Next lens (28mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4) - Page 3

Skip the 1.4 50mm and get the 50 1.8 instead. It has been shown that the 50 1.8 is actually better than the 1.4 (has newer, better optics) when it comes to optics besides it not being able to go down to 1.4 (which has an incredibly small focus plane anyways) and having a cheaper build (even though its still quite durable).

I'd use the rest of the money to get a speed lite as better light will always produce better results than a better lens. A canon 50 1.8 plus this flash ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0079M711S/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i02 ) would be the way that I would go, you can bounce your flash off the ceiling in restaurants and pretty much off of anything and you will get incredible looking shots.

Shown by whom? You can check Imatest reults or ISO charts to see that even at f/1.8, the faster lens is still better. Not to downplay the 50/1.8, because it's probably one of the best ~$100 lenses in production, but the f/1.4 is Canon's best 50 (like it or not) around the entire frame (especially beyond f/2.2, but if you're buying a lens to shoot wide open ALL THE TIME , the Sigma 50 is probably a better option anyhow).

Shown by multiple sources on the internet, just google canon 50 1.8 vs 1.4 and see the results for your own eyes as even on the chart on the wall pixel peeper tests the 1.8 wins due to using newer optics vs the canon f1.4.

1.4 is also borderline useless for me as I use the F1.8 exclusively and at f1.8 the focal plane is so narrow that you will only maybe get someones eye in focus if doing portrait photography or the very skin of something. Most of the time they also wont come out tack sharp at that focal plane as you cant readjust at all. f2.5+ is really where these lens shine.

The 1.4 just has better construction than the 1.8, 1.8 is sharper and this has been shown many times and discussed many times to death.

The op would be better off getting the nifty fifty and using the extra $250 on better lighting as I can tell you that better lighting will always be better than a newer lens. Lighting is the essence of photography and a speedlight + umbrella will show a bigger improvement in IQ than going from the kit lens to canon 1.4 or 1.8.
Edited by Mwarren - 9/24/12 at 10:00pm

we got an expert over here guys.


let me go ahead and just say for everyone else here. unless your primary subject is focus test charts comparing lenses using those is pretty much worthless. while you can examine which lens holds sharpness throughout the frame on test charts actually saying that the 50 1.8 is better is only useful if you plan on exclusively shoot using a tripod with a primary subject that is inanimate. if you are doing product photography and want the image to be sharp throughout the frame then you want the 50 1.4. the 50 1.8 is hands down the best bang for your buck lens but its by no means better. it is better in terms of price and quality if you are shooting and do not need the image to be perfect every time.

also where are you getting that specifically at f2.5 is where these lenses shine? a focus test chart? the true test of a lens is how it performs when you are shooting in the real world with whatever your main subject is such as portraits. and unless you are using a lens with just the worst quality and design ever created then pretty much every lens on the market today will "shine" when you stop it down from wide open on a focus test chart. but when you pixel peep a lens on a focus test chart after stopping down they will all look the same in terms of how much is in focus. its when you examine all the other factors that makes one lens stand out from the rest in terms of image quality and how it renders your subject.

just to let you know the difference in your depth of field from shooting a f1.4 and f1.8 is not that significant unless you are sitting right at the minimum focus distance in which case you will need a tripod because you will take more shots that miss focus simply because of you not being able to hold the camera perfectly steady. but if you are shooting from 3-4feet away and taking a portrait of a person with these lenses wide open the difference in depth of field is less noticeable. but the true difference will be in the quality of the image in terms of the glass in the lens and the lens construction. the 50 1.4 will produce a much more visually pleasing image with slightly better colors and hands down much better bokeh. the bokeh on the 50 1.8 wide open if shooting a portrait is honestly ugly.
Edited by Conspiracy - 9/25/12 at 5:19am

No need to be rude, I wish you the best and well being.

As for your claims of charts and what not, it has been shown that even when pixel peeping the 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4 because it uses newer optical technology. If you zoom in 100% with a kit lens vs a L lens and both shots were in focus don't you think the L lens would be sharper? Well of course it would, this is one of the areas where the 1.8 shines, it is indeed sharper than the 1.4. So no, all lenses do not look the same when you pixel peep them on a chart as some lenses are sharper than others. All glass is not equal or else why would people put out the money for L lenses???
Also, the images are sharp throughout the frame on my 1.8. There are no soft corners as due to the 1.6x crop factor you're seeing the sharp part of the lens and there are no soft points unless you use it on full frame but even than I have yet to hear anyone say that the 1.8 has soft corners.

The difference between 1.4 and 1.8 is also bigger than you might think, at 1.8 your focal plane is already extremely small, you have to be dead still with the camera and your subject can't move or else your picture will be out of focus unless you use an af tracking mode. How do I know this you might ask, experience.

Also, I have yet to see any proof of the 1.4 having better contrast and a sharper image than the 1.8 (that's what you mean by better colors and more pleasing images). I'd like to see some proof to back those claims up. I have proof right here that the 1.8 is capable of producing beautiful bokeh while shooting portraits. Let's please try to be honest with ourselves and others on here as nobody likes to be lied to.

