Canon 50mm f1.8 vs 50mm f1.4 - Is it worth the extra money?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 сен 2024
- In this video I’ll be answering a question I get asked all the time - should you get the more expensive canon 50mm f1.4 lens or go for the cheaper f1.8 prime lens? We went to the beach to put the lenses head to head in a series of tests to see the real difference between the quality of the shots. We tested for sharpness, colour, contrast, depth of field, chromic aberration and the bokeh effect to find out if the f1.4 is really worth the extra money, or if the 50mm f1.8 STM, the so-called nifty 50, does the job just as well. The results may surprise you as it did us.
This is a great canon 50mm lens review that will hopefully inform you on what one to buy.
Get the links for the lenses here - goo.gl/1262fi
Support us:
Get 10% OFF our Online Courses here - bit.ly/3Jt12kZ
Our Recommended Photography Equipment - bit.ly/photog-...
Check out our Complete Guide to Photography Book here - bit.ly/2KZDw2U
Check out our eBook here - bit.ly/photog-...
Grab a Freebie:
Get our Free eBook for learners of photography here - bit.ly/2DwNS4c
Get 15 Free Lightroom Presets - goo.gl/xvTPT7
Get the Best Music for your RUclips videos and other projects. Try for free here - share.epidemics...
Free trial of Photoshop and Lightroom here - prf.hn/l/9mEZ58x
Create a photography website with Squarespace. Try it for free here squarespace.sy...
I hope you liked this video, if you did please support us by liking and sharing it with your friends and subscribe to our channel for more.
Get weekly tutorials and special offers delivered straight to your inbox, subscribe at www.theschoolo...
Join our learning community on social media:
Facebook ► / theschoolofphotography1
Instagram ► / theschoolofphotography1
Follow my personal photography work here:
Facebook ► / marcnewton
Instagram ► / marcnewton
Vero ► vero.co/marcne...
Thanks for watching and remember - Learn more at The School of Photography.
NB: Above are some affiliate links and TSOP will receive a small percentage of some purchases made.
Conclusion on the video ( I watched the full video ) :
You are a professional photographer - buy the 1.4
You are an amateur photographer - DO NOT BUY THE 1.4
Thanks for the effort in making the video 👍🏼
I wouldn't get the F1.4 even if I was a pro. It just isn't worth the money over the F1.8 STM. I know of pros that have the F1.8, mostly because it's price to performance ratio is through the roof. I went with the Sigma 50mm F1.4, a super sharp lens with great performance. I really wish Canon would update their F1.4 to be a competitor to that lens, at half the price. I know they can, I just don't think they will. It's too bad, since effective but inexpensive lenses is one of their strongest categories. I don't think anyone else comes close. Nikon has some good ones, but they are more expensive than the Canon equivalents. Sony, just practically nothing, they are focused on their expensive stuff (at least in E mount, A mount is basically dead but I don't know what is really available). Maybe Fuji, I don't know them that well but am learning (that XT3 looks awesome). Olympus is just ridiculous in price for lenses made for MFT sensors.
Ugh yes...pros who want to print their stuff shouldn’t buy the 1.4. It has 1/2 of the resolving power...
Molly & Mungo Pros buy neither of those lenses, they go for the f1.2 which is one of the sharpest lenses in existence, at any aperture. I just wish it didn’t cost upwards of 1100€ so that I could buy it without the risk of being murdered by my wife.
SydM107 actually, the 1.8 is sharper until about f/5.6. That 1.2 is very outdated too, but the new RF 50mm f/1.2 looks to outresolve even the sigma. Anyway.. I know many pros that shoot an 1.8, far more than the pros I know shooting the 1.2
Molly & Mungo oh good to know. I’m pretty sure I mixed it up and was thinking of the 85mm
Haven't used the 1.4, but the 1.8 is permanently on my camera. I adore it. The fixed length gives you a limitation, so it encourages you to be creative. Low light, stunning depth of field, beautiful clarity. The perfect lens. And it's not expensive. Compulsory.
Thanks for sharing, appreciate that 👍
I think it's better to invest in a 50mm f1.8 and put the extra money in some other gears like tripod filters flashes etc and that will give a better result than just the 50mm f1.4 lens
Thanks for the comments 👍
Yea I did exactly that: bought a good tripod, a new battery and a polarisation filter and still was left with a 100euros to spend on some other gear. Now im just waiting for them to arrive.
