50mm

[zmikers]

The Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM for $311 USD or the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II for $69 USD? Big price difference, but what's the actual difference in the glass. Any thoughts anyone?

[NewTekBuzz]

1.4 has longer life span.
1.8 hunts more in low light.
1.4 has far better build quality.

bottom line is you get what you pay for. you can get great IQ from both lenes. If you are short on cash try the 1.8 out, if you like the 50mm length and the feel of a prime then upgreade to a 1.4 and sell the 1.8 ... or keep it.

good luck

[adam75south]

bokeh is alot better on the 1.4 as well. for the price, the 1.8 is a better bargain, but you will not regret going with the 1.4.

put it this way, if you plan to print and make money go with the 1.4

[aparmley]

The Canon EF 50mm f1.4 USM for $311 USD or the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II for $69 USD? Big price difference, but what's the actual difference in the glass. Any thoughts anyone?

50 1.4 USM
-----------------

Focus is faster and silent
Focus is more reliable
Lens is faster - 1.4 v 1.8
Shooting at 1.8 is stopped down where the 1.8 is wide open
Built very well, not L built but very solid.
Bokeh, out of focus areas, are much richer and smoother


50 1.8
--------

Its cheap - thus a great lens to learn with.
If your name is Jamison, it'll do!
worth trying because of the price really and if it doesn't quite cut if for you, like it didn't for me, $75 isn't that big of deal.
IF you ever get the 50 1.8 and then get the 85 1.8, you'll have the 50 1.4 very soon.;)
build quality is lacking.


Good luck.

[zmikers]

Just confirming what I already suspected....Cheers for the input guys!

[krzkrzkrz]

The 50mm f/1.8 is good enough. The only reason, I would imagine, you would get the f/1.4 is for shooting professionally. I think its a MUST for these professional types to have USM somewhere labeled in their lens. That's not to say that the f/1.8 cant DO IT. Both lenses are capable.

I have a friend whos told me that both lenses are good, except one is more expensive than the other. However, his photos with the f/1.8 turned out amazing! This doesn't mean that the image could have been better if the he used the f/1.4 instead. Use the lens correctly and you will get good results.

As far as build quality, the build is JUST fine. It won't break if you take care of it. This applies for every lens, long term as well.

Frankly speaking, I purchased the f/1.8, because it was a lot cheaper than the f/1.4. Also planning on getting extension tubes for the f/1.8 for macro photography. Photography can be an expensive hobby, but invest lightly and you will have fun! :) Just my approach.

Krz

[Merlin]

Also I believe that USM on the 1.4 will mean a lot quieter focusing. :)

[timmciglobal]

The 1.4 is micro USM, not ring.

It's quieter but the 1.8 isn't bad.

I've still got a 50 1.8 because it's sharp, sharpest copie I've owned and beat out a 50 1.4 I had for a bit.

If you don't use it much I'd save the $ and go with 1.8. If you plan on using it a lot, get a good 1.4

Tim

[zmikers]

That helps a lot, cheers everybody. I think I will go for the f/1.4 only because I know in a month or two, I will have forgotten about the money spent but will still have to use the lens. (plus its going on a xmas wish list so maybe it won't be my money spent.....LOL) I'm sure the f/1.8 will be good enough but the f1.4 will be just that much better. Thanks again for everyone's help and thoughts!

[aparmley]

The 50mm f/1.8 is good enough. The only reason, I would imagine, you would get the f/1.4 is for shooting professionally. I think its a MUST for these professional types to have USM somewhere labeled in their lens. That's not to say that the f/1.8 cant DO IT. Both lenses are capable.

I have a friend whos told me that both lenses are good, except one is more expensive than the other. However, his photos with the f/1.8 turned out amazing! This doesn't mean that the image could have been better if the he used the f/1.4 instead. Use the lens correctly and you will get good results.

As far as build quality, the build is JUST fine. It won't break if you take care of it. This applies for every lens, long term as well.

