BATTLE OF THE PRIMES: F1.8 Vs F1.4

[HarryMichaels]

Hello people

I will be getting a EOS 60D soon but at the moment I am looking at prime lenses. I am interested in the 50mm f1.8 or the 50mm f1.4. After looking at various forums, sites etc here is what Ive gathered, please add or correct if I'm wrong.

The first point is being the price. The f1.8 is plasticy in construction and is like a toy not that this would bother me much if at all) whereas the f1.4 'feels' like a lens with its metal mount and of better build in general. The f1.4 is faster (wider aperture/sees better in the dark) therefore results in a  brighter viewfinder to aid composition and to aid the auto focus of the lens in low light situations.

Question/s

In terms of picture quality which is better or are they both the same, and that all it boils down to is the fact that one can 'see better in the dark' than the other?...

Is the available light gathering abilitiy between the f1.8 and the f1.4 that much notable?


Thanks in advance

[EOBeav]

Generally speaking, the f/1.4 is the better lens in all aspects, price:performance included. Yes, it has another half stop available, but I don't shoot mine wide open. There are some sharpness issues when it's wide open (and from what I understand, on the f/1.8 as well).  The 50mm f/1.4 really shines after about f/2.0 in terms of sharpness and clarity. I would spend the extra $250 and get it.

[solargravity]

Great question HM! I agree with EOBeav that the F1.4 is a great lens. I have had in the past a chance to shoot with it (even though only for 1 day) but let me tell you it's really quite nice. However, if money is a factor, you can rest assured that you will not be devastated if you can only get the F1.8

So many of my colleagues have said that every camera bag should have a 50mm in it. I know that from my experience I would never be without one again on any shoot professionally or even for day to day shooting.

If you are interested I have a few photos I took recently with my 50mm F/1.8 while spending the weekend with my nephew at the link below.

I welcome any comments.

http://solargravity.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=35:canon-50mm-f-18&Itemid=342

Solar Gravity
www.solargravity.com

[Cosk]

I started with a 1.4, broke it after years of use, then replaced it with the 1.8, returned that lens and bought another 1.4. 

The 1.4 is simply a joy to use.  It's fast, quiet, and delivers stunning photos.  I returned the 1.8 because the autofocus was so loud - it sounded like an electric razor.  I wasn't as much fun to use. 

If you want to begin experimenting with prime lenses, and want a good experience, get the 1.4. 

If you are an impoverished student and have to choose food or camera gear, then get the 1.8.

[nitsujwalker]

I started with a 1.4, broke it after years of use, then replaced it with the 1.8, returned that lens and bought another 1.4. 

The 1.4 is simply a joy to use.  It's fast, quiet, and delivers stunning photos.  I returned the 1.8 because the autofocus was so loud - it sounded like an electric razor.  I wasn't as much fun to use. 

If you want to begin experimenting with prime lenses, and want a good experience, get the 1.4. 

If you are an impoverished student and have to choose food or camera gear, then get the 1.8.

Whoa.... Totally disagree... If you're an impoverished student, buy the camera gear and skip meals/sell a kidney if necessary

[nitsujwalker]

I currently own both lenses and I much prefer the 1.4.  It is as sharp at 1.8 as the 1.8 is at 2.2 (at least my 1.8 copy).  I would spend the extra money and get the 1.4.  Some people report autofocus problems with the 1.4 but I have not personally experienced them.

[samuel613]

My 1.4 is great, and it's my only Non-IS lens. Buy the hood; I use it to stabilize the camera in my hand and be assured that I'm not interfering with the front element, which moves during focusing.

The focus is great, and it's quite usable at 1.4. The isolation and bokeh it delivers at 1.4 must be seen to be believed.

As for pricing, NewEgg had a 15% off Canon lenses, so I couldn't refuse that offer, and for the mid $300s, it's incredible.

I hesitated for a while before buying, because I usually use my EF-S 15-85, which is an incredible lens (other than the slow variable aperture 3.5 - 5.6, but heads to 4.0 almost immediately and 5.0 still rather quickly), with a 430 EX flash.

But this 1.4 can get shots where that combination can't, like in a dimly-lit restaurant where a flash (especially a real flash rather than a p&s) would be incredibly rude. The slower lens, even with excellent IS at 4.5 or 5.0, couldn't match (and was useless, actually, as opposed to) what I could do at 1/20 second at 1.4 with this lens. Not to mention the background very quickly fading to oblivion.

[Hillsilly]

If you like pentagon shapes, you've got to get the 1.8!  The 1.4 tends to turn out of focus highlights into dull circular shapes that merge neatly into the background. Only the 1.8 will give you the clearly defined pentagons that serious photographers seek.

Ok - jokes aside, I've got a 1.8 and like it a lot.  But it does have flaws, most of which are mentioned above - lack of sharpness wide open, noisy autofocus, ordinary bokeh.  For all intensive purposes, the 1.4 is "better".  But...the 1.8 weighs next to nothing and is reasonably small.  If you're heading out, its very easy to slip into a pocket and I rarely go anywhere without it.  And from f4 onwards it is sharp, and I doubt you'd be able to easily tell the difference between photos from either lens.   The clear giveaway is the pentagon shaped highlights, which tend to be prominent with the 1.8.  Doesn't necessarily make the photos bad, but you sometimes wish they weren't there.

