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.

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

[TonyW]

Originally Posted by JulieM

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 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.