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

[michi]

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 )

I have no idea what you are trying to say...

[marekjoz]

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 )

I have no idea what you are trying to say...

Just referring to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18001432

[aznable]

are we talking abot 50mm?

sigma 50mm 1.4 for the sharpness, canon 50 1.4 is you want a lightweight lens

[myone]

I started with 50/1.8, a fantastic lens at the price. Then about 2 years later, I upgraded to 50/1.4. The 50/1.4 is a better lens in term of IQ and constructions, but it is still prone to front element damage if you are not careful. That is why I have my lens hood on all the time to protect it from banging into things.

For some reason, the 50/1.4 could never satisfy me. After much trials and error, I finally figured out that 50 on cropped body (since you are getting a 60D) is just too tight. I mainly shoot landscape and street photography, and some portraits. That is when I moved to 35/1.4L. The 35 is just perfect. It is being sharpest at 1.4, and the colors and contrasts are just great. The min focusing distance also make it a very ideal lens for food photography if that is what you are into. The superior built also make it worth its price.

If I were you, I would rent the 50mm and see if that is the focal length you need. It is just too narrow for my taste. If you find that 50 is too narrow, then you might actually need a 35. It took me a while to figure out.

Good luck!

[michi]

I agree with myone, if you have a crop camera and want a walk around lens, the 50mm is too much, a 35mm lens would probably be better.

[pwp]

I've worked with two 50 f/1.8 lenses. If you can live with the $90 build quality, they are quite acceptable from around 5.6. The 50 f/1.4, despite it's age is a great performer from around f/2, acceptable depending on the copy at f/1.8 and most of them are for emergency use only at f/1.4.

So if you have to have a Canon 50, I'm with every other poster on this thread with a vote for the f/1.4.

I had the Canon 50 f/1.4 and switched to the bigger, heavier Sigma 50 f/1.4. Though the Sigma is a decent lens, in hindsight it was a waste of time. There's no discernible IQ boost, and it's heavier & bulkier in the bag. I should have kept the Canon.

Paul Wright

[wickidwombat]

as others have said bokeh is the biggest downfall with the 1.8 but the 1.4 is not so great either as it doesnt have circular aperture blades so you can make out thee 8 sides on bokeh lights
(i really wish canon would re-do the 1.4 to match compete with the nikor G lens, or sigma redo their fifty to the same quality that the new 85 1.4)

another interesting problem with the 1.4 that the 1.8 doesnt have is if you want to shoot infrared the 1.4 is subject to getting hot spots (both mk1 and mk2 versions of the 16-35L also have this problem)

overall I like the 1.4 and use it more often than the 1.8 however for shooting landscapes or maybe street photography where you will use narrow apertures there will be almost no noticable difference between the 2