Reading mode: Light Dark

50/1.4 50/1.8 comparison

Go to last post
B

Bob Lister

Well-known member
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
Location
Ulverston/Cumbria, UK
Has anyone any comparison shots between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8

I have recently bought a D30 and kept my EOS5 complete with the two lenses I have. 28-80EF USM 3.5/5.6 and 75-300 4.0/5.6. but would like to get another lens. As the 1.4 is nearly five times the cost of the 1.8 how much of a difference is there image wise. The difference in f stop is not great and I could compensate with a slight ISO change if I was in bad light. I know there is a big difference in build quality, but I am not using this equipment professionaly. I am trying to decide if I should hang on and stump up for a 1.4 or get the 1.8 if the difference is only marginal.

The current limiting factor is the fact I am married, it's a hobby and the wife is still scowling at me for buying the D30. For some reason she thinks new furniture and carpets are more important! I can't understand women :-).

Bob.
 
I have both. There is very little difference in image quality. The 1.4 is a USM so the manual focus is better & it should focus better in low light but I don't really see much difference.

My 1.8 is brand new. I'll sell it to you for a good price if you're interested.

e-mail me at [email protected]
 
Hi

I just bought my D30 yesterday and I too have the 75-300 f4/5.6, but I traded in my medium zoom for a 50mm 1.8 aafter considering the 1.4 also.

I too am not rolling in dosh sufficiently to throw 2-300 quid down the loo! The 1.8 is excellent ant will outperform most zooms for sharpness and contrast and I got mine for £69.00! There is a lot of lens snobbery on this and other forums exhibited mainly by people who can afford to have only 'the best' but the 1.8 is an excellent choice and you can spend the diference on another good lens like a Sigma EX DG zoom!!!!
Bob Lister said:
Has anyone any comparison shots between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8
I have recently bought a D30 and kept my EOS5 complete with the two
lenses I have. 28-80EF USM 3.5/5.6 and 75-300 4.0/5.6. but would
like to get another lens. As the 1.4 is nearly five times the cost
of the 1.8 how much of a difference is there image wise. The
difference in f stop is not great and I could compensate with a
slight ISO change if I was in bad light. I know there is a big
difference in build quality, but I am not using this equipment
professionaly. I am trying to decide if I should hang on and stump
up for a 1.4 or get the 1.8 if the difference is only marginal.
The current limiting factor is the fact I am married, it's a hobby
and the wife is still scowling at me for buying the D30. For some
reason she thinks new furniture and carpets are more important! I
can't understand women :-).

Bob.
Click to expand...
 
Tough one. The 50F1.8 is very sharp, but I just upgraded to a 50F1.4. The 50F1.4's focus motor is a lot faster and the extra 2/3rd's of a stop plus the faster motor does help in low light focusing as well as letting you use a higher ISO or shutter speed.

The comparisons I have seen show that the 50F1.4 is a bit sharper and has a bit better contrast, but note that that the 50F1.8 sill is sharper than just about every "L" zoom.

Another factor for some people is the focus ring. The 50F1.8 focus ring is pretty bad. The 50F1.4 has a "real" focus ring and you can touch up the autofocus while in autofocus were with all time focus (where you have to throw a switch on the 50F1.8 to go into manual focus).

Another factor is called Brokeh or the Out of focus effects. The 50F1.4 gives a smoother/better out of focus effect.

The price differential is more like "only" 3.5X to 4X. Thus it is a tough choice. There are a lot of plusses in the 50F1.4's favor, but still the 50F1.8 is very sharp and a good choice on a budget.

Karl
Bob Lister said:
Has anyone any comparison shots between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8
I have recently bought a D30 and kept my EOS5 complete with the two
lenses I have. 28-80EF USM 3.5/5.6 and 75-300 4.0/5.6. but would
like to get another lens. As the 1.4 is nearly five times the cost
of the 1.8 how much of a difference is there image wise. The
difference in f stop is not great and I could compensate with a
slight ISO change if I was in bad light. I know there is a big
difference in build quality, but I am not using this equipment
professionaly. I am trying to decide if I should hang on and stump
up for a 1.4 or get the 1.8 if the difference is only marginal.
The current limiting factor is the fact I am married, it's a hobby
and the wife is still scowling at me for buying the D30. For some
reason she thinks new furniture and carpets are more important! I
can't understand women :-).