Frankly speaking, I purchased the f/1.8, because it was a lot cheaper than the f/1.4. Also planning on getting extension tubes for the f/1.8 for macro photography. Photography can be an expensive hobby, but invest lightly and you will have fun! :) Just my approach.

Krz

Let me first say there are indeed good copies of this lens floating around, no doubt about it...

I'm no pro but HERE (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=107209&postcount=36)is why I purchased the 50 1.4 after owning the 50 1.8

You can read that whole thread if you want here (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=107209#post107209). I've changed my opinion just a little since last year, but only because it might be worth it to try and get a sharp copy of a $75 lens and if you don't then you can think about upgrading. . . but I suppose I've grown into a USM snob, because frankly, I don't want to use a lens that doesn't have USM. . .

[Nickcanada]

Let me first say there are indeed good copies of this lens floating around, no doubt about it...

I'm no pro but HERE (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=107209&postcount=36)is why I purchased the 50 1.4 after owning the 50 1.8

You can read that whole thread if you want here (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=107209#post107209). I've changed my opinion just a little since last year, but only because it might be worth it to try and get a sharp copy of a $75 lens and if you don't then you can think about upgrading. . . but I suppose I've grown into a USM snob, because frankly, I don't want to use a lens that doesn't have USM. . .

If I would have seen that thread before I bought my 1.8 I would have never got it.

[krzkrzkrz]

If I would have seen that thread before I bought my 1.8 I would have never got it.

Yea, I've seen the thread before. Its quite plain to see that the sharpness is more accurate on the f/1.4. Its also a tad more expensive, and thats what you get for what you pay.

However, the f/1.8 is a good charm for now. It also depends on you personally. Im happy I purchased my f/1.8 at a bargained price, which summed up to 2-3x less than I could get the f/1.4 for.

That having said, I am left with extra to spend on other 'things' (next on the list: macro extension tubes)

I like to think of spending less, but good-enough, and to explore more. Keeps the fun on the gear.

[Vich]

Yea, I've seen the thread before. Its quite plain to see that the sharpness is more accurate on the f/1.4. Its also a tad more expensive, and thats what you get for what you pay.

However, the f/1.8 is a good charm for now. It also depends on you personally. Im happy I purchased my f/1.8 at a bargained price, which summed up to 2-3x less than I could get the f/1.4 for.

That having said, I am left with extra to spend on other 'things' (next on the list: macro extension tubes)

I like to think of spending less, but good-enough, and to explore more. Keeps the fun on the gear.
Since getting the 35L, I have not removed the 50 f1.4 from my bag. I'm pretty sure I could sell it and put the money towards an 85 f1.8 and be totally happy.

So then; if the OP's planning on getting the 50 f1.4, I have a practically unused copy ... :eek: :cool: :p

[Vich]

Let me first say there are indeed good copies of this lens floating around, no doubt about it...

I'm no pro but HERE (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=107209&postcount=36)is why I purchased the 50 1.4 after owning the 50 1.8

You can read that whole thread if you want here (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=107209#post107209). I've changed my opinion just a little since last year, but only because it might be worth it to try and get a sharp copy of a $75 lens and if you don't then you can think about upgrading. . . but I suppose I've grown into a USM snob, because frankly, I don't want to use a lens that doesn't have USM. . .
Checked that thread out Andy. Forgot all about it.

Whatever happened to ObiJuan? Think he ever got another camera?

[zmikers]

Let me first say there are indeed good copies of this lens floating around, no doubt about it...

I'm no pro but HERE (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=107209&postcount=36)is why I purchased the 50 1.4 after owning the 50 1.8

You can read that whole thread if you want here (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?p=107209#post107209). I've changed my opinion just a little since last year, but only because it might be worth it to try and get a sharp copy of a $75 lens and if you don't then you can think about upgrading. . . but I suppose I've grown into a USM snob, because frankly, I don't want to use a lens that doesn't have USM. . .

