Canon Prime: 50mm ... f/1.8 or f/1.4?

[IHateMyJob2004]

I am debating these two lenses. I was going to get the 50 mm f/1.8 for my wife for x-mas. But this is a one time thing that will last years. So I might get the f/1.4 instead. I'd love to hear from anyone that actually has the f/1.4.

I am having a hard time justifying the cost of the f/1.4 which I see for about $340. Is it really worth the extra cost?
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_4_usm

The f1/8 is about $100:
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_8_ii


Having read reviews, I did notice how blurry pictures can look at the lowest f stops. So, would the f/1.4 lens at a 1.8 setting be crisp? Or does one need to go higher before things get crisp? The reviews I read bascially said that the f/1.4 at 1.8 was actually more blurred than the f/1.8 lense at 1.8.

So, I am kinda lost. I know .... I could always get the f/1.8 and upgrade lter whcih is the path that I will probably take. Regradless, I'd love some opinions.

 

[996GT2]

Having used both lenses extensively, here's my advice:

Either get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for $100 or get the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for $450-500.

The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens and is quite sharp even wide open. In contrast, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is not worth it IMO. Both copies I tried were very soft at f/1.4 and the bokeh was distracting. The Canon f/1.4 lacks a true ultrasonic motor, and the way that Canon designed the AF/MF mechanism means it's prone to AF failures. The Sigma, on the other hand, has aspherical elements for better wide-open sharpness, a 9-bladed aperture for smooth bokeh, and a true ring-type ultrasonic motor (the Canon's is a micromotor branded as "ultrasonic"). It's bigger, heavier, and more expensive, but the Sigma rivals the Canon 50mm f/1.2L in image quality and bokeh.

 

[speedy2]

I was thinking exactly what 996GT posted as soon as I read the title.

Sigma 50mm hands down. Or, even the 30mm if you think 50mm might be too long. On a crop body, it sometimes tends to be.

I owned a 30mm f/1.4 and it was a stellar lens.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Stupid newbie question. Is the Auto Focus (AF) compatible across product lines. That is, the Sigma's Autofocus mechanism is compatible with Canon (or Nikon, etc for that matter) cameras? I think the AF should work, but newbie verification is required

As an aside, what should I do for hoods for my 18-55 and 55-250 mm canon lenses? I'd like to get one when I order next time around.

EDIT:
I just read an article on the Sigma. Oh wow that thing is SWEET. Definitely better to get it over the Canon 55m f/1.4.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/392-sigma_50_14_canon

Man, that is a lens that will take the portraits that my wife dreams of. Granted she doesn't really know what it takes to take good portraits.

$500 (Adorma has it for $470 w/ free shipping):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._f_1_4_EX.html

If anyone ever sees this on sale, please let me know. If not, I'll be ordering come December.

 

[angry hampster]

Agreed with 996 and Speedy. I've owned both of the Canons (1.8 and 1.4) and they both suck. The AF on both is miserable and the IQ on the 1.4 wasn't great. Sigma's EX lenses are stellar.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Man, I have to figure out how to pay for the Sigma then. Well, one 12 hour day of OT would just about pay for it

If that does not work out, does everyone agree that the Canon 55m f/1.8 is a big improvement over the Canon 18-55m zoom lens that comes with the camera in terms of doing portraits? Or is it only a small improvement.

I am basically thinking that in terms of doing portraits that the:
Sigma 50mm f/1.4
is a leap in quality over the
Canon 55m f/1.8
which is a leap in quality over the
Canon 18-55m zoom lens

Am I on track here?

 

[funks]

potrait lens - able to step backwards? If so - how about the Canon 85MM F 1.8 USM? 50mm f1.4 ain't worth it until Canon redesigns it with true USM.

 

[AkumaX]

he's on a crop body (XS) so i guess it depends

and it's the 50mm f/1.8, not 55mm hahaha

and lastly, consider the 30mm f/1.4 from sigma, and maybe you should also get the 50mm f/1.8

 

[arrfep]

Stupid newbie question. Is the Auto Focus (AF) compatible across product lines. That is, the Sigma's Autofocus mechanism is compatible with Canon (or Nikon, etc for that matter) cameras? I think the AF should work, but newbie verification is required

As an aside, what should I do for hoods for my 18-55 and 55-250 mm canon lenses? I'd like to get one when I order next time around.

