Difference In Image Quality?

[keroppiyo]

I'm asking out of curiosity, as I already have a Canon 50mm 1.8 and don't intend to upgrade to the 1.4. But do the two lenses produce different quality pictures, assuming same body, settings, photographer, subject, etc?

Just that I realised when people take photos using fast, large aperture lenses, they hardly ever have it at the largest aperture setting. So apart from difference in build of lens, and the ability to shoot at 1.4, is there much difference between the 2 lenses?

If you shot at say, 2.8, would both the lenses produce almost identical pictures?

[huga]

The 1.8 is quite plastic fantastic and I would assume, not as lovely and sharp as the 1.4.

That said, I love my 1.8 and use it all the time (but that's because it's all I have except kit lenses).

[kja]

The biggest difference will be the bokeh produced. Some people (I'd say most) would never notice.

Some people also have focus issues with the 1.8. I didn't, mine was a total gem that didn't miss even in crappy lighting.

I moved to the 1.4 because I needed that extra bit of light.

If you aren't missing it or if your 1.8 is doing what you need it to do, you probably don't need to move up the ladder. If your are happy with your 50 1.8, I'd buy a different focal length before I'd move to the 1.4 50...

[keroppiyo]

Thanks guys. It's just something I've always wondered about.

Yes, does seem hard to pick the differences when I go through the 50mm pics thread, but there are a lot of variables to consider.

Huga, your 50mm 1.8 shots are fantastic

[Kirislin]

archive for the 1.4

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=139085

archive for the 1.8 the "nifty fifty"

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=186207

[Linda K]

depends on whether you get a good copy of the 1.8 or not, as that can be a bit hit and miss. I have heard of others on a photography forum that have had the 1.8 fall apart on them, just because it is not quite as robust as the 1.4. For the average man on the street though, agree with the others that they would probably not even be able to tell the difference between the 2.

[Kirislin]

Also, the 1.4 has a reputation for auto focus failure and I had it happen to mine, problem was, it was intermittent. It nearly became a disaster cause I took it back to the retailer, who sent it off to Canon who could find no problem with it.

When I got it back I asked the seller what if it happens again out of warranty. They said it would still be covered because I had reported it as a problem within the warranty period.

So, Murphs Law, it behaves fine for a couple of months then just after the warranty ends it starts to fail alot. Send it back to Canon and they said it's out of warranty and would cost me $380 or thereabouts to fix. A few more emails back and forth and drawing their attention to the original problem and they fixed it no charge "as a gesture of goodwill" It's been fine since but if it fails again I will buy a Sigma next time.

[kja]

So the flip side of Kirislin's story is that mine has never failed and I haven't missed focus in crappy light - my 50 1.4 is a good 'un.

I wouldn't be too scared of pretty much any lens because of horror stories - when people have something that works, they rarely go on and on about it. When people have a problem with something, they get out there and share the story. Every manufacturer will have glitches now and again but both Canon and Sigma (the Sigma 50 1.4 is also an excellent choice btw!!) put out solid lenses that should have few problems overall.

@kirs - so glad Canon came to the party for the other guy's mistake and that you have a working lens!!

[Kirislin]

kja I had heard about the 50mm 1.4 problem and it didn't put me off buying it, but since I had the problem I kind of feel obliged to mention it to people now when I recommend the lens, I do love mine though.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Kirislin

[Linda K]

must admit, I love both my Canon 50 1.4, and the Nikon 50 1.4, they are one of my main working lenses