the 50mm conundrum...HELP!!

[JerryPH]

What, having only the first half of an ant in focus?

Only if that is a wedding picture of an ant, and the ant is fat at the 2nd half, so it does have practical applications... lol

 

[Samurai Photographer]

I own the 50mm EF f/1.4. It's a great lens. The prices you mention seem very high. B&H sells the 50mm EF f1.4 for $309. In fact they have a used one for $229. B&H is a very reputable dealer.

 

[Emerana]

I cant imagine using that wide open...so I got the 1.8 which i still RARELY open up all the way. Is there something else better about it? For me, I am saving my money for a better walk around lens and a better zoom.

 

[confucious]

I definitely know what you mean about depth of field; wide open it makes for a very very shallow one..but for those times that that extra 2/3 is the difference between getting a shot or not, than it is a bonus!

If it were just the extra 2/3 the price would definitely NOT be worth it - but the solid build, the full time manual focus capability, not to mention responsive ring vs. the 1.8's poor excuse for manual, and the fact it doesn't search half as much!! Honestly, the searching KILLED me - I buy a low light lens for low light, doesn't help if it can't lock on. Perhaps my 1.8 was a lemon though....who knows.

Having said that, the 1.4 is not for everyone, the 1.8 does produce one of the best non L pictures in Canon lenses, and for only about $100 is a deal.

AS to poster above who suggested B&H - I live in Canada, thus no B&H (poor me ). Yes, I could have it shipped, but after shipping expenses, duty, taxes, and brokerage, it would be the same if not more, and I would have to deal internationally if there were anything wrong with the lens - and worst of all, I'd have to wait!!!

 

[flipstylephoto]

If you have the money, get the 1.4, but the 1.8 ...you CANNOT beat that price for what you get. But agreed as above, who the hell is selling it to you for 135.00? Even after taxes...

 

[nicfargo]

I've got the Mk I, I payed about $75 for it about a year ago. I'd definately sell it if I could get $135 out of it and put that toward the 1.4

 

[sabbath999]

Personally, I do not think you can ever go wrong buying the BETTER glass.

I would get the 1.4 in your situation.

 

[RyanLilly]

Not to mention that the 1.4 has nicer bokeh, because it has more Iris blades,(so Ive heard)

 

[confucious]

Who sells me the 1.8 at $135 after taxes? It's odd, even though our dollar (the Canadian Dollar) has SURPASSED the American dollar, our goods are still the same price, nothing has changed. This means, while Americans can find the 1.8 at perhaps $75-100, in Canada it still sells, at lowest, $110. Add taxes, and you are close to $135.

Perhaps this is due to competition??? A market of 300 million condensed in a smaller geographical area can make for a bit more price variation than 30 million spread out over a larger. All this despite the fact we all live near the 49th....

 

[JerryPH]

I cant imagine using that wide open...so I got the 1.8 which i still RARELY open up all the way. Is there something else better about it? For me, I am saving my money for a better walk around lens and a better zoom.

It depends on what the user likes to shoot.

Take that 50mm F/1.4 into a dark bar or small concert and you will get better results with it than with the lenses that are slower.

In and by itself, it, being a prime, is one heck of a sharp lens, that is a nice advantage right there. Is it sharper than the 1.8? Likely not a whole lot if at all, but consider that difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 a bit of a safety margin.

For you, it may not be the best lens, and the only one that can say one way or the other is you.

 

[table1349]

Okay - so, got a XTI with kit lens and a 70-300 Sigma APO. Now am looking into the prime lenses and am looking at the two (affordable for me) Canon 50mm's. My choices are:

1. the 1.8 at $135 after taxes, or
2. the 1.4 at a much larger $450 after taxes

I fully expect to stay with Canon for a number of years and am planning a switch to a higher end body in a about two years, so whichever lens I choose can be seen as an investment. BUT - is the difference in quality, focus (I hear the 1.8 searches a ton...), and general output worth this much dough?

Please let me know what you think, especially if you've shot both.

PS - I bought the 1.8 last night and will try it out after work tonight. The 1.4 is on order and can upgrade.

This one is pretty simple to me.

f1.8 cons: Plastic mount, poor build, noisy slower focusing motor & not as pleasing bokeh compared to the f1.4.

With that said, if you just want a 50mm around for those times that you think you might need one, don't plan on using it much and just want to be covered. 50mm f1.8. Put the difference into a better lens that you will use.

If you have in the past, plan to now or know that you will be using the lens on a regular basis or want the better build, faster AF and better bokeh. 50mm f1.4.

I have the 1.4 because it is an often used lens as I really like primes.

 

[kundalini]

I'm going to ride gryphonslair99's coat tail for a minute. When I bought my (Nikkor) 50mm f/1.8 because it was so highly recommended and the fact that all the verbal diarrhaea said what a deal it was. It is, don't get me wrong, but only a couple months later I picked up a 35mm f/2 for $320. The build quality between those two lenses are like night and day. I really wish that I had gone ahead and gotten f/1.4 instead. Plastic vs Metal. More aperture blades for a smoother bokeh. Just my 2¢.

BUYER BE WARE. Once you start getting good glass, it will ruin you towards adequate.