| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/03/2005 07:52:33 AM · #1 |
Hello there again,
I own the 50MM F1.8 canon lens (you know the cheap plastic one) and realy love it.
It's a very handy litlle lens, that I use often (almost alway's on my camera)
The thing is, I do a lot of portraiture now (well I'm trying to do it) and this lens is very usefull for it, but I also know there's the ven better lens, the F1.4
The main reason for me to buy it would be the USM on this one.
The F1.8 is a bit slow in focussing, and "hunts" sometimes. Not realy that mutch, but slow it is...
So my question is:
Is it worth to upgrade?
Is the USM version realy that more quick, I mean, does it snap into focus??
Will I notice the better sharpness of the lens?
What is the Bokeh like? I don't realy "love" the bokeh on the 1.8, it's ok, but not great.
Anybody here that has them both or had them both and can tell me the bennefits of the 1.4 over the 1.8 (It's 4x more expensive...)
Thanks in advance.
Peter
Message edited by author 2005-07-03 07:53:54. |
|
|
|
07/03/2005 08:33:47 AM · #2 |
Review of the 1.4 with lots of comparative angles against the 1.8
Good luck. I personally like the above review site, and find its contents very useful in lens decisions, etc.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 12:42:00 PM · #3 |
i did research on this a couple of months back and based from the majority of the reviews i read the 50mm 1.4 is not worth it! considering the price difference against its 1.8 sibling. im sure the bokeh of the 1.4 lens is better than the 1.8 but dont it its sharper & faster (focusing).
keep your 1.8 and save your money for a nice zoom lens or other accessories (flash maybe)
keep on shooting! |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 12:57:26 PM · #4 |
I have the same question, Peter. Although, for me it's more a question of being taken seriously, which is silly, I know ... but it's true.
99% of people have no idea what a red line around a black lens means, but the one's who do know seem to judge accordingly if they don't see it(I know the 1.4 isn't an L, just using an extreme to make my point). |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 01:41:06 PM · #5 |
I am a DLSR newbie, and I opted to get the 50 mm 1.4 USM because of the ability to take photos in low light without flash. The review was correct with regards to the 1.6 cropping factor...I find myself backing into walls, couches and chairs to get those low light photos! Probably would work better in a larger space - say, a really big living room, outdoors, in a gym or church!
Just curious...what happens when someone "judges accordingly" based on the absence of the red line (or white lens body, etc. etc.)?
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 01:59:27 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by djcoffey:
Just curious...what happens when someone "judges accordingly" based on the absence of the red line (or white lens body, etc. etc.)? |
nothing ... I guess what I mean is - if someone who knows a little about photography hires a photographer, they would expect to see certain equipment being used ... and probably not the most inexpensive lens on the market.
of course, if you know enough about photography, you know that the lens is excellent ... I'm speaking only of expectation (and I agreed in advance that it was silly). |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 02:48:10 PM · #7 |
For portraiture (since I don't think you'll be using f/1.4 much), I think the only difference will come down to the bokeh. Look at some samples, and determine if you think it's worth the extra cost. I'd rather spend the money on another lens :P
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 02:57:55 PM · #8 |
| Regarding the low-light-advantage of the f/1.4, has anyone had the good fortune to try the new Sigma 30mm f/1.4? That lens would sure sort out the 'backing in to walls' disadvantage of 1.6 crop factor. |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 02:58:28 PM · #9 |
I think the f/1.4 is marginally better in almost every way. Wider, better build quality, faster, sharper.. Those people that own it seem to rate that little extra you get. For me, I've got the f/1.8.. It's not as good as the f/1.4, but be under no illusion, it's a top quality lens.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 05:36:08 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by djcoffey:
Just curious...what happens when someone "judges accordingly" based on the absence of the red line (or white lens body, etc. etc.)? |
nothing ... I guess what I mean is - if someone who knows a little about photography hires a photographer, they would expect to see certain equipment being used ... and probably not the most inexpensive lens on the market.
of course, if you know enough about photography, you know that the lens is excellent ... I'm speaking only of expectation (and I agreed in advance that it was silly). |
Thanks! Er, I guess you can tell I'm a newbie DLSR = DSLR!!!
