Equipment Canon EF 50mm F1.4 or F1.8

I've been recommended something like a 50mm F1.4 or F1.8 for lower light shooting indoors and in woodland (mtb / dirt jumping) for use on my 400D.

Other then the price difference, would I see any notable benefit from the F1.4 or a cheaper F1.8??

I'm not very serious when it comes to photography but like to have a play.

This would be to go along the kit EF-S 18-55mm lens and a EF 28-135mm USM IS lens I currently have.

 

The 1.4 has much better image quality and smoother bokeh, but heavy. The 1.8 is just great fun and light - and for the price takes fantastic images.

If you're leaning towards the more expensive 1.4, and shooting on a crop cam, might I recommend the Sigma 30mm 1.4 instead? You get a more usable field of view, especially for indoor shooting where you will be mostly limited to head-n-shoulder shots of people.

 

Both f/1.8 and f/1.4 let in significantly more light than the two lenses you already have, so either would be a step up in terms of low-light shooting.

The 50 f/1.4 focuses a bit quicker than the f/1.8 and lets in a little more light. It's also an easier lens to manual focus with and will focus-hunt less than the f/1.8. If you're shooting action, the f/1.4 might be a less frustrating lens to use.

 

I use a f1.8 Nikkor 50mm lens and I love it to bits, but I've trialled the f1.4 lens and it is faster to focus and a tiny bit sharper, but to be honest you really have to be looking VERY close to spot it. Unless you are planning to blow photos up beyond A3 size you won't see it in practical use.

The Cannon lenses are equally good and the 50mm f1.8 is a bargain, takes beautiful pictures, and it's a magnificent portrait lens. I'd save your money and get the significantly cheaper f1.8 which will do everything you need it to, unless you are taking a lot of indoor action shots!

There are some reviews of the various options. I see "law of diminishing returns" here.....

http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/Gear/Search-Results/Lenses/Canon-50mm-f18-II/

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/eq.../127926/1/canon-ef-50mm-f-1-4-usm-review.html

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/news/179872/canon-ef-50mm-f-1-2l-usm.html

 

I've got the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 and I actually prefer the 1.8 version. The 1.4 is pretty rubbish at focusing in low light, which in some ways defeats the point of having such a wide aperture. If you want a 50 1.4 look at the Sigma - quality control issues aside, it's up there with the 50 1.2L when you get a good one

 

I agree with Fod that 30mm might be better for you. The nifty fifty lenses are good (to a point) but they are cheap for a reason - cheap build quality, cheap AF, and they generally don't last very long. I used to have a Sigma 28mm 1.8 macro which was a very versatile lens on my 50D.

I also agree with Tim that the Sigma 50 1.4 is better than the Canon, however it is more expensive, about the £350 mark (was £400 when I got mine).

 

Well I think I might go with the Canon f1.8 based on it generally sounds ok and the fact its very much cheaper then most other options.

As I'm mostly riding I've not very often I venture out for a photo session and most indoor photos are of my daughter messing around in the house / ebay photos (that is not connecting - daughter not for sale lol).

Maybe I could look at some other options later down the line if I find I'm getting any decent use of the 1.8. Pictures will mostly be for online / personal collection use - not planning on prints really.

 

The 50/1.4 is better than the 50/1.8 is every aspect--it's built better (good, not great), it focuses faster and more accurately (again, not great) and it has noticeably better bokeh characteristics (you guessed it, still not great). Both lenses are very small and light.

As for the Sigma 50/1.4 it's better than both Canon lenses on most levels, however, in my experience, the EF 50/1.4 focused better in low light/low contrast conditions. In good light they seemed about the same. That said the Sigma 50/1.4 is notorious for AF issues--I tried four copies, two of which were purchased, and none of them focused correctly, even after MA. This is not just a case of poor luck, in fact it's quite common.

IMHO I would not go with any 50mm offerings at this point in time and would probably recommend picking up an f/2.8 zoom (i.e. Tamron 17-50 non-VR) or perhaps the Sigma 30/1.4.

 

I didn't have the 50mm 1.4 for too long since I didn't like the field of view with a crop camera (7D). The build quality and the "possibly" failing focus motor didn't impress me much either.

I exchanged it for a 30mm 1.4 Sigma and if I'm not completely satisfied, it was still way better choice for me.

By "not completely satisfied" I mean that I would have gone for the 35mm 1.4 L, but that was a bit too steep at that moment. If I'm adding a full-frame body to my setup, then the 35L comes back into play, but for now I'm quite happy with what I have.

 

Hey,

I have the canon 50mm 1.8 and its a great value lens. It may not be as well built at the 1.4 (the mk1 was much better built if you find a decent one on ebay) but hey, its costs less than a the polarizer for my 28-70 L! Also its nice and small so you can go unoticed when your out taking pictures.