Fortunately I found a perfectly used 50 1.4 for the same price as 1.8 new. I'm sold.
Christian Rasmussen I found a 1.4 for $180, but I already have the 1.8 so I don’t think it’s worth it right now.
Absolutely
He should have tested them both in a few low light situations, that is when the 1.4 will be better.
This is precisely why I disliked this video
Except autofocus
Yes, is incredible, all the time spent in their common apertures instead of showing the performance at maximum apertures in low light. Also some more bokeh tests wouldn't hurt.
@@DiagnosticDennisyou got to do it manually
This comment is why I didn't bother watching the video
I think the 50 1.8 is the best lens out there for the money. I don't think you could find a finer lens for 100 bucks.
Hi Mike, I think you could be right there 👍
mike burns The Yongnuo 50 f1.8 is 40 quid, the autofocus is noisy as hell but you can't hear it in the photographs lol. It takes remarkably sharp pictures for the price ;-)
The Missing Link's Younger Brother I've owned it, canons is much sharper. Yongnuo 50mm lens is made out of plastic.
The same as my spectacles lol
Knew someone would bring up that Yongnuo. I've not heard anyone say they would take it over the Canon, and even though it is cheaper the Canon is also cheap enough that jsut about anyone should be able to afford it. Not to mention the Canon STM focus makes it good for video as well, so long as your camera supports that.
Really enjoyed his straighforward explanation. Also calming to listen to. To many videos tend to yell at me to get my attention. Thanks
You're welcome, glad you liked it 👍
I photographed sports teams and individuals for 11 years and the 50mm 1.4 was the only lens I used for the team shots (f/8-f/16). It made for amazingly sharp and undistorted images with great color.
Did you compare it to a 1.8? Doesn't sound like you did.
@@Goldchucker1 My first 50mm was a Canon 1.8, the "nifty fifty". My second 50mm was the Canon 1.4. I had the Canon 1.2L for a few weeks, it would never focus correctly and the chromatic aberration was horrid. I now shoot a Sigma 1.4 Art.
What is your point?
@@Goldchucker1 The Canon 1.4 had a much better build quality, no plastic mount, and the sharpness from the 1.4 was much greater than my 1.8, not just wide open, but even at f8. The bokeh with the 1.8 was terrible when compared to the 1.4 as well.
I had to toss my camera in a bag and go from event to event, the 1.4 was simply sturdier and focused without issue, the 1.8...meh.
I lost the Canon 1.4 in a house fire in 2018, the 1.2 was the obvious upgrade with the insurance money. Waste of money.
Sigma 1.4, built like a tank, sharp, no CA, awesome. I do miss the the 1.8 and 1.4 size from Canon though.
@@Goldchucker1 I'm gonna rant a bit, sorry, too much wine.
I remember back when I had a Canon 300D and a kit lens. The first new lens I bought was a 50 1.8. I was just starting out and was working for a school photography company. I wanted more jobs, so I kept working and eventually bought the 20D. A year or so later, a 70-200 f4L.
The first football game I ever photographed was at Delta High School in Indiana. I had my 300d with a 50 1.8 and my 20d with the 70-200 f4. Man, talk about some shitty photos. But I was so proud. The problem was, the 50 1.8 couldn't focus fast enough, obviously, not the lens for the job, but I was young and stupid.
So, I went on using the 1.8 for headshots, program photos, team photos etc. But, the mount broke, mid shoot, in my bag. (Not a proper bag, a job bag that you just toss everything in to)
Enter the 1.4. $300 well spent. I used that lens for 11 more years, tossed it in my bag ( now with a 1DMkII attached) and no problems.
To this day, if you walk the halls of Ben Davis, Carmel, Hamilton Southeastern, Fishers, Center Grove or any of another several dozen high schools in Indiana, you will see 30x40 prints I shot on my Canon 1.4. The 1.8 didn't make it. It is simply to frail for the job and the focus is buggy.
So no I have no ill will towards the 1.8, it just couldn't do the job that I needed it to do. I still think it is a great lens, I got my first one for $80 at Robert's Camera brand new back in 2004. It just isn't what everyone needs.
