50 vs. 50

[orchestrated]

Is the 50 f/1.2 USM really worth the extra 200 bucks over the f/1.8?

Are the optics the same?
Is one just extremely awful?

[pfogle]

Since I couldn't make up my mind about this either, I got the 50mm Sigma macro ;)

[Raymate]

If you mean the f1.4 then yes to me it is worth the extra money, I have had both and the optical quality is a bit better. but it's the focus and built that is much better. The focus on the f1.8 was a little hit and miss sometimes.

[picturecrazy]

I also have both.

1.4 has MUCH better bokeh and is sharper.
But the biggest value is in the focus. It will hit focus in the centre focus point easily in dark areas where even my 2.8 lenses get confused. The 1.8 misses a lot and hunts.

There is no point saving money when you may not get the shot you want because you are waiting to hit focus.

I use 20D/30D. YMMV on the camera body type.

[ron chappel]

There was a rather large thread on this very subject just a few days ago.Check it out;)

Overall i'd say the vast majority of buyers should get the 1.8 rather than the 1.4,simply because the money saved could go towards other lenses.

[michael.luczkow]

There was a rather large thread on this very subject just a few days ago.Check it out;)

Overall i'd say the vast majority of buyers should get the 1.8 rather than the 1.4,simply because the money saved could go towards other lenses.
I would have to disagree with you simply because out of all of my lenses, I use the 50 the most. For me it's my staple lens. If I could only have one lens, it would be the 50 1.4. After developing and maturing and learning about the way I shoot and the style of shots that I'm after, 90% of my "Print that and hang it on the wall" shots are with the 50.

Just my two Yen.

I should have just got the 1.4 right from the get go. Me buying the 1.4 from the start would be me saving 75 Dollars because I would have just got it right the first time. I had no idea how much I'd love the lens.

[orchestrated]

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong direction.

What do YOU use for your portraits?

Prime or zoom?


Any specific lens?

[grego]

There was a rather large thread on this very subject just a few days ago.Check it out;)

Overall i'd say the vast majority of buyers should get the 1.8 rather than the 1.4,simply because the money saved could go towards other lenses.

That depends. If you use the 50 focal length a lot, then you should have the 1.4. It's more consistent. I'd say that same comment for any lens that is one of the more used ones, while putting less money into lens you don't use as often if at all possible.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong direction.

What do YOU use for your portraits?

Prime or zoom?


Any specific lens?

50 1.4 (these days I tend to lean towards the 50 for the portrait side)
70-200 IS

[theJingster]

this question keeps coming up and despite the abundance of long threads, the answers are always the same.

they're both great lenses and the only way to decide is to...well decide. if build quality, the extra 2/3 stop, and the extra aperture blades are worth the $200+ then go with the 1.4 version. otherwise, that's a lot of money you can be putting to good use on another lens.

a word of caution, if those reasons mean nothing to you and your sole excuse to buy the 1.4 is the USM, think twice. the 50/1.4 uses micro USM and not ring USM. micro USM offers little advantages in focus speed and is only marginally quieter.

[willg]

this question keeps coming up and despite the abundance of long threads, the answers are always the same.

they're both great lenses and the only way to decide is to...well decide. if build quality, the extra 2/3 stop, and the extra aperture blades are worth the $200+ then go with the 1.4 version. otherwise, that's a lot of money you can be putting to good use on another lens.

a word of caution, if those reasons mean nothing to you and your sole excuse to buy the 1.4 is the USM, think twice. the 50/1.4 uses micro USM and not ring USM. micro USM offers little advantages in focus speed and is only marginally quieter.

and you get banding with it at high isos:confused:

[theJingster]

and you get banding with it at high isos:confused:

i haven't heard this, can you explain?

[grego]

and you get banding with it at high isos:confused:

That should be a product of your camera body, not the lens. For some reason, the use of AI servo at high ISO sometimes brings up banding issues, I've read.

[Andy_T]

I should have just got the 1.4 right from the get go. Me buying the 1.4 from the start would be me saving 75 Dollars because I would have just got it right the first time. I had no idea how much I'd love the lens.

