Canon 50mm - 1.8, 1.4 or 100mm 2.8?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

10/12/2004 01:14:19 AM · #1

I already have the Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens, which I absolutely love.

However, that is the closest thing I have to a really fast lens.

I am considering picking up a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 (second hand) if I can find one.

So, my questions are:

1) The 1.8 is a very cheap lens indeed ($70 odd) but the 1.4 is considerably more expensive ($300 odd). Would I realistically notice much difference between 1.4 and 1.8?

2) Would this make a better portrait lens that the 100mm 2.8? I just love that lens for studio work, my problem is for full body shots I have to be further away than I can get in my kitchen, err, I mean studio.

3) What main uses do people with this lens put it to? The 100mm is the only prime I have ever owned, so I am far more used to the flexability of the zooms.

4) Would people consider this a good lens for full body nudes/glamour photography?

Answers on a postcard to .....

PerezDesignGroup

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

10/12/2004 01:27:08 AM · #2

This review helped me tremendously.
//www.epinions.com/content_110045335172

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

10/12/2004 02:41:31 AM · #3

Originally posted by Natator:

1) The 1.4 will give better performance wide open and it is faster, not much, but faster. The USM on the 1.4 will also focus faster and quieter. The 1.8 does pretty good for me, but it depends on your needs. Supposedly, the 1.4 has more diaphragm blades for smoother BG blur (I wouldn't doubt this, but don't know for sure)

2) I like the 50mm better for portraits, because I find that with my 105 f2.8, I have to be too far away to get anything aside from a head & shoulders pose.

3) I use mine a lot as my low light lens, and for portraits.

4) Yes. You might also consider the 35mm f2, it's a bit wider without being a real WA.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

10/12/2004 04:43:44 AM · #4

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

From the link that Perez posted (thanks, that was VERY helpful indeed) I think I could not justify the money for the small step up in f value. The USM would be nice I admit, but focus speed for portraits should not be too much of an issue.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

2) I like the 50mm better for portraits, because I find that with my 105 f2.8, I have to be too far away to get anything aside from a head & shoulders pose.

That is exactly my problem.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

3) I use mine a lot as my low light lens, and for portraits.

Never thought of just low light. Couple that with a high ISO and that would rock. Good thinking Batman!

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

4) Yes. You might also consider the 35mm f2, it's a bit wider without being a real WA.

Any feelings for pros/cons of this lens? It is closer to the price of the f1.4 above, which makes it slightly less attractive on a limited budget (could go for it if it was worth the etxra though).

Right now, from Perez's link, I am leaning towards the 50mm 1.8 ..... but still looking for more views if people have them :)

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

10/12/2004 04:46:48 AM · #5

More reviews of the 50/1.4 (and comparisons to 1.8) are available at Fred Miranda, here.

Screechington

Canon EF 28-105mm f/4-5.6

10/12/2004 05:06:57 AM · #6

I seem to remember that about 85mm was considered the ideal length for portrait work. So it's quite a nice coincidence that a 50mm translates to about 80ish mm with the multiplication factor from imaging chips in the current bunch of DSLRs.
I have the lens already for my EOS 5, it is very good. Now I've just gotta save for the 20D to go with it.

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

10/12/2004 07:37:13 AM · #7

i have the 50/1.4 - I use it a lot, but you also have to back up a fair distance to get a full body shot. So I mostly use it for half shots, and headshots. I will add my 1.4x to it to get a really nice head-shot lens. It's also a fantastic available light lens and allows sharp images indoors at night handheld. It is also a very sharp lens. Last but not least, I love the shallow DOF and background blur effects possible with it.

Note that 1.4 is 2/3 stop faster than 1.8 . Therefore, in a situation where your shutter would be 1/60 sec with the 50/1.8, it would be 1/100 sec with the 1.4. Just something to think about.

Let me know if you want to see examples.....

Gauti

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/12/2004 07:57:42 AM · #8

Originally posted by Natator:

I am considering picking up a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 (second hand) if I can find one.

Heh, funny. I was exactly in this situation 10 days ago. After careful thought I opted for the 50/1.4 because I needed the faster lens for night shots (will come handy in the current Night Shot II challenge). I was lucky enough to get one on a good price so I jumped for that.
And, needless to say, I'm perfectly happy with it.
Cheers

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/12/2004 09:06:05 AM · #9

I have the 1.4 version and use it a lot for people and low-light photos, as well as when I need something of high quality inbetween my 17-40 and 70-200. I have a 28 2.8 for use as a 'normal' lens when I want something small. There's a really nice effect with this lens at 1.4 that you don't get at 1.8. I'd get the 1.4 if you are torn. If you like it, you've got the good one and if you don't you can get almost what you paid for it on eBay. When you go full frame in the future it'll be worth it.

This is a good side-by-side comparison: Photo.net 50mm 1.4 vs. 1.8

The 50 1.4 review from the same site (mated to an EOS-3): Photo.net 50mm 1.4 review

At f/1.4:

garlic

Canon EOS-10D

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Canon

10/12/2004 09:57:49 AM · #10

Seems that the conclution is that the 1.4 lens is better (as expected) but the question is if the 4 or 5 times price-difference is worth it when the budged is low as is the case for many of us.

I was wondering if any of you have used the 1.8 lens with extension tubes for macro shooting?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/12/2004 06:53:33 PM · #11

Wow, this is definitely not an easy one.

I was sold on the 1.8 due to the price, but some of those reviews (thanks Jimmy) pull me towards spending the extra after all and getting the 1.4 (after all, it is not one of the multi-bazillion $ lenses anyway).

What about the 35mm f2, anyone got much experience with that? I think the price comes in similar to the 50mm 1.4, and the extra angle with the x1.6 factor could be important.

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

10/12/2004 08:45:35 PM · #12

The 35mm/2 is apparently very good and very similar to the 28 2.8 in performance, which I have and really enjoy. It's a super sharp, very small lens. 35mm is closest to a full-frame 50mm on a 1.6x camera. Of the various 'normal' lenses for the 1.6x crowd it's a good combination of price, brightness, low distortion, sharpness and contrast. The other choices are 28/2.8, 28/1.8 and 35 1.4L (bigger, big bucks but awesome performance). I'm torn between all these lenses.

The 28/2.8 is great but not all that bright. My 17-40 F4L is too close in aperture for it to really have a good niche other than its size. I think I'd prefer the 1.8 version, though the 35/1.4 might be the next one when I graduate in a few years. As the review for the 35/2 below states, there's no USM and the focus motor is very noisy, but optically they're excellent and the build quality is pretty solid.

35mm Review PDF

Message edited by author 2004-10-12 20:46:57.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

10/12/2004 10:31:03 PM · #13

Thanks for the review link there Jimmy, I was having trouble finding one.

Ok, I think I have narrowed it down to the 35mm f2.0 or the 50mm f1.4. The 28mm f1.8 outprices me and the f2.8 is too slow.

Lets assume the optical quality is the same, as both seem pretty good.

I have to select between 35mm at f20. and 50mm at f14.

I THINK I prefer the idea of the 35mm, as that equated close to 50mm with the 1.6 crop ..... but I would prefer the f1.4 over the f2.0.

So, to throw the question open again .... which might be better, ignoring price as they are close enough not to really matter ...

Do I sacrifice light or focal length?

Which do people think would be the overall most useful lens, specifically for working with models in my kitchen/studio.

Sorry to keep picking people's brains here ... but it REALLY helps :)

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

10/12/2004 11:06:37 PM · #14

Canon 50mm f/1.4