LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


My 50 1.8 is better than 50 1.4 ????

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 14 May 2012 (Monday) 07:43   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
watson76
Member
Joined Jan 2012
55 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

This is strange, this is the 2nd 50 1.4 I have owned. The first one I bought as an upgrade to my 50 1.8 II over a year ago, but found that images didn't have the contrast and detail that my 50 1.8 had so I sent the 50 1.4 back to Amazon.

Recently thinking that maybe it was user error or a bad copy, I purchased the 50 1.4 again. Same results. With both lenses set @ 1.8, the 50 Mark II delivers a better image (fine detail like the lashes of the eyes are crisp, colors seem to pop), the 50 1.4 is a bit softer (marginally so) and contrast is a bit flatter (again it's marginal). Has anyone else experienced this ? I really want to love the 1.4: Focusing is faster, the build is nice, and of course it's 1.4.

I also have noticed that the 50 1.4 produces brighter images than the 50 1.8. At the exact same aperture and shutter, the 50 1.4 image is about a 3rd stop brighter. Strange ?

Maybe I just need to give the lens more time, anyone else experience this ?

Post #1, May 14, 2012 07:43:14




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
44,429 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

the 50 1.8 is a great value in the canon lens lineup. mine was great until it (literally) fell apart.

Post #2, May 14, 2012 08:49:44




LOG IN TO REPLY
Elvin
Senior Member
Joined Jul 2010
203 posts
New Yor[HK]
[MORE/SHARE]

Unless you need the slightly wider aperture, FTM and faster focusing, the 50mm f/1.8 II is better in image quality in my opinion. FWIW, both lenses need to be stopped down for sharp results.

Post #3, May 14, 2012 09:20:47


Canon Camera
Canon Lenses
Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Siaon
Member
Siaon's Avatar
Joined Jun 2011
34 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

My 50 1.8 is so awesome.

IMO, all 3 have fairly similar IQ.

Post #4, May 14, 2012 09:23:01


Canon 5D Mark II | Canon 24-105 f/4 L | Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS | Canon 50mm F1.8 II | YN-467 |
|| flickrexternal link ||

LOG IN TO REPLY
watson76
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Joined Jan 2012
55 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

rick_reno wrote in post #14428981external link
the 50 1.8 is a great value in the canon lens lineup. mine was great until it (literally) fell apart.

I read on photozone that the 50 1.4 has low contast until 2.8, so maybe that's what I am seeing. A Digital Picture also states that the 50 1.4 lens has low contrast due until f2. So I guess what I am faced with is better wide-open performance on the 1.8 vs faster focusing and aperture on the 50 1.4

Post #5, May 14, 2012 09:26:14




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
contributor_M
Senior Member
Joined Nov 2010
337 posts
Austin
[MORE/SHARE]

going lens shopping today.

I'm either going to upgrade my 50 1.8 to the 50 1.4 or buy a 28mm f/1.8 or 35 f/2.

Decisions, decisions.

Post #6, May 14, 2012 11:03:23


Adrian
Gear | Flickrexternal link | 500pxexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
BrickR
Cream of the Crop
Joined Mar 2011
5,394 posts
Dallas TX
[MORE/SHARE]

50 1.8's biggest knock has always been the build quality. The glass itself is really nice.

Post #7, May 14, 2012 15:23:38


My junk
The grass isn't greener on the other side, it's green where you water it.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike ­ Deep
Goldmember
Mike Deep's Avatar
Joined Apr 2008
1,666 posts
Tampa, FL
[MORE/SHARE]

Generally speaking, slower lenses tend to perform better than faster lenses (This is not always true, so don't read too much into it). Ultra-fast lenses are a compromise, as are most things in photography.

Consider also that the 50/1.4's optics date back to at least 1968, while the 50/1.8's optics were designed in the late 1980s.

Post #8, May 14, 2012 15:45:22


www.mikedeep.comexternal link | SportsShooterexternal link
[ 1D Mk III | 1D Mk II | 40D | 30D ] [ 50/1.8 Mk I | Sigma 8-16 | Sigma 24-60 | 70-200/2.8L | 100-400L ] [ Rokinon 14/2.8 | Zuiko 24/2.8 | Pentax 50/1.4 | Vivitar S1 90/2.5 | Tamron 300/2.8 ] [ Arca-Swiss B1 | GT1541T | 700DX | Tiltall 4602 ]

LOG IN TO REPLY
macvisual
Goldmember
macvisual's Avatar
Joined Dec 2011
1,692 posts
Scotland
[MORE/SHARE]

I've just bought a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk2, can't believe the quality it produces for the low price, shot this image a couple of hours ago on my 5D/1, would the f/1.4 be better I wonder?


