I'm looking to getting a 50mm prime, and was caught between the Canon 50mm F1.4 or F1.8, so visited local camera shot, who basically told me to forget the F1.4 Canon due to mixed results, and the F1.8 was a good lens for its price (cheap) but made very flimsily. He then suggested the above lens as an alternative, I have a Canon 550D and he let try the lens it felt and seemed a really good lens.
My question is does anybody else have any of these lenses, if so what would your thoughts be on the one you have.
i have the Canon 50mm 1.8 and LOVE it. it rarely comes off my camera (my 450D). If it is made flimsily i don't notice. but I really have nothing to compare to...
I have the Canon f/1.8 lens and I love it. It is very sharp compared to the 18-55mm kit lens. It had very good reviews and is a good lens for the money. I don't use it all the time since it is a prime lens and I often use zoom for shooting trains, but I use it when I can because it gives great results.
I have the Cannon f/1.4 usm, and rarely take it off my camera. I *love* it and I find that it performs consistently. I rarely remove it from my camera.
I had the 1.8 version and sold it shortly after. It is cheap and a good lens, but it really does feel like a toy. Plus I hate using lenses without USM. You get what you pay for in that regard. It has to be the best bang for your buck when it comes to a fast prime lens though, but I'm upgrading to the 1.4. It's built like my 28mm and focuses incredibly fast in low light and the IQ is a little better overall.
I have the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and I couldn't be more pleased with it and it's operation. Prior to purchasing I was told the main difference between the 1.8 and the 1.4 (aside from a few points and a few bucks) is that the 1.8 has plastic components. I asked a photographer friend of mine if that was bad. She quite bluntly asked me if I planned to throw it against the wall. Um, no. She said, 'then no, you don't need to worry about it.' LOL Again, my f/1.8 has worked WONDERFULLY for me.
I have the Canon 1.4 and in love with it. I suggest you get a lens hood to protect the front because I broke my first one when my camera and lens took a nosedive when I had it on a tripod. The front of the lens hit the carpet and it wouldn't focus after that. I had since bought another one and it's what I use 98% of the time. Sharp lens and bokeh is awesome.
For what it's worth: in most reviews that I've read, both lenses showed very good results. The Sigmas were often rated as being a tad sharper, but - and it's a big but - a lot of the Sigma lenses tend to have a noticable front or backfocus. The final verdict was, that if you are lucky and get a Sigma lens that works as intended, you get more lens for your money. But based on the luck involved, most reviewer recommend the Canon lens. That's all pure reading up on reviews. I've ordered the Canon 1.4, but there seems to be a shortage in supply. I'm waiting for it for almost 5 weeks now... :-(
@calumpit Without getting too technical, USM stands for Ultrasonic Motor. It's the motorized component of the autofocus mechanism. In my opinion, once you get used to lenses with USM you'll never want to go back. It focuses almost silently and in a fraction of a second. Not as noticeable when you're dealing in very well lit situations, but the performance really shines in low light situations.
this discussion is so helpful, so thanks for all of the input and for starting the discussion. I have been strongly considering one of the two lenses. I have heard they are sooo awesome.
I have the 1.8 and whilst you will notice massive improvements in sharpness over the kit lense, it does feel like it's very cheaply made. Also, you'll probably want to put it in manual focus mode when in low light and at the highest apertures. Sometimes it has a problem to focus well automatically.
All in all well worth the purchase especially for portraits and general shooting. I have the same camera body as you and with the 1.6x crop sensor you might feel boxed in when shooting with this lense.
I'd emphasize making sure you're comfortable with the focal length before you invest even though it is cheap. You'll find you can't get a lot in really especially when indoors. This is perhaps the biggest downside but depending on your style of shooting, this might not be an issue.
ok most people here own either one or the other and 99% of people prefer the lens they own...
All three lens are ok...
Here is what you get...
Yes wide open the 1.8 will be sharper than the 1.4... but that is wide open...
Stop the 1.4 down to 1.8 and it will be just as sharp...
Stop the 1.8 to 1.4... OH wait you cannot... well that is a plus 1 for the 1.4
The 1.8 build is plastic... it is mostly feel, but when you do drop one... the 1.4 may walk away unphased... the 1.8 is likely a pile of pieces on the ground...
The sigma lens may or may not front or back focus... with the canon you are getting tighter tolerances so will be less likely to do so... you will only notice it when you use that very thin DOF wide-open... BUT it actually has more to do with the camera than the lens... the camera tells the lens when it is in focus, not the other way around... so if your camera tends to front or back focus a lens... well that is your camera... and likely you never noticed it until you started dealing with thin DOF... better bodies let you tweek the focus for each lens...
so that whole part was a plus one for the 1.4
no that leaves price... and well it is what you can afford...