EDIT:
I just read an article on the Sigma. Oh wow that thing is SWEET. Definitely better to get it over the Canon 55m f/1.4.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/392-sigma_50_14_canon

Man, that is a lens that will take the portraits that my wife dreams of. Granted she doesn't really know what it takes to take good portraits.

$500 (Adorma has it for $470 w/ free shipping):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._f_1_4_EX.html

If anyone ever sees this on sale, please let me know. If not, I'll be ordering come December.

http://www.abesofmaine.com/itemB.do?item=SG5014EXDGAFC

It shows up as $500 but AFAIK they have some kind of running discount on Sigma Lenses thing so you get $45 off when you add it to your cart. Amazon also frequently has a 10% off Sigma lenses sale.

 

[angry hampster]

he's on a crop body (XS) so i guess it depends

and it's the 50mm f/1.8, not 55mm hahaha

and lastly, consider the 30mm f/1.4 from sigma, and maybe you should also get the 50mm f/1.8

Yes..definitely keep the 30mm lens in mind. It's a bit short for simple headshots, but for full-body portraits it's golden. Loved mine when I had it.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I am basically thinking that in terms of doing portraits that the:
Sigma 50mm f/1.4
is a leap in quality over the
Canon 55m f/1.8
which is a leap in quality over the
Canon 18-55m zoom lens

Am I on track here?

Yes. 50mm f/1.8 though, not 55mm f/1.8.

I have never used the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, and I own the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and have owned the f/1.8 in the past. I also have owned the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I do not see why so many people slag the Canon 50/1.4; it is not a bad lens. Yes, the AF motor gets annoying, and yes it's fragile compared with the 85/1.8 (which I also own) but overall it is still a worthy step up from the 50/1.8 IMO. I use it wide open all the time and have never noticed a lack of sharpness. Of course, I think that the Sigma 50/1.4 would be a worthy step up from the Canon, but Sigma has its share of QC problems (front or back focusing -- have to send the lens in to Sigma to get it calibrated). I really enjoyed my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and would recommend it to anybody who owns a crop body, *before* getting an expensive 50mm (but after getting the 50mm f/1.8... the 50mm f/1.8 should be everybody's second or third lens). The Sigma 30 is around $100 cheaper than the Sigma 50, IIRC, putting it right in line with the Canon 50/1.4.

BTW, here is a short explanation on what the aperture actually means. It is a measure of how much light the lens lets in. It is expressed as a ratio in terms of the focal length. A theoretical 50mm f/2.0 would have an aperture that is 25mm in diameter. A theoretical 100mm f/2.0 would have an aperture that is 50mm in diameter, while a 100mm f/4.0 would have an aperture that is 25mm in diameter. Multiplying the aperture by the square root of 2 (i.e., 1.4) results in a lens that lets in half the light; i.e., an f/2.8 lens lets in 1/2 the light of an f/2.0 lens, which in turn lets in half the light of an f/1.4 lens.

I have been saying "an f/2.0 lens", but I mean any lens at f/2.0. A lens can always be "stopped down" from its maximum aperture. An f/1.4 lens can be set to f/2.0 to deliberately let in half the light, or f/2.8 to let in 1/4th the light, or f/4 to let in 1/8th the light, or f/5.6 to let in 1/16th the light, or f/8 to let in 1/32nd the light. To get an equivalent exposure with all of these f-stops, you would have to adjust the ISO and/or shutter speed to make up for the smaller aperture. (Note, smaller aperture = bigger number.)

The amount of light coming into the lens is not the only thing determined by the aperture. Aperture also determines the Depth of Field of a photo (for a given focus distance and focal length). This is basically how much of the photo is in focus. Say that you have a 50mm lens focused on a subject that is 5 feet away. If the aperture is set to f/1.4, the "in focus" part of the photo will be a narrow sliver, from 4.92 feet to 5.08 feet -- roughly 1 inch on either side of the focus point. So if the focus point is on the tip of a person's nose, their ears would be out of focus because they are more than 1 inch back from the focus point. If the aperture were set to f/5.6, the depth of field would be from 4.7 feet to 5.34 feet, or around 7 inches -- easily enough to get a person's whole face into focus. Note that the focus point marks a plane, parallel to the back of the camera, in which everything is in focus. So you can take a photo of a flat piece of paper against a wall, and even if your depth of field is very small, the whole thing will be in focus as long as the camera is not tilted with respect to the wall.

Focus distance (distance from camera to subject) and focal length (length of the lens -- 18mm, 55mm, 250mm) also affect the depth of field. Closer distances give less depth of field -- given the same settings and lens, depth of field will be greater as you move away from the subject. At one point the depth of field becomes infinite -- this is called the hyperfocal distance. If you focus on a subject that is 100 meters away, even with an f/1.4 aperture, your depth of field will run from 150 feet to infinity. The focal length of the lens also affects depth of field. A wide-angle lens will give much greater depth of field than a telephoto lens. Using a 17mm lens with f/4 aperture on my 5D, the hyperfocal distance starts at 8 feet -- in which case, everything from 4 feet to infinity will be in focus.

Now you have some terminology... if you're curious you can google "depth of field calculator" and "depth of field examples" to find out more.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

I have to re-read that

I think most people think that if you are going to spend money on the Canon 50mm f/1.4, you might as well spend a little more and get the Sigma.

Also, I have read a bunch of user reviews and I was surprised how many people had QC issues. So, is this a free one time calibration w/shipping paid for by Sigma? Is this a permanent fix? How would a newb like me know there is an issue?

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I have to re-read that

I think most people think that if you are going to spend money on the Canon 50mm f/1.4, you might as well spend a little more and get the Sigma.

Also, I have read a bunch of user reviews and I was surprised how many people had QC issues. So, is this a free one time calibration w/shipping paid for by Sigma? Is this a permanent fix? How would a newb like me know there is an issue?

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the first sentiment, but there are a few downsides to the Sigma. Size and weight for one. The Canon 50/1.4 is not much bigger than your 18-55, in length or diameter. The Sigma is, and it may make your little XS feel front-heavy, and it may have trouble fitting into the same bags that your smaller lenses fit into.

Yes, it's a one-time calibration. I think Sigma pays for shipping back to you, but you have to pay to ship it to Sigma. AFAIK, it is a permanent fix.

See here for focus tests:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2098973

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

slashandbashaslashbash,

It sounds like it is an issue of science. For taking portraits where you are 5+ feet away, the focus may not be perfect but it will probably also not be perceivable.

But for the price being paid, I can see why people get a bit upset, especially professional photographers.


ALSO:
Instead of starting a new thread, I will ask. I can not see the effects of f stop on depth of field through the eyepiece but the photos being taken do have depth of field differences (expected results). So, is this the kind of thing where I have to learn how to determine what f stop to use? I did notice that in portrait mode that the lowest f stops are almost always used. f/3.5 or f/5.4 on my 18-55m lense.

This is what I wanted to get for results:
Also got an awesome shot of my son playing with legos today! The first pic where i really thought, "WOW, my point and shoot would never have gotten that". It was awesome. It was him balancing a brick but the foreground bricks which were few were all blurred as was the background. I think I was in advanced mode where I set the aperture (f stop)

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

slashinbashaslashbashsahshs,

I finished the entire thread that you posted. It really sounds like that QA is an issue but CS (customer service) is not. 7 day turnaround provided a perfectly calibrated lens.

I hate debating things like this in my head. Spend an extra $350 or do not spend an extra $350? That is the question.

 

[elitejp]

a lot of good replies. I dnt know if its really an issue with quality control on the part of sigma as much as its a problem with the canon mount. sigma lenses dont have nearly the problems (out of focus etc) on nikon bodies as they do on canon bodies. With that being said sigma primes are amazing. On a crop body i think the 85mm is too long. i have one and unless your outside this lens is useless, unles you want a pic of half someones face. Even if you want a full body pic you still need to stand really far away to get the whole body in. My recommendation is like the others, 30mm or 50mm. the 30mm you might be able to get a god used price from someone who upgraded to a full frame body, but if there is a callibration isue that might cost you just as much as if you had bought a new one.

