuss the benefits and de-benefits of a nifty 50 without being conversant with the differences between the 'standard' full frame 50mm results and the alternative crop sensor outcomes?RobDickinson said:
Canon has some cheaper wider options than the L's - 28/1.8 and 35/2.0 which are ok.
Theres always the sigma 30/1.4 too though I'm not keen on its off center sharpness.
Yes but DD wants f1.4. Now on the basis of the usage I think I would go for a decent flash with good bounce flash capabilities. (I am here assuming that the location offered some potential for bouncing flash. It's possible it didn't. Some people have 'different' tastes in decor.) Or, money no object, a body with more usable high ISO if flash is to be an absolute no-no.Theres always the sigma 30/1.4 too though I'm not keen on its off center sharpness.
RobDickinson said:
Alternatively a proper flash will make much more of a difference than a fast lens...
Yep, far more flexible. I thought DD already has some flash kit other than the macro stuff. Maybe not.Hmm. I suppose suggesting a full constant lighting studio kit would be going too far?
I've been watching over 20 different auctions for the Canon 50mm 1.4 on eBay for the past week or so. Average price you can pick them up in decent condition second hand is between £225 and £240. Not that much of a huge discount over brand new to be honest. Very tempted by one of these myself.
Good review / comparison of the two lenses.
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
For most people the 1.8 is fine.
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
For most people the 1.8 is fine.
JJM said:
Good review / comparison of the two lenses.
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
For most people the 1.8 is fine.
Wow, that's Canon 50mm 1.4:http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
For most people the 1.8 is fine.
and my Sigma 50mm 1.4
Check how "creamy" the bokeh is:
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff