50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.8

"Ockham's Razor" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Alan Smithee" wrote:

"measekite" wrote in message
...

Other than some additional speed what does the faster of these lenses
(either Canon or Nikon) give you other than 3 times the price?

Is the image quality any better?
If, so is it so substantially better as to jusify the price?


I played with a friends Canon 1.8 a couple of years ago and although the
1.8
is good value for money, it's build is a bit cheap and nasty. I used to
have a 1.4, which had much better build quality.

Perhaps if you use it for opening bear cans.

Most people handle lenses in such a way that the miniscule difference in
"build quality" will be of absolutely no importance.

I have thousands of shots with a Nikon 1.8 with many off and on the
camera lens changes and all is working perfectly.


The OP wanted to know the difference.

"measekite" wrote:
Other than some additional speed what does the faster of these lenses
(either Canon or Nikon) give you other than 3 times the price?

The Canon 50/1.4 is marginally better than the 50/1.8 in several areas,
including bokeh. There's a detailed comparison on the photo.net site.

Is the image quality any better?
If, so is it so substantially better as to jusify the price?

If you are doing portraits using a crop camera, I'd say the 50/1.4 is worth
the price. It's pretty funky wide open, though, especially on a FF camera.
Sigh. The new Sigma 50/1.4 (which is a lot larger and heavier) is somewhat
sharper at f/1.4 than either the Canon or Nikon 50/1.4, but the Canon/Nikon
lenses are better at f/5.6 and smaller. (The Canon has better center
sharpness at f/2.0 than the Sigma, but the Sigma is better at the edges; and
they are very similar beasts at f/4.0.)

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page6.asp

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message news
"measekite" wrote:

Other than some additional speed what does the faster of these lenses
(either Canon or Nikon) give you other than 3 times the price?
Is the image quality any better?
If, so is it so substantially better as to jusify the price?

If you are doing portraits using a crop camera, I'd say the 50/1.4 is worth the price. It's pretty funky wide open, though,
especially on a FF camera. Sigh. The new Sigma 50/1.4 (which is a lot larger and heavier) is somewhat sharper at f/1.4 than either
the Canon or Nikon 50/1.4, but the Canon/Nikon lenses are better at f/5.6 and smaller. (The Canon has better center sharpness at
f/2.0 than the Sigma, but the Sigma is better at the edges; and they are very similar beasts at f/4.0.)

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/..._c16/page6.asp

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

It would be interesting to see where the new Nikkor 50mm f1.4 G fits in
this group...
--DR