Here are some portraits that were taken yesterday with a simple 50mm f 1.8 and $75 speedlite and umbrella/lightstand. For the money, you can not do much if any better as the speedlite is $75 and is fully manual but has as much power and power settings as the $500 Canon 580 ii and the 50mm f1.8 is only $100. So instead of paying $350 for the f1.4 and blowing it all on a lens why not spend $225 and have an awesome portrait setup???

Also, how can you tell me that the f1.8 has ugly background blur or does not have good contrast? For $100 it can not be beaten.









Also, if you zoom in you'll notice that they're all 100% tack sharp.
Edited by Mwarren - 9/25/12 at 10:45am

nice to know you can zoom into an image with a prime. my 50 1.8 cant do that sadly. i know what you meant to say but hard to take you serious when all you did was summarize my post and add mention to L lenses.

my from experience. the light in your first 2 images is a little hot. you should have backed that down just a tiny bit. just my 2cents of lighting experience although its different when lighting for video.

i dont like the bokeh because its too busy. a portrait with a more expensive lens can and usually will produce much smoother blur which makes the image overall more visually pleasing which is why a lot of portraits are taken with longer focal lengths as the backgrounds are more blurred out and generally smoother rather than the harshness you see in the edges of the circles in the bokeh.

while im not doubting your experience or calling you a bad photographer by any means as i think those portraits are very nicely captured. i feel that while the 50 1.8 is hands down the best bang for your buck. if a person needs a certain look and feel it is not always able to deliver based on its overall build.

im not 100% sure you can claim that the 1.8 is optically more improved over the 1.4 when the 50mm prime lens is possibly the most common focal length in the history of 35mm lenses and has been around forever.

i leave this conversation on this note: Just because a lens is newer does not mean it is optically better. There are lenses 30+ years older than the EF 50 f1.4 that are optically superior. so not sure how that figures into your argument the the 1.8 is better because its newer.
Edited by Conspiracy - 9/25/12 at 11:07am

I'm really not sure where you're getting this info from.

50/1.4:


50/1.8:



Bokeh undoubtedly goes to the f/1.4 variant, but as you can see the resolution is so similar between the two lenses that the only other worthwhile plus is the f/1.4's ability to expose the image in 2/3 the light of the f/1.8 -- and of course, the cost differential.

Additionally, you may want to check out this comparison to see contrast and vignetting differences when shot on a test chart. None of this matters to any real photographer, as they will choose the faster lens every time if they require it due to lighting conditions.

I disagree with your speedlite/umbrella suggestion as well, as it's just another thing to carry and set up in the field and has a very narrow set of situations it can be used in.

Agree with the comment about the nifty and lighting if you don't already have it. Get a copy of "light, science and magic" and have fun.

I have the 50mm 1.4 and with a crop factor it's basically a portrait lens, so you'll be shooting at f/2 and tighter anyway.

To each their own, I find the background blur very appealing and as for the lighting being "hot" if you meant color wise which is what I think you meant, I lowered the color temperature in LR because I prefer a warmer image. As for it being overexposed, according to LR and the histo it's perfectly exposed not to mention my subject has very light skin. You can tell it's exposed properly by being able to see the details in the eyes, eyebrows, and teeth, and in the second pic background. You should know that already though those are the basics. I prefer the Bokeh on the 1.8 because it produces a very smooth yet hexagonal geometric almost paint like background. At the longer focal lengths backgrounds tend to just eb very smooth where I prefer a more pronounced background.

I'm not going to continue this debate as it seems you can cherry pick data, if you search 1.8 is better than 1.4 results will pop out with charts liek the one you pulled, you can also do the opposite with the other data.

Also, you might disagree with my speedlite/umbrella suggestion but again, this is just your opinion just like your opinion of the color temperature or lighting of my pictures. Most professionals would disagree with you and say that an umbrella +speedlite will make a bigger difference in your images than a new lens will.

It might just be another thing that you have to take around in the field but it's worth it as someone that wants the best pictures possible wouldn't be lazy about having to lug around extra equipment. These lightstands and umbrellas can be very mobile with a set of added on wheels by the way and they add a ton to your image if you do portraiture.

The strobist ( http://googleads.l.doublee-click.net/2url?sa=L&ai=1&fadurl=googleads.g.doubleclick.net&bs=0256&u=http%3A%2F%2Fstrobist.blogspot.com%2F2006%2F03%2Flighting-101.html&clcrf=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.themarketppc.com%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3Dlighting%2B101 ) would like to have a word with you.

Oh yea, heres the difference between a 50 1.8 and kit lens with just natural light, vs a 1.8 with speedlite + umbrella. World of a difference as you can tell that the lighting kit makes.

Kit Lens :

50 1.8:

50 1.8 with one umbrella and speedlite:

Now you try to tell me with a straight face that spending $350 on a lens will improve your portraiture than lighting that can be had for cheap would.

This 100X. I just picked up a copy of light, science, magic a week ago and am already 1/3rd of the way done but it has already improved my knowledge when it comes to lighting and photographic ability 10 fold. This book is a must for any serious photographer.

People who want the very best image quality aren't wasting time with crop-sensor digital SLRs. And for some of us, "laziness" isn't a factor, and that's quite ignorant of you to assume that.