50mm 1.8 vs. 50mm 1.4?

[RustySterling]

Here's one link that has a comparison:

Canon Normal Primes

There's another I've seen that compares the 50 f/1.2L with the 1.4 and 1.8. I'll hunt around for it for you.

Here it is, but it only shows a bokeh comparison:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens Review

I tend to go here for reviews of most Canon lenses. They seems to compile various lens reviews from around the web for each lens.

Canon EF Lens Reviews | Canon-Reviews.com

[inkista]

Here's another side-by-side bokeh comparison:

Canon EF 50mm – F1.4 vs F1.8 MK II - photo.net

And another one:

EF 50mm f/1.0L, f/1.4 and f/1.8 Bokeh

Originally Posted by inkista

Here's another side-by-side bokeh comparison:

Canon EF 50mm – F1.4 vs F1.8 MK II - photo.net

And another one:

EF 50mm f/1.0L, f/1.4 and f/1.8 Bokeh

ok, so that helped alot! so basicly the you can bearly tell the difference between the two, photo wise. not really worth upgrading, ill just stick with my 1.8. well, now im gonna spend the money on some background materials!

[bmauter]

Originally Posted by ntinlizi

ok, so that helped alot! so basicly the you can bearly tell the difference between the two, photo wise. not really worth upgrading, ill just stick with my 1.8. well, now im gonna spend the money on some background materials!

I have the 50mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.2. The focusing on the 1.8 is very slow and I've found that in low light it hunts a lot. I have complaints about the 1.2 too, but other USM lenses have fast, quiet and accurate focusing. I think USM is worth the upgrade price alone.

[ericw]

I like using this tool for comparison. I think the difference is easily noticeable. USM would be the big selling point for me. Especially since you will, I assume, be using the lens at a large aperture.

I'd definately get the f/1.4 if you plan to use it long-term and wider than f/2.8.

[cunningba]

I went with the 1.4 for build quality and durability: metal vs. plastic housing, etc.
Several reviews I read indicated this might be a problem, so I was inclined to go that way.
I'm glad I did, I now know more than one photographer whose 1.8 has just fallen apart on them. I think they all managed to get them repaired under warranty, but the hassle is not worth it to me for a lens that is very important to me.

[frankjmart]

It all depends on how frequent that you would use the lense. If you use it most of the time, why not go for f/1.4 and if you have extra cash to spend go for f/1.2. When you use it frequently, you need something that is durable, tough and reliable.
I have a Canon f/1.8 for seven months now but the accumulated hours that I have used it is probably 10 hours the most. It is already sufficient for me to have f/1.8. Would love to have f/1.4 and f/1.2...but I don't want it to collect dust or stay in the drawer like forever. Since f/1.8 is cheap, you don't mind if it has an inch thick dust on it.
50mm prime lenses are very good. Every photographer loves it. Either f/1.8, 1.4 or 1.2...depends on your job requirment.

[djotaku]

I've actually been able to get tack sharp images with the EF 50mm f/1.8 @ f/1.8. Perhaps your copy is messed up if you can't get that? Or maybe it's the lighting or one of a million other things.

[kalendae]

My thinking for getting the 1.4 over the 1.8 was that here is the lens you will be using ALL the time. 1.8 is really unbeatable value, but given how often you will be using this lens over others, I think it is ok to spring a little more for it for all the small little gains. I've had it for over 3 years now and I think all the little conveniences added up over time makes the 1.4 a great value too.

So if you know you will be using your 50mm a whole lot then perhaps 1.4 might be well justified.