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

[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