Which Fifty?

Is there a noticeable difference? It's not about the $225 difference. thanks

I've just upgraded, and i've very glad I did. The main thing is the USM motor on the 1.4 is a lot more accurate - see a few tests I did here. It's still not perfect in that test, but it's a lot better than the 50. My 50 1.4 may be sent for calibration at some point. Other advantages are the build quality, and it's almost a stop faster.

The 1.8's a good budget choice, the 1.4's a good choice, IMHO.

For a detailed comparison on the pros and cons, check this out:
http://www.photo.net/e​quipment/canon/ef50/

I'm very pleased with my f/1.4. For what it's worth.

Cheers

I'll sell you my 1.8

If I had the money i'dve gotten the 1.4, instead, I went with an old 1.8 Mk1.

My 50 1.4 is the sharpest lense in bag. Very sharp at just f/3.2. I had used a 50 1.8 MK I (metal mount) before I got the 1.4, and it was great, too. The 1.4 is just more suited to some of the low light situations I work in. Plus, like tim mentions, build quality is better.

If the money isn't an issue, get the 1.4, hands down. The 1.8 is optically quite good but it's designed for a low price point and is all plastic, with noisy and slow autofocus.

Rick "who shied away from the 1.8 because it seemed like it would break with little provocation" Denney

The 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens for the money. The 50mm f/1.4 is a great lens. If the money doesn't matter, get the f/1.4.

JFrancho,

I think the 50/1.4 ought to do better than provide sharp pics at f/3.2. (OK, depending on your definition of 'sharp' )
My 50/1.8 MKI is tack sharp (image is sharp when viewed at 100% crop) at f/2.8, but lacking below f/2.5.

Take a look at this thread, where Schmoelzl has some very sharp images from his 50/1.4 at f/2.0.

Also - and that is in my opinion the most important difference for use as a portrait lens - look at this thread for the differences in Bokeh between the lenses. Examples of the 50/1.4 can be found here

Best regards,
Andy

Thanks everyone.

Andythaler wrote:
JFrancho,

I think the 50/1.4 ought to do better than provide sharp pics at f/3.2. (OK, depending on your definition of 'sharp' )
My 50/1.8 MKI is tack sharp (image is sharp when viewed at 100% crop) at f/2.8, but lacking below f/2.5.

Take a look at this thread, where Schmoelzl has some very sharp images from his 50/1.4 at f/2.0.

Also - and that is in my opinion the most important difference for use as a portrait lens - look at this thread for the differences in Bokeh between the lenses. Examples of the 50/1.4 can be found here

Best regards,
Andy

You are correct, based on the thread you mentioned, and my personal experience. However, I mainly use this lens for live music performance in small bars and clubs. I find myself constantly making the compromise between wide aperture to get enough light, and stopping down enough to get an acceptable DOF. I usually shoot from right on the stage, and getting the say the guitarist's face, hands, and possible the instrument sharp can be a challenge. You know the drill, stop down for greater DOF, lose some shutter speed. Shooting RAW will give some headroom with regards to this too. It is kind of funny if you compare some of my captures to the "expose to the right" methodology.
The bokeh factor doesn't always factor in with many of these types of pics since much of the background is very dark.
I am shooting a band tomorrow, and I will try to post some images to give you an idea of what I mean.
I apologise to the original poster for all the extra info here. I should pointed out the specificity of my application of the lens. Bottom line: It is one sharp lens at some very wide aperture settings.

Now I understand

Best regards,
Andy