So, if it fits your needs, great! Don't spend a dime more than your needs require.
I still have two 1DMkii cameras and a 5DMkii. I see absolutely no need to get anything more. After I bought my 20D, I NEVER bought a new camera, I only nought used and always a generation or two behind the the newest. I spent $600 for my first 1Dmkii, $150 for my second one. Save your pennies. If it works and you can create saleable images, who cares what you use?
@@Goldchucker1 BTW, if you ever get your hands on a 1D Classic (4mp), keep it. The jpeg images are horrid, but RAW, amazing. That camera renders the best skin tones I have ever seen. Just don't shoot above ISO 400.
I'm a beginner photographer who is still learning about photography. This video was informative, well put together and entertaining to watch. Thank you!
Thanks for the comments and glad it helped you out 👍
If you can't take a usable photograph with a 1.8, the faster 1.4 isn't going to help you.
True 👍
I've got the 1.8 as I was on a budget, but got to say I love it
Very surprised how it held up to the 1.4 great video 👍🙂
Thanks for the comments Robert, so was I! 👍
There's a reason they refer to it as the "plastic fantastic." It's not going to be quite as good as the F1.4 version, but the question tends to be whether or not it's worth the extra money.
My favorite lens in the 50-ish range is the one that always gets forgotten about - the 40mm f2.8. So amazingly tiny, and yet so amazingly sharp. I had the 50 1.2 but sold it because I rarely used it because of physical size. There is a lot to be said for small and inconspicuous lenses.
That 40mm pancake is my go-to, do all street photography lens.
The trouble with the 50 f1.8 is that whilst it is a great lens, most people who buy it, buy it for their APSc camera bodies where it works like an 85mm portrait lens. As a portrait lens it is fine but you can't use it indoors for parties where the low light fast aperture would be great because the effective focal length is too long. You basically can't back up enough. If you want a low light indoor lens for parties you have to go for the 28mm f1.8 and that is the same price as the 50 f1.4.
Thanks for sharing this.
Hmm, I would say I agree with some of what you are saying. For crop users that are still new to photography and don't have a good selections of lenses jsut yet, the 50mm F1.8 makes an appealing choice as their first upgrade. It's price won't scare them away from buying an "extra" lens, and it's overall quality will show them why it is important to invest in better lenses. The crop factor does turn it into a tight lens, 80mm, but this isn't a bad thing either. This makes it ideal as a portrait lens on a crop camera, and taking photos of people is something pretty common for newbies. Once they see the difference it makes they will start to become more interested in other offerings, and hopefully make better choices for their gear (invest in lenses before getting a new camera).
For what you are describing, the 28mm F1.8 is still a little pricey and suffers from the same issues the 50mm F1.4 does do to it's aging design. A more appealing choice might be the EF-S 24mm F2.8 for crop users, since it's much less expensive and will also provide bette exposure over the 18-55mm lens (2 to 5 times as much light). I really wish Canon would invest more into the EF-S lens line up, and get ussome sweet offerings like I see on other systems. A series of fast primes would kill it! Dying to see a 16mm F1.4 on EF-S like fuji has.
So the trouble is not with the lens but with people shooting APS-C and expecting it to be a "standard" lens.
I always used a 35mm lens for my crop camera. The 28mm hasn't tested well in reviews. I had the original 35mm 2.0 which was built like the 50mm 1.8 II with a noisy motor as well. I recently got a good used 35mm 1.4 L Mark II. They can be had for just a little bit more than the new 35mm 2.0 IS USM.
I learned the hard way about this! I bought it as I thought it would be great for indoor portraits but realized that on my apsc it was the equivalent to an 85. Now that I have a full frame camera I have more wiggle room and I find this to be a great lens for the price! But I’m a novice so I don’t know much! I will just keep practicing!
This is an excellent test between the two Canon 50mm lenses. I recently purchased the $100 "plastic" lens as it was considered a "must have" or "nifty fifty" by a lot of experts out there. I have been using it on my Canon M50 (with EF adapter) for a month now and it works very well in both manual and AF modes. It is lightweight and sharp. This is, indeed, a wonderful, inexpensive lens that I will enjoy as an "only" lens when I bring only one lens with my camera.
