Camera Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM vs. Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

[-Guevara-]

I've read plenty of reviews on both which suggest f1.4 is better but what i want to know is the slight improved quality worth the extra money i have to pay ? How much better is it in real life conditions ?

1.4 is around 25k while 1.8 is around 5k! So is it worth it to pay 20k more ?

 

[main_trouble]

f/1.4 can focus faster than f/1.8.

I have f/1.8 and it's AWESOME. Unless i wanted to take pics of small children ( who wont stay still ) I don't think I need 50 f/1.4 for my photography needs.

 

[Brendon]

^^ Theres a lot more differences -

1. Better build quality (f1.4 version has metal mount, better quality plastics etc).

2. f1.4 version is sharper and has better contrast at f1.8 than the 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.

3. f1.4 version has more aperture blades for better bokeh compared to the f1.8

4. f1.4 version has a USM motor for a more silent and quicker AF than the f1.8 version.

 

[Aces170]

^^ In addition, much more accurate Af at low light. the f1.8 hunts at low light, while the f1.4 AF's quickly and accurately..

I have the f1.8, but the f1.4 is worth the xtra IMO..

 

[FaH33m]

Does all of this apply for Nikon version of 1.4 as well ?

^^ Theres a lot more differences -

1. Better build quality (f1.4 version has metal mount, better quality plastics etc).

2. f1.4 version is sharper and has better contrast at f1.8 than the 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.

3. f1.4 version has more aperture blades for better bokeh compared to the f1.8

4. f1.4 version has a USM motor for a more silent and quicker AF than the f1.8 version.

 

[main_trouble]

According to DXO mark 50 f/1.8 beats 50 f/1.4

Help yourselves clickme

^^ Theres a lot more differences -

1. Better build quality (f1.4 version has metal mount, better quality plastics etc).

2. f1.4 version is sharper and has better contrast at f1.8 than the 50mm f1.8 at f1.8.

3. f1.4 version has more aperture blades for better bokeh compared to the f1.8

4. f1.4 version has a USM motor for a more silent and quicker AF than the f1.8 version.

 

[ashvarybabul]

I never understands why some reviews of DXOmark differ from all the reviews of that product around the globe..

 

[Aces170]

^^ Its a theoretical benchmark, its exactly like how 3Dmark scores will have absolutely no bearing on real life gaming performance I would not give much importance to the scores. For camera lens you just cannot have a theoretical output, similar to a audio hardware..

 

[Brendon]

According to DXO mark 50 f/1.8 beats 50 f/1.4

Help yourselves clickme

According to that link the f1.4 version has better resolution (first slider). The f1.8 version beats it in vignetting and CA performance which can be corrected in PS.

 

[main_trouble]

According to that link the f1.4 version has better resolution (first slider). The f1.8 version beats it in vignetting and CA performance which can be corrected in PS.

yes, pay 5 times more for a lens and then use photoshop to correct the things that "expensive" lens did.

50 f/1.4 is a better lens to use.

Better build quality

Much faster autofocus

But pics dont care for better build quality of the lens / better focus.

A better pic is a better pic. And 50 f/14 gives that without burning a hole in the pocket.

As far as optical characteristics go, It even puts all canon L lenses to shame.

 

[Aces170]

^^ Bro, those benchmarks mean nothing. They mean nothing for the camera body, and they should mean nothing for the lens too. I suggest you use the f1.4 lens for a complete shoot before arriving at conclusions.

In low light conditions it means a dang, if I cannot AF. I have the 50mm f1.8, and I love the lens but that does not deter the fact that the USM version is not worth the price.

 

[apollyon]

ken rockwell seems to prefer the 1.8 over the 1.4
Canon 50mm f/1.8

"Excellent for use in low light; I prefer it to the faster 50mm f/1.4 because this f/1.8 lens gives me more accurate autofocus."
"In fact, this $99 plastic lens gives sharper results than the 50mm f/1.4 USM I've used, especially in no light. The f/1.4 is soft at f/1.4, and worse, I rarely get in-focus results with it, while this $99 f/1.8 lens is sharp at f/1.8, and always delivers perfect in-focus results!

