EF 50 mm 1.8II or 1.4 USM?

[Rigby470]

You can't learn unless you ask questions, right?

At the risk of showing my ignorance, what is the difference between the50 mm f/1.8II and the 50mm f/1.4 USM? Is one better than the other? Which do you prefer?

And (placing my hands over my head to shield myself from rocks being thrown) what does "f" stand for? This is such a basic question, everything I have read so far assumes I already know this.

Keith

[tim]

The USM is higher quality in general, faster focusing, has more blades, and has a wider aperture. The advantage is you can have a shallower DOF, which is good for low light, and the bokeh will be better. Faster focusing is always handy, the 50 1.8 is great value, but it's a bit slow. Mine has to be sent off to be calibrated too, it front focuses.

[Mark_48]

Hello Keith,

First off if you've researched a bit, one big difference is the price, $75 0r $300.

The "f" preceding the /1.8 or 1.4 is the f stop of the lens in this case at it's most wide open aperature. The smaller the number means that more light is capable of passing through the lens and hence you can shoot in situations with less light available. Between 1.8 and 1.4 for most users the difference isn't significant. The USM on the 1.4 lens refers to the Ultrasonic Motor that is used for focusing. It's quiet and fast. The 1.8 lens uses what I believe Canon calls a Micromotor. A bit more operating noise and slightly slower. Not sure about optical quality of the two. I've read mixed reviews saying the 1.4 was a whole better and few that said they were about the same.

I own the 1.4 USM lens. I required a lens that could be used indoors with no flash and it had to be quiet. The 1.4 to my eyes, is tack sharp.

Alot of folks on this board seem to lean towards the 1.8 lens as it is a great value for the amount of money. On a Canon digital with the 1.6x lens factor, it becomes an 80mm lens which is good for portraiture.

Mark..........

[scottbergerphoto]

Mark said it well. The 1.8 is a great value for the money. If you have the extra cash, the 1.4 is built more solidly, is a little faster, and gives a nicer bokeh.

[gmen]

Just started using the 1.4 lens - it focuses that little bit faster and handles better than the 1.8 version.

I shot some boxing pics with it last night by way of example: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=67043

[Rigby470]

This is great stuff guys! Thanks for the info!

What is bokeh?

[MDJAK]

Bokeh is, basically, the blurring of the background and how it looks. It is a Japanese word, I believe. I did laugh a bit when you said you didn't know what F was and they then started throwing bokeh at you.

[JaertX]

You can't learn unless you ask questions, right?

At the risk of showing my ignorance, what is the difference between the50 mm f/1.8II and the 50mm f/1.4 USM? Is one better than the other? Which do you prefer?

And (placing my hands over my head to shield myself from rocks being thrown) what does "f" stand for? This is such a basic question, everything I have read so far assumes I already know this.

Keith

Keith -

If you have to ask the difference, go with the 1.8.

YOU WILL NOT REGRET IT!!!

There is only one stop difference in the two lenses. Sure the build quality can't compete with the 1.4 but the optics can! And, you'll have a great, reliable, little cheapo lens to keep in your bag someday when you can afford better glass.

The difference in image quality is very insignificant and certainly isn't worth the difference in price, except to maybe a well-seasoned amateur or pro.

That's the advice I was given and I don't regret getting the 1.8 a bit.

[Rigby470]

Thanks so much again for the advice and info guys! And thanks for taking it easy on me!

I appreciate the help.

Keith

[RJSorensen]

50mm 1.4 USM if you can swing it. Never go backward . . . unless you have too.

[Jesper]

There is only one stop difference in the two lenses. Sure the build quality can't compete with the 1.4 but the optics can! And, you'll have a great, reliable, little cheapo lens to keep in your bag someday when you can afford better glass.One stop? No, the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is even smaller, closer to a half stop (one stop up from f/1.4 is f/2.0).

One other difference between the f/1.4 USM and the f/1.8 is that the first one has a metal lens mount while the second has a plastic lens mount, which is less strong than metal. But that isn't really a problem unless you're handling your lens and camera very roughly.

[Todd Jacobsen]

You want action shots? You want USM (1.4). You taking portaits - 1.8 does well. You looking at LOW light, the lower (1.4), the better. You looking for lens longevity, buy the 1.4. You looking to save $230 buy the 1.8.

[byso]

I purchased a 1.8 last week and I think it's a great value for money lense.

But i'm only new to the SLR world.

[condyk]

Rigby470, you won't go far wrong getting the 1.8 as even if it's not to your liking the resale value is high, here in the UK at least, and often close to the original 'shopping around' best buy price. You can then buy the 1.4.

Also, always keep your boxes, instructions, etc. as it helps price to have them when you do sell.

[JaertX]

One stop? No, the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is even smaller, closer to a half stop (one stop up from f/1.4 is f/2.0).

1/2 stop. I stand corrected.:o