[asd]

hi guys,

Well done on the new look site, should be the start of something good.

I am after a nice lens for portraits in the main for a 10D , is there a major difference in quality between the Canon EF 1.8 and the 1.4? as there is a big difference in price (1.4 around £250 ish 1.8 £80) Not too concerned about build quality more the optical quality Just wondering if anyone has any of these or lenses or could recommend something else.... ps my 10D cant take the new EFS lenses.

thanks scott

[Steve]

Hi Scott

The main differences between the lenses you have on your list is indeed build quality and ability to shoot in lower light. The 1.4 also has more blades to open/close the aperture which can result in a more natural 'bokeh', any highlights will apear smoother and halos will be rounder. Obviously the 1.4 will also allow for a narrower depth of field as well but at 1.8 this can still be pretty narrow.

Both lenses offer supurb, tack sharp results and the 'cheap' price of the 1.8 should not fool you into thinking that the results it will give would be low quality. Most Canon shooters highly recommend adding the 50mm 1.8 to your kit list just for that reason alone, its cheap, the quality is supurb and it will also force you to improve your techniques and make you move to frame your pictures, more so if you have become use to zoom lenses.

The 1.8 is a stunning lens, the 1.4 is even better but value for money wise not as good. I would say the results from both are similiar.

One last thing to thing about is that the 1.4 will be sharper than the 1.6 when used at f1.8

Here are our reviews on the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 MKII
If you want any more info or to see some sample pictures from the 1.8 version just shout

[Dave]

I've also got the 50mm f/1.8 , although for Nikon. The optics are that good I cannot justify the f/1.4 . In fact I judge all new lenses by the f/1.8, so will be comparing it against a lens I have aquired that has a list price 10x the price. Should be interesting

[asd]

thankyou both very much, will do some tinternet reseach this week and read your reviews Steve on the 1.8... cheers. have got a f1.7 50mm manual lens on a contax 35mm film cam which i love but selling my film gear now as i dont use it, so the 1.8 canon would fit the bill

thanks again
scott

[stepheno]

Agree with all the above - and from a value for money point of view you can't beat the 1.8. Just to add, if you are buying used then you'll come across Mark 1 and Mark 2 versions of the 1.8. The only difference is that the Mk 1 has a metal mount and the Mk 2 has plastic. I'm told that optically they are the same. I was lucky and picked up a used Mk 1 for £80 but there some silly prices being touted on Ebay for it. For less than that you can pick up a new Mk2.

regards

[Steve]

Doesn't the MK1 also have the hyperfocal distance markings on the lens?

[stepheno]

Yes - that's correct, Steve.

regards

[asd]

Just a quick one ..what about the canon 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
would this produce good bokeh? and would it be sharp at the 70mm end for portraits? was going to get the 50mm 1.8 but just found out i am photographing my mates wedding(ohh Betty, nerves..sweaty panic sets in!) in Vietnam in december so would the zoom be more use for that than prime. I am selling all my film gear hopefully soon to fund some canon lenses, the 24-70 is abt £700 at one stop digital. Have the 17-40L but just not long enough sometimes

cheers scott

[Steve]

Yes the Canon 24-70 L would be better for weddings, if you pop into the review section you will see a couple of reviews on that lens and it is mentioned more than once that for weddings it is the choice of the professionals. Couple that with your 17-40L and you should be able to cover most, if not all of the shots needed.