The 50mm f/1.8 II weighs less, costs less, and autofocuses more accurately than the 50mm f/1.4 USM."
"The 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.2 L are also nice, but I don't get consistent focusing with either, thus I get softer shots. WHy pay more to get softer shots? With this 50mm f/1.8, all my shots are dead-on in low light."

I'm not a fan of either lens though, don't like the OOF rendering of both the lenses.

 

[main_trouble]

As far as autofocus goes 1.8 is generations behind 1.4.

It is slow, noisy.

Build quality is poor as compared to 1.4.

^^ Bro, those benchmarks mean nothing. They mean nothing for the camera body, and they should mean nothing for the lens too. I suggest you use the f1.4 lens for a complete shoot before arriving at conclusions.

In low light conditions it means a dang, if I cannot AF. I have the 50mm f1.8, and I love the lens but that does not deter the fact that the USM version is not worth the price.

Again these things say nothing about the image that 1.8 can take. I have played around with 1.4 and image quality is SAME ( DXO says it's worse..)

What you are talking about it quality of LENS.

What DXO is talking about is the quality of Glass in the lens.

There's a difference between the two...

Cheers

 

[Powersurge]

As far as autofocus goes 1.8 is generations behind 1.4.

It is slow, noisy.

Build quality is poor as compared to 1.4.
Again these things say nothing about the image that 1.8 can take. I have played around with 1.4 and image quality is SAME ( DXO says it's worse..)

What you are talking about it quality of LENS.

What DXO is talking about is the quality of Glass in the lens.

There's a difference between the two...

Cheers

You clearly have made up your mind without using the 1.4 properly. As for Quality of images, hell ive seen beautiful ones taken by the 1.8 II as opposed to crappy ones taken by a 50mm 1.2L even. Why pay 75k for a 50mm 1.2L then? Aces and Brendon have already listed what makes the 1.4 a better lens, and as someone who owns and has used both, I can tell you that the bokeh on the 1.4 is miles better 1.8 II, not to mention much more stable AF.

Also, since you don't seem pay heed to all these points, let me put it simply. The 1.4 can take beautiful shots at 1.8, but the 1.8 cant take beautiful shots at 1.4

 

[Aces170]

I'm not a fan of either lens though, don't like the OOF rendering of both the lenses.

Obviously not, when compared to the bokeh of the Zeiss MF glass you have

Again these things say nothing about the image that 1.8 can take. I have played around with 1.4 and image quality is SAME ( DXO says it's worse..)

What you are talking about it quality of LENS.

What DXO is talking about is the quality of Glass in the lens.

I am talking about the IQ at wide apertures, for comparison purpose check both of them at f1.8. The USM version is noticeably sharper, and hell lot more accurate in low light. At f4 and above, both the lens will be razor sharp.

Appo, Ken rockwell product reviews,

I wont be surprised if he concludes the Nikon kit lens is better then Canon L glass.. His articles on photography are brilliant for new-comers but his product reviews are the last one you need to refer..

 

[apollyon]

^^hehehe i know, hence the smiley
The one thing i like about his reviews are that theres no ambiguity either its good or its crap!

 

[Anshul]

For me it's all about the creamy dreamy bokeh. Also, I had a quick look at the lens flare comparison and the 1.4 wins hands down.

 

[Brendon]

yes, pay 5 times more for a lens and then use photoshop to correct the things that "expensive" lens did.

50 f/1.4 is a better lens to use.

Better build quality

Much faster autofocus

But pics dont care for better build quality of the lens / better focus.

A better pic is a better pic. And 50 f/14 gives that without burning a hole in the pocket.

As far as optical characteristics go, It even puts all canon L lenses to shame.

In the earlier days a plastic mount entry level SLR camera took the SAME photos as a top of the line $2000 professional SLR camera like the Canon 1D.

