Just traded up... 50mm 1.8 to 1.4 - pics

[Adam Hicks]

So I'm going to be shooting some weddings and the noisy 50mm 1.8 (while a great value) just isn't going to cut it. The new 1.4 is so nice! Bought the hood for it as well. Very fast, very quiet and the bokeh really is quite a bit better than the 1.8 even though it doesn't seem like it would be THAT much of a difference.

Here's a quick shot I took or my kiddo and did a simple resize.. otherwise straight from the camera. Then a 100% crop of the eye with NO USM or artificial sharpening.

Love it so far!
Adam

http://www.golilm.com/images/RileyandAidan/riley_sitting_by_window_small.jpg

and the crop..
http://www.golilm.com/images/RileyandAidan/riley_sitting_by_window_eye_crop_100%25.jpg

[defordphoto]

Sweet shot. I also just snagged the 1.4 and it's worlds above the 1.8 in build quality. However, it's the bokeh where the 1.4 shines. In a bokeh contest, probably the only lens that might beat the 50 f/1.4 is maybe the 85 1.8. Butter-city for sure. Melted-butter. :)

Sharpness wise I think they're probably pretty close, but I don't do clinical tests on my equipment. All I know is that I am thrilled with the 1.4 and the 1.8 will never mount the MKII again. ;)

Yer blessed. That's one beautiful child. Excellent photo. Frame that puppy.

[Adam Hicks]

Thanks RFM :) I respect and appreciate your opinions. As far as bokeh goes, we can't forget the 200mm 1.8. Every shot I took with the thing was followed by an audible 'RIDICULOUS.' I didn't know what else to say!

I shot the Nascar races today at Texas Motor Speedway and will be doing the same tomorrow. Not necessarily my kind of racing, but the excitement is still there and the energy from tens of thousands of fans is pretty neat. Even spent some time with Richard Petty and Dale Earnhart Jr. Got some great shots of those guys, just don't know what to do with them!

Anyways, I digress. Hope all's well!

Adam

[defordphoto]

It's definitely on the top-5 bokeh lenses for sure. Heck yeah, I'd shoot NASCAR if I was at a race. They're trying to build a track here in the NW so I'll probably shot them then. However, I'd love to shoot them at Sears Point!

[Dante King]

OHhh Sears point is in my back yard!

[TTP]

Very Nice!!
That one deserves a 16x20 print!

[Adam Hicks]

Well I can do 13x19 at home :) Maybe I'll start there...

[cactusclay]

Beautiful shot. I just sold my 1.8 and was going to make do with a 24-70, for my 50 range, but couldn't find a sharp copy, so after trying 3 different 1.4's I found one that was pretty sharp at 1.4 and bought it yesterday. It does have some beautiful bokeh. Congrats.

[Chazs]

.........Melted-butter. :)

That's exactly what I thought. I've had my 1.4 for 2 days, and I can only say the bokeh is "buttery". Three months ago I didn't know bokeh from budda. But, now..... sweet lens. Well worth every penny over the 1.8!

[George Chew]

Greetings,
Its seems that most of you out that are getting great results from the 50mm f1.4 lens. I'm currently using 85mm f1.8 for most of my portraits. I finally jump into DSLR and now find that the 85mm is too long now due to 1.6x factor. I'm looking into a few options, 50mm f1.4, 50mm f1.8, 50mm f2.5 macro, and ef-s 60mm f2.5 macro. Seeing all postings from various forums and reviews, seems like 50mm f1.4 is the lens to go...

George Chew

[Dante King]

Well, I am almost ready to offer my 50mm 1.8 up for sale and go for the 50mm 1.4. The usm is the thing I think I miss most. hard to knock the price tag on the 50mm 1.8 however.

George, I LOVE my 85 1.8. Oh welcome to the forums!!

[gmen]

The 50mm f/1.4 is a beauty of a lens - as is the already legendary 85mm f/1.8.

I've just shot some boxing with the 50mm - http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/boxing/ - the perfect focal length and aperture for a tricky low light situation.

I've also been using the 85mm wide open for speedway of all things http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=67974! A bit of a change from its usual basketball haunts.

Congrats on your purchase Adam.

[2goldens]

B&H has that 50mm 1.4 lens for 309.95 and I think I saw a $15.00 rebate with it. If I saw it correctly I am ordering that lens today. OOO shipping is only around $9.00 for 3 business days.

[Hellashot]

What parameters were you shooting? The "straight from the camera" thing should never really be said. Because unless you're shooting RAW, your camera is doing something to the image before it is recorded, so it's all relative to the camera settings. The image looks fine but it could use sharpening.

[Adam Hicks]

I disagree with you on the 'straight from the camera thing.' It WAS straight from the camera, regardless of what the camera did first. It could have inverted the image, resized it to 5000x8000 and cropped it 50%. Doesn't change the fact that I did no further modifications, thus it was straight from the camera.