[takoman46]

Between the 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.8 primes, I would strongly recommend the f/1.4. But... if you can afford it, the EF 50mm f/1.2L is the way to go.  The key difference, besides the overall image quality jump between the f/1.8 and f/1.4 is the bokeh. Although all 3 versions will blow out the background, the bokeh becomes increasingly and dramatically smoother and dreamier the higher up the line you go.  This has to do with the amount of aperture blades present within each lens (the more blades, the better the bokeh effect).  the f/1.8 is a joke when it comes to beautiful bokeh, the f/1.4 is ok but you'll still see geometric shapes if there are points of light in the background, and the f/1.2 will give you the smoothest, creamiest, most gorgeous bokeh out of the 3.

Also, the f/1.8 is slow and noisy since it doesn't have USM. The f/1.4 is probably the fastest in terms of pulling focus because the f/1.2 has the biggest and heaviest glass, but is not much slower if at all than the f/1.4 in terms of user experience.

[marekjoz]

Rating those two at a scale of 100 points max, I'd give:
1. Image quality -           1.8-> 60,        1.4 ->70
2. Build quality -             1.8 ->10,        1.4 ->50
3. Convenience of use    1.8 ->10,       1.4 -> 60

Except image quality differences already described above, 1.8 has an useless manual focus ring, which you simply are not able to operate in any way (you might in some time wish to shoot some video which requires manual focus as far).
1.4 has USM but is also loud in comparison to L lenses (sometimes you don't here it at all!) but 1.8 is a razor as someone mentioned.
1.8 is a great lens for start or when you completely don't care for loudness of AF and never intend to shoot video with this.

[NormanBates]

to me, the biggest difference is bokeh

the 1.8 is an incredibly sharp lens, one of the best I've tested: http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html

but bokeh is just horrible, very very distracting: http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/bokehtests.html
(and I find it even worse on real life than it does in those controlled tests)

more comments about both of them here:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/equipment/us_lensc.html#prime

[recon photography]

1.8 also dont bother with a filter with this lens if you buy one that is worth while it will cost as much as the lens

[funkboy]

Personally my preferred "primes on a budget" setup is:

• 85mm f/1.8 USM
• 50mm f/1.8

If you've got the extra cash, spring for the 50mm f/1.4 USM, but IMHO it's better to have the two lenses as they're both really useful.  Optically they're all great, but the 85mm f/1.8 USM handles better than either 50 (build, AF, etc).

[michi]

I have an old Canon 50mm 1.8 Mark I which came with a EOS5 back in the days.  It's a really nice lens, I use it often.  I have always wanted a 50mm 1.4 but general opinion seemed to suggest that the 1.8 M1 is excellent so I decided to save my money.  Last week, Newegg had a sale and I got the Canon 50mm 1.4 new for $314, so I figured I would try it, and if I didn't like it I could sell it for basically what I spent.  Long story short, I love the 1.4.  It is sharper wide open than the 1.8 M1.  Both at 1.8, the 1.4 is a lot better.  Starting at about f4.0, they become more equal in sharpness.  Vignetting is MUCH better controlled on the 1.4 compared to the M1.  Focusing with the 1.4 is faster and quieter than the M1.  The bokeh is very similar, the 1.4 may be a tad more dreamy, but I wouldn't buy the 1.4 for that reason.  Everyone says the 1.8 Mark I is better than the current 1.8, so I guess the differences between the current 1.8 and the 1.4 would be even bigger. 

Below a picture from when I took a series of test shots with a 5DII on AV and no post processing except cropping.  On the left side the 1.4 wide open, on the right the 1.8 wide open.  It's hard to see the difference in sharpness as the forum here seems to shrink and compress the photos.  Still interesting I think:

[marekjoz]

I have an old Canon 50mm 1.8 Mark I which came with a EOS5 back in the days.  It's a really nice lens, I use it often.  I have always wanted a 50mm 1.4 but general opinion seemed to suggest that the 1.8 M1 is excellent so I decided to save my money.  Last week, Newegg had a sale and I got the Canon 50mm 1.4 new for $314, so I figured I would try it, and if I didn't like it I could sell it for basically what I spent.  Long story short, I love the 1.4.  It is sharper wide open than the 1.8 M1.  Both at 1.8, the 1.4 is a lot better.  Starting at about f4.0, they become more equal in sharpness.  Vignetting is MUCH better controlled on the 1.4 compared to the M1.  Focusing with the 1.4 is faster and quieter than the M1.  The bokeh is very similar, the 1.4 may be a tad more dreamy, but I wouldn't buy the 1.4 for that reason.  Everyone says the 1.8 Mark I is better than the current 1.8, so I guess the differences between the current 1.8 and the 1.4 would be even bigger. 

Below a picture from when I took a series of test shots with a 5DII on AV and no post processing except cropping.  On the left side the 1.4 wide open, on the right the 1.8 wide open.  It's hard to see the difference in sharpness as the forum here seems to shrink and compress the photos.  Still interesting I think:

That's interesting what you write, but I'd rather focus on something else. The picture you show is quite good. Give it a good name like Gray Black Gray, go to Chrisie's and get another 77,5M$ for it

(Just relaxing )