Canon ef 50mm f/1.8 ii vs Canon ef 50mm f/1.4 L USM

[atCam]

I'm about to squeeze myself a bit and decide which lens to go for! Please advice if it really worth the huge price difference between the two lenses (see title please)? sure the aperture of the f1.4 is larger, which may allows more Light to hit the sensor; but does that really mean to affect all the properties and quality of the images ?

Thanks you for any clarification and advice.

[ajohnw]

Are you intending to use it on full frame or APS?

John
-

[Manfred M]

Which camera are you looking at using these on. While I do shoot (and have shot) a lot with a 50mm lens; I tend to only use it on a full-frame body.

I don't find it is a focal length that I use on a crop-frame camera (80mm equivalent on a Canon crop frame); it is really getting into the portrait lens range. Is the extra 2/3 of a stop worth the extra money to you? My decision would more likely to be based on the DoF considerations that the extra speed the lens offers.

[Polar01]

Welcome to CIC, if you could go back into setting and enter the name you go by, as that would be easier than calling you atCam, and also you location which is also a great help.
Now to your question, as I see it you are new to photography, and wanting to learn, go with the f/1.8 which is an excellent lens and will give you years and years of use. To know if you need a so-called better lens you will find that out once you have pushed the camera and lens to the limit and that combo will not deliver what you want, then look.
I myself do not shoot Canon but Nikon and the 50mm lens I like the best is the old 50mm f/1.8D, which has been around since the Big Band (not the TV show) and is the least expensive of all their lens.
So go with the f/1.8 learn, grow, and above all have fun.

Cheers: Allan

[RustBeltRaw]

If you shoot moving subjects, you may find that the 50mm f1.4 USM's faster focus motor is an advantage. For static subjects (landscapes, studio portraits, etc.), the 50mm f1.8's slower focus motor will be fine.

If you're on a 1.6x crop body, I would look very closely at the 40mm f2.8 STM pancake. Very light, handy, and I think its 64mm equivalent focal length is a little more useful than the 80mm equivalent you'd get with the 50mm f1.8. The 40mm pancake is excellent for smuggling into events, which you may find handy when starting off. Big-looking cameras and lenses can make security and event staff nervous.

[William W]

Please advice if it really worth the huge price difference between the two lenses (see title please) [Canon ef 50mm f/1.8 ii vs Canon ef 50mm f/1.4 L USM] . . .

There is no EF 50 F/1.4 L USM Lens made by Canon. I will assume that you mean the EF 50/1.4 USM and not either of the L series 50mm Lenses (EF 50 F/1.0L which s discontinued or the EF 50 F/1.2L which is still in production).

... sure the aperture of the f1.4 is larger, which may allows more Light to hit the sensor; but does that really mean to affect all the properties and quality of the images ? Thanks you for any clarification and advice.

Both lenses produce very sharp pictures at Apertures around F/2.2 and smaller, through to F/11.

The larger aperture will have little probably NO affect on the quality of the images and in any case without a lab set up you would be pressed to see a much difference, so for real life photography purposes other differences in the lenses become more relevant.

The differences which I mark as most important are -

The F/1.4 has eight blades not five which are on the F/1.8 MkII - this is important to me because I often shoot into the light and I don't like the starburst from the 5 Blades, also, although not as important to me, the eight blades produce amore pleasing Bokeh in most circumstances.

The F/1.4 has Full Time Manual Focussing - the F/1.8 MkII does not: and further - the Focus Turret turns on the F/1.8 MkII when the lens is active in AF mode, so one has to be careful no to touch it, That is counter intuitive to my hand holding techniques and I do no like the lens for that reason particularly.

I do sometimes need to use F/1.4 and F/1.6.

The F/1.4 lens is heavier and larger, which is better balanced on my cameras.

***

The EF 50 F/1.8 MkII offers exceptional Value for Money and I think most people, even very experienced Photographers would be hard pressed to notice any difference between most general images made by it - OR - the EF 50 F/1.4 USM

***

The question about what camera you are using has relevance.

If you are relatively new to Photography and you are considering this purchase as a "budget purchase for a fast prime lens" and you have an APS-C Camera then you should be aware that any 50mm lens on an APS-C Camera will act as a Short Telephoto Lens - this may be limiting for you.

WW

[terrib]

These questions are always hard to answer because everyone's needs are different and everyone's budget concerns are at different levels. But I will say that the 1.4 was worth the difference TO ME for the reason that William already stated about Full Time Manual Focusing and also because the 1.4 has a metal mounting ring and the 1.8 is plastic (at least it was back when I looked at them a few years ago). I figured this was a long term purchase for me and I didn't want plastic.

