50/1.4 50/1.8 comparison

Bob Lister said:

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.

Click to expand...

The 1.8 is most definitely not junk. At the price it is an incredible bargain & the image quality will rival most any lens out there.

The look and feel of the 50F1.4 and 50F1.8 are very similar except that the lens does not protrude when focusing on the 50F1.8. The 50F1.4 is a a very little little bit sharper than the 85F1.8 as per photodo, but they are both very sharp. On the camera they feel like twins.

Of course you are giving up about 2/3rds of an F-stop with the F1.8 over an F1.4 which also slightly affects low light autofocus. Also with the D30's 1.6X FoV factor, an 85mm is getting you into a "mid telephoto" FoV (the FoV of a 136mm on a 35mm full frame).

Karl

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...

--Karl

Bob, the 1.8 is definitely not junk as far as image quality goes. As far as build quality, the plastic lens mount would be a concern.

BTW Junk is the 28-90 tghey sell with the Elan 7. What a flimsy peice of rubbish.

Bob Lister said:

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.

Click to expand...

I will go for the 1.8 for now. Unless I have a bit of luck on this evenings lottery . Thanks to all for the useful comments. I don't think it will be money wasted, even if I trade up next year sometime.

Andrew Grant said:

Bob, the 1.8 is definitely not junk as far as image quality goes.
As far as build quality, the plastic lens mount would be a concern.

BTW Junk is the 28-90 tghey sell with the Elan 7. What a flimsy
peice of rubbish.

Click to expand...

Come ONE NOW Karlg....have you been indulging in a bit too much schnops or what? (come on just ribbing you). These two lenses are ANYTHING but twins. A greater insult could not be given to the 50mm 1.4. I am not being religious about it either. The 50mm 1.8 is like a Tonka toy and the 50mm 1.4 NOT. Really that simple. The glass inside them may compare reasonably closely, but NOT the body of the lens in ANY way! Nor the focus motor or focus ring. Come ON!

Lee,

I was responding to the question comparing the 50F1.4 and 85F1.8. I guest my hands had typed 50F1.4 and 50F1.8 so many times that they took off on their own. The 50F1.4 and 85F1.8 are very similar, but on the 50F1.4 the Lens does extend where it does not on the 85F1.8.

Karl

Lee Rothman said:

Come ONE NOW Karlg....have you been indulging in a bit too much
schnops or what? (come on just ribbing you). These two lenses are
ANYTHING but twins. A greater insult could not be given to the 50mm
1.4. I am not being religious about it either. The 50mm 1.8 is like
a Tonka toy and the 50mm 1.4 NOT. Really that simple. The glass
inside them may compare reasonably closely, but NOT the body of the
lens in ANY way! Nor the focus motor or focus ring. Come ON!

Click to expand...

--Karl

Just as a follow up. Right place at the right time I hope. I have managed to get a MK1 50/1.8 on Ebay.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1309521238

I might upgrade to the 1.4 next year if I like the 50mm as much as I hope. So look out on Ebay for a nice 1.8 Mk1 next year possibly.

Bob.

Bob Lister said:

Andrew Grant said:

Bob, the 1.8 is definitely not junk as far as image quality goes.
As far as build quality, the plastic lens mount would be a concern.

BTW Junk is the 28-90 tghey sell with the Elan 7. What a flimsy
peice of rubbish.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The 50/1.4 is generally considered a very good value for what you get compared to other pro quality primes. I just bought the 50/1.8 and wish that I had got the 1.4 because typically when I take the zoom off and put on a prime I am taking my time to get it just right or need the extra stop or two. I havent been impressed with the 1.8s performance wide open or its sharpness compared to my pro zoom that covers this range so it will probably stay in my bag until I need it for it's small size and low profile.

The sharpness, flare, and vignetting could be better, as they probably are on the 1.4. Vignetting even wide open shouldn't be a problem on the D30 due to the inherent cropping, although it is not bad at all even when viewing a complete print negative scan. I will keep this lens and save for the 85/1.2L and 35/1.4L which will be more useful to me than a better 50. When you look at the cost of these two L lenses you will appreciate the "Value Price" of the 50/1.4 L.

My .02, the 50/1.4L is the only way to go considering that you find photography interesting or profitable enough to drop $2500 on a camera body.

Uh, sorry the 50/1.4 is not an L. I just looked on B&H and I have changed my mind. You NEED the 50/1.0L

that one would be tough to get past the wife. $2500+ for a 50mm prime.

matt peterson said:

My .02, the 50/1.4L is the only way to go considering that you find
photography interesting or profitable enough to drop $2500 on a
camera body.

Click to expand...

Karl,

Just got a D30, 28-135, and 50/1.4. Clearly, a good, fast prime is necessary if you're gonna settle for a slow consumer zoom like the 28-135... it helps immensely with indoor available light photography.

My question has to do with the USM motor of the two lenses. Both are fast (pretty equal), but the 50/1.4 makes some noise while the 28-135 is absolutely quiet. Is this normal?

JCDoss

Yup. That's perfectly fine. The 50mm 1.4 uses a Micro USM and NOT the larger Ring USM. It makes a 'little" noise but not that much. Just a tad more than the Ring USM. NO big deal. It is still fast

JCDoss said:

Karl,

Just got a D30, 28-135, and 50/1.4. Clearly, a good, fast prime is
necessary if you're gonna settle for a slow consumer zoom like the
28-135... it helps immensely with indoor available light
photography.

My question has to do with the USM motor of the two lenses. Both
are fast (pretty equal), but the 50/1.4 makes some noise while the
28-135 is absolutely quiet. Is this normal?

JCDoss

Click to expand...

Member said:

My question has to do with the USM motor of the two lenses. Both
are fast (pretty equal), but the 50/1.4 makes some noise while the
28-135 is absolutely quiet. Is this normal?

JCDoss

Click to expand...

Yes, it's normal.

The 50 1.4 uses the micro-motor type, while the 28-135 is the ring motor type. You can read about them at the Canon USA EF lens site. I think if you click on the USM symbol in the lens listings you get a window with the details. (Technically the ring motor should focus faster but that 1.4 speed makes up for a lot!)

See you,--Dave Werner

The 50F1.4 is a little noiser than a lens with a ring USM, but a lot quieter and smoother than the 50F1.8 it replaced. In terms of noise, it seems similar to a Sigma HSM (Sigma high speed motor).

A prime also does not have nearly as much glass to move as a zoom and than couple with the F1.4 really helps with focus speed. But if you really want smooth and fast, I love the 70-200F2.8L. If there is enough light for it to lock reasonably, it locks fast and it is moving about 2 pounds of glass. I would guess that some day Canon will get around to putting a ring USM on a 50F1.4, but have just not found it to be a high priorty.

Karl

Dave Werner said:

Dave Werner said:

My question has to do with the USM motor of the two lenses. Both
are fast (pretty equal), but the 50/1.4 makes some noise while the
28-135 is absolutely quiet. Is this normal?

JCDoss

Click to expand...

Yes, it's normal.
The 50 1.4 uses the micro-motor type, while the 28-135 is the ring
motor type. You can read about them at the Canon USA EF lens site.
I think if you click on the USM symbol in the lens listings you get
a window with the details. (Technically the ring motor should
focus faster but that 1.4 speed makes up for a lot!)

See you,
--
Dave Werner

Click to expand...

--Karl