IMAGE: http://i382.photobucket.com/albums/oo268/macvisual/8817_mayrose.jpg

hand-held - 50 iso setting - J-Peg - shot @ f/4

Post #9, May 14, 2012 16:26:18


'Peter McCullough Photography'
Follow my flickr
http://flic.kr/ps/2sfe​3Pexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
The ­ Warlock
Senior Member
The Warlock's Avatar
Joined May 2011
505 posts
Stavanger, Norway
[MORE/SHARE]

I was underwhelmed by the 50 1.4 coming from the 1.8, got the 50L (and eventually, a new 1.8) instead.
Both the 1.8's has been stunningly good, for the price. The 50L is spectacular.

Post #10, May 14, 2012 20:05:32


Canon 60D, Canon 1100D , 17-40 4L , 24mm 1.4L II,Zeiss Distagon T*2/35 ZE,50mm 1.2L, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 IS L, 50mm 1.8II, 18-55 III, 430 exII,TT Retrospective 20, Lightroom 4.
Set a pen to a dream, and the colour drains from it.
R.H. Barlow and H.P. Lovecraft
"The Night Ocean"

LOG IN TO REPLY
maplewoods
Member
Joined Jan 2012
53 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

That wouldn't be strange.

Designing a lens is balancing among many factors.

For wider aperture, better bokeh, they have to sacrifice some other things.

For me, sharpness of any 50mm is decent enough,but 50 1.8's bokeh is unacceptable.

Post #11, May 14, 2012 21:46:45




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
snake0ape
Goldmember
snake0ape's Avatar
Joined Jan 2007
1,215 posts
Los Angeles
[MORE/SHARE]

maplewoods wrote in post #14432603external link
That wouldn't be strange.

Designing a lens is balancing among many factors.

For wider aperture, better bokeh, they have to sacrifice some other things.

For me, sharpness of any 50mm is decent enough,but 50 1.8's bokeh is unacceptable.

+1. Bokeh and is why I upgraded to 1.4. Love the 1.8 $/IQ , but geez, the 1.8 sounds so cheap, literally. zzzzzzzzech.

Post #12, May 15, 2012 01:56:11


5Diii | 50D | 8-15L 4| 16-35L 2.8 II| 24-70L 2.8 II | 70-200L 2.8 IS II |Tamy 150-600 | Σ35Art 1.4 | 40 2.8 | Σ50Art 1.4 | 85L 1.2 II | 100 2.8 Macro | Helios 44-3 58mm f2.0 |Helios 40-1 85mm f1.5 | 1.4x & 2x teleconverters

LOG IN TO REPLY
maplewoods
Member
Joined Jan 2012
53 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

After I upgraded to Sigma 50 1.4, I sold my 1.8. But I'm gonna buy it back one day. They are of different use.

Post #13, May 15, 2012 03:23:02




LOG IN TO REPLY
melcat
Goldmember
Joined Nov 2010
1,050 posts
Melbourne, Australia
[MORE/SHARE]

watson76 wrote in post #14428670external link
This is strange, this is the 2nd 50 1.4 I have owned. The first one I bought as an upgrade to my 50 1.8 II over a year ago, but found that images didn't have the contrast and detail that my 50 1.8 had so I sent the 50 1.4 back to Amazon.

This is a well-known characteristic of f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm lens pairs from the same maker. The softness of various 50mm f/1.4 lenses wide open has often been described as "halation", although of course it isn't really that. It's simply the type of aberrations produced by the traditional f/1.4 design.

Canon fix it with the f/1.2. It'll cost you. Knowing the characteristics of traditional 50mm designs and the poor build quality of Canon's f/1.8, it was the only one I considered.

I also have noticed that the 50 1.4 produces brighter images than the 50 1.8. At the exact same aperture and shutter, the 50 1.4 image is about a 3rd stop brighter. Strange ?

This is most likely different fall-off between the two lenses which the camera's metering is not exactly compensating for. Remember, the camera meters wide open, so if metering mostly from the centre of the frame through a lens with severe fall-off it will need to reduce exposure stopped down.

Post #14, May 15, 2012 03:43:47




LOG IN TO REPLY
modchild
Goldmember
modchild's Avatar
Joined Jul 2011
1,469 posts
Lincoln, Uk
[MORE/SHARE]

I've had a 50 1.8 MkII for a few months and have been happy with the results, but I bought a 1.4 version last week and I'm completely blown away. At 1.4 it's as sharp as the 1.8 at 2.4 and stepped down to 2.8 it's razor sharp, as good as my 100 2.8 L macro. I must of just got a good one I suppose.

Post #15, May 15, 2012 03:56:16


EOS 5D MkIII, EOS 70D, EOS 650D, EOS M, Canon 24-70 f2.8L MkII, Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII, Canon 100 f2.8L Macro, Canon 17-40 f4L IS, Canon 24-105 f4L IS, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 85 f1.8, Canon 50 f1.4, Canon 40 f2.8 STM, Canon 35 f2, Sigma 150-500 OS, Tamron 18-270 PZD, Tamron 28-300 VC, 580EX II Flash, Nissin Di866 MkII Flash, Sigma EM 140 Macro Flash and other bits.

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
1,825 views & 0 likes for this thread
My 50 1.8 is better than 50 1.4 ????
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00102 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
981 guests, 817 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is ShutterTonight

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.