Thank you for this very interesting and informative video.
First lens I ever bought was the 50mm f/1.8 I still have it it's so awesome
👍👍
Great review. I own 1.8 version of this lens and love it. I tried my friend’s 1.4 for a weekend just to see if I like 50mm and loved it. Didn’t see my use to put extra money and being price conscious when I bought it, didn’t see a point to spend more. Love my 1.8 and to be honest, tried it in variety of situations, portrait, lifestyles and low light scenarios and so happy with the purchase. Thank you very detailed review that confirms that in my situation and what I use it for, it was a perfect choice. 👍👏
The 1.8, especially the STM version, is anyways better than the 1.4 in nearly every aspect, unlike shown in the video where its said that the 1.4 is slightly better.
Have you ever used it to capture a fast-moving subject with the 50mm f1.4? How fast can the lens capture the focus of a fast-moving subject?
I am a Sony user but I found the host to be so pleasant uncomplicated/informative that I subscribed and rang the bell :) Looking forward to learning more from you guys! Well done.
Thanks Dee, glad to hve you on board 👍
Great video!
General advice for everyone:
No one stands with their nose against a photo at an art gallery or whips out a magnifying glass to view it. Average viewing distance for a mounted/framed 8 by 10 or larger print is 3-5 feet away. If you cannot appreciate the art of photography without using a microscope or “pixel peeping” then you probably need to find another hobby. Art is art regardless of the medium or the sharpness/clarity/bokeh/resolution of any particular lens.
No one ever looked at an Ansel Adams print and said “wow what an otherwise great piece of art if not for that grotesque slight blur I see when I view it under a magnifying glass”.
Thanks for sharing 👍
Craig Freeman yep. No one except pixel peepers who have no appreciation of art
Great video, it would be cool if you added a low light test...like a candle lighting a dark room brown 1.4 and 1.8
My thought too. But since I watched the video one year later, I suppose I will try to find a newer video, also testing low light shoots.
With one candle it really becomes a test of the camera's ability to control noise at high ISOs. When Kubrick shot scenes for "Barry Lyndon" lit only by candelabras he used the Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f0.7, the fastest lens ever made. Of course in the real world of lenses you can actually order from B&H obviously the extra stop would help.
What a coincidence, I bought the 50mm STM 1.8 just last week after your recommendation on the course, then a day after this video pops up in my feed! Loved the video and glad i purchased the 1.8, a much smaller price for a great competitor!
Thanks Archie, glad it helped 👍
I would go for the f/1.8 because the absence of chromatic aberration in that lens is much more important to me than other factors.
Like most Canon shooters I have the 1.8 and use it quite a lot on my full frame, as well as on my apsc backup. It’s an outstanding lens for the money, but honestly it’s a great quality lens regardless of price. If you want to really step up in the 50mm segment I think you skip the 1.4 and get the 1.2 L series, which is a lot more expensive . That said my preference is to direct that cash toward other, more productive L series purchases like a 16 - 35 mm ultra wide L series zoom. Most of us aren’t rich so why throw away a ton of money for such marginal gains?
loved your idea sir ❤️❤️
I have the original f1.8. It has performed fantastically for me, for the most part. The reason I am looking to replace it is simple. I take a LOT of close-up photos and do focus stacking to get remarkable stills. Whoever the genius was that designed the original Nifty 50 wasn't a photographer. The focus ring is a very small band mounted on the very front edge of the barrel. That alone is enough to complain. But when you add a ring light onto the lens... you end up having to focus by putting the tip of your finger into a very thin crack to manual focus. It's almost impossible. Thus the reason for looking to replace it with one of these two lenses here. I have used the 1.4 several times in the past, and noticed like here, very little difference other than build. This video was very helpful in answering my questions here. I think he said it best when he asked if you are a Professional? The build quality definitely enters the conversation at this point. Bokeh is still great on the f1.8 and isn't worth the $200+ US price difference for my needs. Also, right now Canon is running a sale combining their f1.8 with their f10 -18 lens for about the same price of the 50mm 1.4. Professional or not, that's hard to turn down. I do a lot of landscapes too, so the wider angle lens would fill a gap in my lens collection. If I were buying a 50mm lens for the first time, I would probably have opted for the f1.4. But knowing my needs. having experience with both lens and being somewhat of a tight-wad... I'm going with the f1.8. It comes down to your personal needs and budget. Both are great lens! Thanks for the video!!!