So you threw away the 50/1.8 when you got the 50/1.4, eh?
That's the only way you can lose 75$...

Other people I have heard sell it for 60$ or something ... losing only a very small sum.

Actually, this would be my suggestion ... get the 50/1.8 and see if you like it. If you discover that you really like using a fast prime and need the better features of the 50/1.4, you can always upgrade. That's what I did.

However, you might also get the 50/1.8, like it, and decide to keep it and get the 85/1.8 or 28/1.8/ Sigma 30/1.4 EX as well ... two good lenses might be better than only one :D

Best regards,
Andy

[grego]

I've seen a 50 sell on ebay for 90+ dollars. You can buy it new for like 80ish(with shipping). I love watching ebay sometimes.....

But the crap they sell with the bodies is great!! Those lens are stellar. :lol:

[blonde]

i had the 50 1.8 and i really liked it. i ggot some very sharp pics with it even in very low light. after reading tons of threads such as this, i upgraded to the 50 1.4 and to be honest, i am dissapointed. its not that the 1.4 is not a good lens because it is. it just that i am not impressed by the focus speed and the fact that i find it to be very soft at 1.4 so i tend to use it at 2.0 most of the time anyway. i also hate the fact that i sold my 85 1.8 for this lens which was a big mistake because the 85 is way better than the 50 1.4. well, live and learn, i am going to sell this and pick up my 85 again and the 50 1.8 to go with it...

[grego]

^^I believe the 85 was released a month after the 50 1.4. Maybe I have it backwards. The 85 has ring USM. It's defintely a better lens but you spend a little more. I think the only 1.4 you'll get decent is with the 85 1.2 or 35 1.4. But then, you got to spend a little. Possibly the 30 1.4, because I've seen some great things done by it.

[PAFC2004]

Lots of 50 vs 50 threads! I have the 1.8, and although the build quality and AF aren't as good as the 1.4, the IQ for the price is awesome.

[Jetmech1]

I have the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8. The quality of both are comparable. I don't see the difference you mentioned. Each focal lenth has it's advantages. My advice to the original poster is to get the 50mm 1.4. Great lens. It is money well spent in my opinion.

i had the 50 1.8 and i really liked it. i ggot some very sharp pics with it even in very low light. after reading tons of threads such as this, i upgraded to the 50 1.4 and to be honest, i am dissapointed. its not that the 1.4 is not a good lens because it is. it just that i am not impressed by the focus speed and the fact that i find it to be very soft at 1.4 so i tend to use it at 2.0 most of the time anyway. i also hate the fact that i sold my 85 1.8 for this lens which was a big mistake because the 85 is way better than the 50 1.4. well, live and learn, i am going to sell this and pick up my 85 again and the 50 1.8 to go with it...

[steved110]

Gert the 1.8 first - it's really inexpensive but a good enough sharp prime for all that. It will allow you to see if you like 50mm on a crop body - i don't so I'm really glad I only have the 1.8 - I lover this lens on my film camera though.

I am going to look for a 28-35 mm prime, at some some stage, rather than the 50mm 1.4 - just my preference.

[Doctor T]

If you are unsure, then get the 1.8.

[Bill Ng]

Unsharpened pic from my 50mm 1.8 @ 1.8

http://www.pbase.com/bill_in_brooklyn/image/50975878.jpg

As you can see, I'm more than happy with my copy and mine is noticibly more soft than other's I've seen posted here.

Bill

[MCB]

I have the 1.8, but have never used the 1.4. I rarely open it up all the way to 1.8 anyway. For me, the DOF is just a little too shallow at that point. So how often would i open up the 1.4 all the way? I would guess it would be pretty rare.

I guess if the build quality or autofocus is really that important to you, then the extra $200 might be worth it for the 1.4. For me, I haven't notied any problems do to what other people see as inferior build quality on the 1.8. I have had a couple of situations where the AF wasn't so good in low light, but manually focusing isn't that big of a concern for me.

So I'm very happy with the results I get for the price I paid. I got a Speedlite 430EX and the 1.8 for just a few dollars more than i would have paid for the 1.4. A pretty good deal if you ask me.

