# 50mm 1:1.8 vs 50mm 1:1.4



## TheCanonMan (Sep 7, 2005)

what i would like to know is what is the better lens the 50mm 1:1.8 or the 50mm 1:1.4 i have both i like the 1:1.4 more but i dont know what is a better lens for every day use 

by the way what is the 1:1.4 1:5.6 ext. stand for is the smaller the number better or is the bigger the number better ?


----------



## thebeginning (Sep 7, 2005)

well, i dont see how your title has anything to do with your question, but generally the smaller that 1?) number is, the better. I'm most likely going to get flamed for saying that, as it is not always the case, like with long telephotos (canon's 400 5.6L lens is a gem, for instance), but for this instance i'll just say it. as for what that 1:5.6 and 1:1.4 is, check here, it should help you out: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3028

basically, lenses with larger max apertures (under f2.8 is considered large) cost more money to make, so the manufacturers go into more trouble to make good optical quality glass in them. this isnt ALWAYS the case, like I said, but generally it is. 

on the topic of the 50mm 1.4 vs. the 50mm 1.8, here's a helpful review: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/


----------



## TheCanonMan (Sep 7, 2005)

thanks for the info


----------



## lazarus219 (Sep 8, 2005)

The 1.4 is going to be alot faster, but for everyday shooting, you donty really need that speed, also- your depth of field all the way down at 1.4 is going to extremely shallow, so you might not be able to use that ultra-wide aperture alot of the time anyways, but at night, those extra aperture stops are going to keep you shooting handheld for much longer


----------



## HoboSyke (Sep 8, 2005)

I reckin get the 1.4 lens. Apparently its a lot better made as well..


----------



## Xmetal (Sep 8, 2005)

HoboSyke said:
			
		

> I reckin get the 1.4 lens. Apparently its a lot better made as well..



F1.4 has USM.  

F1.8 doesn't.  :meh:


----------



## TheCanonMan (Sep 8, 2005)

i have both lol i have 2 1:1.4's and 5 1:1.8's lol i save junk any one know what the S.S.C. on the 1:1.4 stands for ?


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 8, 2005)

lazarus219 said:
			
		

> The 1.4 is going to be alot faster


Not really. The difference between 1.8 and 1.4 is less than 1 stop - in fact it's only 2/3rds of a stop so it's not going to give you much of a speed increase.


----------



## HoboSyke (Sep 8, 2005)

I still think the 1.4 is better after reading this review
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 8, 2005)

If you check out the price difference - leaving aside the review - it becomes obvious that the 1.8 was designed as a budget lens. The 1.4 is the 'quality' lens. On this basis alone you would expect the 1.4 to perform better - and it does.


----------



## westman (Sep 8, 2005)

i've tried Nikkor AIS 50 1.4 and AF 501.8
both very good quility and sharp, i think it just depends on the things u want to archive , if u have that moeny buy 1.4, the dof is amazing


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 8, 2005)

I'd confidently do a shoot-out with my cheapo Canon 50mm f/1.8 mkII vs. the f/1.4 any day.    The f/1.8 mkII is plasticky and doesn't have the bells and whistles; someone mentioned USM, it also probably has a DOF scale, which the f/1.8 doesn't (cheap bastards at Canon!).  But it's unlikely that you would be able to spot the difference in photos taken with the two.  If money is no object, go for for the f/1.4 (or the f/1.8 mkI) ; it is definately a better built lens, but it won't take better photos than the f/1.8.

For my Nikon FM2n I have both the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 (expensive) and the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (cheap).  Comparing the two lenses the f/1.8 is sharper at f/2 than the f/1.4 at f/2, so more money doesn't always mean a better lens.

EDIT:  By the way, it seems like this question has been posted about 4 times in the last week.  Let's do a little searching, folks.


----------



## thebeginning (Sep 8, 2005)

hertz is right on both accounts. the speed is good on the 1.4, but not a whole lot faster than the 1.8, and the 1.8 WAS supposed to be more of a budget lens.  so it really just depends on you.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Sep 8, 2005)

thebeginning said:
			
		

> hertz is right on both accounts.


 :shock: It entered your mind that I might be wrong?    :lmao:


----------



## thebeginning (Sep 8, 2005)

haha.  it was more of an AGREEMENT.


----------



## Digital Matt (Sep 8, 2005)

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Sep 8, 2005)

I am not able to get the eyes in focus with the 1.8 wide open. I was able to do that with 50/1.4 because of the USM

You'll see in small details that 1.4 is actually a whole lot better than 1.8


----------



## wharrison (Sep 8, 2005)

The Canon Man:

This link will provide you with some additional insight.

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/CanonFD/FD50.html

Bill


----------



## TheCanonMan (Sep 9, 2005)

thanks every one for your info and feedback as i was saying i have both but the 1.4 and 1.8 my cam is a FD mount it is not hard to get a cheap 50mm lens in 1.8 or 1.4 i more or less just needed to see if it was a better lens or just a better look i use my 1.4 every day it is my fav. lens its funny i use over my wide angel,75mm,100mm,200,or even my 300mm i just like my little 50mm 1.4 i have a little promaster spectrun 7 auto tele converter that i use with the lens for up clsoe it works real nice


----------



## thebeginning (Sep 9, 2005)

ooh it's an FD mount. oops. well, i'm glad you found a lens you like! 

oh, please try and use periods.


----------



## TheCanonMan (Sep 9, 2005)

in my hello i did post that i am dyslexic i guess you that did not see that but its ok just if you can keep that in mind that would help me a lot i try my self to spell things right so using periods is the last thing on my mind most of the time


----------