I would suggest that you add a flash gun to your list as well though

[asd]

Steve,

Thanks again for the fast response and good advice. Is the bokeh strong enough on the 24-70L for portraits. I was planning on getting the 70-300 IS for wildlife stuff before dabbling in portraits, so i am confused as to what to purchase as regards the next ideal focal length from the 17-40.I am worried that i wont use the 50mm prime so much now but the f1.8 aperture is appealling, maybe shooting some concert/live band stuff soon as well for a friends band so a zoom lens thats good for this as well as portraits is looking. Should i get the cheaper 50mm 1.8 along with another zoom as the 1.8 is fairly cheap, or what about the EF24-105mm f4 L IS ? ohh god this photography lark gets confusing.

steve , i dont want to buy something that i have to sell later and lose money on to upgrade eg. i doubt i will sell the 17-40L, but if i had got the sigma or tamron equivelent i would of wanted to sell it to get the 17-40. sorry for waffling Steve
many thanks scott

[Steve]

You are fast finding out that photography is an expensive hobby and no matter what we own we always need something else

The 50mm 1.8 lense should be in everyone’s kit bag simply due to its low light shooting capability, how good it is at portraits, its sharpness, its small size and above all its cost. You simply cannot get another lens that offers so much for so little. However it is not suitable as a ‘complete solution’ to wedding photography. If you have two bodies and can leave the 50mm on one while using a variable length zoom of the other then great, but changing lenses will slow things down and you will miss shots if you don’t.

I have not used the EF24-105mm f4 L IS, although the reviews are very good and the range would be excellent for weddings. However the F4 will certainly not be fast enough for all circumstances and will not allow you to throw out the background as much as on the F2.8 of the 24-70L. It does have a longer zoom though which will compensate slightly for the bokeh but means you will have to work at full zoom and especially in a wedding situation where you will be doing portraits, being close to your subjects to develop a report and command their full attention is a massive advantage. There are enough distractions and diversions for the wedding guests without you fighting to keep their attention and instruct them from further away.

My advice is that for weddings the 24-70L would be perfect but if you are only going to shoot one or two then the 24-105 will probably be a better all round lens. Whichever you buy, also seriously consider adding the 50mm prime for the times when you need low level shooting or ridiculously narrow depth of field. For the money it’s a no brainer

Hope that helps

[asd]

Certainly does steve, i will buy the 50 1.8, and then see if funds will allow for another L lens (24-70) if i sell my Contax film kit. The wedding is a one off no pressure thing Steve, its in Vietnam, and as he wasnt getting a photographer in, and i was taking my photographic kit for the holiday anyway he asked me if i fancied a go...so why not, good practice.

Not good enough/or experienced yet for a wedding, only bought my first camera 18 months ago,and only got an SLR in November for the A level course i started in September. Have got an A grade in my first year(AS) but the buggers at blackpool and fylde college are scrapping the part time photography courses, so might not be able to get the full A level as soon as i was hoping. Its not a degree but im quite chuffed with the A so far. How long have you been into photography Steve? How did you get into it?

thanks again scott

[Steve]

I have my father to thank for getting me into photography. He was keen photographer and when I was very young he bought me an old Zenith SLR. I used that for a good few years but found the costs of developing a strain on my pocket money Later on when I began working I bought a Minolta SLR and became quite serious and creative with my photography, here again the enthusiasm was quickly curbed by the quality of high street processing, often they would ‘correct’ my attempts at being creative and as I neither had the time, space, knowledge or skill to process my own I basically lost interest.

Several years later I bought my first digital camera (Nikon 885) it was a very basic point and shoot affair but totally removed the need for processing, I again found it limiting and upgraded to a Canon G3 which I had some serious fun with and returned some photos that I am still very proud of. From that I took a Photoshop course at collage and as luck would have it met a photographer that ran her own studio. I ended up doing wedding photography for her and that in turn gave me the funds to buy my DSLR equipment. I now currently have two Canon DSLR bodies, a few lenses, and all the other bits and bobs that go along with it.

So I guess I have about 20 years of photography experience in different guises, 3 years of point and shoot digital and maybe 5 years plus of serious DSLR use. Two years of wedding photography (almost every weekend and on some 2 weddings), One Photoshop course under my belt and many late nights, cold mornings and missed photo opportunities Of course I still consider myself a beginner and regularly see much better work from people that have less experience. It can be inspiring and be a great driving force to improve.