Bob.
Click to expand...
--Karl
 
Thank's for that information Neil. It is much appreciated. Stumping up another £400 for a lens at the moment would not go down too well here. I am going to be working a good few weekends to recover from the D30 purchase. I was hoping the 50/1.8 would way outperform the current zoom I have, even if it's just because it's a non zoom lens. My local Jessops has a 1.8 in stock and I keep getting tempted by it. Later on I thought of a Sigma Zoom. The dealer I bought the D30 from had a 17-35 2.8 on the camera. He keeps dropping the price a little hoping I might go for it. But I think the 15-30 may be a better bet.

Bob.
Neil Buchan-Grant said:
Bob Lister said:
Has anyone any comparison shots between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8
I have recently bought a D30 and kept my EOS5 complete with the two
lenses I have. 28-80EF USM 3.5/5.6 and 75-300 4.0/5.6. but would
like to get another lens. As the 1.4 is nearly five times the cost
of the 1.8 how much of a difference is there image wise. The
difference in f stop is not great and I could compensate with a
slight ISO change if I was in bad light. I know there is a big
difference in build quality, but I am not using this equipment
professionaly. I am trying to decide if I should hang on and stump
up for a 1.4 or get the 1.8 if the difference is only marginal.
The current limiting factor is the fact I am married, it's a hobby
and the wife is still scowling at me for buying the D30. For some
reason she thinks new furniture and carpets are more important! I
can't understand women :-).

Bob.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Karl. At least the 1.8 seems to sell well on Ebay if I do decide to go up market a bit later on. I nearly bought one on Ebay a few weeks ago but the price went higher than a new one. It seems it was a Mk1 which I later read was preferred to the Mk2 for some reason.

Bob.
Karlg said:
The comparisons I have seen show that the 50F1.4 is a bit sharper
and has a bit better contrast, but note that that the 50F1.8 sill
is sharper than just about every "L" zoom.

Another factor for some people is the focus ring. The 50F1.8 focus
ring is pretty bad. The 50F1.4 has a "real" focus ring and you can
touch up the autofocus while in autofocus were with all time focus
(where you have to throw a switch on the 50F1.8 to go into manual
focus).

Another factor is called Brokeh or the Out of focus effects. The
50F1.4 gives a smoother/better out of focus effect.

The price differential is more like "only" 3.5X to 4X. Thus it is
a tough choice. There are a lot of plusses in the 50F1.4's favor,
but still the 50F1.8 is very sharp and a good choice on a budget.

Karl
Bob Lister said:
Has anyone any comparison shots between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8
I have recently bought a D30 and kept my EOS5 complete with the two
lenses I have. 28-80EF USM 3.5/5.6 and 75-300 4.0/5.6. but would
like to get another lens. As the 1.4 is nearly five times the cost
of the 1.8 how much of a difference is there image wise. The
difference in f stop is not great and I could compensate with a
slight ISO change if I was in bad light. I know there is a big
difference in build quality, but I am not using this equipment
professionaly. I am trying to decide if I should hang on and stump
up for a 1.4 or get the 1.8 if the difference is only marginal.
The current limiting factor is the fact I am married, it's a hobby
and the wife is still scowling at me for buying the D30. For some
reason she thinks new furniture and carpets are more important! I
can't understand women :-).

Bob.
Click to expand...
--
Karl
Click to expand...
 
Could someone help me out here with a question that I have about the 50/1.8 lens....?

Way back when I bought my EOS 650, I also purchased a 50/1.8 with it.

Can someone tell me where that particular lens fits into all of these 50/1.x discussions? Are we talking the same lens, and older version, etc.? Any plusses or minuses for a lens made that long ago?

