Canon 50mm f/1.8 vs 50mm f/1.4 REAL WORLD

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/26/2006 10:12:16 AM · #1

Ok, I've read the lab test reviews...

I've been somewhat less than impressed by the 50mm lens that I'm currently using (my second due to a focusing chip problem with the first one) when using it wide open and at lower apertures, but at slightly greater distances...

This would cover "bust" type compositions of people in landscape orientation (head, shoulders and a bit below), as well as full body shots...

What I am finding is that once I pass a certain range, the pic just isn't as sharp... The range seems to be around 15-20 feet.

I was told by the Canon service center that the lens itself is built a little less well all around than the 50 1.4, and that I 'shouldn't waste my time with such a cheap lens'.

Of course, I've had some rather stunning results with that lens at closer ranges (feel free to browse my portfolio with the students), but after all is said and done, once I pass that range, I find that the performance generally starts to suck.

I am suspecting that the issue may lie in the extremely short focusing range... The lens goes to infinity focus very quickly, and I am getting the feeling that the electronics are not able to handle the accuracy needed for this. Shooting narrower apertures seems to help this issue, but I think that has more to do with the fact that I am getting my subject in focus more accurately than the sharpness of the lens itself.

I've run through a few shots quickly with my downstairs roommate (who used to shoot pro) and he said that he never had any troubles shooting that lens on his 1n film body (although I do get the feeling that he uses the first model which apparently was built a little better... and the EOS 1n has ridiculously good focusing that works very well with just about any old lens), but it did indeed look to his eyes like a focusing issue...

I suspect that there's such a fine line between focusing at infinity and focusing at hyperfocus that the lens is just unable to manage in autofocus...

I did notice that a lot of my shots turned out MUCH better when I used manual focus and brought the focus back a bit from full infinity.. Can't say that I found hyperfocus for sure, but it sure looked like it...

This is a bit disappointing though as most of the stuff I shoot in conditions dark enough to really need the f/1.8 also happens a lot faster than I can manually focus in the dark...

I was wondering if anyone else out there with a 20D or 30D has had any experience with the 50mm f/1.8 and the f/1.4 and could give some sort of comparison...

I've got a LOT of missed focus shots in my last series... They are close enough that a tiny bit of sharpening will probably suffice for the client, but I don't want to keep facing this issue... I shouldn't need to 'fudge' with this camera shooting a greater than f/2.8 prime lens... The light was low, but it wasn't THAT low...

I will also note that when I took some shots with the 85mm f/1.8 a little while ago, my shots were a lot more reliable...

DemonLlama

Canon EOS-30D

06/26/2006 10:17:01 AM · #2

I'm still learning all of the technical ins and outs of some of this stuff but I've got the 1.4 and it's clarity is amazing. I haven't shot with the 1.8 so I can't do an accurate comparison for you but I don't regret getting the 1.4 at all. I'd be happy to share some samples with you if you'd like.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/26/2006 10:19:57 AM · #3

I did a comparison awhile back and lab results showed the F1.8 at f1.8 slightly sharper then the f1.4 at f1.4. However, while performing the test we took several images and in low light the number of out of focus images with the f1.8 was alarming. The f1.4 had more consistent results.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/26/2006 11:14:55 AM · #4

Thanks Louddog... That's the kind of information that I am looking for... Do you have details posted somewhere?

I am guessing that if you get it right, it works great, but it is harder to get right... especially in challenging situations...

I was shooting a fast moving graduation show with kids running all over the place... I had about a half second or less for each certificate that was presented, and a lot of the show was in terrible light that was changing rapidly... Even shooting at 5FPS, I missed a whackload of shots... Shadows were oppressive.

Shot full manual with autofocus, but I have found that probably 80% or more of my images are NOT in focus... While I had free range of the front of the stage, I was asked not to go on it... Flash was also not permitted... Shots within 15 feet were generally pretty good. Shots beyond that are almost all crap for focus... It's going to be a nightmare sharpening these... ISO 1250 too...

Comparatively, the 80-200 was pretty close to spot on for focus in most shots, but was affected by a bit of camera shake (1/160 at f/2.8). It gave better results for most shots, but the range was inappropriate and I could only shoot it from the sides of the auditorium
I'm curious about the range that you performed your tests in...

I am seriously considering ditching the 1.8 and going for the 1.4...

It's a bit out of my financial reach right now, but I might be able to swing it... I need the 16-50 f/2.8 by Tokina... I hope they hurry up...

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

06/26/2006 11:22:46 AM · #5

original thread

When comparing the best images the 1.8 was sharpest, but I recall that there were a lot more "best" images to chose from with the Canon F1.4.

06/26/2006 11:46:12 AM · #6

Thanks for that LoudDog...

You ever get around to checking the lenses at f/1.8?

06/26/2006 11:56:06 AM · #7

I'm in a bad mood so B&H just got the benefit of my shopping therapy! My f1.4 will be here by Thursday.