Thanks for sharing 👍
One of the best understandable Speakers for non-native Speakers. Thank you. Regards from Hamburg
Thanks, appreciate the comments 😊👍
I have the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 STM lens. Yes, it's plastic...but that also makes it lightweight, which is a plus. It focuses quickly, it's surprisingly sharp and it's inexpensive to acquire. Thank you for your comparison video; it confirmed what I already knew about the F1.8 lens. ;-)
Thanks 👍
I’ve used both and I would say it isn’t even close to worth it for the 1.4, unless I suppose you’re a high level professional. The 1.8 is dope!
Thanks for the comments 👍
The 1.8 was my workhorse for shooting concerts for YEARS.
I have used both lenses and I own both lenses. 1.4 is heavier than the 1.8 and it has a slower reaction time, but keep in mind it makes up way more with its ability to let in more light and can be used in almost any low light condition. Even with little to no bounce of light on anything, it manages to capture some light back. It can also adjust easier if you are taking pictures in and out of buildings and you want to avoid adding a flash.
would you recommend the canon 1.4 lens for gig photography as i have a 1.8 but suspect the wider aperture of 1.4 maybe be beneficial in low light
Daniel Fagan using the 1.4 has a nice advantage where there is limited light and sometimes the pictures look better without flash but it's always recommended to have flash in case the light is super low. Another great advantage is that you can move slightly forward and back and still get a great shot with the 1.4. If you move slightly back and forth with the 1.8, you lose a little focus and have to readjust it and if you have it on autofocus, it constantly is adjusting and sometimes makes you lose you shot. Hope this helps.
The chromatic aberration on the f1.4 is because of its wider aperture. You should compare them both on f1.8 to see which one is better at the widest aperture for the 1.8 one
Came for the review, stayed for the accent.
😊
Like you said, the real question that needs to be asked, (and the only question really), is would a random person looking at a photo taken with either of these two lenses notice any differences? Especially without both photos to compare, side by side? And the answer is, "No, they probably wouldn't". Thinking about it, a random non-photographer looking at both photos side-by-side most likely still wouldn't be able to see any differences. And that is really all that matters. Only photographers are in the habit of always zooming in, looking for flaws, or have the chance to compare side-by-side identical shots, everyone else just accepts what they see, meaning these two lenses are effectively identical except for the price, (and build quality, which isn't as much of an issue any more), and price is what it always comes down to isn't it - what is affordable versus the capability gained for the money spent?
Thanks for the comments 👍
I’ve been using the 1.8 for a year now and it’s my go to lens unless I need a really wide shot or a really close macro shot.
Thanks for sharing 👍
You can do macro with 50mm lens. It might not be as easy as it would be with a proper macro lens, you just have to hold it backwards in front of the camera.
@@TheMarkus109 Yeah, True!
turn the lens around for a macro shot.
I'm glad I got the F1.8 - this video makes me feel better, like I made the right decision
the f1.8 has the STM motor for quiet focusing, so it's better for video unless you are recording the sound externally.
The USM is louder?
I love the 50mm 1.4 for my canon 7D. I can tell the difference between the 1.8. But any newer cameras, it probably wouldn’t tell the difference.
When I just started out years ago with a 60D - I went with a 50mm f/1.4 USM. Reason was - I wanted to skip the shitty kit lenses, I wanted a great prime to train with and I wanted to keep the lens when I eventually moved to full-frame (the decision was in place before I even bought the 60D - which, by the way, uses the same batteries as my 5D Mark III later used and that my 5D Mark IV now uses - I got to keep my batteries!).
Over the years I've really enjoyed the 1.4 USM. The color is very pleasing, the soft bokeh is dreamy and the portraits come out really nice. The lens is not really that sharp, when you think about it, but it doesn't have to be, especially if you value other aspects of the lens. With modern processing and sharpening techniques the 1.4 also becomes a lot more usable than it used to be, so I don't see myself selling it anytime soon. Unless I ditch DSLRs and go with a canon R system - those RF lenses seem crazy good!
