Fast lenses: f/1.4 or f/1.8?

[JulieM]

At this point, I have just one lens for my xTI, the 17-85 mm IS. I like the range that this one covers. Right now, I'm thinking that I'd like to add a fast prime lens for making the most of low light conditions, hopefully both indoor and outdoor. I have read Laurie's "Things to Look For in a Lens" post and am considering the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. I think for the type of things I'm looking at photographing, either focal length would work as I get accustomed to "zooming with my feet". Now what I'm not sure of is what real difference there is between 1.4 and 1.8. Any comments would be appreciated.

[jlwilm]

Hi Julie,

I have the Canon 70-200 F4.0/F5.6 and the 100-400 F4.0/F5.6.

Both fairly expensive and I couldnt quite talk myself into getting a faster one.

In my opinion there is little difference between 1.4 and 1.8 (one EV difference) and I generally prefer never to shoot with a lens wide open anyway. It comes down to shat type of shooting you are doing or want to use the lens for. Taka a look at your existing shots and see how many of them you shot wide open.

I prefer to up the ISO and use NeatNinja to deal with the resulting noise than to shoot wide open.

I am sure that there are some who will say that indded you should get the faster lens, but it really depends on what you are going to do with it.

[Chuck S.]

Actually, 1.4 to 1.8 is a little less than 1 EV. EV table goes 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8, 11 and 16. Here's a reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value).

The Canon 1.4 gets higher marks for sharpness and overall quality - but at a cost. I opted for the 1.8 because I figured I wouldn't use it often - and I haven't.

[JulieM]

Thanks for your reply, John. I find that I do like to shoot wide open fairly often in order to blur the background. And this is particularly true in low-light indoor shots of people/pets. I also want to keep the ISO as low as possible because I don't really want to bother with noise reduction beyond the limited capabilities of Lightroom. So, I think the fast lens would be good to add. I'm hoping to be able to get my head around what would be the actual difference between the 1.4 and 1.8...

[Chuck S.]

Julie, DOFMaster will show you the differences in the use of a 50 mm 1.4 vs. 50 mm 1.8 in terms of depth of field at various distances for a given shutter speed. Here's the link for that:

Depth of Field Calculator Online (http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html)

[TonyW]

what would be the actual difference between the 1.4 and 1.8...

In the case of Nikon about $170 :) so you can guess what I got (paid $100 for the Nikon 50mm f1.8 and it's probably the best lens I have for quality pics). And don't even think about a f1.2. The Canon 50mm is around $1400.

Tony

[Chuck S.]

Canon 50 mm f 1.4 = $289.95 US after $20 rebate
Canon 50 mm f 1.8 = $74.95

Source: B&H PhotoVideo

[JulieM]

Thanks so much for the references, Chuck. I will peruse them later today when I have some time.

Tony, what's the deal with Canadian pricing? I can't believe the difference between B&H and Vistek, for example. For the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM, Vistek's price is $499.95. B&H has it for $289.95 + $26 shipping. Though I'm not sure what duties/brokerage fees would apply, it is a whopping difference, I'd say...

[TonyW]

Julie: Shouldn't be that much difference so I can't explain it. I didn't pay significantly more for my Nikon lenses in Canada than I could have got in the US. B&H will ship to Canada for about $18.

Tony

[jlwilm]

Julie,

These things are changing fast these days. Henrys (http://www.henrys.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ItemsDisplay?storeId=10001&catalogId=10001&departmentId=10407&categoryId=10412&itemID=37135)has it listed for 399.00.

Might be worth checking out the duty, handling charges for the stuff. At that price, they will definitely charge for it and the lens (I am pretty sure) doesnt qualify for duty free as it is not made in USA.

[JulieM]

John, the one I was considering probably would be duty free as it is apparently USA made: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=12140&is=USA

B&H offers Priority Mail so I wouldn't be socked with UPS's crazy brokerage fee. I'm guessing they could hit me with GST & PST, however.

Any Canadian residents have any experience with ordering from B&H?

[hotstuff]

Ouch thats $470 over here. :eek:

[Chuck S.]

John, the one I was considering probably would be duty free as it is apparently USA made: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=12140&is=USA



Julie, I believe the lenses are made in Japan but have a USA warranty (as opposed to the grey market versions that have no warranty).

I could be wrong about that, however.....

[JulieM]

Thank you, Chuck. I'll phone to confirm...

[bayhli]

Julie,

I have the Canon 50mm 1.8 II, purchased in Manitoba for around a hundred dollars. The "II" designation must make it a lessor lens than what you are looking at? It's a pretty decent lens actually.

You almost have to research U.S. and Canada on an individual item basis.

I started looking for the kids Xmas cameras in the U.S. They ended up being the same purchase price at Vistek and Henrys in Canada, plus both places have free shipping up until Xmas.

Ultra 1G memory cards for the cameras however were expensive compared to the U.S. but Vistek won out over Henrys.


Tony, do you actually purchase from B&H? Only an $18 mailing cost? I must be doing something wrong on that site because I never get a mailing cost of less than $30 for small items and back off. Unless Ontario is just high-priced mailing....

[Chuck S.]

Pat, the 50 mm f 1.8 with the "II" designation is the newer version of their 1.8 lens. It's a lesser lens than the 50 mm f 1.4, but neither is one of Canon's top-of-the line "L" designation lenses. The other 50 mm lens - the $1300 50 mm f 1.2L - is in the top-of-the-line group.