I have had f/3.5 macro, 2, 1.8, 1.7, 1.4 and 1.2 in various systems for various cameras... i use a 1.2 why... because it has 1.2... personally I hate a 50mm on a cropped sensor... so I only use it on film... 1.2 is nice on 35mm... I would never use it on digital when I can shoot iso 1600-3200...
lens look best stopped down a tad... true of every lens I have ever seen/heard of/used... so your technically best shots will be at f/4 to f/8...
brag factor... which is worth a lot in the camera word... there are two schools...
I cannot afford a 1.4 so I use a 1.8 and I rock because I am cheap and I use a 1.4 and I rock because I have a great lens or I use sigma... because I would rather not have credit card debit... and well I retire you other go enjoy your 1.4/1.8 lenses!
yeah... so that is all...
oh light stop wise... 1,4 to 1.8 on digital... means nothing... NOTHING! (I said light stop wise, not DOF, In DOF the difference on a crop sense at ten feet means... total in focus 10 inchs vs 6 inches... which can be huge on say a face... or a group of faces...
@icywarm The most important issue is buried in your reply, but it has to do with the 50mm on a crop sensor. Which I agree with, it's just too long for most crop body cameras for an everyday lens. It's funny how people completely overlook this. A 50mm has been the gold standard in prime lenses for longer than most people here have been on this planet, but that was in the 35mm days where a 50mm would be a fairly accurate representation of what a person sees.
But when you're talking about the most common 1.6x crop factor a 50mm lens is far longer than what most people think. You're really basically carrying around an 80mm lens, and that is not as great for an all-purpose walkaround lens like it would be on a full-frame or film camera.
It's funny that the 50mm holy grail has still prevailed all these years even with most DSLRs being a crop sensor of some sort. In reality, most people should be looking at a 28-35mm prime for their camera if they want to closely replicate what a 50mm would be on an old film camera. But instead everybody rushes straight to 50mm.
Sure, you can't get a 28, 30, or 35mm lens for as cheap as the "nifty fifty" but the few extra dollars spent would give you a far more versatile lens and you can always supplement it with a 50mm later if you find you really need the extra reach.
@icywarm Yep, that's why my first prime was a 28mm f/1.8. Picked it up used for about $350 and it's by far the most versatile lens in my lineup. And because I had this lens already it's part of the reason I returned my 50mm after a week. It was just too long for tighter indoor shots with the kids and even outside it was doing landscape shots a disservice.
@griff I have the 1.8, and like others have said it does feel flimsy, and toy like but I really like it. Best $50 I ever spent on a lens.
But ...
It is slow, it has troubles with the auto focus especially when partnered with an extension tube (canon branded at that). I tried a few non canon lenses and didn't really like the results.
We have a place here that lets you rent for gear, I'd suggest once you narrow your choices a little more to see if you can find a hire place near you. Take them out for the day and do some tests to see which you like best before you spend.
Love my cannon 50mm f/1.8!!! got it on sale for $99 on Amazon.com a few weeks ago and have been playing with it ever since. allows me to take cool shots like these:
I have the sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM and love it. I've also had an AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D, a Nikkor 50mm f/2.0 H.C., and a Nikkor-S.C 55mm f/1.2. My best results have been with the Sigma. (although the 50mm f/2.0 H.C was surprisingly sharp for a $50 lens)
I found that the sigma is sharp, focuses fast, (no front or back focusing issues here) has very little light fall-off and has really nice bokah. It is big and heavy, but I found the 77mm filter a plus since I can use the same filters as on my 70-200 and 28-70mm lenses.
Yes, great thread. So funny, because I just posted my first photo using the Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens I bought a couple of hours ago.
It is already so much fun! I imagine the f/1.4 to be better (more "like buttah"), but I could not afford that much right now. And in my opinion, it really doesn't hurt my bank account too much to just get this lens now, and see how I like it, and later shell out for the 1.4 when I can better afford it. The Sigma is more expensive than the Canon f/1.4, but it creates an out of focus background that is so smooth, it's creamy. I dream of it....
Had 1.8 and 1.4 versions (Canon) - both are great, but I loved the 1.4. Of course, now the 1.2 is on my list of lenses to get (my 85 f/1.2 is to die for). Now, it needs to be mentioned that, at normal print sizes or screen viewing, it is almost impossible to tell the difference between shots taken with any of the three, except for those taken with the aperture wide open.