Thanks for sharing 😊
What did you do with the 80mm focal length of this lens on your crop camera when in a room? Did you just back up all the time since you did not have an 18-55mm focal length? I never used mine on my 7D.
Im a Filmaker, I bought 50mm 1.8 and invested the extra money in a good ND Filter.
Good
I had the 1.8 version, 6 months old the front element fell off in my camera bag. If you can afford it, but the 1.4 for the build quality
Thanks for sharing
Three years ago I purchased a cannon T6.
This was the first video I watched.
Great information three years later.
I also got the e-book.
Thanks, glad to have you on board 👍
Thank you very much for your so accurate f1.4 Vs. f1.8 Video.
You really got a One-Of-A-Kind comparison test of both Canon lenses.
Cheers!!!
You're welcome, thanks for the comments 👍
I just bought a 50mm f1.8 and its absolutely wonderful! Especially considering my other lenses are older, and only basic kit lenses. This little lens is so easy to work with, although I’ve noticed some issues with AF, and the picture quality is far superior than my other lenses.
Thanks for sharing 👍
The differences on this review is so minute that if you have to buy one of the two then the f1.8 is the one to buy. This is what they referred to "within the margin of error". Only the price difference is certain and big.
Thanks for sharing 👍
Agreed, under *ordinary* conditions not a major difference, so if paying extra for the f/1.4 stops you from buying another important piece of kit, get the f/1.8, that's not a hard choice. However, if you can afford the f/1.4, get it, the day you really need it, you're really going to wish you had it. Oh, and then you won't have to shell out for a second lens later, and have to decide which of your two nifty-fifties you put in your bag that day.
Thanks so much for this I went into a camera store today and was a bit lost. 30 mins exploring your tutorials and I'm sorted.
Thanks Louise, glad to help 👍
Thank you! As an old Leica/Hasselblad aficionado I appreciate the guidance into modern lenses. The f/1.4 doesn't seem worth the 3x price, as you've illustrated. Great stuff. Now subscribed.
Thanks and welcome aboard 👍
I bought the 50 F1.4 new. The extra little bit of light is actually quite helpful and it worked well on holiday. It sucks up dust though. But the current-gen F1.8 is really good value.
I have the 1.8 and am loving it for video! I got it for a steal here in Korea!
So yea, i got the 1.4 for around $180 used. Sold my good ol 1.8.
I must say, the 1.4 @f1.8 seems a bit sharper imo. Edges seem to retain more detail as well compared to the 1.8 lens
The F1.8 was the first lens I ever bought when I started taking photos on my Canon 300D. I was then gifted a F1.4. Both amazing lenses but I must admit, I use my 1.8 more.
Thanks for sharing :)
I own the 1.8. Great lens and I am pleased that I made the right decision. Good video, greatly appreciated.
Great to hear!
Idk why people are crying about the video lenght.. its worth it if you want to spend that amount of money especially for people who have to think about it twice to spend 250€ more
Thanks Martin 👍
Always worth spending some time researching before you buy imo. I was only looking at the 1.8 this morning but will need a converter as I have an M50
Do you want it for portrait photography? I am not a professional but I do own both lenses ...
If possible try the F1.4 in a shop - try to focus on the eye of the salesman. On the LCD it might look like you nailed focus, but back at the ranch at 100% you might see (as I did with my APS-C camera which lacks eye-detect ) that the camera focused by default on the person's nose. To work around this and get their eye, you have to either focus and recompose or better, adjust the focus point and place it directly over the eye of the subject. YMMV, but all this fiddling loses me the spontaneous moment.
This is not to say the F1.8 would do much better (I own both) more that portrait photography without effective eye detection is hard.
I propose that an F1.8 + a good off-camera flash (eg on cable, hand-held) would get you better portrait shots than an F1.4 on its own for probably less money. ie if you don't already have off-camera flash, and want this for portraits, use the money you save by buying the F1.8 instead of the F1.4 to buy that flash gear.
KR noted that the F1.4 focuses inconsistently. A few years ago, he even labelled the F1.4 "a dud" but he later redacted that sentence. KR's opinion of the F1.8 was very high and of the STM F1.8 higher still.
Setting aside portraiture, yes primes are in general sharper than zooms, but NOT if the prime in question is Canon F1.4 and you care about the corners.
