Well my good old 50 1.8 took a tumble today and unfortunately turned to pieces. So now I'm looking in the market for a new 50. My budget for the lense is 400. And these are my only two options so. Is the 50 1.4 worth it or is the stm a better option ?
50 1.4 us vs 50 1.8 stm
- Thread starter fair tomorrow
- Start date
I don't have STM -yet- but I had f1.4 for 5 years. Used extensively on 7D and now 7DMk2. Optically I find it perfect for the price. Shallow dof at f1.4-1.8 can be dreamy and "glowy" but it's still good, especially if you process your images in Lightroom with dehaze and defringe settings. At f2 onward the lens shines, giving smooth and fine bokeh.
HOWEVER
The AF motor of f1.4 is terribly unreliable. While I managed to use shallow apertures at 7D and still obtain mostly good AF with a push (and a luck), for some strange reason, on 7DMK2 I cannot (except LiveView that gives mostly very accurate focus). Closeups and infinity work great. But on ranges 3m-infy the lens is front focusing and needs +15 of MA to get it right. Out of 10 images, at least 6 will have FF issue. However, the MicroAdjust setting messes all other ranges. Which basically makes it useless for this problem.
So, as much as I love this lens, the AF is totally unreliable. Accurate AF is the most important, at least for me. I've heard that STM focuses great and accurate. I'm willing to try it, despite being slightly inferior optically at shallow apertures.
And no, I don't think f1.4 is worth almost 2.5x of a price with this kind of primitive USM AF. Either get f1.8 STM or wait for 50 f1.4 mk2.
HOWEVER
The AF motor of f1.4 is terribly unreliable. While I managed to use shallow apertures at 7D and still obtain mostly good AF with a push (and a luck), for some strange reason, on 7DMK2 I cannot (except LiveView that gives mostly very accurate focus). Closeups and infinity work great. But on ranges 3m-infy the lens is front focusing and needs +15 of MA to get it right. Out of 10 images, at least 6 will have FF issue. However, the MicroAdjust setting messes all other ranges. Which basically makes it useless for this problem.
So, as much as I love this lens, the AF is totally unreliable. Accurate AF is the most important, at least for me. I've heard that STM focuses great and accurate. I'm willing to try it, despite being slightly inferior optically at shallow apertures.
And no, I don't think f1.4 is worth almost 2.5x of a price with this kind of primitive USM AF. Either get f1.8 STM or wait for 50 f1.4 mk2.
Upvote
0
I've had the Canon F1.4 and now I have the Sigma Art. I can say that I have NEVER used wider than F1.8 (only in testing) as the weak contrast was unacceptable to me.
I agree that the current Canon F1.4 not worth its price, and you'd better spend their money in the new STM 50, or climb to the Sigma Art.
I agree that the current Canon F1.4 not worth its price, and you'd better spend their money in the new STM 50, or climb to the Sigma Art.
Upvote
0
Have had the 1.4 the 1.8 II, the SIgma EX 1.4 (not the Art) and now the 1.8 STM - the 1.8 STM wins easily in my view. Cheaper to replace if you do break it, STM is nice for video with cameras that support it, nice and compact instead of the boulder that the SIgma is. Its a very different beast to the 50mm 1.8 II.
Otara
Otara
Upvote
0
I've had at least 4 of the 50mm f/1.4's and they are a improvement over the 1.8 ver II. However, the stm seems to me to have the edge in price / performance ratio. It has a decent focus ring and a metal mount. AF is very consistent.
Upvote
0
My experiences with both the 50 f/1.8 II and the 50 f/1.4 is that neither focuses consistently. I would own neither for that reason alone. I have no personal experience with the new STM 50, but as others have said, early reports seem to be that it focuses consistently.
My current 50 prime is the older Sigma EX (non Art) and I can say that it while locks focus slower then my small USM Canon primes (28, 85), it does focus consistently/accurately on my Canon 6D (after AFMA). It is actually a very nice piece of glass and produces wonderful colors, good contrast. It occasionally dips down to $350 brand new and that is when I took a chance on it. I do recommend this lens, especially for non action use. With that said I have used it in AI Servo chasing kids around. But at very wide apertures the keeper rate is probably 50/50.