Incidentally, I've never heard of mixed results with the 1.4 - everyone I know who has one loves it.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
All in all well worth the purchase especially for portraits and general shooting. I have the same camera body as you and with the 1.6x crop sensor you might feel boxed in when shooting with this lense.
I'd emphasize making sure you're comfortable with the focal length before you invest even though it is cheap. You'll find you can't get a lot in really especially when indoors. This is perhaps the biggest downside but depending on your style of shooting, this might not be an issue.
Anyway, just my 2 cents.
All three lens are ok...
Here is what you get...
Yes wide open the 1.8 will be sharper than the 1.4... but that is wide open...
Stop the 1.4 down to 1.8 and it will be just as sharp...
Stop the 1.8 to 1.4... OH wait you cannot... well that is a plus 1 for the 1.4
The 1.8 build is plastic... it is mostly feel, but when you do drop one... the 1.4 may walk away unphased... the 1.8 is likely a pile of pieces on the ground...
The sigma lens may or may not front or back focus... with the canon you are getting tighter tolerances so will be less likely to do so... you will only notice it when you use that very thin DOF wide-open... BUT it actually has more to do with the camera than the lens... the camera tells the lens when it is in focus, not the other way around... so if your camera tends to front or back focus a lens... well that is your camera... and likely you never noticed it until you started dealing with thin DOF... better bodies let you tweek the focus for each lens...
so that whole part was a plus one for the 1.4
no that leaves price... and well it is what you can afford...
I have had f/3.5 macro, 2, 1.8, 1.7, 1.4 and 1.2 in various systems for various cameras... i use a 1.2 why... because it has 1.2... personally I hate a 50mm on a cropped sensor... so I only use it on film... 1.2 is nice on 35mm... I would never use it on digital when I can shoot iso 1600-3200...
lens look best stopped down a tad... true of every lens I have ever seen/heard of/used... so your technically best shots will be at f/4 to f/8...
brag factor... which is worth a lot in the camera word... there are two schools...
I cannot afford a 1.4 so I use a 1.8 and I rock because I am cheap and I use a 1.4 and I rock because I have a great lens or I use sigma... because I would rather not have credit card debit... and well I retire you other go enjoy your 1.4/1.8 lenses!
yeah... so that is all...
oh light stop wise... 1,4 to 1.8 on digital... means nothing... NOTHING! (I said light stop wise, not DOF, In DOF the difference on a crop sense at ten feet means... total in focus 10 inchs vs 6 inches... which can be huge on say a face... or a group of faces...
But when you're talking about the most common 1.6x crop factor a 50mm lens is far longer than what most people think. You're really basically carrying around an 80mm lens, and that is not as great for an all-purpose walkaround lens like it would be on a full-frame or film camera.
It's funny that the 50mm holy grail has still prevailed all these years even with most DSLRs being a crop sensor of some sort. In reality, most people should be looking at a 28-35mm prime for their camera if they want to closely replicate what a 50mm would be on an old film camera. But instead everybody rushes straight to 50mm.
Sure, you can't get a 28, 30, or 35mm lens for as cheap as the "nifty fifty" but the few extra dollars spent would give you a far more versatile lens and you can always supplement it with a 50mm later if you find you really need the extra reach.
I love my 31 on digital... like Da Vinci`s brush she is...
But ...
It is slow, it has troubles with the auto focus especially when partnered with an extension tube (canon branded at that). I tried a few non canon lenses and didn't really like the results.
We have a place here that lets you rent for gear, I'd suggest once you narrow your choices a little more to see if you can find a hire place near you. Take them out for the day and do some tests to see which you like best before you spend.
I found that the sigma is sharp, focuses fast, (no front or back focusing issues here) has very little light fall-off and has really nice bokah. It is big and heavy, but I found the 77mm filter a plus since I can use the same filters as on my 70-200 and 28-70mm lenses.
The sigma is currently my most used lens.
It is already so much fun! I imagine the f/1.4 to be better (more "like buttah"), but I could not afford that much right now. And in my opinion, it really doesn't hurt my bank account too much to just get this lens now, and see how I like it, and later shell out for the 1.4 when I can better afford it. The Sigma is more expensive than the Canon f/1.4, but it creates an out of focus background that is so smooth, it's creamy. I dream of it....
1.4 is much better lens with my experience but its very heavily priced..and most of the things you can do with 1.8. so my choice was 1.8.
It is not the machine but man/woman behind the machine which matters..
Incidentally, I've never heard of mixed results with the 1.4 - everyone I know who has one loves it.