[stupot]

At nearly 4x the price of the Canon EF 50mm 1.8f II is the Canon EF 50mm 1.4f USM really that much better.

I'm looking into getting myself a nifty fifty and just wondering is the 1.4f version of this lens really worth that extra cash? Not that either are expensive but could be better spent elsewhere.

So all nifty owners out there your advice would be greatly received.

[_MB_]

Had both, far prefer the 1.4

Its more solidly built, has more aperture blades, has a nicer filter diameter (ie more of my filters fit on more of my lenses) and produces images that are somehow just smoother.

As far as sharpness and contrast go, I reckon you'd really need to get a magnifying glass out to see any difference.

Having said this I got my 1.4 for a very good price and had a mk1 1.8 to sell so it ended up costing me about £20! Retrospect is wonderful so of course I'd get a 1.4 straight off but discarding that, realistically I'd think twice if I was paying full whack.

[Dabhand16]

In terms of VFM I think the 1.8 wins hands down. If VFM is not a priority.........

[stepheno]

I can't comment on the 1.4 but I have a 1.8 Mark 1, metal mount, super build quality and I am more than happy with it. For the restricted use that it gets I have no reason to buy the 1.4.

[M1ke A]

Originally Posted by stepheno

I can't comment on the 1.4 but I have a 1.8 Mark 1, metal mount, super build quality and I am more than happy with it. For the restricted use that it gets I have no reason to buy the 1.4.

I'm also the same as Stepheno. That said, the faster USM motor of the 1.4 would be useful in low light gig shots. However that comes under the 'nice to have' heading.

[Dave]

Under the Nikon guise there were some reports of the f/1.8 actually being sharper than f/1.4 , so unless you needed the extra light or extra shallow DOF, for Nikon bods the f/1.8 makes sense.

[P-E]

I have the Canon 1.8 and to be honest I very rarely use it..........I did have the Nikon 50mm 1.4 when I was shooting with Nikon and again it was a lens I just did not use

[GainfulShrimp]

I have the Canon 50/1.4 and absolutely love it. The improvements over the f/1.8 version are (in my opinion):

- sturdier construction and metal lens mount (the latter also on mkI versions of the f/1.8 like stepheno's)
- 8 aperture blades (rather than 5), so specular highlights look better in defocused areas and arguably the bokeh is nicer - although that's a matter of taste
- it has USM for faster and quieter focusing
- and obviously, it's a bit faster with maximum f/1.4

One minor thing to note is that it uses 'micro USM' rather than 'ring USM', which means it uses a clutch mechanism for full-time manual focusing. Hence it feels weird if you are moving the focus ring when you attempt autofocus.

The f/1.8 version is better value but for me I prefered the build of the f/1.4 and the other improvements were a bonus.

Here's a shot illustrating the nicer highlight spots on the f/1.4 model:



On the f/1.8, those out of focus highlights would be pentagons rather than octagons and thus less circular.

[silkstone]

They're both excellent in their own way. If money is no object, the build quality of the f/1.4 is much better, and there are the other features already mentioned. However, the 'Plastic Fantastic' f/1.8 II is almost as good in terms of image quality, and the chances are that nobody looking at your pics will know which lens was used.

So if the extra cost of the f/1.4 means that something else has to be put on hold, I'd go for the f/1.8.

[rhodopsin]

Anyone got one of these to comment about?

[P-E]

Not got one rhodopsin but I have heard (web reviews) that some copies have AF problems.

[Dave]

Re f/1.4 vs f/1.8, is it not true that the sweet spot for a lens is usually starts a few stops in from max aperture ? Thus for f/1.4 lens in theory it's images at f/2.8 could well be nearer to that sweet spot , than for f/1.8 lens at f/2.8 ?