50mm f1.8 vs 50mm f1.4

Ok I am sure this has been posted somewhere previously but just a quick worth it or not worth it will work and maybe if you have a picture out of each to compare to see the differences maybe. I just can't figure out if the 1.4 is worth the extra 200 bucks. Thanks guys/gals

I'll try to sum it up... Essentially this is less about the optical quality or extra light gained and more about the build, AF, and number of aperture blades (smoother blur, nicer bokeh). If you want these attributes then the 1.4 is well worth the small cost difference.

I found the build quality of the 1.8 to be absolutely worthless for my purposes. Also, when it was wide open for low light photography it was unable to focus well. I could not get rid of it fast enough. the 1.4 is much better and well worth the extra money.

All of the above..

Why not try the Search Function and search on your title for this thread.. It returns multiple threads. It has been debated to death.

The 1.4 is better. That is why is costs more. Build and optics produce better results.

I own both, but I own the f/1.8 MK I..

rklepper wrote in post #8185194
Also, when it was wide open for low light photography it was unable to focus well.

Don't confuse the ability of a lens to focus in low light with that of camera settings. All lenses (EF & EF-S) are wide open when focusing. They remain wide open until you press the shutter at which time the blades move to the prescribed setting.

That being said the 50 1.8 does not do well in low light.

Though the 50/1.8 mat be a bargain for the money, I hope it is very soon before you outgrow it. Happened for me when I realized that my copy was so soft wide open as to be completely useless and the 5 blade induced bokeh was not to my liking.

Plus, the bokeh the f/1.8 version produces is horrible, because it has only 5 blades, so you end up with a pentagon-shape thingies.

I've been thinking about upgrading to the f/1.4 version, just not sure if the Canon or the Sigma one.

Sharpness and bokeh are just fine on my 1.8 wide open. Shot this yesterday at about 6:30pm as it was getting late, so this isnt even in great light.

http://img190.imagesha​ck.us/img190/6105/img2​494b.jpg

I have the 1.8 and its crap compared to the canon 50mm 1.4 my cousin has. It is loud, cheap and stutters in low light. Image quality is above average, at best. But at $86 (amazon), you can't really complain.

I have been thinking about getting the f1.4 for a couple days too and wasn't sure if i should spend the extra money. After reading these reviews, It was decided that I should. It was pretty much one sided.

I just love it when almost everyone agree.

mbell: very nice bokeh photo

I hope you'll enjoy the f1.4

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

The 50 f1.8 isn't too bad, but the the AF is slow.

I made the move from the 1.8 to the 1.4 and I was very happy. That being said, I don't know if the 1.4 is 3-4x as good. The 1.4 definately didn't have 3-4x better IQ than my 1.8 (I have a flickr set comparing the images)

However, the build was a huge upgrade. FTM was also another huge reason I switched.

I assumed the USM AF on the 1.4 would be blazingly fast, but I was very disappointed. The 1.4 micro USM was WAY slower than the ring USM on my 28mm 1.8. I'm sure the AF speed on the 1.4 is a bit better than the 1.8, but the real difference is the AF sound. 1.8 is loud, 1.4 is quiet. Another huge plus.

All that being said, I think the 50mm 1.8 is the best bang for the lens canon makes.

f1.4

f1.4 is better in every way.
Don't let the price difference fool you. The 50 1.4 is still a bargain at that price.