Thanks for the post, definitely made up my mind. 50 f1.4 USM it is. I know sooner or later I will just want to upgrade anyway, so I might as well do it now. I've already made that mistake once. I bought the canon 70-300 USM III and hate it. It was cheap, and light which is good for travel, but I wish I had spent a bit more money on a better lens. Oh well, live and learn I guess.

[timmciglobal]

Let me just say, that all 50 1.8's arn't created equally.

I've got a copy that's sharp, even down to F2 and quite acceptably sharp @ 1.8 that I refuse to sell because of that fact.

Tim

[Rhys]

I had the 50 f1.8 and was never satisified with the IQ nor with the focussing. In the end I sold it and went without. I figured my Tamron 28-75 would do instead as it's only a stop slower. I'm happy with my choice.

[Vich]

Thanks for the post, definitely made up my mind. 50 f1.4 USM it is. I know sooner or later I will just want to upgrade anyway, so I might as well do it now. I've already made that mistake once. I bought the canon 70-300 USM III and hate it. It was cheap, and light which is good for travel, but I wish I had spent a bit more money on a better lens. Oh well, live and learn I guess.
Ohhh, Tiawan. Neeeevermind. Guess I'll be hitting up the resale boards. Need to dump my Tamron 28-75 anyway.

I never had sharpness issues (at all) with my 50 f1.8, but the focus was very hit-n-miss and the bokeh was very 5-sided.

The 50 f1.4 will offer a very rich and luxurious image quality and I don't think you'll be unhappy with it, but the reports of very good 50 f1.8 IQ are not bogus either. Andy's display was revealing but possible more about his particular copy.

Here's (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=186207&page=1)a 23 page thread with many 50 f1.8 examples - some very acceptable, some on the lower edge of acceptable. OK, here's (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1681580&postcount=61) my fav post in it.

[krzkrzkrz]

Let me just say, that all 50 1.8's arn't created equally.

I've got a copy that's sharp, even down to F2 and quite acceptably sharp @ 1.8 that I refuse to sell because of that fact.

Tim

How do you verify that your 50mm f/1.8 is sharp? Anything I could do with my lens that I should look out for? :)

[Vich]

How do you verify that your 50mm f/1.8 is sharp? Anything I could do with my lens that I should look out for? :)
Well; if your results wind up like AParmleys above, it's time to cash in with Canon's superb 1 year warranty. They'll tune it up.

Be sure to use a tripod and take multiple examples.

Some people photo a brick wall from an angle. Note what's supposed to be in focus. View it at "Original size".

[krzkrzkrz]

Well; if your results wind up like AParmleys above, it's time to cash in with Canon's superb 1 year warranty. They'll tune it up.

Be sure to use a tripod and take multiple examples.

Some people photo a brick wall from an angle. Note what's supposed to be in focus. View it at "Original size".

You mean this thread (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=107209&postcount=36)? I thought all 50mm f/1.8 shots were like that. Im aware that they are a little soft. But the shots from the 50 f/1.8 in that thread looked pretty normal. Or did I miss something?

[cdifoto]

You mean this thread (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=107209&postcount=36)? I thought all 50mm f/1.8 shots were like that. Im aware that they are a little soft. But the shots from the 50 f/1.8 in that thread looked pretty normal. Or did I miss something?

Therein lies one of many problems. Of those who are happy with theirs you don't really know if they have a higher tolerance for what is sharp, if their copy is truly better, or if they just don't know what sharp really is. Whether that's "normal" for this lens or not, to me that's unacceptable, period.

[krzkrzkrz]

Therein lies one of many problems. Of those who are happy with theirs you don't really know if they have a higher tolerance for what is sharp, if their copy is truly better, or if they just don't know what sharp really is. Whether that's "normal" for this lens or not, to me that's unacceptable, period.

Good point, I understand. Was only looking for a second opinion, period. :eek: ;) :)

[Honest Gaza]

After stumbling on this thread (and the others that were pointed to), I reckon I'll be taking some photos of my house bricks tomorrow with my 50mm 1.8 Prime.