[Andrew76]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned build quality. The 1.8 is $100 for a very good reason! If you glare at it the wrong way, it will break. Don't ask me how I know. Of course I'm exaggerating, but I have broken a 1.8, purchased another and had a scare with it, so I sold it because I was worrying that it wouldn't be long before my clumsiness broke that one too. I then purchased a 1.4. This thing is built like a tank. Now I can sleep at night.

Ooops, sorry - Terri did mention build quality. Sorry!

[Polar01]

I have made a mistake as a Nikon user I assumed something about a Canon, I will try not to do that in the future. With the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 that is the tank all metal goes from f/1.8-f/22 all the newer versions on f/16 and I just love it over the others as going to f/22 fits more to what I do.

Cheers: Allan

[atCam]

At present on crop 1.6x camera APS-C , also would like to buy a FF in the near future.
Thanks

[atCam]

Thanks for your interest, please refer to my profile to know me better. Thanks again

[ajohnw]

I've managed to resist buying a 50mm as I am perfectly happy with the zoom I have that covers that. If you want to buy a lens that should also work well on full frame I think it needs to be the 1.4 USM. That's purely on various test results. The 1.8 is fairly good on aps but not so good on full frame. The bad aspect of 50mm lenses is that they generally get to their best at F5.6 or maybe F4 on cropped sensors.

One lens that has tempted me but as I am switching to Nikon I am unlikely to buy it is the EF-S 60mm F2.8 macro. If you are after a portrait lens that would still be in range. One nice thing about that lens is that you should be happy with it wide open. Only of any use on Canon cropped sensors though.

To be honest I feel you might be better off buying the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 USM IS and forgetting full frame for a while. If I had decided to upgrade my APS Canon it would very definitely be the lens I would want with it. I dropping full frame and have gone for a Nikon even though in this case the optics are worse. It's too easy to lust after prime lenses and the gains on 50mm lenses are small over low range zoom lenses on Canon.

Hopefully you will get plenty of suggestions. I do have a 50mm F1.4 lens - Olympus OM, rather old, and I use it with an adapter. Not very often though.

John
-

[William W]

At present on crop 1.6x camera APS-C , also would like to buy a FF in the near future.
Thanks

Thanks for answering that.

Could you please answer these questions also:

1. Why do you want a 50mm Prime lens? (for example not a 30mm or 35mm or 28mm Prime Lens?

-OR -

2. Is it just because the 50 F/1.8 MkII is so inexpensive and perhaps you have read on the internet that "every camera bag should have one" ?

WW

[William W]

A general comment on matters brought up by Lex and Terri.

I've used both these lenses, side by side. I own the EF50 F/1.4 USM.

On the matter of Auto Focus, I found the 50/1.8MkII noisier, but NOT slower to AF. This was a rudimentary A/B test, done by selecting both of the lenses to AF on close then a further away subject and doing that side by side on the with each lens mounted on the same Model of Camera (an EOS 5D).

I note well that Lex mentioned MOVING Subjects and he also clearly referred to the instrument of the faster focussing motor that is contained in the lens. I expect that was quite a purposefully constructed comment.

I don't know how each lens performs in an A/B test with moving Subjects. But I do really appreciate Lex's comment and the way it was constructed, and I agree with the logic of it, predicated on the theory of the difference in the AF motors.

I can say that I have not had an issue with the AF of the 50 F/1.4 with Moving Subjects, but I add that I rarely use the lens in that situation, because (for example) on a Volley-ball Court or Gymnasium, where I would need both close and far away, I would tend to choose a combination like a 35 and 85, one on each camera and allow myself the luxury of cropping in post, the images from both lenses

On the other hand, I have used the 50 F/1.4 quite often at Weddings and Social Functions, and whilst it is not generally the most suitable lens for the dance floor, but is more suited to Church "down the Aisle shooting" or Corporate Function's "Grip and Grins", in all of those situations, including the Dance Floor, the AF of the EF 50 F/1.4 has not disappointed me, when the Subjects were moving.

*

On the matter of Plastic Vs. Metal which Terri raised (and also how easy the 50 F/1.8 is to break which Andrew raised) -

The plastic is quite strong and being plastic didn't worry me all that much. The lens really should last a long time and I have seen copies with the plastic Bayonet Mount area quite worn and they still work OK.

What was a pain for me (regarding the construction) was the weight and size of the lens. It is too small and too light for adequate balance on 5D's with a battery grip.

(for me) Where the weight, size and recessed front element design does have an advantage is on a small and light weight camera: but in digital cameras those cameras are really only in the ranks APS-C format, and I cannot really see maximum flexibility with ANY 50mm lens on an APS-C camera.

