What is the Difference between these 2?

[usayit]

The f1 and f.95 lenses were pretty horrible optically and never sold well despite their amazing speed.

If you are referring to Canon, I believe the 50mm f0.95 was for their rangefinder and was considered pretty good for its time. It was the EF 50mm f1 that was considered optically inferior to the 50mm f1.4. It didn't sell well because of their asking price compared to the 50mm f1.4. BTW... photovillage in NYC has one EF 50mm f1 for sale.... the price is a bit hard to swallow.. $5400.

I've shot with Canon EF 50mm f1.8, EF 50mm f1.4, Pentax/Takumar screwmount SMC 50mm f1.4, Pentax Kmount 50mm f1.2, Leica 50mm f1.4 preASPH, Old 50s vintage Leica 50mm f2, and yes the infamous Leica 50mm f1.

If I just glance back at my photos, its pretty hard to distinguish which lens took which photo (except for the Noctilux which renders images quite differently/uniquely.. very pleasing but far from optically "perfect".. still my most enjoyable used lens). My point... the differences are quite subtle. 90% of the photographers out there wouldn't know the difference between 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2... the 10% that do are willing to fork over the cash.

If you are asking the if 50mm f1.2L is worth it compared to the EF50mm f1.4, I would probably recommend the cheaper. If you are asking if the 50mm f1.4 is worth it compared to the EF 50mm f1.8, I would recommend the cheaper. (btw.. I am always wary of blanket statements that A is definitely better than lens B as very few are ever proven)

I shot for YEARS with the early version of EF50mm f1.8 metal mount that was purchased for $65 used. Never really had the "need" to even go to the EF50mm f1.4. I got older with a better job and more resources... ended up selling the f1.8 to my cousin and forking the cash for the f1.4. Why? for teh subtle differences that I can now afford.

 

[usayit]

Another question, does the f1.4 and f1.8 have Image stablizer?

Neither....

 

[usayit]

Is there a difference in image quality with IS on vs IS off taken with a tripod?
BTW you guys have been a great help :thumbup:

Image quality in the sense of purely how well the glass renders... nope.
IS is to help reduce camera shake only.

 

[RobinChen]

Thanks!

 

[fmw]

FWIW I don't think it was a hijack at all, you actually gave probably the best answer to the original question there... i.e. the f/1.2 is faster, not better... it's easy to think that faster or more expensive automatically equals 'better', but sometimes it isn't the case. If we were using the car analogy to compare f/1.2 and f/4; someone mentioned an Infiniti and a Nissan... well I would say that is only really accurate if the Infiniti actually handles quite poorly for most normal driving...

Robin: No, no IS.

Thanks. I'll go ahead and comment on that and hijack things further. Extreme speed in any lens generally causes optical issues which can deteriorate image quality at all or a range of apertures. The reason, of course, is that the faster lenses have larger front elements with more curvature which require more correction. Sometimes, fast lens designs happen to turn out really well because the designers are able to nail the corrections - usually at the telephoto end of the scale. In the Nikon line, as examples, the 85 f1.4 and 300 f2.8 ED worked out really well. I know the Canon 600mm f4 is also one of these fortunate designs. Others, like the Nikkor 28 f1.4 ED or 50 f1.2 didn't work out quite so well. Lens design is a scientific activity but it requires a lot of experience and feel as well.

Given a similar design with similar effort in the correction of aberrations, a slow lens will outperform a fast one at the apertures they share in common. The reason the faster lenses hold their own but an higher prices, is that the manufacturers do not do similar designs. They go much further design-wise and manufacturing-wise with the faster lenses because the target customer is normally a pro who needs the higher level of optical performance and can justify paying for it. That's why fast lenses are more expensive. It isn't just because they are faster.

With all due respect to Usayit, the Canon and Leica superfast 50's were not good optically. This is common knowledge. There is a point at which correcting aberrations just creates new ones. These lenses are not for people who want crisply sharp corners and an absence of distortion. They are for people who really need the speed. They are interesting lens designs and they show just how far a designer can go. But most of us will do better with somewhat slower designs that cost a lot less and perform better.

The main reason people bought fast lenses in the film days was so that they could use slow film (iso 50 to 100.) In the digital era it is somewhat less important because the digitals seem to be able to produce good image quality a stop or two faster than film. I still buy fast lenses and use iso 100 in my digitals. I guess I can't get past the habits of the past.

 

[fmw]

Image quality in the sense of purely how well the glass renders... nope.
IS is to help reduce camera shake only.

There are some optical design differences between a lens with and without IS. The very first IS lenses of 10 years ago did have some minor optical compromises but those have been cleared up. Nikon was slow in introducing the technology because of the optical compromise. At least that's what they said. Perhaps it was just Nikon's normal conservative time line for everything. I think the statement above is now true but it wasn't always.