My current 50 prime is the older Sigma EX (non Art) and I can say that it while locks focus slower then my small USM Canon primes (28, 85), it does focus consistently/accurately on my Canon 6D (after AFMA). It is actually a very nice piece of glass and produces wonderful colors, good contrast. It occasionally dips down to $350 brand new and that is when I took a chance on it. I do recommend this lens, especially for non action use. With that said I have used it in AI Servo chasing kids around. But at very wide apertures the keeper rate is probably 50/50.
Upvote
0
I've had the 50 1.4, the 50 1.8 II, and I've currently got the 50 f2.5 macro and the Sigma 50 EX (pre-Art). Haven't tried the 50 STM, and probably won't because between those last two I'm covered at 50mm just now.
If I was in the OP's shoes right now, I'd give the 50 1.4 a miss and either just get the new 50 stm, or play the Sigma 50 EX lottery. Here's why:
My experience of the 50 1.4 was that while it did bring some limited optical improvement over the old 1.8 II, I could never really trust it. On some subjects in certain light conditions, the AF could miss wildly on my 7D, 5DII and even 5DIII. Even doubling up on shots wasn't enough to guarantee an acceptable result in all cases. On top of that, I rarely liked its bokeh; too busy to my eyes, not unlike the much cheaper 50 1.8 II. And then there was the worry that the legendarily fragile focusing mechanism could let me down. All in all, just not good enough to justify the outlay.
On the other hand, the 50 STM seems to be a pretty safe bet. Most reports indicate reliable, consistent focusing except in low light, and it came out well in a look at copy variation by LensRentals (don't have the link, sorry). OK, it's not brilliant optically, but then neither is the 50 1.4, and the STM is a lot cheaper.
Then of course there's the Sigma option. The copy I've got now is reliable for static subjects on my 5DIII (bit of a lottery when tracking movement though) but crucially I really, really like it optically. I find it to be perfectly usable at 1.4 and the bokeh - especially at f2 and onwards - is really easy on the eye. BUT.. this was my third (or 4th? can't remember) attempt at getting one that focuses well, and I seldom use it on my older 5DII because those two just don't get on, no matter how I adjust the AFMA.
So to summarize, I'd say just get the STM now, and if another lens comes out that doesn't have any worrying flaws (e.g. updated 50mm f1.4 from Canon maybe?) the OP can upgrade without losing much in the process.
If I was in the OP's shoes right now, I'd give the 50 1.4 a miss and either just get the new 50 stm, or play the Sigma 50 EX lottery. Here's why:
My experience of the 50 1.4 was that while it did bring some limited optical improvement over the old 1.8 II, I could never really trust it. On some subjects in certain light conditions, the AF could miss wildly on my 7D, 5DII and even 5DIII. Even doubling up on shots wasn't enough to guarantee an acceptable result in all cases. On top of that, I rarely liked its bokeh; too busy to my eyes, not unlike the much cheaper 50 1.8 II. And then there was the worry that the legendarily fragile focusing mechanism could let me down. All in all, just not good enough to justify the outlay.
On the other hand, the 50 STM seems to be a pretty safe bet. Most reports indicate reliable, consistent focusing except in low light, and it came out well in a look at copy variation by LensRentals (don't have the link, sorry). OK, it's not brilliant optically, but then neither is the 50 1.4, and the STM is a lot cheaper.
Then of course there's the Sigma option. The copy I've got now is reliable for static subjects on my 5DIII (bit of a lottery when tracking movement though) but crucially I really, really like it optically. I find it to be perfectly usable at 1.4 and the bokeh - especially at f2 and onwards - is really easy on the eye. BUT.. this was my third (or 4th? can't remember) attempt at getting one that focuses well, and I seldom use it on my older 5DII because those two just don't get on, no matter how I adjust the AFMA.
So to summarize, I'd say just get the STM now, and if another lens comes out that doesn't have any worrying flaws (e.g. updated 50mm f1.4 from Canon maybe?) the OP can upgrade without losing much in the process.
Upvote
0
GammyKnee said:
That's similar to my view, although optically the fringing does get to me sometimes, and I'd like it a little sharper. Still, I do like the bokeh and I actually think the Sigma 50 1.4 EX is probably the best of the 50s in its price range at the moment (no doubt the Sigma Art and the 50 1.2L are better, but they're definitely a different price range). That said, no doubt it depends on what you want to use it for, eg if you just want to shoot landscapes at stopped down apertures, one of the smaller, lighter Canon 50s would probably be a better bet.
Upvote
0