Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Canon 50/1.8 vs 50/1.4
#1
Hi all,



I'm hoping some members might have experience with both these lenses and could share their experience here.



I have the 50/1.8, but a friend wants to buy it and I wouldn't mind having that extra bit of light a 1.4 offers. For 'serious' work I already have the Zeiss 50/2, but I sometimes need an autofocus 50mm for theatre and concert jobs. Usually the pictures are for internet use, so a 50/1.2 would be overkill (not to mention the price). The Zeiss 50/1.4 is on my wish-list too, but right now I just need working lens: that is, the manual focus of the Zeiss is a bit impractical for theatre jobs.



Does anybody know if the 50/1.4 marks a significant improvement over the 1.8 on a full-frame camera, or should I just stick with the one I've got?



Thanks in advance!



Pinhole
#2
Well, the 50/1.4 will certainly be more snappy (better contrast) at f/1.8 than the 50/1.8. I don't think (as opposed to know) that there'll be a significant difference between the two from f/4 onwards.
#3
[quote name='Pinhole' date='07 June 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1275925866' post='312']

Hi all,



I'm hoping some members might have experience with both these lenses and could share their experience here.



I have the 50/1.8, but a friend wants to buy it and I wouldn't mind having that extra bit of light a 1.4 offers. For 'serious' work I already have the Zeiss 50/2, but I sometimes need an autofocus 50mm for theatre and concert jobs. Usually the pictures are for internet use, so a 50/1.2 would be overkill (not to mention the price). The Zeiss 50/1.4 is on my wish-list too, but right now I just need working lens: that is, the manual focus of the Zeiss is a bit impractical for theatre jobs.



Does anybody know if the 50/1.4 marks a significant improvement over the 1.8 on a full-frame camera, or should I just stick with the one I've got?



Thanks in advance!



Pinhole

[/quote]



The AF on the 1.4 works far better than the 1.8 in low light. That alone is a good reason to opt for it. As for IQ, I think the f/1.4 will be better than the f/1.8 at the same settings across the frame but I have no first hand experience here.



Allan
#4
Thanks for the lightning fast replies, chaps!



Yes, the auto-focus on the 1.8 is a bit clattery sometimes and it struggles in low light, and I must admit I hate the tiny (almost non-existent) focus ring. That said, it's served me well over the years and is a great lens for the money.



Other than the Canon 50/1.4, there doesn't seem to be many auto-focus alternatives in the sub-€1000 range anyway ...
#5
[quote name='Pinhole' date='07 June 2010 - 04:51 PM' timestamp='1275925866' post='312']

Hi all,



I'm hoping some members might have experience with both these lenses and could share their experience here.



I have the 50/1.8, but a friend wants to buy it and I wouldn't mind having that extra bit of light a 1.4 offers. For 'serious' work I already have the Zeiss 50/2, but I sometimes need an autofocus 50mm for theatre and concert jobs. Usually the pictures are for internet use, so a 50/1.2 would be overkill (not to mention the price). The Zeiss 50/1.4 is on my wish-list too, but right now I just need working lens: that is, the manual focus of the Zeiss is a bit impractical for theatre jobs.



Does anybody know if the 50/1.4 marks a significant improvement over the 1.8 on a full-frame camera, or should I just stick with the one I've got?



Thanks in advance!



Pinhole

[/quote]

I have both. The f1.4 that I have has more resolution in the centre, (tested at f5.6 for both) than the f1.8. Its a no-brainer really except for the price. The f1.4 feels like a real lens, unlike the plastic fantastic. Also, obviously gives opportunity to get shake free shots using f1.4. The f1.4 IMO is a really sweeet lens
#6
Based on my testing, of 5 50 F/1.4s and 7 50 F/1.8 Mk IIs, plus a 50 F/1.8 Mk I, I'd consider the 50 F/1.4 a 50 F/2.8, and the 50 F/1.8 a 50 F/2-F/2.2, from an IQ wide open POV. I am not talking build here, because the obvious winner is the 50 F/1.8 Mk I.



The 50 F/1.8 is very usable from F/2 - F/2.2 (copy variation), the 50 F/1.4 is not great at close distance focusing in mediocre light, and has a weird MTF curve in that it really only is soso at large apertures until it hits F/2.8, where it suddenly jumps through the roof, right to F/8. The F/1.8 focuses well close by, in any type of light, and is quite sharp from wide open, gradually gets better when you close down, gets beaten by the 50 F/1.4 from about F/2.8 to F/5.6, but is equally good again thereafter. At least. that is my experience.



This is something you will also find with most other 50s: the slower ones (F/1.7 - F/2) are good wide open, and get better slowly at smaller apertures, and reach their best somewhere around F/5.6 - F/8. The faster 50s (F/1.4) often are mediocre at F/1.4 - F/2.5, and suddenly becoem excellent at F/2.8, and stay that way until F/8 or thereabouts.