-tnx,
Jeff
 
Same lens, but if you have a D30 it will look like an 80mm. To convert a 35mm Canon lens multiply by 1.6.

Bob.
Jeff LaRue said:
Could someone help me out here with a question that I have about
the 50/1.8 lens....?

Way back when I bought my EOS 650, I also purchased a 50/1.8 with it.

Can someone tell me where that particular lens fits into all of
these 50/1.x discussions? Are we talking the same lens, and older
version, etc.? Any plusses or minuses for a lens made that long
ago?

-tnx,
Jeff
Click to expand...
 
I suppose that is a reasonable point. But don't get too carried away with the snobbery thing. Sure, some of us have more to blow on this stuff, but then again many of us are also more fussy to start with. I have seen enough side by side comparisons of the 1.4vs. 1.8 to choke a horse and believe me THERE IS a difference. Less distortion, less CA and crisper image overall, faster and quieter focusing, better build. Mind you we are not talking "leagues" of difference but then again, it will largely depend on the application you are using. I always put it this way (budget not withstanding). If you are looking at a "Long Term" purchase the surely the 1.4 is the ONLY way to go. If you are content to use an excellent lens and at some far flung point replace it, then by all means the 1.8 will do the job. That is the most simple way I can put it.
 
Check out this review...
http://cybaea.com/photo/lens-quality-50.html
Also...
http://www.naturephotographers.net/je0700-1.html
Bob Lister said:
Has anyone any comparison shots between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.8
I have recently bought a D30 and kept my EOS5 complete with the two
lenses I have. 28-80EF USM 3.5/5.6 and 75-300 4.0/5.6. but would
like to get another lens. As the 1.4 is nearly five times the cost
of the 1.8 how much of a difference is there image wise. The
difference in f stop is not great and I could compensate with a
slight ISO change if I was in bad light. I know there is a big
difference in build quality, but I am not using this equipment
professionaly. I am trying to decide if I should hang on and stump
up for a 1.4 or get the 1.8 if the difference is only marginal.
The current limiting factor is the fact I am married, it's a hobby
and the wife is still scowling at me for buying the D30. For some
reason she thinks new furniture and carpets are more important! I
can't understand women :-).

Bob.
Click to expand...
 
Bob Lister said:
Thanks Karl. At least the 1.8 seems to sell well on Ebay if I do
decide to go up market a bit later on. I nearly bought one on Ebay
a few weeks ago but the price went higher than a new one. It seems
it was a Mk1 which I later read was preferred to the Mk2 for some
reason.
Click to expand...
It reportedly has much better build quality.
 
I would agree with Lee. The 1.4 is a quality lens you can plan to have for a long time. The 1.8 is fairly flimsy, but if you plan on mostly using another lens, it would be a fine high speed backup.
Lee Rothman said:
I suppose that is a reasonable point. But don't get too carried
away with the snobbery thing. Sure, some of us have more to blow on
this stuff, but then again many of us are also more fussy to start
with. I have seen enough side by side comparisons of the 1.4vs. 1.8
to choke a horse and believe me THERE IS a difference. Less
distortion, less CA and crisper image overall, faster and quieter
focusing, better build. Mind you we are not talking "leagues" of
difference but then again, it will largely depend on the
application you are using. I always put it this way (budget not
withstanding). If you are looking at a "Long Term" purchase the
surely the 1.4 is the ONLY way to go. If you are content to use an
excellent lens and at some far flung point replace it, then by all
means the 1.8 will do the job. That is the most simple way I can
put it.
Click to expand...
 
Jeff LaRue said:
Could someone help me out here with a question that I have about
the 50/1.8 lens....?

Way back when I bought my EOS 650, I also purchased a 50/1.8 with it.