06/26/2006 12:04:46 PM · #8

Wow!

Lucky you!

Let me know how things go... I would consider picking up the 1.4 within a month... PM me if I miss it...

Thanks.

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

06/26/2006 12:06:31 PM · #9

I will send a full report, Keiran. Btw - there is a $25 rebate on it right now making the final cost $289 at B&H. Cheapest I've seen it.

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

06/26/2006 12:10:59 PM · #10

Have you gotten a chance to try your 50 on his 1N for a roll?
My model had problems with the AF/MF switch the first day, it would get stuck on MF and the internal switch wouldn't move until I jiggled it a lot. But, after that, it seems to be OK. It's hard to manual focus it with the sketchy focus ring, but I've had decent luck with the AF at all distances.

It's probably going to be easier to see whether or not it's in focus on the 1N, so you might end up with a lot more keepers just because you refocus before you take the picture... I just traded my point and shoot for one of them and the viewfinder is great.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

06/26/2006 12:45:39 PM · #11

Just a thought: could this be an autofocus problem with the camera body? As I said, just a thought.

06/26/2006 02:19:13 PM · #12

It could be... I've had the camera checked by Canon Service though... They were able to get good performance out of it in lab tests... I suspect that it's just crummy interfacing or something (at this point)...

Cindi, thanks for the headsup... I will probably try to buy this lens in TaiZhong, where there is a Canon factory and there are some people I know that work there... minor factory discounts...

Madman, my friend's 1n sold a few weeks ago...

Good move to trade your P&S for one... they are fantastic! The only problem is that they get you wanting more...

06/30/2006 12:16:32 PM · #13

Where is that stupid brown truck?? My lens is scheduled for delivery today - was scheduled for yesterday but "This delay was caused by a late train". Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/30/2006 04:36:14 PM · #14

Here's the head to head comparison - at 100% its really quite remarkable.

Jaded_Housewife

Canon EOS-5D

06/30/2006 04:44:56 PM · #15

Originally posted by idnic:

Here's the head to head comparison - at 100% its really quite remarkable.

Wow! that is remarkable. makes me feel a bit screwed in the WPL tournament being that i'm on the 50/1.8 team. lol bad thread timing. im going to have to find some awesome subjects and there arent really any left around here in the middle of nowhere. lol

Prof_Fate

06/30/2006 05:22:21 PM · #16

Can someone give a CA test to the two lenses? I find my 1.8 to be really bad and was wondering if the 1.4 is better, and if so, how much.

Try a backlit tree...well, they have leaves now, but that's where i first noticed it.

Prof_Fate

06/30/2006 05:24:49 PM · #17

Originally posted by eschelar:

Cindi, thanks for the headsup... I will probably try to buy this lens in TaiZhong, where there is a Canon factory and there are some people I know that work there... minor factory discounts...

how many lenses can 'some people' fit in their lunchboxes? LOL
Reminds me of an old Johnny Cash song, One Piece at a Time.

scarbrd

Leica M10

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

06/30/2006 05:33:37 PM · #18

Originally posted by idnic:

Here's the head to head comparison - at 100% its really quite remarkable.

what were the exposures for each?

06/30/2006 05:36:28 PM · #19

Originally posted by scarbrd:

what were the exposures for each?

Both were shot at F4.0, 1/80th sec and ISO 100

06/30/2006 06:32:51 PM · #20

lil bump for the zillion 50mm users out there :)

07/03/2006 10:06:24 PM · #21

Thanks so much for the work on this... I was wondering if you might have a chance to compare the lenses at f/1.8... It would provide a level playing field as many people buy these and choose to use them in conditions that demands wide apertures for low light handling...

I was wondering if you could possibly provide 100% crops of those pics in areas where you mentioned that the difference is remarkable...

Thanks!

Message edited by author 2006-07-03 22:07:29.

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

07/13/2006 11:24:25 AM · #22

Just bumping up a bit.

I'm still hoping to see a comparison of the 50mm f/1.4 at f/1.8 compared to the 50mm f/1.8 at f/1.8...

I might end up doing something similar myself as I am leaning more and more towards the f/1.4...

LalliSig

07/13/2006 11:32:50 AM · #23

Sorry if I seem like I am highjacking this thread but I have had both (actually the MK1 version of the 1.8 lens) and I couldnÂ´t tell them apart from image quality but I still got the 1.4 lens for the following reasons.

1. Better bokeh, it has 8 bladed aperture and therefore better bokeh, I always disliked the bokeh of the 1.8 lens when it was wide open or close to it.

2. Better build quality.

3. Usm focus, I often autofocus, hold the button down, adjust the framing and slightly adjust the focus manually and then take the shot, just my way of doing things and that isnÂ´t possible without an USM motor. Also quieter.

4. 1.4 aperture has come in handy often, the 2/3 stop difference can be useful.

5. I could afford it.

Just my 2 cents if anyone is comparing these ;)