Here are some reviews of the lenses mentioned

Canon 50 mm 1.8
Canon 50 mm 1.4
Sigma 50mm 1.4
Sigma 30mm 1.4

As you can see there isnt much in it in terms of resolution.

Also these lenses work well with extension tube for macro photography.

 

In the end it depends on what you are shooting. 50mm lenses on a APSC sensor are more or less distortion free (similar to a 70mm lens on a full frame). This means they are fab for portrait work as they don't slim or fatten features etc., and you don't get much (if any) perspective disrtion either. You can shoot it in low light with short exposures, get shallow depth of field and pretty Bokeh (good enough for all but the most picky!). The f1.8 would be my pick - it's staggeringly cheap. unless you shoot it all the time it will last for years.

 

In all fairness you really can't get better bang for your buck then from the 50mm 1.8.

I have had one for just over a month and I love it. It's pretty damn sharp if you have the aperture set right, about F4.0 to F10. Also the Bokeh isn't amazing but it's still pretty damn good. 5 straight blades give a pentagon effect, but it's not too bad all the time.

But the main thing is, seriously, it's less then a hundred quid. You can't really go wrong.

 

I had the 50mm f/1.4 and found that it was far too restricting on a crop body for indoor shooting. I sold it and I eventually intend to replace it with a f/1.8 or try to get a prime closer to 28mm.

 

This. I know my view is unpopular, but for the price an f/2.8 zoom is a better investment then a f/1.4 prime for most. The 400D has good enough ISO performance where f/2.8 will do the job indoors fine. Pop on a flash, and you have a potent combo that will fulfill all your needs indoors and out. For mountain biking and dirt jumping, the f/1.4 is useless since your AF can't keep up with the thin DOF. So you need to stop down to something useable like f/8 anyway. No point in paying for f/1.4 there.

Put your money where it will do the most good and get the best return, and that is a f/2.8 zoom. Vers picked out a great zoom range that really plays to the APS-C sensors strengths. I guarantee, that if you aren't all that into photography, then you'll get by far more use out of a zoom then you will a prime lens.

 

I must disagree. Having used the 50mm f/1.8 for a good while longer than the f/1.4 I must disagree. My f/1.4 focuses much more accurately in low light and especially at closer focus distances.

I was killing myself over the Canon vs Sigma argument, but I decided I just did not have the patience to deal with the issues the Sigma might have. I read one user-review of the Sigma that got away with a flawless first copy.

Agreed. And if you go FF, even less need for f/1.4-1.2 primes. These are fast becoming 'bokeh' and/or portrait-only lenses. Although, tbh, a 70-200mm f/2.8 is a pretty damned awesome portrait lens on a FF.

 

I may have a bad copy, but I usually have to mount a flashgun to use its IR sensor to get any semblance of accurate focus. I've never had to do that with the 50 1.8. Both were properly calibrated and corrected with AF MA

If there was only one lens I could take to a wedding, it'd be the 70-200 - OK, it's no good for the formals, but to me the wedding is about the intimate moments and the 70-200 is brilliant at recording those. Depth of field at f2.8 is whisker thin at 200mm though.

 

Just a quickie , another vote for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Its well worth the extra pennies over the Canon, I've used both and and the sigma even though more expensive seemed to focus faster & had the edge on IQ when mounted on my 5D not sure about on a crop as you'd only use the centre of the lens has been mentioned before that the bigger front apature on the sigma helps for IQ.

 

This was an interesting comment.

Ok, the "Nifty Fifty" isn't bad...for the price.

And as you said it's pretty sharp when stopped down, but since OP wants a lens for low light situations it's not going to work. Primes are affordable and of course lighter in weight (and sometimes in price) than zoom lenses, but I'd say most of us get them for wide open (or near to it) usage.

When using bigger apertures the sharpness and bokeh-qualities of the lens are a big factor and like mentioned, the 1.8 doesn't shine in either department.

So if you're on a budget and want specifically a 50mm lens, then the 1.8 is a good choice. It's perhaps a better choice than the 1.4 since man, does that lens need a MkII treatment. Especially when the price isn't that much lower than the mentioned 50mm 1.4 Sigma.

I'd still suggest that you go and try out a few lenses at your local shop since at least I found the 50mm focal length to be a bit awkward with a crop body.

 

A 50mm lens on a crop body is essentially the same as a 70mm lens on a full frame - ie the length at which very little perspective disortion occurs, hence its favoured use as a portrait lens. For action you probably want something wider, or zoomable. I guess th OP's OP suggests two different uses, one of which a 50mm prime will be great for, the other may be better served by summat else. Best try em out (can you borrow one from someone?)

 

It's actually 80mm FF equiv. on APS-C But yes, I agree--best to try them for yourself if possible.