50mm 1.8 II vs 50mm 1.4 usm

[dennykyser]

Has anyone compared these two lenses? I was wondering if there is justifiable photo quality between these lenses. I was wondering what is the major diff. between them besided the 1.4 being usm and faster?

[drisley]

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

[Tom Camilleri]

Has anyone compared these two lenses? I was wondering if there is justifiable photo quality between these lenses. I was wondering what is the major diff. between them besided the 1.4 being usm and faster?


I'm also wondering if the EF 50mm F/1.8 MK I produces any better pictures than the current plastic MK II. The going eBay price for the original metal MK I is twice a smuch as the cost of a new MK II. Is it worth it?

[cosworth]

no. it just looks good in your sig.

[cmM]

I'm also wondering if the EF 50mm F/1.8 MK I produces any better pictures than the current plastic MK II. The going eBay price for the original metal MK I is twice a smuch as the cost of a new MK II. Is it worth it?

it has a metal mount.

[grego]

The 1.4 is like way better, but then you do pay for the quality. It's still one of the best values there. It is like an L lens without the L. The 85 1.8 is another one of those lens that just lacks the L in its title. For around 650, you can have both lens.

[m3elmo]

to me yes the 1.4 is better than the 1.8 try to do a search for "50mm" and you'll find lots of info. It's faster, better built, quality is better (to me). and the background blur is noticeably better as well.

[GeneMan88]

I own a 50mm f1.8 MkI (that I bought used), and I've borrowed a 50mm f1.4 before. There is a difference... the bokeh is even "creamier" with the f1.4, and USM is so much better and less distracting. But to me, it isn't worth the higher cost for the f1.4 as of now. I admit, the MkI is noisy and doesn't take a photo that's too much better than the MkII, but I preferred the metal mount, the better placed manual focus ring, and the distance scale window.

[grego]

to me yes the 1.4 is better than the 1.8 try to do a search for "50mm" and you'll find lots of info. It's faster, better built, quality is better (to me). and the background blur is noticeably better as well.

Any anyone else who has held or use one.

The 1.8 is only good, if you are on a budget or starting out. Or want to test yourself with primes. Basically anything that deals with entry level.

I own a 50mm f1.8 MkI (that I bought used), and I've borrowed a 50mm f1.4 before. There is a difference... the bokeh is even "creamier" with the f1.4, and USM is so much better and less distracting. But to me, it isn't worth the higher cost for the f1.4 as of now. I admit, the MkI is noisy and doesn't take a photo that's too much better than the MkII, but I preferred the metal mount, the better placed manual focus ring, and the distance scale window.

You have the MKI though. The MKII is built cheaper.

For 300 US dollars you can get the 1.4. I think its a great value, unless you use it like once every couple months.

[GeneMan88]

Yeah, this was the prime lens that got me to do more "available light" photography. I think the 50mm MkI is fun to shoot with... great in low light conditions. I've gotten many more keepers with this lens than my Tamron 28-75 at f2.8 in low lighting/no flash situations... it's amazing how much more light you get with f1.8 vs.2.8 . And I love my 85mm f1.8 but it's just too long at times... the 50mm seems to be just right. I might try a 24mm/28mm when I save up enough for one.

[grego]

Yeah, this was the prime lens that got me to do more "available light" photography. I think the 50mm MkI is fun to shoot with... great in low light conditions. I've gotten many more keepers with this lens than my Tamron 28-75 at f2.8 in low lighting/no flash situations... it's amazing how much more light you get with f1.8 vs.2.8 . And I love my 85mm f1.8 but it's just too long at times... the 50mm seems to be just right. I might try a 24mm/28mm when I save up enough for one.

Ho wabout that 35 1.4L...Wow, I'm bad.....trying to make you spend so much. :p

[cactusclay]

I've owned all three and I think they are all very good, all rate above 4 at Photodo, which says something. The 1.4 has more blades on the aperature, so, like has already been said it has smoother bokeh. I think if you don't use a 50 much the cheaper ones are all you need, but if you do use it for portraits all the time on a 1.6 crop camera, then it's worth the extra dough, for the 1.4. IMHO.

[SnowSpyder86]

I just received my 50 1.8 in the mail today, and all i can say is SHARP!! For the money, ya can't beat it, honestly. If your on a budget(like me), get the 50 1.8, if ya have a little extra cash to spend, ofcourse get the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8, you would be stupid not to.

[guitarman]

to me yes the 1.4 is better than the 1.8 try to do a search for "50mm" and you'll find lots of info. It's faster, better built, quality is better (to me). and the background blur is noticeably better as well.

I would think it would be the 1.4 having 8 blades as apposed to the 1.8s 5 blades. I will find out tommorrow when I pick mine up.

[superstar]

My 1.8 took great pictures until it broke after 4 months of owning. The plastic mounts on the inside all broke and Canon would not warranty it.

I am getting the 1.4 as a replacement.

Rich

[genewch]

If the 50 f1.4 is a real bargain, then the 50 f1.8 is a super great bargain. Both produce sharp and lovely pics. I don't think the 50 f1.8 has a poor build, but you have to be used to its thin focusing ring.

Well, can any users tell me how much the f1.4 focuses faster than the f1.8? If the f1.4's speed is 10, then what is f1.8's? 7 or 8 marks?