Canon 50mm 1.8 vs 1.4

[Milk&Cookies]

Hey everyone! I currently own and use a Canon 50mm 1.8 II. I have an opportunity to buy a used Canon 50mm 1.4 for a great price and am considering it. I've read numerous reviews regarding the comparison of the two, and can't find a solid way in which the votes swing. Some reviewers state that overall the 1.8 is the better lens due to lower price point and being sharper at f2.2+ Others state to go for the 1.4, despite the high price, due to its faster focusing and better low light capability.

In an ideal world, I would love to have the Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART, but the price point keeps that out of the picture for now.

Do you think its worth the "upgrade" to the 1.4? Or is that money better spent elsewhere?

 

[goooner]

I had that canon, lens, iirc the build quality was terrible, and the picture quality was not that great either (on a 450D). Don't they have a newer 1.8 STM lens, which should be much better than the 1.8 II? Think it is also around 100€ in these neck of the woods. I guess it really depends on how much the 1.4 is, and what you want to shoot with it. Having both probably does not make much sense.

So I would compare the newest 1.8 lens, to the 1.4. if you want to upgrade.

 

[Milk&Cookies]

I already have the 1.8 II, and it definitely isn't the greatest. Ive had it for the past few years now. Ive heard the STM is much improved from the II, but Im more interested in reviews on the 1.4. I can purchase a 1.4 from an acquaintance of mine for $200. Just wondering if its even worth it or if I should be saving that money for something else up the road.

 

[goodguy]

The only reason to buy a 1.4 lens is if you intend to shoot it at f1.4
If not then don't bother, save your money and buy another f1.8 lens
All these prime lenses are sharp, some are even sharper, how much will it really matter ?
Not a whole lot unless you are an obsessive pixel peeper.
I own 3 prime lenses 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and I see no reason to get their 1.4 expensive sisters.

 

[JonA_CT]

For $200 I would probably do it, and it's more about the way the lens renders than anything else.

I much prefer the characteristics of the bokeh in the 1.4 vs. the 1.8. While that's not everything, for someone whose work (at least that she's shared here) has been in portraiture, I think the added speed and the nicer rendering would be enough for me.

Canon EF 50mm – F1.4 vs F1.8 MK II

 

[Derrel]

I owned both and used both on 20D and 5D. The 50/1.8 EF-II has awful bokeh, and is a sometimes-balky, LOUD focuser. It has a 1950's tech 5-bladed iris! it is pop-riveted together, and if you drop it, it might snap into two, non-repairable pieces (and no, I an NOT kidding in the least...look for the viseos on YouTube). And it has a shrill, cheap focusing motor. Did I mention its a LOUD focuser?

I gave this lens to my wife's nephew when he went off to art school and told him, "Here Ryan, you can have this. It's a piece of crap, but it's better than nothing."

Until Yongnuo made their "imitation 50/1.8" (minus one lens element! Jeeeze...) the Canon 50/1.8 EF-II was the cheapest, junkiest 50 AF made by anybody. It is an embarrassment for a major company. One of the shoddiest primes you could hope for under tough conditions. FIVE diaphragm blades? Is Eisenhower in the White House still?

Sharpness? Uhhh...not important in a modern 50. Canon's EF 50/1.4 has the good focusing motor, and is a good solid lens. A very good 50, the 1.4. I really, really thought it was a useful, quality optic. Good portrait lens, as mentioned above the rendering is pretty good for a 50! better than the 50mm Nikkors I have owned. i wish the 50/1.4 was in Nikon mount.

 

[SuzukiGS750EZ]

I upgraded from the 50 1.8 to the stm. Not much difference, maybe a slight bit of sharpness improvement but if the price difference was huge id be fine with the non stm

 

[JacaRanda]

Agree the 1.8 was close to junk. One of my worst purchases.

Sent from my SM-N930V using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app

 

[DanOstergren]

Both are great lenses. I don't think you will regret getting the 50 1.4. Yes, perhaps it's not as sharp as the 1.8 version, but it's still sharp. Just make sure the one you get works well.

 

[Milk&Cookies]

Thanks everyone for your advise! I agree about the focusing of the 1.8. Its my absolute biggest gripe with it and when chasing a toddler around, at times I feel its focusing speed cannot keep up. I am meeting with the person selling the 1.4 this week and will get to take it on a bit of a test run for the day before I purchase. As long as its working well it will definitely be coming home with me.

 

[beagle100]

depends on the price but the newer 50mm 1.8 STM is better than the old "II" and refurbished is usually around $90

 

[proberok]

1.4 dropped once and broke. id rather shoot with a old metal lens. helios. olympus. I don't baby my lenses so id rather something more robust. save for something metal.

 

[table1349]

The only reason to buy a 1.4 lens is if you intend to shoot it at f1.4
If not then don't bother, save your money and buy another f1.8 lens
All these prime lenses are sharp, some are even sharper, how much will it really matter ?
Not a whole lot unless you are an obsessive pixel peeper.
I own 3 prime lenses 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and I see no reason to get their 1.4 expensive sisters.

So do you only shoot your 24-70 and 70-200 at f2.8?
Canon EF 50mm – F1.4 vs F1.8 MK II

 

[goodguy]

The only reason to buy a 1.4 lens is if you intend to shoot it at f1.4
If not then don't bother, save your money and buy another f1.8 lens
All these prime lenses are sharp, some are even sharper, how much will it really matter ?
Not a whole lot unless you are an obsessive pixel peeper.
I own 3 prime lenses 35mm, 50mm and 85mm and I see no reason to get their 1.4 expensive sisters.

So do you only shoot your 24-70 and 70-200 at f2.8?
Canon EF 50mm – F1.4 vs F1.8 MK II

Not all the time but I do shoot it a lot at f2.8, especially weddings when I have low light and background is deem and my flash is not powerful enough, this will keep the ISO low and the 24-70mm is still very sharp at f2.8

 

[Overread]

I disagree that the only reason to get a wider aperture lens is to shoot at that aperture. It is one reason, and a good one, but not the only reason. The rendering of the background; the apeture blades and their shape; the overall optical quality and performance; the sharpness; the AF speed etc....

There is a whole host of elements that change lens to lens and thus can provide solid grounds to warrant an upgrade.

Most people consider moving from the f1.8 to the f1.4 to be a worthwhile move. You get a bit of an aperture increase, but above all you get a host of other features and advantages over the basic f1.8 verison.



The argument about using it wide open is more one to consider for the more exotic and pricey f1.2 version .Because there the aperture increase is the biggest gaining feature; the difference in the other properties is more marginal (at least for f1.4 to f1.2). Thus the consideration of how much that wider aperture is important ot the user becomes a bigger part of the justification.