Now why did people bother spending more for a better SLR camera when the film (just like a DSLR sensor) was the same for both cameras.

The answer was build quality, performance and ergonomics.

The same thing applies here as well. If you had used your same line of thinking that photo quality was all that mattered then you would have been very happy with a entry level SLR. However many people still went for more expensive cameras to get a metal mount, more buttons, better viewfinders etc. All these features added nothing to the final IQ.

In this scenario, sharpness is just slightly better than the f1.8 version but build quality, speed (2/3rds brighter lens), AF are all better. Again none of these contribute to a better photo and you (and many more people) feel the price difference is very significant that you do not care for the small advantages of the f1.4.

There is nothing wrong with that but do remember that there are also many other people who do find the advantages of the f1.4 version to be worth paying extra for.

Also do note that a well made lens can last you a lifetime. You get many fully working 1932 era Leica lenses still functioning perfectly today. However the all plastic (down to the mount) 50mm f1.8 may not last nearly as long and even less if (God forbid) it falls to the ground !

 

[main_trouble]

In the earlier days a plastic mount entry level SLR camera took the SAME photos as a top of the line $2000 professional SLR camera like the Canon 1D.

Now why did people bother spending more for a better SLR camera when the film (just like a DSLR sensor) was the same for both cameras.

The answer was build quality, performance and ergonomics.

The same thing applies here as well. If you had used your same line of thinking that photo quality was all that mattered then you would have been very happy with a entry level SLR. However many people still went for more expensive cameras to get a metal mount, more buttons, better viewfinders etc. All these features added nothing to the final IQ.

In this scenario, sharpness is just slightly better than the f1.8 version but build quality, speed (2/3rds brighter lens), AF are all better. Again none of these contribute to a better photo and you (and many more people) feel the price difference is very significant that you do not care for the small advantages of the f1.4.

There is nothing wrong with that but do remember that there are also many other people who do find the advantages of the f1.4 version to be worth paying extra for.

Also do note that a well made lens can last you a lifetime. You get many fully working 1932 era Leica lenses still functioning perfectly today. However the all plastic (down to the mount) 50mm f1.8 may not last nearly as long and even less if (God forbid) it falls to the ground !

He asked

I've read plenty of reviews on both which suggest f1.4 is better but what i want to know is the slight improved quality worth the extra money i have to pay ? How much better is it in real life conditions ?

1.4 is around 25k while 1.8 is around 5k! So is it worth it to pay 20k more ?

I replied to that.
You can buy a watch for Rs.100 or Rs. 200k.
If you just care about the time , then maybe a cheap casio would do.

However if build quality, performance and ergonomics is important to you , then you can gofor more expensive ones. Needless to say, a casio would show the same time as tag-heuer.

I say it again.
1.4 for is a better LENS as it has much better autofocus.
But as far as optical characteristics go 1.8 is better. It's even better than ALL canon L lenses which cost a BOMB. If you just care about the image quality, then 1.8 is as good as it gets(very close to the top lens from sigma).

DXO labs also show what we have been hearing for some time but we ignore it as fanboy noise. Pentax does give you the best image quality.
Sadly AFAIK no pentax authorised reseller in India..

I have a Canon 1000d with a kit lens and 50mm f/1.8 ( which I LOOOOOOVE).

 

[Brendon]

Um, dxomark is only one site. Photozone says differently -

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Here the f1.8 version gets only 3.5 stars. Thats hardly L quality.

The f1.4 version gets 4 stars and a Highly recommended rating in comparison.

In comparison the 85mm f1.2 & Canon 135mm f2 version gets 4.5 star rating. One full additional rating compared to the 50mm f1.8

Now the 50mm f1.8 is no slouch but IMO you cannot compare it with an L lens costing many times more.

Also what these tests dont show is the micro contrast and contrast that add that extra punch to your image.

Buy yeah I agree with you on Pentax. I always wanted to get a Pentax but their complete non availability in India made me change my mind and get a Sony DSLR.