Canon 50mm F1.4 or 50mm F1.8

Question...

Canon 50mm F1.8 £85

OR

Canon 50mm F1.4 £250

(Ignoring the price, if only...)

And why?

if you're ignoring the price go for the 50L...

the f1.4 will give you better build, focusing, more aperture blades so no pentagon bokeh...and a faster aperture of course...

the f1.8 is cheap...

Neither... they are long overdue for a make-over. The 50 1.8s I tried didn't focus very well and the 50 1.4 is notorious for it's dying AF motor.

If you haven't handled one yourself, then go take a look at the 50 1.8. The build quality feels cheap, cheap, cheap and the noise it makes when it focuses is like a kid's Tonka toy. Some say despite this it gives good IQ, but the copy I had only ever delivered slightly blurred shots no matter what I did.

My 50 1.4 on the other hand is fairly well made, focuses relatively quickly and quietly (but not as nice as real USM in L lenses) and it delivers really nice IQ. I know there are people who have had problems with AF failure, but so far I've nver had an issue and I use the lens a lot (and bought it used).

I've toyed with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 many times since it feels really well built, but I'm just put off by the focus stories. The 50 1.2 L is very nice and I'd buy it in an instant if I could justify to my bank account!

Like Paul I started with a 50 f/1.8. My copy delivered pretty sharp images though. The cheap build and horrible pentagonal shaped highlights it delivers, along with very ordinary low light focus ability saw me upgrade to the f/1.4.

This is a far better lens, deadly accurate focus, good build quality, better bokeh with more rounded highlights, still a bit ordinary with focus in low light where there was not enough contrast change to bite on to but a lot better than the f/1.8. The images it took though just did not seem to inspire me like I thought they would. I didn't use it much at all until I went FF. Then I started using it quite a lot more because that length on a full frame is a very handy length. But as mentioned I was still not completely that happy with the results, so I bit the bullet and sold it.

I then went with a Sigma 50 f/1.4. I had to send the first copy back because of focus issues (funny about that!), but the second copy is spot on. It delivers images that are terrific and I absolutely love using it. Whether I had a good or bad copy of the canon f/1.4 I do not know, I do know though that my Sigma just blows it out of the water. Images are more alive and have more depth. The bokeh is so smooth and looks great. If you get a good copy of the Sigma it really is the way to go. If you get a bad one, just send it back for another copy till you get a good one

Thanks for all the replies. Narrows it down a bit, had not thought of Sigma, may look at that.

Anyone forgive my ignorance and tell me what really nice IQ is? I know what IQ is, but I suspect it's not what I'm thinking of.

Rob

IQ Image Quality refers to a bunch of things:
Sharpness is the first that comes to mind, how sharp at the edges of the frame and center, on FF or Crop cameras
Contrast, good contrast at all F stops is important, the Canon 1.4 is know by loosing contrast wide open @ f1.4 (but I dont feel is too bad IMO)
Fringing and Chromatic aberrations, how the lens handless these is important , as an example the Canon 85 f1.8 while amazingly sharp, tends to have purple fringing at the edges when in high contrast light or wide open.
Distortion, how the lens handles distortion, for example straight lines, walls, curved lines on buildings etc
Color rendition, how colors "POP" and how the white balance perceives the color in the image

Read here a bit of a review of both lens
http://www.photozone.d​e …4-usm-test-report--review
http://www.photozone.d​e/canon-eos/522-sigma50f14eosff

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …-1.4-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …X-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx

In this forum, IQ = Image Quality.

i had 3 Sigma 50mm's go thru my hands, if you can get one that works (right), great.

paulkaye wrote in post #14741289
If you haven't handled one yourself, then go take a look at the 50 1.8. The build quality feels cheap, cheap, cheap and the noise it makes when it focuses is like a kid's Tonka toy. Some say despite this it gives good IQ, but the copy I had only ever delivered slightly blurred shots no matter what I did.

