Canon 50 1.4 worth the upgrade?

[spinworkxroy]

that's why i find the dual card slots extremely useful.
mRaw in the CF and JPG in the SD.
99% of the time, i won't use the RAW files at all since the JPGs work great in the 5D3 out of the camera with the correct picture style used etc..in fact, i often find after editing the RAW files and exporting to jpgs that the original jpg looked 90% identical to the edited raw…so i'd rather save myself the trouble and just use the jpg out of the camera.
However, it's also good to be prepared to have the raw files on another card IF i need it..if not, just format the card…simple as that…
Raw is good to have when you need it but 99% of the time, i don't use it…

[Tracy Pinto]

Yes get this lens. I had the 1.8 and now own the 1.4. The difference is very much worth it. Those that have a soft 1.4 should send it to Canon to have it tuned.

[dilbert]

The 50/1.8 was just too fragile for me.

[EOBeav]

Moving to a FF Camera, you will want to look at the 85mm f1.8 to to use in place of your 50mm; it will provide a similar field of view that the 50mm did on your Crop Body. More here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

On the FF, your 50mm should be providing about the same field of view as the 35mm did on your Crop Body.

That's only if you want the field of view to be the same. I stuck with my 50mm f/1.4 when I recently moved to a full frame, and I actually prefer this FoV on the 50 over what I had on the 1.6 crop.

[BobSanderson]

Great lens - it is inexpensive enough for you to try it. The colors are beautiful and mine is very sharp throughout and fast!

[martydo]

did you consider the Zeiss 2.0 50mm makro? I recently got this lens and its VERY nice on the mark3- super sharp..

[RLPhoto]

So I have the canon 50 1.8. I use it some but am not super impressed with it. It's great stopped down but I can get about the same quality with the 24 105 IS. I just recently upgraded to a full frame camera. I've only gotten to do one shoot with the full frame but I'm noticing the 35 2.0 that I used a ton on my crop body isn't the focal length I'm looking for as much on full frame. What I'm trying to figure out is if I should just try messing around with the canon 50 1.8 some more or if it's worth upgrading to the 1.4. I hear lots of complaints about it not being a true usm focus system. It would be nice to have the better aperture blades but if that's the main thing I'm getting it's not worth it. Has anyone been in a similar situation and have some advice? Thanks.

Short Answer - YES, Its worth it.


Long answer - It has manual focus overide, USM, Better Bokeh, Metal Mount, Better lens hood design, Good Wide open performance (On par with the 35mm 1.4L or Better.) and its only 350$. Its worth the extra monies.

[vuilang]

yes, the 50 1.4 is worth the upgrade. (so is the 50 1.2, but not by much IMHO)
I owned 50 1.8II and still have it (though never mount it in last 2,3yrs).
I was amazed by its IQ compared to the much more expensive Canon 24-70.

[brianleighty]

Thanks for everyone's input. I think I'll try renting the 1.4 the next time I rent from lens rentals. Interesting suggestion regarding the tilt shift 45. Although with it only being 2.8 that's a little slow. I do want to try one out at some point but my main purpose for primes is light input. The one exception being the 100 is macro. I have looked at the zeiss 50 makro and would love to try that out at some point as well. That's a little out of my price range at the moment but I'll definitively keep that in mind.

[jabbott]

Here is my comparison of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5927.msg112725#msg112725

[rahkshi007]

I have this lens on 5d markii... i like to use due to its lightweight compare to L lens. The focus is fast and accurate. However i find that the shot taken at f1.4 is okay but not extremely sharp. For very sharp image, it start from f1.8 to f2. The main reason i choose this lens over the 50mm f1.8 is the bokeh quality as this lens has more blade. Furthermore, i feel that the 50mm f1.8 look funny when it is on 5dm2 ( just personal taste)

[3kramd5]

I found the 1.8 frustrating; focus is too slow. The USM in the 1.4 is noticeably better. As mentioned above, the bokeh is much more pleasing than the 1.8.

So I have the canon 50 1.8. 
I just recently upgraded to a full frame camera.
I'm noticing the 35 2.0 that I used a ton... isn't the focal length I'm looking for as much on full frame.
Has anyone been in a similar situation and have some advice? Thanks.

Moving to a FF Camera, you will want to look at the 85mm f1.8 to to use in place of your 50mm; it will provide a similar field of view that the 50mm did on your Crop Body.

... unless he got the larger frame camera because he wants to make use of the larger frame

[Canon Cliff]

I had a canon 50mm 1.8 and wanted something that had better build quality and a quieter AF motor. I got the sigma which had to be retuned for a major front focusing issue on return it was not much better so it went back again! it then focused correctly at f1.4 but the focus shifted as i stopped down and was front focusing again by f2.8. i returned the sigma and got my money back which is a shame because it was a very well built lens with a nice quiet focus motor.I now have the canon 1.4 which is better built than the 1.8 has a slightly quieter AF motor and slightly better bokeh it is soft at 1.4 but i find mine very useable by f2.0 and great by f4. If you fancy taking a chance of getting a good copy of the sigma go for it, its a great lens if you can get a good one my friend is lucky to have a good copy and its very good from 1.4 but its a risk u take in my opinion. Regarding the canons unless you want better build quality and a slightly better and quieter AF motor id stay with the 1.8. the better build & AF was enough for me to pay the extra!