I bought F1. 4 first. The focus failed within a week. It was fixed. After several years of light use it broke again. The cost of fix was around 200$. I bought F1. 8
Thanks for the comments :)
I love your video and the comparisons you've made. I was wondering if I should upgrade to a 1.4, so ended up here. Thanks so much, I'll stick with what I have! My f1.8 Canon has been brilliant to me. I'm not advanced at photography but I do a lot of cocktail photography for my page. It's been brilliant and the only thing I've used. On top of this, glassware companies have sponsored me to photograph my products because they liked my other content. I did it all on an f 1.8 and a Canon EOS800D, which at the time was around $500 USD. I'm not sponsored or anything like that, but I came on here to say that just these two cheaper pieces of gear have helped me to produce some pretty good work.
Thanks Natalie 👍
Me: I'm not going to sit through a 22-minute video!
Me, 22 minutes later: ....well I guess I'm allowed to be wrong.
But seriously, great vid! I can now comfortably buy an f1.8 without feeling like I'm settling for less!
Thanks John, some people do a rush job, we do things properly! Glad you liked it 👍
😂 😂 😂
Agree
I have the Canon 7D Mark II body, and two "L" class telephoto (70-200mm) and fixed (400mm) lenses for it - altogether costing me a lot of money (and I'm not a professional photographer who can recoup the money spent). I bought them for wildlife photography (mostly birds in flight). So, when it came to making a decision about a 50mm lens I would use only occasionally, I bought the 1.8, and I'm perfectly happy with it.
So, I believe that a product's intended use dictates the features needed and therefore the price.
Thanks for sharing 👍
@@theschoolofphotography Thank YOU for great tutorials.
Thank you very much for doing this comparison. Although I have been making photographs for years, I just bought a 50 mm 1.4 and it’s the first prime lens I’ve ever used. I found the comparison very interesting as I’m learning to use a prime lens. I’m primarily a landscape photographer so this should be interesting, but I’m up for the challenge. Thank you again.
You're welcome 👍
So you will keep your len 50mm f1.4?
I owned the F1.4 and it was an OK lens, I sold if and purchased the very expensive F50 F1.2L which is an amazing lens however I rarely used it at F1.2 and sold it. I purchased the new F1.8 stm and I find the images very good, possibly nicer than the F1.4 because its newer and no more of those horrible lines around the edges of things in the image. If you can get similar or better images out of a cheap lens, Id say its a bargain
Thanks for sharing 👍
If you need shooting a subject moving fast like a dog, a running child ect. The 50mm F1.4 usm is much better on AF speed.
Now you got me interested in this test between the 50mm 1.2L and the 1.8 you used there. As far as you showed me, the triple price for a little bit bigger and softer circles on bokeh. Is not worth the metal over the plastic. The L version is weather sealed too, but is the quality worth the price?
Canon needs to continue the line of 24mm, 28mm, 35mm USM IS lenses up into 50mm 1.4 and and 85mm 1.8, and then keep going into 100mm 2 and 100mm 2.8 Macro.
I have & used the 50: 1.8, on a wedding was conned into doing, I thought it was a marvellous lens and still do, I've since used it a lot on my Train, Motorcycle, Boat photography, much better than any kit lens.
Thanks for taking the time to put together this informative video.
You're welcome 👍
Unbelievable! So much of knowledge is involved in your reviews. The more I see, the more I love your reviews. This is the actual way to compare two lenses.
Wow, thanks!
I didn’t see enough difference that would make me want to spend almost double for the 1.4
Nearly quadruple you mean
Hi there. First thanks to the host for having taken the trouble to put this video together. As opined by all of you good folks, I think you are absolutely right. I bought my Canon 50mm 1.8 at about USD50 and it was a steal (in my nick of the woods here in Southeast-Asia) back then, probably in 2016/2017 ... can't remember. I'm just an amateur and for me, these reviews either determine the product that I will purchase or it reinforces the ones that I have in my possession. Aside from the fact that my experiences with the lens is in-line with the sentiments of "The School of Photography", it is good to know that others out there in cyberspace concur that I have made a good value-for-money purchase. In the global world of the "new normal", our modus operandi will change we will all be living, working, and enjoying a different lifestyle where RUclips and similar platforms will become our intellectual guardians for assessment of products and services before we buy. Thanks again to the host and please continue to keep us informed. Cheers
I have 1.4 lens and it's lovely quality lens, don't regret spending extra money. Wouldn't buy 1.8 lens because of build quality. If you shoot full frame you should try 85mm/f1.8 lens as well, it's fantastic portrait lens at low price.
