EF50 f1.8 VS EF50 f1.4 USM

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Matt Needham on December 7, 2009 at 12:55pm

The prices I see in the US are $100 and $375 new. I own both. The f/1.8 takes fine photos, but it's build is about as cheap as it's possible to get. That's not to say it's fragile. I dropped mine from shoulder height onto a stone floor. It bounced in the air, and I caught it. It still works fine. :) I've never noticed that it's particularly loud, or makes much noise at all, even though it doesn't have USM. It's very sharp with good color and contrast. It doesn't have a DOF scale. The f/1.4 feels and looks much nicer. It's got a DOF scale, and more aperture blades which makes for rounder, smoother out-of-focus highlights. The f/1.8 is probably a bit more crisp at f/1.8 than the f/1.4 at f/1.8, but it's pretty subtle. If you can get the f/1.4 for $250 go for it. That's a deal. Don't agonize over it though. The f/1.8 is ugly, but completely functional. :)

Permalink Reply by Kenneth Crimaldi on April 21, 2010 at 11:37am

me too - it would be very hard to convince me that about half a stop and a few minor benefits are worth hundreds of dollars - besides, if the 1.8 does break, like if you don't catch it :), and you buy another one, you are still a couple of hundred ahead

Permalink Reply by Royce Rumsey on January 7, 2010 at 3:33am

Worth every penny. The 1.4 if generally regarded as one of the sharpest lenses available for the price. And the bokah is superb. Those features along with the USM and increased flexibility make the differential a bargain.

Permalink Reply by Alan Ang on January 7, 2010 at 5:11am

I own a 1.8 but satisfy with the result. Of course if you have better budget it is nice to have the 1.4 which is able to shoot better in low light.

Permalink Reply by Richard Crowe on February 13, 2010 at 10:05pm

The claim to fame of the 50mm f/1.8 Mark-II is that it is a lot faster and a lot sharper than the 18-55mm kit lens (especially the non-IS model) which came or comes with many rebel DSLR cameras. And, of course, it costs less than a hundred bucks.

That said, the "Nifty-Fifty" is not a great lens; it is a fairly good lens but, certainly not great enough to gain such a cult following.

The 50mm f/1.4 is a far better lens. It is faster and somewhat sharper than the f/1.8 Mark-II but, the reasons I consider it a better lens is that it focuses better, is built a lot better and it has an eight bladed aperture which produces smoother Bokeh. (Note: don't confuse Bokeh with depth of field but, that is another subject).

Permalink Reply by Don LaVange on April 13, 2010 at 5:18pm

Seems to me that there is no question between these 2. The question for the ages is wether the F1.2 at a cost of 500% or more is worth considering if you can afford it,

I know that comparisons of a similar test between the 85 F1.8 and the much more costly 85 F1.2 comes up a draw on IQ, yet I have, and love, the results I see with the F1.2.

Permalink Reply by Jim McConnell on April 26, 2010 at 8:29am

An old- time photographer once told me that every Canon-equipped professional photographed had a 50mm f/1.5 lens. Don`t buy 1, get a six-pack, they don`t last long. The f/1.4 is a good lens, but not as sharp wide-open. For some things the f/1.8 can not be beat.