My 50 1.4 on the other hand is fairly well made, focuses relatively quickly and quietly (but not as nice as real USM in L lenses) and it delivers really nice IQ. I know there are people who have had problems with AF failure, but so far I've nver had an issue and I use the lens a lot (and bought it used).

I've toyed with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 many times since it feels really well built, but I'm just put off by the focus stories. The 50 1.2 L is very nice and I'd buy it in an instant if I could justify to my bank account!

Now, do you think it may have anything to do with that amazing AF system in the camera you have?


the only time the 50/1.8 didn't autofocus was when I was at a dinner party that was lit by candle light..... this was center point on a 1D2 and a 7D...

I've owned and sold the 1.8. Forget the build quality because you know you're not going to get it but who cares since its factored into the price, right?
IQ wise - i sold it simply because the bokeh is too harsh. Yes, its easy to isolate an object, but once you start comparing, its just a harsh looking photo. I personally feel that you should just save up for the 1.4 because you grow out of the 1.8 pretty fast. soon it won't even seem THAT sharp anymore either...

Ignoring the price, the f/1.4 obviously.

IQ = Sharpness ...then CA, then bokeh/blur......

While the f1.8 is an amazing value, I'd save for the Canon f1.4, better build quality, manual focus override, faster and more precise focus, completely silent, nice bokeh.
Every time I see a review of the Sigma I see wonderful images, butter bokeh comments, nice colors BUT at the end you always see that disclaimer "When it works right, OR when it focus properly OR if you get a good copy".
I have a 17-50 f2,8 OS from Sigma that is a wonderful lens and I highly recommend it next to the 17-55 from canon, but I always feel that focus on my Canon lens is more "spot on" or "more confident" for lack of a better word.
I'd would stay with Canon

Buy the Canon 50/1.4 and be sure to get and use the lens hood, too.

The hood protects the lens from bumps up front, while in use. Reverse it on the lens for storage (also setting the lens to infinity to retract the barrel as much as possible) and it will protect the focus ring from bumps while in your camera bag. This might be why my 50/1.4 - bought used 8 or 9 years ago - still works just fine. Many think the AF mechanism is a bit fragile, might not be a good idea to do a lot of manual focus override of it either. there are some examples of 50/1.4 failures here and elsewhere.... But after all, this lens has been around for nearly 20 years and there have probably been hundreds of thousands of them sold, so there are bound to be some failures and just plain worn out copies!

The EF 50/1.4 is an older design now, long overdue for an update (there's rumor of one in the works... also rumors that it will cost a whole lot more). It's still a very nice step up from the f1.8 lens in many ways. There are also plenty of 50/1.8 failures to note... they tend to break in half if you sneeze on them too hard. But the 50/1.8 is actually pretty amazing... it makes far better images than such a cheap lens should be able to do. However, it's cheap, light and it's AF is "iffy" at best.

Yes, the Siggy 50/1.4 is an alternative. Seems well made (only time will tell, it's only been on the market some 5 or 6 years and mere tens of thousands have been sold so far)... and many think it's sharper wide open and gives even slightly better bokeh than it's Canon equivalent. But it also is a little more expensive and a lot bigger/heavier (since when does a 50/1.4 need a 77mm filter!). The main problem with it, seems to be hard to get a properly focus calibrated copy.... That means either working with a retailer who will swap until you get one that works well on your camera, or sending the lens to Sigma under warranty to get it calibrated. Might help to have a camera that has Micro Adjust feature, too.

I seriously considered an "upgrade" to the Siggy when it first came out... though I didn't really like the add'l size and weight. It came down to the IQ... I just didn't see that much difference, not enough to justify the outllay of additional monies, at least.

Hopin' the EF 50mm f1.4 "Mark II" comes out soon, addresses all of the weaknesses of the two decade old model, and is reasonably priced!

50 1.4:
1. Bokeh
2. Build Quality
3. Image Quality slight better.