As the man in Dirty Harry said....."I gots to know"

[zmikers]

After stumbling on this thread (and the others that were pointed to), I reckon I'll be taking some photos of my house bricks tomorrow with my 50mm 1.8 Prime.

As the man in Dirty Harry said....."I gots to know"

Post the results, if you have the time......I'm sure we're all interested too!

[cwphoto]

As the man in Dirty Harry said....."I gots to know"

That would be the Bank Robber played by Albert Popwell in the opening scene after Harry had just emptied six (or was it five? :p ) shots from his .44 Magnum Revolver. :o

I'm such a die-hard Clint fan.

[Vich]

I thought he ment Clint's boss who explained "A man's got to know his limitations". Forgot all about the other scene. OK, time to add a Dirty Harry to the Blockbuster mailer list. Which one was it? (or will you make me see them all again - ... can't, have to sneek them in after the kid's bedtime, and in that department, she thinks she's a grownup already).

[cwphoto]

I thought he ment Clint's boss who explained "A man's got to know his limitations". Forgot all about the other scene. OK, time to add a Dirty Harry to the Blockbuster mailer list. Which one was it? (or will you make me see them all again - ... can't, have to sneek them in after the kid's bedtime, and in that department, she thinks she's a grownup already).

Ah, that would be the last line of dialogue from the sequel: "Magnum Force". Harry was referring to Leiutenant Briggs (Hal Holbrook) who had just blown up in Harry's squad car by the bomb which was sent to Harry in his mailbox (which he obviously found).

I am so sad. :o

[forno]

Clint(Dirty Harry) rocks:cool: :cool:

[zmikers]

It's amazing. This thread has transformed from "50mm" into "the Clint thread" but I'm not complaining in the least. Clint is the ultimate cool!

[Nickcanada]

Never one to hide my ignorance, I have never seen Dirty Hary but boy do I love Clints newer work, Million Dollar Baby was spectacular. I guess I know what I'm renting this weekend, and I do love going into a thread ready to talk about the title and finding the conversation has absolutely nothing to do with the origional topic :D

[Honest Gaza]

I'm with CW....it was the bank robber (stupid idiot for leaving the car running outside the bank).

Anyway....we digress :D

Here are the results :

First 3 are from same angle....next three are from slightly different angle allowing greater depth.

Me, I'm happy that my lens is not a dud.....but remember I only have one leg at the moment :o

[Vich]

It's amazing. This thread has transformed from "50mm" into "the Clint thread" but I'm not complaining in the least. Clint is the ultimate cool!
Just check out (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2361067&postcount=39) CW's avitar in the "other" forum.

[cwphoto]

Just check out (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2361067&postcount=39) CW's avitar in the "other" forum.

Doh! The secret's out now. :o

[zmikers]

You should check out some of his older stuff, the stuff that made him famous, "The Good The Bad and The Ugly" " A fist full of Dollars" and his other spaghetti westerns. Those are classic and are Clint at his best. oh ya Pale Rider is another great flick.:)

[forno]

You should check out some of his older stuff, the stuff that made him famous, "The Good The Bad and The Ugly" " A fist full of Dollars" and his other spaghetti westerns. Those are classic and are Clint at his best. oh ya Pale Rider is another great flick.:)

True, good westerns indeed

[Honest Gaza]

You should check out some of his older stuff, the stuff that made him famous, "The Good The Bad and The Ugly" " A fist full of Dollars" and his other spaghetti westerns. Those are classic and are Clint at his best. oh ya Pale Rider is another great flick.:)

Although, I always considered this a "cross-over" of High Plains Drifter & Shane.