If one has only one prime lens - a 24mm to 35mm Prime Lens is most likely the range which will be the most FLEXIBLE Focal Length range to MOST Photographers' needs, who are using APS-C Cameras.

*

Specifically on the matter of easy to break -

I think the EF 50 F/1.8 MkII would need to be dropped or banged for it to break.

The 50 F/1.4 can quite easily break an internal cam, if it sustains a knock on the front element end, head on, along the Len's Axis.

There is a lot of chatter around about that cam on the 50/1.4 - but every reliable source that I have investigated points to the lens having sustained an head on bang prior to the cam dislodging from its mount or breaking.


WW

[ajohnw]

The thing that has bugged me about both 50mm from Canon is report showing extreme amounts of vignetting on full frame wide open. Over 2 1/2 stops on the USM but just 1 1/2 at F2 which still isn't that good. That gets down to 1 stop wide open on a cropped sensor. The II shows 3 stops wide open at F1.8 and and still just over 1 at F2.8 on full frame. It will be better on cropped sensors but basically neither lens behaves itself in all respect till around F4. The vignetting can be taken care of in software but in my view these figures are too high on full frame and acceptable in the case of the USM on a cropped sensor.

On this basis if some one must have a 50mm the cheapest make most sense in some ways. Extreme view - less money wasted.

John
-

[Adrian]

I only have the 1.4 (no experience of the 1.8) and have not found vignetting to be a significant issue wide open. I use it quite a bit in low light indoor situations and find it perfectly usable. The price premium for the f1.2L is substantial so I found the 1.4 to be excellent value for its capabilities. It makes a nice street shooting lens too.

[ajohnw]

I only have the 1.4 (no experience of the 1.8) and have not found vignetting to be a significant issue wide open. I use it quite a bit in low light indoor situations and find it perfectly usable. The price premium for the f1.2L is substantial so I found the 1.4 to be excellent value for its capabilities. It makes a nice street shooting lens too.

Maybe I shouldn't look at tests Adrian. When I did it bugged me a little as it's a sign of cheap lenses. Normally F1.8's were fairly well behaved in this respect. F1.4's acceptable but worse and F1.2's a step too far. If you using it on APS though I doubt if you would be concerned with the problem as it's a lot less.

I looked at these tests some time ago.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/564-canon50f14ff

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/415-canon_50_18_ff

The resolution tests can't be directly related to a newer 5D but the vignetting can. The site also has a test at 15mp on APS of the USM one which would be the one I would buy apart from full frame use. 1 stop is fairly normal.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/565-canon50f14apsc

It's interesting to look at the zoom I mentioned

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/42..._1755_28is_50d

and the macro lens which appears to be excellent in all respects but 60mm F2.8 and just over a stop down wide open as well.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/513-canon60f28apsc

Where tests are available I have found this site has given me a good idea of the performance of the lens before I have actually bought it.

John
-

[RustBeltRaw]

I note well that Lex mentioned MOVING Subjects and he also clearly referred to the instrument of the faster focussing motor that is contained in the lens. I expect that was quite a purposefully constructed comment.

I don't know how each lens performs in an A/B test with moving Subjects. But I do really appreciate Lex's comment and the way it was constructed, and I agree with the logic of it, predicated on the theory of the difference in the AF motors.

Thank you. It's worth noting that I use the 50mm f1.4 USM heavily for indoor action with rapidly-varying ranges, so I am stressing the crap out of the AF system. The USM versions tracks more finely, and I assure you that the adjustments are quicker. In a static test, one may not notice a few tenths of a second's difference in focusing time, but it becomes vastly more apparent when your subject is juking, diving, and twisting like mad. Sometimes I think roller derby was designed from the ground up to frustrate photographers.

The plastic is quite strong and being plastic didn't worry me all that much. The lens really should last a long time and I have seen copies with the plastic Bayonet Mount area quite worn and they still work OK.

Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz of LensRentals.com just put together an excellent essay on this. Note that they define "mount" as whatever the bayonet ring attaches to, whereas most of us tend to mean "bayonet ring" when we say "mount."

[Andrew76]

Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz of LensRentals.com just put together an excellent essay on this. Note that they define "mount" as whatever the bayonet ring attaches to, whereas most of us tend to mean "bayonet ring" when we say "mount."

Well there you go. That's pretty definitive. I guess I'll change my opinion then because if both of those lenses would break equally, I'm sure glad I smashed the $100 one!

[Adrian]

Very interesting lensrental article. I and never even considered the plastic v metal debate and now I know I don't have to waste any time on it in the future either! Worth snapping up the f1.4's though whilst they are still around?