I'm curious...just how much better is the 50 f/1.4 over the 50 f/1.8

I'm thinkin of buying a few more primes to add to my collection here in the near future. I currently have the 50 f/1.8, and I'm curious if it's worth the case for slightly wider opening. I can't really see any place, in the glamour/fashion world, where that fast of an aperture would be used unless it was taken late at night.

Would it be worthwhile for me to upgrade? Is the glass in the 50 f/1.4 worth the extra money? Or is it just the wider opening that causes the price to go up?

Thanks

FlipsidE

It's that silent focusing, few more aperture blades for smoother bokeh, faster ap (which yes, could be used in the fashion world), better build, metal mount, distance scale, and yes...overall higher IQ.

For me, no, it isnt worth the extra money. But for you, with all the nice equipment, and making a few dollars off of it. I would buy it for the better build quality alone.

ok -

better build - I am careful with my lenses and don't thow them around so "build" doesn't really come into it.

metal mount - Is this really deterimental to the way a lens performs? Ok, if the lens is on and off on and off on and off of the body 2000 times a week it might make some difference?! if once a day then probably not...

distance scale - Do you use the distance scale on any kind of lens?! Totally superfluous to requirement if you ask me!

all the rest like larger aperture and faster focusing make sense, but the above points don't.

Is f1.8 really that much slower than f1.4? I see in your sig you have a 50 1.4, have you used a 50 1.8?

can/worms blah

This question comes up often here. One thing not mentioned here about the 50mm f/1.4 is the full time manual focusing. Helpful. I've owned the 50mm f/1.8 and only recently moved up to the f/1.4. Worth it me for the nicer bokeh, faster focusing. I'll give a vote for this lens.

This might be sad, but I love the 50mm 1.4 so much it is my everyday lens I have never used the 1.8, but I knew I would just always wonder if I didn't get the 1.4 and never be happy

If you are doing professional stuff(Ie making money), then the 1.4 should be the choice no doubt.

The full time manual focusing is a good assest especially for your line of work and would go well with your camera. And then of course faster AF, with the micro usm motor in it.

Fast aperture is useful or useless, depending upon what you like to do with the photo. All about the photographer's creativity.

But regardless, the 50 is pretty wide on your camera. Field of view of 65mm, so if you don't find the length useful, then don't get the 1.4. If you do, then the 1.4 is the better way to go.

It's exactly .4 better . . .

I admit that when I read this, I had to look and see if the OP was shooting medium format.

You've grown accustomed to the 1.6 sensor, I'd guess. (nothing wrong with that, just hadn't heard a 50 referred to as wide before).

Don't get defensive. It's just a lens. The build, the mount- those things are factors that will determine how long it will last. How durable it is. Think about if you, for example, have to get that lens on your body quick, because a shot depends on it. You whip out your 50 1.8, put it up to the camera mount, aww MAN! a piece of the plastic BREAKS OFF! Sheesh..there goes your lens. Fat chance on breaking the steel mount on the 1.4 off. Build is another that means the better built lens will last longer. I know it's not even $100, but does that mean you don't care if it lasts or not? I'd sure like mine to last, if you ask me. The metal will just simply hold up better.

Now...as for that distance scale. Some people prefer manual focusing. In some situations, it can be quite helpful in more than one way to know the distance of your subject. It can mean a difference in your lighting, too, by the way. Kinda handy to know just by focusing the camera how far away your subject is. For manual folks, that's useful information.

Also, some people shoot infrared. That infrared index is absolutely a good idea.


Now, before a mod has to clean this up, play nice. Don't attack me because of my VERY brief opinions on a lens.

Oh, and I've never owned one, but yes, I used a 50 1.8 before. It felt cheap, light, and "plasticky". The 1.4 simply feels good in your hands. You know you're holding one hell of a lens for the price.

Worth is always subjective. Does the 50mm f1.4 have a better build? Absolutely. Just hold it in one hand and the 50mm f1.8 in the other and you'll immediately notice the difference in size, weight, and quality. Does it have a better bokeh? That's more subjective, but I bet 95% of the photographers in the forum who have used both lenses would say, yes it does. Does it have better low light capability, faster auto focus, and better contrast? In my opinion, yes, but not by very much. It's noticeable, but the f1.4 is not signifcantly more capable in these areas. Is the f1.4 more expensive - absolutely, by almost 4 times the cost of the f1.8.

So, is it worthwhile for you to upgrade? It's entirely dependent on how you intend to use the lens. My f1.4 was givent to me as a Christmas gift so I didn't have to agonize over it. But, I haven't used my 1.8 since I received my 1.4 and I'll probably give the 1.8 to one of my kids if they ever take a strong interest in photography.

Mark

amen

praise canon, brotha. 8)

I had the 50f1.8 and up until a few days ago, the 50f1.4. Clear winner here is the 50f1.4.....optically better as far as I could tell. For a $120 lens, the 'nifty-fifty' is a bargain against the more pricey f1.4 but the cheapo feel of the lens didn't inspire enough confidence in me to use it often.

Yes: http://www.pbase.com/f​stopjojo/50v50