F1.4 vs F1.8

[stevekwiz]

I'm a newbie and have a Digital Rebel. What is the difference between the F1.4 which would run me around $300 and the F1.8 (around $100) besides the obviously slighly faster lens? I have the 18-55 that comes with the Rebel. Under what circumstances would I want a fixed lens over the zoom with this camera?

PS I appreciate the fact that people who might have better things to do take the time to help people out on these forums.

[Andy_T]

Hi Steve,

welcome to the forum!

Allow me to introduce a most incredible feature of the forum to you ...the forum search! (The small button labeled 'search' on the top right page of the screen).

Please don't get me wrong ... this is an important and interesting issue. For that reason, it has been discussed by experts about a hundred times and makes for most interesting reading. If you just ask the question, you'll only get a small part of the information already available in the forum :)

There is also a quite useful link with test pictures available: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

Best regards
Andy

[msvadi]

it's easier to build a good quality prime lens than zoom. that's why primes give you better quality than zooms in the same price range, and they are cheaper than zooms of similar quality.

50mm f/1.4 has USM, better build quality and, I heard, is somewhat sharper at certain apertures. If you are not sure if you need 1.4 go with 1.8 . It's an excellent lens, and it's less than $70 at B&H.

By the way, I remember reading somewhere that Canon has 50mm f/1.0, but I don't see it in catalogues. Do they still make it?

[Belmondo]

By the way, I remember reading somewhere that Canon has 50mm f/1.0, but I don't see it in catalogues. Do they still make it?

It's out of production for a while. I picked one up in a trade recently and sold it for a hefty price. Good copies go in the $1500-$2000 price range. It is an amazing, heavy piece of glass, but pretty specialized.

You can read about it in the Canon museum: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_50_10l_usm.html

[kb244]

A Simple way to put it, is the 1.8 is a cost-effective way to get a "fast lens" Also from the article above, I guess goes to show the number of aperture blades certainly help in creating a smoother bokeh. But I have the 50mm 1.8, I mainly use it to get a shallow DOF shots, I also use it as my special FX lens, as 52mm filters are much cheaper to get than 72mm ( I also have a 28-135 USM IS , which has a 72mm thread ), so doing something like Infrared and such will be cheaper for me.

[scottbergerphoto]

The 1.4 is built better(metal mount vs. plastic), slightly faster, better bokeh due to the number of blades making up the aperture diaphragm. Both are about the same sharpness. I have a couple of focus tests of the 1.4 at the link below.
Scott

[kb244]

I just posted this thread in the photo sharing section, of shots using my 50mm 1.8

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30783

and yes the above is correct, the 1.8 is more cheaply made, but even then it makes it just harder to get, because I had to be on a waiting list for a few weeks before I managed to get ahold of my lens. But you really cant argue spending less than 100$ for situations where you need it (ie: low light, etc).