So far, except for the martini party where I used my 50 MM and fell over couches and the like, I've not used it much yet. Hmm perhaps it wasn't the lens or the 1.6x crop factor after all!
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 05:38:53 PM · #11 |
bottom line...
1. the 1.4 is built better
2. the 1.4 will focus faster
3. the 1.4 will have 1/3 extra stop
4. the 1.4 is slightly sharper
5. the 1.4 has more blades so it has better bokeh
(6. the 2.5 macro rocks them all except for speed ;-) )
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 05:40:52 PM · #12 |
| just understand that in low light the 1.8 (not sure about the 1.4) hunts a lot. colors in the 1.8 seem a little washed out at times, especially outdoors at noon time. colors from the 1.4 are better. but i say taht if you dont have money to throw around, i'd stick to the 1.8 and save up for an L lens later on. |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 05:41:53 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
bottom line...
1. the 1.4 is built better
2. the 1.4 will focus faster
3. the 1.4 will have 1/3 extra stop
4. the 1.4 is slightly sharper
5. the 1.4 has more blades so it has better bokeh
(6. the 2.5 macro rocks them all except for speed ;-) ) |
i think the f/1 takes the cake |
|
|
|
07/11/2005 05:43:51 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by art-inept:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
bottom line...
1. the 1.4 is built better
2. the 1.4 will focus faster
3. the 1.4 will have 1/3 extra stop
4. the 1.4 is slightly sharper
5. the 1.4 has more blades so it has better bokeh
(6. the 2.5 macro rocks them all except for speed ;-) ) |
i think the f/1 takes the cake |
the 1.0 is A LOT more expensive, and not as good a performer from what i've heard.
|
|
|
|
07/11/2005 05:56:35 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by art-inept:
Originally posted by kyebosh:
bottom line...
1. the 1.4 is built better
2. the 1.4 will focus faster
3. the 1.4 will have 1/3 extra stop
4. the 1.4 is slightly sharper
5. the 1.4 has more blades so it has better bokeh
(6. the 2.5 macro rocks them all except for speed ;-) ) |
i think the f/1 takes the cake |
the 1.0 is A LOT more expensive, and not as good a performer from what i've heard. |
ya but it's L so it's rad |
|
|
|
07/12/2005 12:04:53 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by djcoffey:
I am a DLSR newbie, and I opted to get the 50 mm 1.4 USM because of the ability to take photos in low light without flash. The review was correct with regards to the 1.6 cropping factor...I find myself backing into walls, couches and chairs to get those low light photos! Probably would work better in a larger space - say, a really big living room, outdoors, in a gym or church!
Just curious...what happens when someone "judges accordingly" based on the absence of the red line (or white lens body, etc. etc.)? |
Just buy Sigma lenses, their consumer lenses have a red ring, I guess, to impress others. ;) Or you can just paint a red line on all your lens as well. I've spray painted all my lens white with a big old red ring on all my lenses, ha ha ah.
I just bought this lens on Amazon for under $70, it was an impulse buy, I'm hoping it'll be worth it.
Oh and here is a direct comparison of the two lens with pictures to compare as well.
//www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
Message edited by author 2005-07-12 01:37:39.
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 07:45:55 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by yido:
Just buy Sigma lenses, their consumer lenses have a red ring, I guess, to impress others. ;) Or you can just paint a red line on all your lens as well. I've spray painted all my lens white with a big old red ring on all my lenses, ha ha ah.
I just bought this lens on Amazon for under $70, it was an impulse buy, I'm hoping it'll be worth it.
Oh and here is a direct comparison of the two lens with pictures to compare as well.
//www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/ |
Hmm, I wonder if that's like buying a Prada or Gucci handbag from a guy selling out of his trunk!
|
|
|
|
07/12/2005 07:50:02 PM · #18 |
I don't know about over there... but down here the f1.4 is more than 4 times the price of the 1.8.
Seems like a lot to pay for a few minor improvements - but hey, if money is no object. |
|
|
|
07/12/2005 09:37:44 PM · #19 |
If portraiture is you thing, and you want faster or better, look at the Cnaon 85mm lenses.
the 1.8 version is only $350 and there is a rebate.
If you want to go all the way, the 85 1.2L is da bomb, but at $1500 you might need a second job.
|
|
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: 08/01/2025 01:05:45 PM EDT.
