nifty fifty 1.8 & 1.4

[EOS mE]

sorry for the noob question.. but why the big price difference? i see the f1.8 at around $88 or so and the 1.4 at $300 or so? how come?

[Col_M]

There's a number of things,

USM + FTM focus
better build
wider aperture means physically more glass

possibly more but my mind is fuzzy atm, i have the 1.4 and am VERY impressed with it, if you can stretch for the extra i'd say go for it :)

[ChopstickHero]

lots of comparisons on the web. google it.

but quickly:

1.8
- plastic body
- plastic mount
- 5 elements
- noisy/buzzy af

1.4
- slightly better build
- metal mount
- 8 elements
- USM / better AF
- distance window

from the reviews i have read and photos i have looked at, they are both sharp and good quality when slightly stopped down. however, b/c the 1.4 has more elements in it, it creates a better bokeh (background blur) which is smoother and more pleasing. My 50mm 1.4 is in the mail. :)

[4x4rock]

Image quality wise, I found them pretty close and as everyone said, the bokeh from the 1.4 is nicer. The build is better and focus is faster.

The 1.8 will give you great pictures as well.

[joayne]

Both can take good pictures...1.8 is sloooow to focus and the new ones are plastic. See the Nifty thread in my sig to see some Great 1.8 (Nifty Fifty) photos. I have both, but my 1.8 is a metal mount and about 30 years old. Still takes decent photos, but I love my 1.4. Quiet smooth, quick to focus, and a beautiful bokeh..

[Col_M]

my 1.8 is a metal mount and about 30 years old.
We've only had the EF mount since '87 ;) unless it's a FD mount in which case i stand corrected :)

[cdifoto]

lots of comparisons on the web. google it.

but quickly:

1.8
- plastic body
- plastic mount
- 5 elements
- noisy/buzzy af

1.4
- slightly better build
- metal mount
- 8 elements
- USM / better AF
- distance window

from the reviews i have read and photos i have looked at, they are both sharp and good quality when slightly stopped down. however, b/c the 1.4 has more elements in it, it creates a better bokeh (background blur) which is smoother and more pleasing. My 50mm 1.4 is in the mail. :)

Actually that's because the 1.4 has more aperture blades.

[EOS mE]

man... i knew there was a difference.. and the part that sold me is the thread on nifty fifty... i love all those creamy bokeh...

looks like f1.4 will be mine...... it's just too yummy. plus i just don't like plastic lens.. it just doesn't feel right.

[Hellashot]

You get what you pay for in a $60 lens. My 50 f1.4 is just about what people call "L" image quality.

[ChopstickHero]

Actually that's because the 1.4 has more aperture blades.

sorry, that's what i meant.. hehe :)

[cdifoto]

sorry, that's what i meant.. hehe :)

I thought you were referring to glass elements. However, since you weren't, then you are absolutely correct! :) :p

[ChopstickHero]

I thought you were referring to glass elements. However, since you weren't, then you are absolutely correct! :) :p

yay for me!

[EOS mE]

yup.. so for sure the 50mm f1.4 is just want i need for doing some wedding portrait works.

[Tee Why]

It's partly b/c of difference in optics and material/build quality difference and partly marketing. The f1.8 is for the entry market and the f1.4 is for the mid level market, and the new f1.2L is for professional/serious amateur market.

Personally, I think the f1.8 version offers the most bang for the bucks, unless you are a working pro or use the 50mm lens on a very frequent basis, or just want a more expensive toy.

[EOS mE]

i'm not a working pro yet, but i'm hoping to. i've thought about getting the 1.8 before.. but i know i'll be wondering how te 1.4 will be. i'll be using the 1.4 quite often, so i think it will be a good investment for me. as for the 1.2... no way.. even if i have the dough.. i wouldn't get it. i'm saving my other dough on the 70-200mm IS USM.

[JaGWiRE]

The 1.4 seems to use a 58mm filter size vs the 52mm on the 1.8. That I guess has me sold already, because I already have the kit lens, and a sigma 70-300 APO lens on the way. I am a sucker for bokeh too, and the fact that I can now use my UV and Polarizer filter on the 1.4 whenever I get it is just too pleasing.

BTW, has there been any problems with non sharp copies, or should I just go ahead and buy the first copy I find for sale for a good price?

[joayne]

We've only had the EF mount since '87 ;) unless it's a FD mount in which case i stand corrected :)

You are right, mine was built around the time of the Los Angeles, CA Olympics.....even has the Olympic circles lens cap with it.....so Ok 24 years...;)

[cdifoto]

You are right, mine was built around the time of the Los Angeles, CA Olympics.....even has the Olympic circles lens cap with it.....so Ok 24 years...;)


Last time I checked this is still 2006. EF coming out in 1987 means 2006-1987=19 years.

[ChromeLibrarian]

I looked very closely at the 1.8 vs. the 1.4 when I decided to buy a 50mm lens. I chose the f1.8 because I am a casual amateur, and I just couldn't justify the huge jump in price for the f1.4. I've never regretted it.

[sWampy]

I think the 1.8 is what to get, you can get them new for $75 shipped, and if you figure out 6 months from now, you would rather have the 1.4 or a 85 1.8 you can get $65 or so out of the 1.8 and end up only loosing $10. If you buy the 1.4, and figure out you never use it, or would rather have the 1.8, you will most likely loose $50 or so on the trade.

[ChopstickHero]

I think the 1.8 is what to get, you can get them new for $75 shipped, and if you figure out 6 months from now, you would rather have the 1.4 or a 85 1.8 you can get $65 or so out of the 1.8 and end up only loosing $10. If you buy the 1.4, and figure out you never use it, or would rather have the 1.8, you will most likely loose $50 or so on the trade.

unless you buy it used for a decent price, and you can later resell it at the same price. :)