As for the depth of field I think with just a little use and looking at your exif data your going to get a real good feel of what f stop does what. Portraits generally are in the f/8 area for best clarity as it will put everything in good focus. f/1.4 might already be putting part of the face out of focus (oof) while the other part is crisp and sharp (on a full frame camera you would have the eyelashes in focus and the eyes oof).

And yes you should spend the extra 350 dollars. The canon f/1.8 is heralded as this awesome lense because you can learn about primes, its cheap and people argue that it forces you to be more creative(since its a prime). Yet the lens just wont really be giving you those crisp beautiful pics that you see the pros taking. The sigma 50 1.4 or 30 1.4 will make that pursuit a whole lot easier.

Summarized: The sigma 30/50mm f1.4 is a very good upgrade that you will be pleased with.

I learned about the dof very quickly by just taking pictures at said f number and then opening them on the computer and looking at the exif data. i cant see anything using the dof preview button cause the pic in the viewfinder is way to small for me to see anything useful.

the reason portrait mode is using those f stops could be because of available light and what iso the camera can use. i can never understand why in these automatic modes my camera will give me something like a f/5.6 ss 1/30 iso 400 when im shooting at 70mm etc etc. i would much rather shoot in av or tv and then adjust if something isnt calculated right.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

A guy I work with said he almost always uses the advanced modes like Av and P and whatnot. I think there is a learning curve though. Until i figure things out I will probably use automatic modes for most uses.

I guess I am using exaggerated f stops right now with my 18-55mm but I think it is awesome to actually have a depth of field to play with.

 

[angry hampster]

A guy I work with said he almost always uses the advanced modes like Av and P and whatnot. I think there is a learning curve though. Until i figure things out I will probably use automatic modes for most uses.

I guess I am using exaggerated f stops right now with my 18-55mm but I think it is awesome to actually have a depth of field to play with.

If you're going to use auto modes, you might as well be using a point and shoot. Read your camera's manual. It's more than just a dummy guide. It will help you learn how to improve your photography skills by maximizing the utility of your camera.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

If you're going to use auto modes, you might as well be using a point and shoot. Read your camera's manual. It's more than just a dummy guide. It will help you learn how to improve your photography skills by maximizing the utility of your camera.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but I will say you are not getting the most out of your camera in the auto modes. I use full Manual mode 99% of the time. Most lighting situations are not so dynamic that this isn't workable. But yeah, definitely read your manual and figure out the difference between the metering modes (spot metering, etc.), the auto focus modes (one shot, servo, etc.), and how to set a particular AF point (center is usually the best to use).

I also don't understand the Sigma problems, but I know they exist. If you can send it in to get it calibrated and that fixes the problem, then why don't they just do the calibration the right way before it leaves the factory? I know that in most cases (not all) you don't have to send your camera body in with the lens, so it's not (usually) a case of it being particular to your body.

You probably aren't noticing the DOF through the viewfinder for a couple of reasons. First off, none of your lenses allow really thin DOF. f/4 to f/2.8 is where it starts really kicking in, and your 18-55 is too wide in its f/3.5-f/4 range for it to be visible. (I bet you would be able to see DOF effects with your 55-250 at 250mm and f/5.6. Go stand alongside a fence, focus on points along the fence, and you'll see it.) There is also the matter of the viewfinder being so small.

 

[yhelothar]

If you don't mind using manual focus, a really exquisite manual focus at that, the SMC Takumar 50mm F/1.4 is an excellent lens for around $60 off ebay and an adapter costs around $15

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

If you're going to use auto modes, you might as well be using a point and shoot. Read your camera's manual. It's more than just a dummy guide. It will help you learn how to improve your photography skills by maximizing the utility of your camera.

No, point and shoots don't have good depths of field if any. When in portrait mode, the camera almost always goes after a low F stop which is 10 times better than a point and shoot.