On the 'could use some sharpening' comment, I don't do a lot of sharpening to portraits. USM doesn't always belong on people's faces.

Adam

[defordphoto]

I agree. Sharpening that photo would ruin it.

[Cadwell]

The level of sharpness on that portrait shot (nice shot BTW) looks about right to me. The 50mm f/1.4 is a lovely lens. Congratulations on getting it.

[Adam Hicks]

Thanks again RFM and Cadwell... your experienced opinions are always appreciated!

Adam (who has 1,100 shots to sort through after this weekend's race...)

[bauerman]

For all those that think the 1.4 is "bullet proof" - there are a lot of reviews and user opinions of that lens that speak of fairly considerable barrell distortion - more than the 1.8 for sure.

[defordphoto]

The Internet is a bucketload of opinions. The photos are the proof. Hands down.

[mr.photoguy]

Lovely sharpness there. I am highly considering to off my 50.18, for either a off camera flash cord, or a 85 1.8...

[bauerman]

RFM,

Some of the "opinions" that I metion had photos attached that showed consistently more barell distortion in photos made with the 1.4 versus the 1.8. Now there were tons of advantages too - but I just wanted to point out that the 1.4 had it's own set of shortcomings.

[tim]

If you guys could buy one low light lens, mainly fortheatre and weddings, would you get the 85mm F1.8 or the 50mm F1.4? I'm wondering how useful the F1.4 will be, the DOF would be very very narrow and perhaps not usable very often. The price is the same, and because the focal lengths are so close I don't want to buy both right now.

[LadyHawk]

Yer blessed. That's one beautiful child. Excellent photo. Frame that puppy.

Ditto...

[Adam Hicks]

The 85 on a 1.6x body was a bit too long for many of the things I needed. The 50mm is more versatile, but they're both incredible lenses. The DoF is actually very nice on the 1.4 when you need it. I recently shot the AMA Supercross series which was an indoor dirt race, and the 50mm 1.4 was perfect. the 85 would have been too long.

I guess it depends on what you're doing. You can't lose either way.

[tim]

Well the 85mm lens is out of stock at B&H whereas the 50mm isn't so that pretty much makes the choice for me! I've read the USM on the 1.4 is older, slower, and noisier, but I guess it's a lot better than the 50mm F1.8 anyway?

[Adam Hicks]

Oh and Thank You Ladyhawk :)

[Adam Hicks]

Noisier? It's pretty much silent. I can't imagine the 85mm being any quieter... but I'll leave that for someone who has both. You'll be VERY pleased with the 50 1.4. It's an awesome lens. I bought the lens hood for it as well which I recommend. For most shooting it'll be better than a UV/Haze and you won't have to worry about ghosting / reflections from the filter. It's a very fast lens as well... as fast as anything I've used from Canon. (But I haven't used the 300mm 2.8 IS... I'll bet it's faster :) )

Adam

[Pb2Au]

RFM,

Some of the "opinions" that I metion had photos attached that showed consistently more barell distortion in photos made with the 1.4 versus the 1.8. Now there were tons of advantages too - but I just wanted to point out that the 1.4 had it's own set of shortcomings.
I just read through the first 3 pages of reviews at FredMiranda and nobody mentions any barrel distortion. It's rated a "9" and recommended by 99% of the 80+ reviewers.

I'd like to read up on any distortion problems. Have a link or two handy?

(PS I love this lens too.. I'm waiting for my 85mm f1.8, which ships tomorrow!)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=29&cpage=3&perpage=15&cat=2#poststart

[tim]

I don't know if i'll bother with a uv filter for the 1.4... not sure. I know my Tamron front element has a few spots on it that I can't get off, but they don't affect the picture. Now the 70-200 2.8 IS - that sucker's gona get a filter! No way do I want to replace the front element of that behemoth!

[cmM]

Adam, for weddings it's awesome, and that extra stop will come in handy ;)

[Todd Jacobsen]

Noisier? It's pretty much silent. I can't imagine the 85mm being any quieter... but I'll leave that for someone who has both. You'll be VERY pleased with the 50 1.4. It's an awesome lens. I bought the lens hood for it as well which I recommend. For most shooting it'll be better than a UV/Haze and you won't have to worry about ghosting / reflections from the filter. It's a very fast lens as well... as fast as anything I've used from Canon. (But I haven't used the 300mm 2.8 IS... I'll bet it's faster :) )

Adam

Both the 85 f1.8 and 50 f1.4 are very quiet and match my L lenses in motor noise.

[Jon Foster]

It took me a couple of weeks to decide between the 50mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.8. In the end I bought the 1.4 and have loved every shot it's taken. Everything about it makes it worth the extra cost over the 1.8...

Jon.

