50mm f/1.4 vs. f/1.8

[Maxima]

I know the f/1.4 is way more expensive than the 1.8, however is it worth the extra funds?? I'm debating if I need to spend the extra money, it'll mostly be used for portait shots of kids indoors. Anyone have any shots w/ this lens they wanna share? Any comments/suggestions would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

[roanjohn]

I was happy with the 50 f1.8......until it broke in half when I dropped my camera bag (mind you, it wasn't even a big drop). So I decided to go with the better built f1.4 version.........and couldn't be happier.

I think in your situtation (kids and all), you are better off with the f1.4. It focuses faster due to its USM motor....and it'll give you more flexibility in low light situations due to its wide aperture.

This is one of those lenses that is just missing a red stripe to be an L.

Ro1

[Dante King]

maxima, if you search under my name in the people forum and "headshot" you can see my 1.8 a few pics. Great lens for 70 bucks plus shipping. Thi slens lives up to its name, "the fantastic plastic".

BTW, I have my new, well used 3 times 1.8 in the market place now for $60 Shipped in CONUS.

[markubig]

if you can afford the $300 bucks for the 1.4, then go ahead and do it. The advantage of the 1.4 is in build quality, aperture blades, and USM. they both create tack sharp pictures. So it's up to you to decide if that's 4X better than the 1.8, which is only $75. Personally, I didn't think so, which is why i sold my 1.4 and got a 1.8 and a lowepro computrekker. i didn't use the 50mm as much to justify keeping it around. I also don't shoot in rugged environments, so I don't worry about breaking my 1.8. Again, it's totally up to you to decide if it's worth the

[Citizensmith]

More light, better build, FTM, faster focusing, better bokeh. Thats a fiar few advantages for your money. Personally I'm thinking I may go for the 50 2.5, but the 1.4 sure is a nice lens.

[Dante King]

Why the 50 2.5?

[Citizensmith]

Why the 50 2.5?

For its macro ability. Its equal to the 100 just with somewhat less magnification and much less price. Optically its the best of the 50s, although it'll loose a bokeh competition to the 1.4. And of course you are back to AFD and such similar to the 1.8.

Basically I'm after a true macro (rather than a close-focusing lens) and this is about the cheapest good one out there. As I'm not yet sure how much I'd use it I'd rather not drop the money on the 100. I realise the 100 is good for other things but I already have an 85 1.8 which beats it hands down on potraits. So I'm back to the 50 2.5 which also fills a slight gap between my 17-40 and 70-200.

[Maureen Souza]

I LOVE my 50/1.4.... the pictures are so sharp. I am shooting my first weddings with my 20D this month...can't wait to see how they come out!

[tim]

I find 100mm too short for a lot of macro work, i'm tempted to get extension tubes, I don't think 50mm would cut it for me.

[Andy_T]

Take a look at this comparison (http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/). It was helpful for me.

I had the same dilemma.

I wanted the 50/1.4.
Advantages are
- it is better built
- it is a bit faster (1.4 vs. 1.8 )
- it is a bit sharper (at 1.8 it is already stopped down)
- it has better bokeh (visible difference, maybe important for portraits)
- it has slightly better colour and contrast (though I can't really see that)

However, the downside is that it is 4 times as expensive :confused:

Still, in the end I decided on the 50/1.8 because of the price.

I wanted to have a very good 50 mm lens for portrait (instead of a great one) and still have 200$ left to spend on other lenses.

In order to also have a solid lens, I went for a used 50/1.8 MKI that is cheap (more expensive than a new 50/1.8 MKII, normally $100-$150 on eBay) but has the metal lens mount.

When I have all my other lenses I lust for (mainly 70-200/2.8 L), then I will maybe upgrade my 50/1.8 to the 50/1.4. In the meantime I have to live with its (very few) shortcomings.

Best regards,
Andy

[DocFrankenstein]

50/1.8 is also soft in the corners of a full frame camera... if that matters at all for the user.

[cactusclay]

I've had all three, just sold the mk1 and got the 1.4 last week. The build quality is rather poor on all of them. I would have kept the Mk1, but I came up with another plan that didn't work out, so rather than be without a 50 I got the 1.4. I liked all of them,for image quality, but I don't think I've used the new one enough to say much just yet. It did seem like the MK1 had a little bit better color than the mk2, but it could be all in my head. I wouldn't buy the 1.4 for it's stellar build quality, because it isn't there, but I'm thinking 1.4 will come in handy one of these days.

[defordphoto]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=68146

Say's it all. 1.4 rocks. The 1.8 is what it is and it's a great little lens. I also still have one of those, but the 1.4 is about as sweet as it can get. The photo in that thread above is phenomenal!

[griff2]

Agreed. The 1.8 is sharp, but colour rendition is not in the same league as my L's; oh dear, I can see a 1.4 on the horizon..