[cwphoto]

You should check out some of his older stuff, the stuff that made him famous, "The Good The Bad and The Ugly" " A fist full of Dollars" and his other spaghetti westerns. Those are classic and are Clint at his best. oh ya Pale Rider is another great flick.:)

Agreed, although my fav is probably "The Outlaw Josey Wales":
"You gonna pull them pistols or whistle Dixie"
"To Hell with them fellas; buzzards got to eat as well as worms"

[cdifoto]

I do believe I can officially unsubscribe from this thread now. :eek: :p

[Honest Gaza]

I do believe I can officially unsubscribe from this thread now. :eek: :p

Before you go....any comments on my test results ?

I believe the photos are all sharp......are we agreed ?

Yes Professor / No Professor

[cwphoto]

Sorry Gaza - that was a shocking thread-hijack. :o

Mate they look pretty sharp from here as far as I can tell. :)

[timmciglobal]

Keep in mind sharp is very relative when your talking about such narrow DOF, viewing at 100% on a narrow DOF is always a bad idea I find, better to make a print and see what you think then if your unhappy determine if it's an AF issue, sharpness issue or just issue related to such narrow DOF.

Tim

[Honest Gaza]

Sorry Gaza - that was a shocking thread-hijack. :o

Mate they look pretty sharp from here as far as I can tell. :)

Nah mate.....I believe it was my flippant "I gots to know" that set it all off :D .

Keep in mind, this was actually someone else's thread, so it is me who is sorry :o

[Vich]

Before you go....any comments on my test results ?

I believe the photos are all sharp......are we agreed ?

Yes Professor / No Professor

2 things.

1. Part of the test is to determine off focusing issues. So find a spot of high contrast and try always hitting it.

The camera will key in on a pretty wide area surrounding the focus-dot and will look for lines (can't remember if horiz or vertical takes presidence) so don't be too alarmed if it's off, but that may indicate more testing.

2. It's nearly impossible to tell if it's sharp without a 100% crop of the in-focus region.

For this, take an un-compressed image, click on View / Original Size. Crop out a square that's about 600 x 600 pixels and save it uncompressed. This avoids problems introduced by the compression problem, as well as giving a good up-close view. Post both a reduced original (uncropped) so we can see the full photo, and the cropped section.

If you can draw in the focus point using some sort of painting tool, all the better, but don't worry about that too much. I think only APARMLEY is maticulous enough to actually do that very often.

Thanks!

[Honest Gaza]

Thanks Vich.....will break out the cropper...and post results.

[michaelb]

I wish my 50mm 1.8:

1. Had better focusing ability in low light.
2. Had a shorter minimum focus distance.
3. Didn't feel like a toy from a gumball machine at Walmart

But, I love the photos is allows me to take.

I have never "tested" it, examining 100% crops, etc - I don't feel the need to - I just know that I like what comes out of it.

When I get a great shot out of this lens I feel like I am getting my money's worth!!

Here are a few of my favorites:

[michaelb]

Up close...

[michaelb]

Fun with narrow DOF:

[michaelb]

Its also good for portraits.....:D

[zmikers]

I wish my 50mm 1.8:

1. Had better focusing ability in low light.
2. Had a shorter minimum focus distance.
3. Didn't feel like a toy from a gumball machine at Walmart

But, I love the photos is allows me to take.

I have never "tested" it, examining 100% crops, etc - I don't feel the need to - I just know that I like what comes out of it.

When I get a great shot out of this lens I feel like I am getting my money's worth!!

Here are a few of my favorites:

So what's your advice. 50 1.8 or the better quality but more expensive 50 1.4?

By the way, my name is Micahel B too.......LOL ;) Just an observation!

[michaelb]

So what's your advice. 50 1.8 or the better quality but more expensive 50 1.4?

By the way, my name is Micahel B too.......LOL ;) Just an observation!

For me, the 50mm 1.8 is good enough. If I ever change my mind I can sell it in a heartbeat on Fred Miranda for basically what I paid for it.

I would rather keep my 50mm 1.8 and use the money saved to get a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro.....which is what I am thinking of doing. I really want a macro lens for flowers.