Canon 50mm f/1.4 vs 50mm f/1.8

The difference between these lenses in price is large, but aside from
that extra bit of speed, what else is there? How much of a difference
is that?

I'm a relative beginner, and I'm looking for a very fast and affordable
lens to use for available light indoor situations, sometimes with motion.

Until I can afford the 70-200mm f/2.8L, I need *something* that will
have more speed than the kit lens so I'm not completely locked out in
low-light situations.

Dave

David Geesaman wrote:

The difference between these lenses in price is large, but aside from
that extra bit of speed, what else is there? How much of a difference
is that?

1.4 vs. 1.8 is two-thirds of a stop.

The 1.4 may be a better quality lens than the 1.8, but the 1.8, in all
probability, will be better than anything you've used before anyway.

I'm a relative beginner, and I'm looking for a very fast and affordable
lens to use for available light indoor situations, sometimes with motion.

I'd say go with the 1.8. It'll be much cheaper. At some point you may
feel that you need what the 1.4 has to offer, but if so, that will come
at the point when you're not a relative beginner any more. There is no
sense in spending the money for the 1.4 unless you really know you need
it.

--
Jeremy |

"David Geesaman" wrote in message
...
The difference between these lenses in price is large, but aside from
that extra bit of speed, what else is there? How much of a difference
is that?

I'm a relative beginner, and I'm looking for a very fast and affordable
lens to use for available light indoor situations, sometimes with motion.

Until I can afford the 70-200mm f/2.8L, I need *something* that will
have more speed than the kit lens so I'm not completely locked out in
low-light situations.

Dave

I have the 50mm f1.4 - it is a cheap lens @ $310. Why did I get this over
the f1.8?

- USM
- Build - this lens has some weight to it
- Has much better bokeh : this is critical for a fast lens IMO
- Has better coatings to correct undesirables
- f1.4 DOES make a difference. When in Av, going from f1.8 to f1.4 increaes
the shutter speed by close to 2x. Even if it means, you will go from 1/30s
to 1/50s, this is enough to be the difference between blur and sharp.

Unless you are on a very tight budget, I would say go the f1.4. BTW I have
the 70-200mm f2.8LIS and the colors/contrast of the 50mm are very close.
This is one of canon's sharpest lenses, and you will see it used for many
camera body tests - after all it was good enough to put on the 1Ds MkII on
dpreview.com.

Thanks
Musty.

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
David Geesaman wrote:


The difference between these lenses in price is large, but aside from
that extra bit of speed, what else is there? How much of a difference
is that?


1.4 vs. 1.8 is two-thirds of a stop.

The 1.4 may be a better quality lens than the 1.8, but the 1.8, in all
probability, will be better than anything you've used before anyway.


I'm a relative beginner, and I'm looking for a very fast and affordable
lens to use for available light indoor situations, sometimes with motion.


I'd say go with the 1.8. It'll be much cheaper. At some point you may
feel that you need what the 1.4 has to offer, but if so, that will come
at the point when you're not a relative beginner any more. There is no
sense in spending the money for the 1.4 unless you really know you need
it.


Thanks for the input.

I think I'll get the $75 version, since I'll also be using it in very
dusty conditions and I may ruin it.
At the least, I could sell it on eBay/etc for $50 and upgrade.

Dave

David Geesaman writes:

The difference between these lenses in price is large, but aside from
that extra bit of speed, what else is there? How much of a difference
is that?

I'm a relative beginner, and I'm looking for a very fast and
affordable lens to use for available light indoor situations,
sometimes with motion.

Then you want the f/1.8. For the money, you won't find a sharper or
faster lens, that's for damned sure.

The f/1.4 really just buys you more light and a much cooler looking
lens. There might be some sharpness to be had there as well, but if
affordable is part of your equation, the f/1.8 is damned hard to beat
for bang for the buck.

Though I'm sure there will be f/1.4 owners out there justifying their
purchases on this thread. :-)

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"Todd H." wrote in message ...
David Geesaman writes:

Though I'm sure there will be f/1.4 owners out there justifying their
purchases on this thread. :-)

Yes, its cooler looking!!! ;-)

I will actually admit that I _prefer_ not to buy "funny" looking lenses. For
some bizarre reason, the feel(eg weight), style and ergonomics of a lens are
very important to me (obviously lower priority than imgae quality) - but it
does affect my decisions. My other reasons relating to image quality are
stated in my original response.

Misty.

"Musty" wrote in message
...

"Todd H." wrote in message ...
David Geesaman writes:

Though I'm sure there will be f/1.4 owners out there justifying their
purchases on this thread. :-)

Yes, its cooler looking!!! ;-)

I will actually admit that I _prefer_ not to buy "funny" looking lenses.
For
some bizarre reason, the feel(eg weight), style and ergonomics of a lens
are
very important to me (obviously lower priority than imgae quality) - but
it
does affect my decisions. My other reasons relating to image quality are
stated in my original response.

Misty.


I meant Musty (hehe) - and no, thats not my "feminine side" coming out.

Some how Play "Musty" for me just doesn't ring quite the same - LOL


"Musty" wrote in message
...

"Musty" wrote in message
...

"Todd H." wrote in message ...
David Geesaman writes:

Though I'm sure there will be f/1.4 owners out there justifying their
purchases on this thread. :-)

Yes, its cooler looking!!! ;-)

I will actually admit that I _prefer_ not to buy "funny" looking lenses.
For
some bizarre reason, the feel(eg weight), style and ergonomics of a lens
are
very important to me (obviously lower priority than imgae quality) - but
it
does affect my decisions. My other reasons relating to image quality are
stated in my original response.

Misty.


I meant Musty (hehe) - and no, thats not my "feminine side" coming out.

Musty wrote:
"Todd H." wrote in message
...
David Geesaman writes:

Though I'm sure there will be f/1.4 owners out there justifying
their
purchases on this thread. :-)

Yes, its cooler looking!!! ;-)

I will actually admit that I _prefer_ not to buy "funny" looking
lenses. For some bizarre reason, the feel(eg weight), style and
ergonomics of a lens are very important to me (obviously lower
priority than imgae quality) - but it does affect my decisions. My
other reasons relating to image quality are stated in my original
response.


My therapist wants to talk to your therapist.

--
Frank ess
"sometimes a lens is just a cigar".
—Sigmund Daguerre