| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/19/2005 03:32:59 AM · #1 |
What's the difference between these two lenses that makes such a huge difference?
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens $74.95
Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Autofocus $309.95
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 03:36:48 AM · #2 |
Primarily USM and the fact that it's a bit faster.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 03:36:52 AM · #3 |
I've wondered that myself :-) That 'slight' advantage in brightness is actually quite significant: the 1.8 allows 55% of available light through the aperture wide open, the 1.4 70%. Thats said, the noise levels at higher ISOs these days would seem to negate that advantage.
Extreme shallow DOF, perhaps? 'Cos it surely can't be that much sharper ...
e |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 03:39:33 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 03:41:21 AM · #5 |
aha.....so that's what USM stands for.
Hmmmm.....sounds like something you'd want.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 03:43:16 AM · #6 |
According to this article this is a common question:
Is there any difference between these 2 lenses other than the price and f-stop? This is a common question that pops up frequently on forums everywhere. While the general consensus is that these 2 lenses are almost identically sharp, there are other factors that have not been fully explained or readily available. And there are lots of wordy discussions but hardly any picture to illustrate. Since I happened to have a new f1.4 together with my old f1.8, I decided to do some tests to find out the answers myself. My test is focused on more apparent difference at wide aperture rather than trying to find out split hair difference.
See here: //www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
Sample pics and everything.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 03:47:09 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by sfboatright:
aha.....so that's what USM stands for.
Hmmmm.....sounds like something you'd want. |
That's what make the Konica Minolta Dynax Maxxum 7D dSLR so interesting. The camera has the feature built in. Any lens attached to it becomes an USM or IS capable.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 04:08:37 AM · #8 |
I have used both lenses, and own the f1.4 version.
The f1.4 version is, in my mind, without doubt the better lens. The extra apperture is nice to have, although I could live with the 1.8 happily. I find the USM always well worth having though.
However, although it is a better lens, is it worth x3 the price .... probably not.
I think the f1.4 version is priced about right for what you get. However, I think the f1.8 version is an absolute bargain.
If you have the $ go for the better lens, but if $ plays a big part then stick at 1.8.
You'll be happy either way, these are both excellent :)
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 04:11:18 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
That's what make the Konica Minolta Dynax Maxxum 7D dSLR so interesting. The camera has the feature built in. Any lens attached to it becomes an USM or IS capable. |
Can you expand on that a little, I don;t understand it.
I thought the USM was to do with the motor in the lens. How can a body turn a lens into USM? I would have thought that the only way to do that would be to maybe make it focus reeeealllly slowly, and hence silently, but then that loses most of the appeal of the nice fast and silent USM.
Any idea if this is for real or just marketing hype?
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 06:08:31 AM · #10 |
As far as I'm aware, IS capable... yes.
USM... no. |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 06:57:50 AM · #11 |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 10:14:49 AM · #12 |
| I recently sat through a tutorial on lens and he discussed these two lens. The big difference is that the cheaper one has problems focusing on the edges of the photo. He gave a really good explaination for why, but I can't remember it right now... It's great for portraits, but not as good for group shots or landscapes. |
|
|
|
03/19/2005 11:28:13 AM · #13 |
I looked closely at the test results on the site mentioned earlier, and I am struck by two things; the overall color rendition of the f:1.4 is noticeably better, subjectively, and its performance in a high-flare situation is dramatically better as well.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 11:32:52 AM · #14 |
Depends on your use as well - I'd LOVE the f1.4 for dark churches. The extra stop DOES help a lot. But, we have the f1.8 for now and we're happy with it. I can definitely understand wanting that 1.4 though.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 11:46:56 AM · #15 |
You can say ... I have a 50mm F1.4 like Jacko :P
Edit: forgot to put the :P
Message edited by author 2005-03-19 11:47:17.
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 11:48:25 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
You can say ... I have a 50mm F1.4 like Jacko :P |
Well that's enough for me. I need all the badassedness points I can muster. ;)
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 12:01:48 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Jacko:
You can say ... I have a 50mm F1.4 like Jacko :P |
I have the 50mm f/1.4 like Jacko. That in itself is worth the extra $250 ;) :p
|
|
|
|
03/19/2005 12:03:14 PM · #18 |
I have the Canon 50mm F1.4 and love it! I used it all day yesterday in the The Metropolitan Museum of Art and had a blast the extra stop helps.
 |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/24/2025 10:28:16 PM EST.
