Why some sell Canon 50.4 and keep the 50.8?

[dickson918]

I have seen it multiple times, is Canon 50.4 really that bad?

[ljason8eg]

I didn't have any luck with mine. Awful AF performance mainly, even when Canon calibrated it many times, and even replaced it with a new copy. All other lenses I've ever tried have worked fine, maybe needed a little MFA here and there, but the 50 1.4's I had were completely inconsistent and just terrible. Of course, even if your copy happens to focus correctly, the focus motor is still low quality and prone to jam or break.

It seems like a good lens if you can score a copy that focuses spot on every time, but I was not that lucky. After getting the lens replaced for a second time, I sold it BNiB and got the Sigma 30 instead, which works fine.

[kin2son]

i used to have one. Terrible/nervous bokeh, not particularly sharp and like ljason8eg has mentioned, shocking build.

I sold mine before it dies on me and got the Sigma 50. Best decision ever made.

[Saxi]

Originally Posted by dickson918

I have seen it multiple times, is Canon 50.4 really that bad?

I had nothing but problems with mine, sent it to Canon twice with no luck. Ended up getting an 85mm f/1.8 which I was happy with and since swapped it for a 135mm f/2 which I love.

[macroimage]

My 50/1.8 II has worked reliably since I got it in 2006. My EF 50/1.4 USM had its focus motor fail which costed considerably more than the price of a 50/1.8 II to repair.

[dickson918]

I'm glad I asked first, I'll probably stick with my 50.8 for now, save up for Sigma 50.4 I suppose.

[Hippari]

I had a 50 1.8 II for a year or two and it was fine, but the couple days I spent with canons 50 1.4 put it to shame. The 1.4 chromabs like a madman, but it still put out pretty pictures. Its AF felt much better and faster than the 1.8 as well.

Of course I have neither right now, but I wouldn't think twice about paying the difference of the 1.4 over the 1.8. Actually, I might try a sigma out first to be honest.

[Jason Paul]

Well, the 1.4 is quieter isn't it? That has to count for something.

Jason

[rang]

Bang for buck the 1.4 is good deal with faster AF (doesn't hunt in low light like the 1.8) But the best reason for the 1.4 for me was the 1.4 gives you round specular light sources in the bokeh in the background while the 1.8...they look like stop signs.

However, while the 1.8 is light and cheap and some folks bang on it because of it's build...I watched another shooter drop it from his bag to the concrete...lucky...no glass broke but it looked like a blow apart diagram. So he just put it back together and after awhile got it working. Actually shot with it for the rest of the shoot. And 3 years later...it still works.

Not sure if that's a testament to Canon durability but I don't think you can drop any other lens and do that.

[k-lo]

I've had both. The 50 1.4 version is definitely better.

[Charlie]

the 50 1.8 AF is more reliable than the 50 1.4 AF.

[binliner]

I've had both, I had no complaints about the 1.8 optically but the AF constantly hunting used to drive me nuts... I say used to because it's in several pieces now!

I replaced it with the 1.4 which, although I seem to be in the minority, I've found to be better in every way than the 1.8

[ettlz]

Having had both, my 50/1.4 has the image quality advantage over the 50/1.8 until stopped down to around f/3.2, and this is only under really severe pixel-peeping. Out-of-focus highlights are a nicer shape on the 50/1.4, too. I got the 50/1.4 as it had more accurate AF than the 50/1.8 (which I sold on); its AF mechanism is now failing, but with the help of Live View it's still a very good manual focus lens on the 60D. (Cost of repair is more than a new 50/1.8, around 1/3 of what I paid for the 50/1.4 in the first place.)

Might try a 35/something or the 85/1.8 later, though (don't have much need for a fast prime at the moment).

[Charlie]

Originally Posted by ettlz

Having had both, my 50/1.4 has the image quality advantage over the 50/1.8 until stopped down to around f/3.2, and this is only under really severe pixel-peeping. Out-of-focus highlights are a nicer shape on the 50/1.4, too. I got the 50/1.4 as it had more accurate AF than the 50/1.8 (which I sold on); its AF mechanism is now failing, but with the help of Live View it's still a very good manual focus lens on the 60D. (Cost of repair is more than a new 50/1.8, around 1/3 of what I paid for the 50/1.4 in the first place.)

Might try a 35/something or the 85/1.8 later, though (don't have much need for a fast prime at the moment).

same thing happened to me, that's why I kept the 1.8 around. I'll be traveling with the 1.8.

[amfoto1]

Actually, I have only very rarely seen reference to people "downgrading" from 50/1.4 to 50/1.8... I can only see doing that if it's a focal length one very seldom uses, I'd wear out a 50/1.8 within a year I imagine, it's so lightly built (OTOH, my 50/1.4 was bought used 8 years ago and is still working just fine).

In fact, I think I've seen more "my 50/1.8 broke in half while I was shooting" posts, than people downgrading to it from the 50/1.4.

On the whole, the 50/1.4 has faster, more accurate, more consistent and quieter AF that hunts less (but still does a little, depending upon the situation). It's also got some subtly better image qualities (less flare, better contrast, better color saturation, nicer bokeh).

Try to Micro Adjust a 50/1.8 sometime. It's practically impossible, the AF is so inconsistent. If you normally stop the lens down to a middle aperture, you won't notice the AF inaccuracy and inconsistency. But if you shoot large aperture a lot, shallow DOF, it will can and will show up in your images.

For the money, the f1.8 is a great little lens... I'm not trying to put it down here. For the money, as the cheapest lens in the Canon line, it takes better images than one might expect. It's a great introduction to shooting with primes and a good little portrait lens for someone who only needs it occasionally.

Both lenses are a little soft wide open, though images are usually usable, if necessary. Both sharpen up nicely when stopped down slightly.

The 50/1.4 is way overdue for an update and improvements (are you listening, Canon?). But it's still more durable, dependable, better performing than the 50/1.8. It's got a focus scale. It can be fitted with a lens hood without an adapter. It's actually got a usable manual focus ring. It's hybrid USM is close to the performance of true "ring type" USM lenses.

Is the f1.4 worth 3X the cost of the f1.8? Depends upon the user. For me it was (and 4X the cost of the f1.4 for the f1.2L isn't worth it). For you it might or might not be.

Until Canon gets around to updating the 50/1.4 (ahem), it's best to take some easy precautions while using it. Always use it with the matched lens hood... It protects the front of the barrel when shooting, and reversed for storage it protects the focus ring while in your camera bag. Don't manually override the AF... even though Canon calls it a USM lens and says it can do Full Time Manual, a lot of folks think that makes the AF system wear more rapidly. Finally, for storage set the lens to infinity to retract the barrel as much as possible (actually a good idea with any lens, and a practical one to make the lens take up as little room as possible in the camera bag). These are no big deal, might be the reason I've gotten many years of problem free use out of my 50/1.4.

If you need 50mm focal length, well that's what you need and 35mm or 85mm won't do. If the 50/1.4's AF scares you, maybe try the Sigma 50/1.4 instead (though it has only been around 4 or 5 years, so we can't really say whether or not it will be as durable as the 50/1.4, which has a 20+ year history). The problem with the Sigma, it often needs focus recaliration right from the factory... And it's a lot bigger and heavier. OTOH, it's sharper wide open than either of the Canon, and some like its bokeh better (9-blade aperture, compared to 8-blade in the Canon f1.4 and 5-blade in the f1.8).