And FYI, I had jury duty (jury selection that is) so I had all day to do nothing but read the manual. It was very informative. But I could also read a book about being the worlds best lover. But a book can only do so much and experience can do so much more.


Anyways ...
Now that I have thought about things for a few days, I really don't know if I can stomach spending $500 on a lens. The $90 I can do. I'm going to sleep on it again tonight.

 

[sygyzy]

I am glad I came across this thread. I am very interested in wide aperture lenses because I take low-light photography in dimly lit restaurants. For a recent trip to NY, I rented a Canon 1.4 and it was much better than my 50mm 1.8, obviously. I had nothing to compare it to so it was going to be my next lens. Now the Sigma looks attractive but is it worth $100+ more?

 

[elitejp]

i think most people will say the sigma is better. Its sharper than the canon at the f1.4 which is one of the main reasons you buy a large aperture lens. Lenses and flashes are so much more important than what body you buy and should be given the financial priority when beginning this hobby.

OP: the av mode is really easy to understand and use and it will give you more control.
In av mode you choose the f value which lets you determine how much blur/bokeh you want.
The camera chooses the iso and the shutter speed
The problem I normally run into using av mode is that the camera will choose a shutter speed that is too slow and will cause me to have camera shake. If I have that problem then i will just manually up the iso if its not already too high.

In TV mode you select the shutter speed。
the camera selects the iso and f value
I dont use this mode very often but it could be of value when shooting something that you want to stop the action in the photo. Lets say i want to stop the wings of a hummingbird. then i could choose a shutter speed value of 1/1000 and that would stop the action. Or i could slow it down if i wanted to take a picture of a stream or waterfall and get that creamy satiny water look. of course a tripod would be invaluable in that situation.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

elitepj,

With the advanced modes, I usually have to adjust he ISO because of long shutter speeds. I really don't get it though. ISO is sensitivity of the film which I guess the camera mimics. What are the pros/cons of high/low ISO settings granted higher settings usually result in faster shutter speeds?

For the time being, I don't expect to get a tripod. Not until i find a reason for it. Granted I have thought about it for one shot in particular that would be neat to have a 30 second exposure for.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

elitepj,

With the advanced modes, I usually have to adjust he ISO because of long shutter speeds. I really don't get it though. ISO is sensitivity of the film which I guess the camera mimics. What are the pros/cons of high/low ISO settings granted higher settings usually result in faster shutter speeds?

For the time being, I don't expect to get a tripod. Not until i find a reason for it. Granted I have thought about it for one shot in particular that would be neat to have a 30 second exposure for.

Yes, in Av or Tv you will have to set the ISO manually. I don't know of a Canon camera that will do auto ISO adjustment in Av or Tv mode.... Av and Tv are one step away from full M. I think the newer cameras (possibly including the XS) have an Auto-ISO mode, but that should be separate from the Av and Tv modes.

Now, to answer your question IHMJ04... almost always, the lower ISOs (100, 200, 400) will give better image quality. Once you get up into the higher ISOs (1600, 3200) you will see large blotches of noise. In some cameras, this is a steady progression, but in most IMO you will barely see any difference between ISO's 100-400 but jumping up to 800 will see a visible difference (but still not bad) and 1600/3200 will be very visible. Again this will differ from camera model to camera model. Still way better than ISO 800 or 1600 film used to be, but bad-looking enough that you will want to avoid using those high ISO's if possible.

See this page:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1000d/page19.asp

The XS (1000D) is on the left side. You can scroll down to see comparison of ISO 100, 200, ... 1600. Look at all 3 images: the plain gray, the plain black, and the blue portrait. You can especially see the difference in the plain gray, and in fact this is usually where you will see high-ISO artifacts: in large, solid fields of color. If you look at the blue example from ISO 1600 you can see visible artifacts in the large fields of blue to the bottom right and top left. If you look carefully you can see differences all along the way among all the ISO's, although they can be very subtle.

So, to sum up the answer to your question: image quality. But the image quality doesn't suffer as much as it would if your shutter speed was too slow, so bump up the ISO before you get too slow on the shutter speed.