50 f1.4 USM v. 50 f1.8 MKII Tested

I plan to post more test results between these 2 lenses in the coming days/weeks, including a bokeh comparison, "text" sharpness, and flare resistance. So far I plan to keep both lenses. Hope it's helpful to some of you, since these two primes get asked about a lot:

http://www.pbase.com/f​stopjojo/50v50

keep up the great reviews *thumbsup*

Please do.....im planning to buy those lens for my mark

Nice work, but you got too much time on your hands. Are you retired?

Awesome!! Keep up the good work! I think everyone appreciates tests like these.

I hate you I HATE YOU!!!

Now you make me want that 1.4 even more.

But I literally have no money and I'm still paying for my current stuff. Arg!

Nice test,maybe i will get a 1.4 and like it.

If you like the focal length/are planning to do portraits, 1.4 all the way.

Another excellent contribution from the Test Master

The 1.4 looks to be exceptional at 2.8 and 4.0. The thing we always see the 1.8 criticised for is Bokah, so be great to see those shots. For me, that would be the big decision point across these two for my own use. At the moment the 1.8 does what I want it to do very well.

I also have both these lenses.
I did some quick tests when i first got the 50/1.4 but have since been too busy to do much more.

Here's a facinating thing for you to test-
-have you noticed that the 50/1.4 has less depth of field? Even at the same aperture and subject distance.
The completely different optical design tends to be sharper in the focus zone but goes softer more quickly away from the focus point.

Some might be thinking allready that this is impossible.What about that optical law that states that magnification x aperture = DOF ? (we hear it all the time)
Actually it's not a law and never was -but it's SO close to the truth that it's extremely usefull for teaching and understanding depth of field.

Other interesting examples are- macro lenses are designed to maximise depth of field for a given aperture (i've read)
The EF75-300 models have less depth of field than the 100-300usm (noticed it while comparing them)
The M model pentax 50/1.4 has extremely narrow DOF for the given aperture

Ok,this is probably uninteresting to most ,i just thought it worth mentioning in the context of testing these two lenses

Appreciate the comments. Having used the MKII for 3 years, and now having the f1.4 on my rack next to it, I find myself not wanting to use the MKII all that much (i.e., my first instinct is to grab the f1.4), but it is STILL a great lens optically no matter what. Having the USM lens doesn't make the MKII suddenly a poor optics, but it does give you a perspective that one is clearly "better" in a number of ways. And by "better" I do mean bokeh, low-light AF accuracy (the MKII doesn't lock focus as well as the f1.4 in low light and it's quite noticeable), build quality (not that the f1.4 is L-grade either but it is much better than the MKII), and even from f1.8-f4.5, the f1.4 lens is both more contrasty and resolves better detail. I'm a big fan of the MKII, and I think it holds its own for $75 USD, but obviously, you get more when you pay more. I'll be keeping the MKII regardless because it's been such a good lens for me and has taught me a lot about DOF and moving around with my feet over the years. Can't turn my back on that.

Anyone ever test the metal mount 50mm f1.8 mk1 vs mk2 ?

Ron, maybe that's too easy an explanation, but isn't that exactly the reason why the 50/1.4 has better bokeh than the 50/1.8?

When I consider bokeh, I *do not* want to see sharp contours...

fstopjojo ... amazing!
In the tests I've seen so far (including my own, but these were not at all that organized - and unfortunately I did not do a formal test on the same subject before selling my 50/1.8 MKI), the difference was nowhere near that pronounced. Seems like the colour & contrast of your 50/1.4 are considerably above the 50/1.8.

Best regards,
Andy

Yes,several times.
Unfortunately i have kept no files at all .They are pretty identical in optical performance,the only real difference i could find was that the MkII has a slightly cooler colour cast due to it's different lens coatings.