50mm 1.4 VS 50mm 1.8

99csvtoledo · May 29, 2008

looking to buy a 50 mm here soon and just wondering what the big difference between the 1.4 and the 1.8 is (besides price) is the 1.8 really that inferior to the 1.4 to be half the price

Alfred D. · May 29, 2008

No. In fact, the 1.8 is even sharper than the 1.4. But the latter has another extra half stop of aperture available. That is for 90% the cause of the higher price.

KhronoS · May 29, 2008

the 50 mm 1.4 has USM and it's more sturdy and resistant to shock.
The 50mm 1.8 is made by just plain plastic

Depending of your needs the 50mm 1.8 it's the best ban for the buck.

Josh66 · May 29, 2008

The 1.8 has a plastic mount (1.4 is metal), is about half the weight (due to being mostly plastic), has fewer aperture blades (5 vs. 8) giving it blockier bokeh, does not have USM, and uses a smaller filter (52mm vs. 58mm).
The focus ring on the 1.8 is small and all the way at the end of the lens.

It's still the cheapest/lightest lens you can get though, everyone who has one seems to be very happy with it (I have the 1.4). Personally, I would get the f/1.4 if you can afford it, but the 1.8 should be fine if you're on a tight budget.

Filter size may not matter to you (it wouldn't be a deciding factor for me), and the plastic mount might not be an issue because the lens is so light. USM and more aperture blades would be important factors for me though.

Big Mike · May 29, 2008

No. In fact, the 1.8 is even sharper than the 1.4

I've heard varying reports of that. Some say the F1.8 is sharper and some say the F1.4 is sharper. Many will say that it depends on the aperture you are using etc.

I do agree that the 50mm F1.8 is one of the best 'bang for the buck' lenses you will find....but if you compare the two lenses first hand...it will be obvious that the F1.4 is a 'better' lens.

If money is tight, then I don't have a problem recommending the cheaper one. But if you want to make an investment in something that will last, then the 50mm F1.4 is still a great bargain at only a couple hundred dollars.

Of course, you could also look at the 50mm F1.2 L.

Chewbecca · May 29, 2008

I just ordered the 50 mm f1.8 last night. From what I've been able to find, review-wise, is that the f1.4 pros are not really enough to justify the higher price.

But since I'm a total newbie, and this will only be my second lens, I am hoping this is going to be a wonderful lens to use and that I'll learn a lot with it.
Everyone I've spoken to that owns one has said it's DEFINITELY a lens to have in your collection of glass. It seems to be a favorite.
And, hell, for the price, I don't see how it can be beat. I figure if I end up wanting the f1.4 in the future, I'll get it. If it proves to be better than the f1.8, I'll sell the f1.8 and hopefully give another beginner a wonderful lens to learn with.

Early · May 29, 2008

The Canon USM 50mm f1.4 is rated just a little better than the 1.8 non USM.
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/8917/lensrat1.html

But I would invest the extra money for the 1.4 simply because of the added focusing convenience.

Chewbecca · May 29, 2008

oh, oh, oh, crap.
Sorry!
My post was about the Nikon lens. Not Canon. Sorry!

Early · May 29, 2008

Same difference!

99csvtoledo · May 29, 2008

Big Mike said:
Of course, you could also look at the 50mm F1.2 L.

haha yea i wish. i could get 3 or 4 of the 1.4's for the price of a 1.2 ahaha

Atreus · May 30, 2008

i saw a 1.5 @ wolf camera today for 120, and it has a metal mount.....

Senor Hound · May 30, 2008

If this is your SECOND lens, you'll be in heaven with the 1.8. It is true that the 1.4 is a little better, but it is geared for a more professional audience, or at least an audience that isn't as financially concerned. And despite what others say, for most its not three times better than the 1.4, even though its three times as much. In the lens world, they really rack up the prices for things that are towards the edges of photographic capabilities, like the telephoto primes, low f/stop lenses, macros, etc.

You're going to be in heaven. I don't have one, but I did on my dad's old film Nikon, and it really is cool. It won't make you a better photographer, but it will give you more options, and you'll love that first time you're at a Birthday party indoors and don't have to use the flash. Once that happens, you'll never want to go back again.

99csvtoledo · May 30, 2008

so general consensus(sp?) is the 1.8 would be suffient for a amature/enthusiast. the one question i have is that i would be using this to take pics for a band from time to time. would th 1.8 be good in the really low light of the club and will i be able to freeze the musician?