Can someone tell me where that particular lens fits into all of
these 50/1.x discussions? Are we talking the same lens, and older
version, etc.? Any plusses or minuses for a lens made that long
ago?
Click to expand...
EOS 50mm 1.8. If it has a distance scale and the part that attaches to the camera is metal, then you have the Mk 1. The current 50mm 1.8 is the Mk II. It does not have a distance scale and the part that attaches to the camera is plastic. The optical quality is pretty much the same but the Mk 1 is much better built. It's resale value is typically higher than a new Mk II.
--xsy
 
As far as build quality goes, I believe that the 1.4 is better than the 1.8, but I think that an internal focus (IF) would be better. I find that this protruding front element is somewhat flimsy.

That is why I am considering going for the 85 f1.8. It is an IF lens. Has anyone compaired the quality of the 50 1.4 to the 85 1.8?

Chris
Andrew Grant said:
Lee Rothman said:
I suppose that is a reasonable point. But don't get too carried
away with the snobbery thing. Sure, some of us have more to blow on
this stuff, but then again many of us are also more fussy to start
with. I have seen enough side by side comparisons of the 1.4vs. 1.8
to choke a horse and believe me THERE IS a difference. Less
distortion, less CA and crisper image overall, faster and quieter
focusing, better build. Mind you we are not talking "leagues" of
difference but then again, it will largely depend on the
application you are using. I always put it this way (budget not
withstanding). If you are looking at a "Long Term" purchase the
surely the 1.4 is the ONLY way to go. If you are content to use an
excellent lens and at some far flung point replace it, then by all
means the 1.8 will do the job. That is the most simple way I can
put it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You might want to start with the 1.8 and see of the focal length fits your type of shooting. If you find yourself using the 50mm alot, then look at the 1.4, if not you have a very sharp, 1.8 standby lens dirt cheap.--Steven R
 
I'm not sure what you mean by internal focus, (they all have that) but the 1.4 doesn't have any protruding front element. It's Canon's flagship as far as primes go and you'd be hard-pressed to do better. Why anyone would invest thousands in a camera and then stick junk on the front-end is crazy.
Chris Fritz said:
That is why I am considering going for the 85 f1.8. It is an IF
lens. Has anyone compaired the quality of the 50 1.4 to the 85 1.8?

Chris
Andrew Grant said:
Lee Rothman said:
I suppose that is a reasonable point. But don't get too carried
away with the snobbery thing. Sure, some of us have more to blow on
this stuff, but then again many of us are also more fussy to start
with. I have seen enough side by side comparisons of the 1.4vs. 1.8
to choke a horse and believe me THERE IS a difference. Less
distortion, less CA and crisper image overall, faster and quieter
focusing, better build. Mind you we are not talking "leagues" of
difference but then again, it will largely depend on the
application you are using. I always put it this way (budget not
withstanding). If you are looking at a "Long Term" purchase the
surely the 1.4 is the ONLY way to go. If you are content to use an
excellent lens and at some far flung point replace it, then by all
means the 1.8 will do the job. That is the most simple way I can
put it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Allen Pacheco said:
I'm not sure what you mean by internal focus, (they all have that)
Click to expand...
What he means is that the front element doesn't move in & out as it is focused. Not all lenses are built that way. The new 100mm Macro is IF, while the older version that I have will move the front of the lens in & out as it focuses. I'm sure image quality is pretty much the same, but it would be nice at times to have a lens (esp. a macro) that maintains the front element in the same position.
Member said:
but the 1.4 doesn't have any protruding front element. It's Canon's
flagship as far as primes go and you'd be hard-pressed to do
better. Why anyone would invest thousands in a camera and then
stick junk on the front-end is crazy.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call the 1.8 junk. No, it definitely doesn't have the same build quality as the 1.4 but for the price you can't beat it in terms of bang for the buck.

Mark
 
Allen Pacheco said:
I'm not sure what you mean by internal focus, (they all have that)
but the 1.4 doesn't have any protruding front element. It's Canon's
flagship as far as primes go and you'd be hard-pressed to do
better. Why anyone would invest thousands in a camera and then
stick junk on the front-end is crazy.
Click to expand...
Probably because I have run out of spare money to buy the expensive lens. So might have to put up with this piece of junk on the front end till I save up a bit more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top