Confusing enough?:)

[bayhli]

Thanks Chuck, that's what I figured. It's pretty light compared to my L lenses, all plastic. I knew I wouldn't be using it much, just wanted to experiment with a fixed lens.

It would be nice to have one low-light L lens. Thought I was all through buying lenses until I read this thread. :) I found the 1.8 70-200L IS too heavy so ended up with the 1.4 version.

Geez you know a lot about camera equipment.... !

[JulieM]

Hi Pat,

Thanks for the reply. Do you use your 50mm 1.8 very often and what do you find yourself using it for? Ever wish it were a tad faster? The reason I'm thinking of the 1.4 is that it is a USM lens and Laurie seems to recommend that for faster and smoother focusing. But I'm beginning to think it would be simpler to have a camera with non-changeable lenses! :D

[bayhli]

Hi Julie... I forget I even have it, that's how much I use it.

Now that you mention it I do recall it being noticeably slower than what I'm used to - "clunky" comes to mind, but then I hate any kind of noise with a lens. If you think you are going to make good use of it I'd go with Laurie's recommendation.

I'm sure not even close to being an expert.... what do you think Chuck?

[TonyW]

Julie: I haven't actually bought anything from B&H but I do have their catalog and was quoting from it. It was $18 up to 1lb I recall and a dollar or so per pound after that.

Getting back to the 1.4 vs 1.8 I really don't think you'd notice the difference. It's only 2/3 of a stop difference so would be roughly equivalent to changing the ISO from 100 to 180 or reducing the shutter speed from 1/100 to 1/60. If I want a bit of extra speed I just turn up the ISO a bit.

Tony

[gez]

Julie, in your original post you referenced the 50mm-1.4 and the 85-1.8. I own and use both of these ALOT. As mentioned, there is not much difference between 1.4 and 1.8. Canon makes a 50mm in both these configurations. The 1.4 is a better lens, but at four times the cost.

The 85-1.8 is a very nice lens, but for indoor shooting you mention it might be a bit long on your croped sensor camera. 85x1.6=136. The 50x1.6=80. Where do you use your 17-85 most, in the wide end or long end?

[JulieM]

Thanks, George. I think you're most likely right that the 85mm is too long for what I want. For indoor situations, I'm most often in the wide end or at least not too far zoomed. I think I'll start with the 50 and see how I like it. Do you use the 50mm for portraiture?

[gez]

All the recent Connor entries to my gallery were shot with the 50-1.4. Most were shot around f9. I do use it wide open in natural light indoors. I does take a bit to get used to though. The DOF is really narrow. One eye in focus the other not. Which is fine , IF that is what you're after.

The 50-1.4 is one of my favorites. One day I'll step up to the 1.2 version. Maybe with next years tax return.

[Benny Pedersen]

Besides having the new Canon 40D, I also got a 50mm lens (both yesterday).
I connected the camera to my TV (live view mode), and selected the selv-timer,
ran as fast as posible into my chair. The chair was also used to focus so I
got an unsharp nose but some sharp ears... see attachment photo :p

Benny

[gez]

Julie, look here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=33 Lots of info on Canon lenses. It will either confuse you more or assist you in your choice.

[jlwilm]

Interesting thread.

The Depth of Field Calculator yields a slight difference in the DOF for a 50 mm 1.4 at .1 ft and at 1.8 it is .13 ft.

If DOF is your primary concern .03 ft isnt really buying you much of a difference.

[lexcell]

Great feedback everyone... one other point to be made is that, unless you are making fairly large prints you will likely not see the difference between the two lenses. The 1.4 is not only faster, it has the ability to have a bit shallower depth of field if you are after that selective focus look and is built for heavier use and abuse.
John is right about the very small difference between the two apertures...it's really a personal call based on need, photographic style and budget.

[JulieM]

Thanks very much for the response, Laurie. It's great having your expertise added to the mix here!

[JulieM]

Okay! I've purchased the Canon 50mm 1.4 USM after having tried it out at the store. Anxious to give it a good try...

[gez]

You are going to love it!!!! Post some shots. Show us that killer DOF.

[JulieM]

Thought I'd post one of my first tries with the new lens.

http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1TIZQzPVUmrQGiHYZUelfarBksPdmH_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1TIZQzPVUmrQGiHYZUelfarBksPdmH)

This was taken with natural window light on a cloudy day, 1/60 @ f1.4. I am very pleased so far with the limited depth of field this lens offers when wide open. I can see I have a lot of experimentation to do yet. :)

Thanks again for all the advice offered. You guys are the greatest...

[GaryK]

Julie

What a cutie.:D

[lexcell]

Julie,
Excellent use of shallow depth of field. Focusing on the eyes and letting everything else fade out really draws attention the the eyes. The eyes should always be in focus no matter what else is out of focus.....

[JulieM]

Laurie, thanks for the comment. This little guy's eyes are so dark that I find his eyes just disappear into his dark fur in photos. Using the shallow depth of field to accentuate the eyes seemed to help them come out of the shadows. I think I'm going to enjoy the lens...

Gary, we've grown rather fond of him! :)

[lexcell]

Excellent observation Julie. You have controlled whee the viewers eye goes through creative use of DOF...or lack of in this case. Keep up the good work.