 Melissa L. Zavadil |
canon 50 1.8 vs. 50 1.4 usm ?? thoughts Wanted to know if anyone had any comments on the differences between these two lenses and if the $200 cost difference is worth the money? Just curious? Thanks !! PS: I am using 10D for now and 20D/&mark2 soon
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
I'm using the 50mm f/1.8 right now on my Canon 20D and I like it for the most part. Sometimes I'm not sure about if I like the out of focus moire or whatever it's called but it's good. I'm not sure that it's THAT much better on the f/1.4 though. Also, the f/1.8 has 5 blades in the diaphram (spell check?) while the f/1.4 has more, making the out of focus points less distracting. Also, if you're THAT into the USM part of it, go for it, but usually I don't NEED it. Also, Depending on which Mark II I guess, but on the 20D, a 50mm lens is like an 80mm lens so it's somewhat tight, but probably pretty good for portraits. Anyway, what I'm getting at is...if you have other things that you would like to buy, go for the f/1.8 but if you're used to spending more on lenses and if your purchase of the Mark II isn't going to break that piggybank, go for the f/1.8. In my opinion, everything that I mentioned, plus the metal mount, extra stop or so of light, distance scale, and stronger build, probably don't justify a $200 price jump, even if the glass is also better. Again, if you want to make sure you have better glass, go for the f/1.4. I'm happy with my f/1.8 though.
|
|
|
|
||
|
x |
I shoot in low light all the time, so I need every bit of f/stop I can get. It's totally worth it to me. And, the 1.4 is just a better lens - I have both because when I bought the 1.8, I was poor.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John P. Sandstedt |
I'm not sure a half-stop is worth any extra price; if you can spring for the price and the lens fits, go for Canon's f/1.0. I don't own a digital but I'd like to share soemthing I learned about film work a long time ago reading photomagazines, books, etc. More than 90 percent of prize-winning photos are shot using lens openings from f/5.6 to f/11. It the rarity that requires the wider lens opening, notwithstanding Jerry's comment about his work. I haven't read a review on the two lenses; I suggest you check out Pop Photo's review on the Internet [or any other reliable source.] Sometimes, the slightly slower lens produces better images across its total usable exposure range. Despite the above, if your considering a $4,000 - $8,000 camera body, why are you worrying about a difference of $200 in the price of a lens? John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
Nikon shooters have the exact same dilemma. With both systems, the 1.4 version is of much better build quality (being built in Japan), while the 1.8 version of each is made in a third world country under who-knows-what conditions. However, the Nikon 50/1.8 is of extremely good optical quality, and I would suspect the same of the Canon 50/1.8. In all honesty, unless you have specific need for the 1.4 aperture, I would opt for the 50/1.8. Stopped down past f4, you should see no difference in either's performance. Michael H. Cothran www.mhcphoto.net
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
Thanks for your response! This has been very informative! I probably will go with the 1.8.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Melissa, there are a few other differences between the two lenses that justify the cost. The 50mm f1.8 has 6 optical elements, a plastic mount, no distance scale, and a standard focus motor. It uses a 52mm filter. The 50mm f1.4 has 7 optical elements, a metal mount, a distance scale, and USM (faster) focusing. It uses a 58mm filter. The EF-S kit lens that came with my Digital Rebel has a similar construction to the 50mm f1.8 (plastic, no USM, no distance scale, etc.). My Canon 85mm f1.8 lens, however, is built more like the 50mm 1.4. When I compare them side-by-side, it's hard to believe they both come from the same company. One feels like a real lens, while the other feels like a toy. The cheaper one works just fine, but I don't know how long it will hold up. I'll be getting the 50mm f1.4 for Father's Day, by the way.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Melissa L. Zavadil |
Thanks Chris!! I value your opinion a lot!! I do like the USM and I have kids so the metal is definately more appealing to me because things get beat up in my house! I like the feel of the real lens too. I just bought that macro 100mm lens USM Ultrasonic from canon and it is wonderful so I would like to get more of the same quality of lens. By the way; which do you think would be better for portraits the 85mm f1.8 or the 50 f1.4? I have been hearing a lot about the 85mm f1.8 and I was going to get it until it was back ordered. The problem is that I have a studio set up in my basement that is a relatively smaller area and I am just not quite sure I can back up far enough to get a good angle using an 85 (I know I can't with my macro 100 lens). What do you think?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
First of all, the f/1.8 IS a "real lens" hehe. Just had to get that out. Will you be using only a 10D? A 50mm lens will pretty much be the same at an 80mm lens once you put it on that camera. Actual 50mm is a tad wide though I think.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Melissa - I have the 85mm f1.8 and I love it. I think it's great for head shots and full-length individual portraits, if you can back up some. It's a little too tight for pictures of more than one person. (at least on a 1.6x factor digital) I think one of the reasons I like the 85 so much is that it's quality and speed are MUCH better than my other current lenses. If I look at my shallow DOF pictures, I can easily pick out which ones were taken with the 85. Smooth blurred circles look SO much better than choppy hexagons. For these reasons, the next lens I get will be the 50mm f1.4 - quality, clarity, fast wide aperture, and I won't need to back up as much. Andrew - Yes, the 50mm f1.8 is a real lens, and it will take real pictures. I've even defended the Rebel EF-S kit lens when others have called it useless. But when you compare it to one of Canon's nicer lenses, it will look like a cheap hunk of plastic in comparison. And I'm not even talking about L-series lenses. As long as I gotta put gas in my wife's Suburban, I won't be affording an L-series.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||