If you are looking for great bokeh, neither will do, BTW. You'll need to get the 50 F/2.5 CM if you want good bokeh. Plus this lens is great wide open already. Pity the AF motor is so noisy <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />.



Regarding AF accuracy of the 50 F/1.8: it is IMO a matter of how to apply AF with this little critter. Yes, it tends to get less accurate in lower light, and that may well be a funcion of the relatively large steps of the stepper motor or gears of the AF mechanism. However, the way around this is exactly the same thing as we used to do with MF in a long ago past: focus on something with a good contrast difference at the same distance as your main subject. Black on black, especially in a darker environment, never is a good thing to focus on. It is impossible to do so yourself, and AF systems aren't good at this either. Black on white is a lot better. Always worked for me so far.



The two fast lenses i have come across so far which don't follow the fast 50s trend described above, are the Sigma 50 F/1.4 and the 50L. However, those may well have other problems straight out of the box, if you're unlucky.



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#7
I had only one sample of each, so my experience is sortof limited here ...



regarding your question which of the two (f/1.8 or f/1.4) is the better lens on

a fullframe camera .... I think "it depends" ... if you need the better sharpness

near f/2, you're likely better served with the f/1.8 ... if you need the lens for

lowlight often, take the f/1.4 ... the AF is noticably better.

If you look for the better bokeh between these two, again it is the f/1.4 that

you want.



After owning both, I finally upgraded to the 50L ... and never looked back.

Yes, it has a steep pricetag, and Klaus's MTF test did not really make it

shine ... but in real life, it is a joy to use and a reliable companion ... and of

course it is able to deliver imprssive results.



just my 2cts ... Rainer
#8
have had both too

the 50F1.8 has the worst bokeh I ever saw, worst than the kit EFS 18-55.

it is sharp at f2 only if you manage to focus correctly, the autofocus acuracy of this lens is dreadful on several samples.

OTOH the 50f1.4 is not that sharp at f1.4 but I don't agree here at f2 it is at least as good as the 50F1.8 with a more reliable autofocus.

i found no serious optical flaws with it

its only con: its autofocus, this lens has an old micromotor USM, its lifespan is short.

btw if you're getting this one you could sell the zeiss (unless using it for macro) since beyound f2.8 almost nothing is sharper than this lens,

my experience tells me manual focus in concerts at f.4 is a very bad idea, try it if you don't believe me
#9
[quote name='toni-a' date='07 June 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1275950842' post='326']



btw if you're getting this one you could sell the zeiss (unless using it for macro) since beyound f2.8 almost nothing is sharper than this lens,



[/quote]



<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />



I'd never sell my beloved Zeiss! It won't wear out in my lifetime, and it produces beautiful images. I don't know if it's the sharpest lens, but it has a certain je ne sais quoi that is hard to explain.



But I agree, manual focus in concerts is hard work. Not impossible though, as I did some fine shots of a jazz guitarist a few weeks ago using only Zeiss lenses on a 5D. The only problem there was the dreaded pink spotlight, but I convinced the musicians that black and white was better, and they were happy with the results.



Usually I'm more troubled by theatre/dance work, where people are appearing at unpredictable places (unless you know the piece, but usually you don't have time to see it first). For those jobs I'd like a wide-aperture workhorse that has decent resolution.
#10
[quote name='Pinhole' date='07 June 2010 - 06:51 PM' timestamp='1275925866' post='312']

Hi all,



I'm hoping some members might have experience with both these lenses and could share their experience here.



I have the 50/1.8, but a friend wants to buy it and I wouldn't mind having that extra bit of light a 1.4 offers. For 'serious' work I already have the Zeiss 50/2, but I sometimes need an autofocus 50mm for theatre and concert jobs. Usually the pictures are for internet use, so a 50/1.2 would be overkill (not to mention the price). The Zeiss 50/1.4 is on my wish-list too, but right now I just need working lens: that is, the manual focus of the Zeiss is a bit impractical for theatre jobs.



Does anybody know if the 50/1.4 marks a significant improvement over the 1.8 on a full-frame camera, or should I just stick with the one I've got?



Thanks in advance!



Pinhole

[/quote]

well once you will have the 50F1.4 in your hands and use it, you will understand what I mean, you will just love this lens, then you will decide which one to keep.

the only con I found with the 50f1.4 is the short lifespan of its micromotor USM, I had it replaced twice in 4 years, but I was using it heavily almost on daily basis,I don't think this will be your case, and remember I am very harsh on my equipment, in that same period I sent 2 sigma 24-70f2.8 to the grave in pieces.

If Canon makes a 50f1.4 with a ring USM, just like the 85f1.8 I would be one of the first to get it.

In the past I used to say 50f1.4 is the best lens ever, will never sell it, but after owning 17-55IS I found I am using it very rarely and I changed my mind....

I feel this is what will happen to your Zeiss.

too bad for you full frame users, you can't have 17-55...
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)