Just get the 50mm f1.8 already!

I don't know whether it's the influence of the silly season, but I've been amazed at the sudded rise in the number of 50mm 1.4 versus 1.8 questions posted here lately. So for those facing the dilemma I thought I'd share my experience.

When faced with this choice I decided to go with the 1.8, and made myself a promise that I'd take at least 1000 photos with it before even considering going for the 1.4. At about $90 US dollars, that works out to be less than 10 cents per shot, so even if I decide to GIVE the thing away at the end of the trial I'll still feel like I've got my money's worth.

150 shots into my test, and I'm liking what I see. 50mm translates to about 80mm on a 1.6 crop camera and I think I prefer that to a true 50mm. I've also discovered tricks with DoF that I could never really pull of with my f4 zooms. I've just bought a small Lowepro Toploader and am seeing how I go with the absolute minimum kit. The lack of a true wide-angle or telephoto is challenging, but challenging yourself is half the fun of photography anyway. And It's actually kind of nice to no have to think about lens choice every now and then.

I might post again further into my test, at the risk of rebooting the Fab Fifties debate again!

You'd need to take a lot more than 1,000 pictures to equal 1 cent per shot.

Don't get the 50 1.8, its boring. Get the 85 1.8 instead. Its such a good lens your coffee will actually taste better, and traffic lights will always turn green at your approach. Or something.

Seriously, the 85 is a great alternate to the 50s. After getting one I found myself using my 50 1.8 so little I condemed it to the great lens graveyard (ebay).

it really depends on what you're shooting style is. I love my 50 and my 85, but always seem to want wider. the 50 1.8 is a great bargain.

Whoops! Maths never was my strong suit Let's make that "less than 10 cents per shot"!

I decided to get the 1.4, and take at least 1000 shots before even considering the 1.8.

Okay, you get the point: Nobody who has the 1.4 is considering selling it in favor of the 1.8 unless it's that or starvation. That suggests to me that if you have the money anyway, the 1.4 is the shorter path to what you will ultimately want and you won't regret having spent the extra. The 1.8 is a great alternative if you don't have the money.

Rick "who also has the 2.5 macro, but not the 1.8" Denney

I have the 1.8 and it hasn't let me down. I just can't make myself upgrade yet. I know I will sooner or later based on the build quality of the thing alone.

If I had it to do over again I would have bought the 1.4 instead. The build quality is just that important to me.

I'm not bashing the 1.8, I have it and use it regularly. Although, when I put it on my camera I can't help to think that it feels like a toy.

If I am using my 1.8 on my 350d I have to put a brick on it if I put it down, or it floats away......:p

I had never used such a wide open lens before and I love it, but don't use it enough to justify the 1.4...lol....

i just got the 1.8 and i agree it feels kind of toyish, i like it and it works great in low light conditions, at least compaired to the kit lens,
so i am very happy with it, i am not sure what to get for my next lens,

I can't imagine why anyone who reads the mass of information about the different versions would not buy the one they want.

There are no surprises as it's been done to death.

Everyone approaches the choice from different angles and all can be satisfied.

Don't want to spend much, don't use that focal length much, build-quality is important, best bokeh, I prefer usm, I want that extra stop. Just pick which applies. There are no bad choices.

Graham

This is EXACTLY what i am doing !

I've decided that the 85/1.8 + 50/1.8 combo is ten times more usefull to me than the 50/1.4 alone.

Or to put it another way-why would anyone buy the 50/1.4 when you can instead have the 85/1.8 AND the 50/1.8 for just a little more ?

Except in low light the 50 1.8 focuses like a blind monkey....but maybe this is the 350d...?

Blind monkey, huh? I have the 85 1.8 and I do love it. I just got my 50 1.4 last week and used it for a wedding shoot. Loved it. The 85 can be too much, but the 50 1.4 is really sturdy, wonderfully fast. It made my life a lot easier with so many pictures to take. There really isn't too much to argue about. The 50 1.8 is so cheap, it's ridiculous to say it isn't worth it. The 50 1.4 is so good, if you want it, you should go for it.

SuzyView - did I say too much?
10D, EOS 3 and lots of great stuff

They really don't compete as much as you might think.

If you are shooting in good light at apertures 2.8 or smaller then the 50/1.8 is fine. If you want to get reliable sharp shots at 1.8 to 2.8 in low light then go for the 50/1.4. If you want faster focus with more tele get the 85/1.8.

You may get a mutant 50/1.8 that focuses reliably in low light -- I think Canon accidently makes them occasionally -- then good for you.

Malcolm

Dang it, Ok here it is .. if you really want macro then you should go with a more wide angle than that.. I have a 1.4 24-135 hmm wow that covers a large range .. I use that lens more than I should .. no matter what focal length I'm at it's never soft around the sides .. forget the 50 .. does it have a depth of field preview ? if so it may be worth it ..
support earthcrawl.com's new photography forum