From 50mm f/1.8 to 50mm f/1.4

[neuroxik]

Hey everyone,

I've been sold to using a 50mm for portraits, but I've only used a 50mm f/1.8. But here's the thing, and this question has haunted me for a while now: I rarely go under 2 and a half for the focal length because part of the face gets blurry if I go wider (example the nose will be in focus and the eyes not as much, or vice-versa). Now, why would anyone buy a f/1.4 then? I mean, okay, you can have mroe light, which is great, but does it really make greater portraits? And how come?

 

[ann]

low light situations and the "bohen', that are usually the reason given.

 

[neuroxik]

low light situations and the "bohen', that are usually the reason given.

Thanks for your response. Did you mean bokeh?

 

[usayit]

Remember, DOF is also dependent on distance to subject....

Depending on lens design, a bit better Bokeh.

Lenses often perform their least at wide open. You may notice a bit better IQ shooting at f/1.8 or f/2 apertures on a lens with a max aperture of f/1.4 than one with a max of f/1.8. Many studio portraits are shot at f/5.6 and f/8 with great consideration for strobed light to stay within their lens' "sweet spot".

Not necessarily for portraits BUT natural light photographers in shooting in difficult low light situations will take every bit they can take... even a partial stop can make a big difference. Also, the shallow DOF of the f/1.4 will be a artistic or stylistic approach for others.

At least for Canon, the f/1.4 also buys better build, USM, and better overall performance.

This is of course a generalization. I have a f/1 lens that is outperformed by an f/1.4 lens at an aperture of f/1.4 but both produce different renditions.

 

[raphaelaaron]

The f1.8's bokeh is not as smooth as the f1.4, that's the main reason I went for that, also because of a better construction.

Also, when shooting a subject and at the expense of losing some facial features in focus, always keep the eyes in focus. The picture will still look fine as long as you maintain that.

 

[SpeedTrap]

One of the reasons I went for the 1.4 was build quality,
I rarely shoot at 1.4, but to have the solid construction of the 1.4 was worth it.

 

[j-digg]

So wait, youve used the 1.8? Or you own that one now? Have you checked out the 85 1.8 too?

 

[Stryker]

Been using a 50mm f/1.4 for more than 5 months already. Build is a lot better than the 1.8 however I find it soft wide open. To have a clean, clear, crisp shot, I have to be at atleast f/4. IQ is the same as the 1.8

 

[achua00]

The f1.8's bokeh is not as smooth as the f1.4, that's the main reason I went for that, also because of a better construction.

Also, when shooting a subject and at the expense of losing some facial features in focus, always keep the eyes in focus. The picture will still look fine as long as you maintain that.

@ raphaelaaron: I was wondering if you can answer this...I have a Canon 60D, I'm not sure if I can make it so that there are 2 focus points for the eyes or just one focus point...but do you mean when you photograph a single person that's the only place where I should be placing the focus point? I used to do it so it was the whole face...all the focus points were lit up, thanks for any tips.

 

[djacobox372]

Because the 1.4 looks a lot better at f2 then the 1.8 does-- the 1.8 doesn't get optimally sharp until around f4

Also some of us shoot things other then portraits-- I love to shoot my f1.2 lens wide open, even though it's soft and flares when I do; sometimes that look is what you want.