[TLV]

I use my 50mm 1.4 as my stock lens for portraits with my Rebel XT in my studio and for that function it is great. When I back off to say 3/4 body shots I often don't get such a crisp result. What I want to know is whether a "L" zoom lens would be any crisper (say the Canon F4 24 -105 L)? This would obviously save changing lenses, which I have to do for full body shots

[narlus]

already having the 50mm f/1.8, i decided to keep it and get a wider fast prime for my 350D (the crop factor necessitates a wider angle lens). since my low-light shooting is mainly done in small clubs w/ poor lighting, and i am up close, i wanted to get a lens which could capture more than single player images. the 85mm is a great lens, and i rented it once for a weekend, but i'd probably use it only on a full-frame camera. w/ the 1.6x factor, coupled w/ my necessity at being close to the stage since i'm only 5'8" or so, it just didn't make much sense. neither did getting the 50 f/1.4, for marginal improvements at the same focal length.

i just got my sigma 30mm f/1.4 in the mail yesterday and i can't wait to try it out at my next show.

[sboerup]

$200 difference in these 2 lenses is a very small amount to me. Consider the difference between the 85 1.8 and 85 1.2, thats over $1k difference. To me, the 50 1.4 is better in all regards and is well worth the money. Why?

-faster, quieter AF
-build quality is great
-easier to manual focus (the m focus ring is better)
-image quality is nominally better, better bokeh as well
-more light
-focusing is accurate and focuses very well in lower light areas

To me, its a no brainer. I feel like Im gonna break the 50 1.8 whenever I see and use it. The 1.4 is much better. Save yourself the grief and get it.

[michael.luczkow]

So you threw away the 50/1.8 when you got the 50/1.4, eh?
That's the only way you can lose 75$...

Other people I have heard sell it for 60$ or something ... losing only a very small sum.

Actually, this would be my suggestion ... get the 50/1.8 and see if you like it. If you discover that you really like using a fast prime and need the better features of the 50/1.4, you can always upgrade. That's what I did.

However, you might also get the 50/1.8, like it, and decide to keep it and get the 85/1.8 or 28/1.8/ Sigma 30/1.4 EX as well ... two good lenses might be better than only one :D

Best regards,
Andy
Cute, but missing my point. My lesson learned from lens purchasing in general is to just do it right the first time if you take your photography seriously. :p

[Doctor T]

Cute, but missing my point. My lesson learned from lens purchasing in general is to just do it right the first time if you take your photography seriously. :p

I would disagree in the case of the canon 50s, especially on a crop camera. A lot of people end up finding out that they may not use this focal length very often and then end up selling their lens after buying something like a 24-70L. Resell a 50mm 1.8 and lose maybe 10-20 bucks. Resell a 50mm 1.4 and my guess is you'll probably lose about 100 dollars... (assuming you bought new in both cases)

[superstar]

I had the 1.8 for 6 months until it broke. I have had the 1.4 for about a year now with no problem. They both take good pictures, but the build quality on the 1.8 was pretty bad.

Richard

[blonde]

i think it all dpends on how much you actually use that focal length. i know that i rarley use mine so to me, the 1.8 might be a good choice because it will get the job done when i need it to. if you use this focal length alot, the 1.4 is the obvious choice. oh well, right now i am toying with the idea of actually selling the 50 and buying a 24-70L becuase i am a big zoom fan and i have seen amazing results with the 24-70 :)

[braduardo]

Is the 50 f/1.2 USM really worth the extra 200 bucks over the f/1.8?

Are the optics the same?
Is one just extremely awful?

I haven't tried the f1.4, but I LOVE my f1.8

I'm sure that Canon wouldn't go and make any lens that is "extremely awful".

If you don't know, go with the 1.8. You really can't go wrong with it. Sure, some people will say "get the best one right away", but for most of us that just isn't feasible. Not many people can just go buy a top quality camera, then outfit it with thousands of dollars worth of lenses right when they are getting started. You may find out that you don't even like the 50mm focal length. It's better to learn that lesson cheap, in my opinion.

What it really comes down to IMO, If you don't know that you need it, you probably don't need it. It may be nice to know that you are able to stop down just a little more, but you have to decide what that is worth to you.