[bauerman]

I just read through the first 3 pages of reviews at FredMiranda and nobody mentions any barrel distortion. It's rated a "9" and recommended by 99% of the 80+ reviewers.

I'd like to read up on any distortion problems. Have a link or two handy?

(PS I love this lens too.. I'm waiting for my 85mm f1.8, which ships tomorrow!)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=29&cpage=3&perpage=15&cat=2#poststart

Pb2Au,

Here is one of the links that talks about the barrell distortion on the 1.4:

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

I will try to find the other one and post as well.

[Adam Hicks]

I don't know how scientific his tests are, but if you finish the article, he notes that EVERYTHING else is leaps and bounds above the 1.8... bokeh, color saturation, light falloff, etc.

Or would you just feel better if we said that the slight barrel distortion renders the lens unusable, and we should go get 1.8's instead?

We aim to please.

[Tom W]

Pb2Au,

Here is one of the links that talks about the barrell distortion on the 1.4:

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

I will try to find the other one and post as well.

Actually, they both have slight barrel distortion, based on the images. Neither is excessive, and the amount on the 1.4 isn't much more than on the 1.8. Hard to tell with uncalibrated bricks ( :) ).

Realistically, no lens is perfect. Both of these lenses are very good, but the 50/1.4 has some tangeable advantages over it's inexpensive, but sharp little brother. Whether those advantages are important enough for you to shell out the extra money is a personal decision that ought to be made based on your own needs or desires.

[Andy_T]

Well,

I had also seen that review and thought 'It's a good thing that I seldom take portraits of brick walls :wink:'

Best regards,
Andy

[bauerman]

Andy,

Just thought I would throw it out there - did not mean it to be the gospel on the 1.4 . Just trying to point out that I doubt that the perfect lens exists.....and that the 1.8 , for what it costs, is worth every red cent.

[Tom W]

....and that the 1.8 , for what it costs, is worth every red cent.

And on that, I can agree. It is the most lens you can get for anywhere near its price. It's sharp, capable of low-light, and inexpensive. Everyone should have one, or at least use one for a while.

[tim]

And on that, I can agree. It is the most lens you can get for anywhere near its price. It's sharp, capable of low-light, and inexpensive. Everyone should have one, or at least use one for a while.

It's sharp when you manage to get it to focus correctly, which mine and a few other peoples doesn't do well. I'd be interested to see the results of a few people doing this test on their 50 1.8's and maybe 50 1.4s too.

http://md.co.za/d70/chart.html

[Tom W]

Test methodology is important. I believe that Pekka found or developed a test setup where the object of focus is completely independent of the ruler scale. That is what you want to test AF accuracy.

Did this about a year ago with my 10D and the 50/1.4 at f/1.4. Can't remember all the details, but I was satisfied that the focus was centered around the "0" mark:

http://phototom.fotopic.net/p4420551.html

[tim]

Nice, thanks Tom.

[bauerman]

My 1.8 has always focused fast and accurately. I use a Digital Rebel. Maybe QC on these lenses is not as good as it should be.

[tim]

I'd never call the 1.8 fast. Any chance you could have a go at a focus test Bauerman? This one (http://md.co.za/d70/chart.html) looks good.

Nice pics of yellowstone by the way :)

[bauerman]

Thanks for the comment Tim - appreciate that. I downloaded the focus test that you gave me the link for and I will read through it tonight - try to post the results that I get tomorrow sometime....

[IainB]

Fabulous shot, Adam. Could I humbly ask you to take a moment of your time and explain how you took that shot? Tripod? Lighting? exposure data? It's a gem, and I'm keen to reach that standard.
IainB

[london]

The hardest thing about the 50mm f/1.4, I find, is focusing at full aperature. The depth of field is so shallow that even the slightest movement after focusing, on the part of either me or my subject, will throw the image out of focus.

As has often been noted, the focus is also quite soft at f/1.4. Too soft, some might say. I'm not sure. Here, for example, is a shot of mine that is borderline: http://www.pbase.com/scottlondon/image/40411980. Fine for family portraiture, but probably not for commercial work.

I've found Scott Berger's test gallery very useful. View it at http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/50mm_f_14__focus_test

Scott.

[drisley]

London, I think that your pictures is amazing! Especially for F1.4.
Also, Adam's first picture is at F1.4, and I find that more than acceptable too.
As far as the barrel distortion goes, I looked at the comparison images on the link provided, and my eyes tell me that the 1.8 has more barrel distortion than the 1.4.
I've been contemplating the jump to the 1.4, mainly for the USM.

Here (http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Reviews/g_Fifty_versus_fifty/a_Fifties_duel_--_f1.4_vs_f1.8.html) is another good comparison of the lenses.
.

[Olegis]

Excellent lens and a beautiful kid you have there, Adam ! A great portrait also, I love the expression. RFM is right - you should frame it.