That would be $200 for a metal mount. The 1/4 is soft wide open. You won't like the images. Trust Me. 😢
Been procrastinating over a nifty fifty for a while. This video answered my questions. Thank you!
You're so welcome!
Professional Photographer... save your money and by the 1.8 - Most professional photographers rarely ever put their settings down to 1.8, let alone 1.4. You might use it for a landscaping in low light, and maybe details type of shots, but I can't imagine putting that kind of money into a lens I would rarely ever use at that f/stop. Put your money into some L-glass that you'll use more. Especially if you're a portrait or wedding photographer. I have yet for a bride to come back on me knowing the difference and asking why I didn't use a 1.4.
Excellent point. I used to be very hung up on shooting wide open on lenses which could boast the high speed but for most practical applications, it’s essentially unnecessary. It’s more a show off feature than anything else. Heck, for most of my photos, I use vintage lenses and some of them are as slow as 3.5 for a 50mm focal length.
Gear heads will buy the 1.4, and then finally give up the weight for “been there, done that.”
And yes, most subjects haven’t the faintest clue what a stop is. If they’re looking for that super bokeh effect, throw on a vintage Tessar or even just use a more distant background to melt the details away. You can achieve surprisingly effect results even with f4.
Hi, enjoyed the video (I own both of these lenses) and generally I would agree with your findings ie. unless you're a "pixel peeper" you'll be pleased with the performance of either lens although as you mentioned, the chromatic aberration on the f1.4 is a lot worse on the more expensive lens especially if you use it wide open. One thing though that very few testers mention about the STM lens and which would be of particular relevance if you use either of these lenses for macro work is that the STM lens is a "fly by wire" lens in manual focus mode or in other words, it won't manually focus unless you "apply electricity" to it by half depressing the shutter button on the camera whereas the f1.4 is truly manual focus in that it will focus simply by turning the manual focus ring. An important but often overlooked point about these two lenses I think. Other than that, a very nice video which if you're only interested in optical performance, tells it like it is.
A 1.4 will gather 66% more light than a 1.8, that is not a small difference by any means.
Hi Sharif, yes a wider aperture will let in more light. As stated in the video, it’s the visual effect that small increase has on an image we were comparing. That’s what a lot of students ask and that’s what’s shown in the video. Thanks.
I guess if you only compare to each other that is no small difference. Compared to real world use, F1.4 is not much of a difference than F1.8, since both allow a lot more light than other lenses. There are few situations that the F1.4 will be useful and the F1.8 will not. Most the time either will work or neither will. Since neither are ideal for sports, there is little reason to consider a faster shutter speed an advantage, and both can shoot more than fast enough for that (thought neither can focus fast enough to be useful for sports). Either will work fine for astro, though I do give the edge to the F1.4 not only for the wider aperture but also the mechanical manual focus, but neither is a go to for astro (wider angle lenses are a better choice). For portraits both are easily displaced by other lenses, but the F1.8 offers better sharpness wide open (though some like the slightly soft look of the F1.4 to go with it's better bokeh). I think either works here for budget level work, but I give the edge to the F1.8 due to price being a bigger concern at budget level. Build quality I think is also washed by the price, you can get 3 of the F1.8 for 1 of the F1.4, and the F1.8s don't go breaking on a whim anyway (they are even hard to scratch). Neither has IS, so there are better choices there for shooting bad light still/slow subjects (an F2.8 lens with 4 stop IS kills either of these for this, even an F4 does better with 4 stop IS). The F1.4 doesn't offer enough over the F1.8 to make it the obvious better choice, but it isn't bad one either. For people that have it already, it's fine. For those that don't, there is little reason to get it over the F1.8 at the budget level, and at the higher level I would say save a little longer and get the Sigma 50mm F1.4 instead.
I was about to comment that.
True but in daylight it makes no difference, you can get good photos using f11 in daylight
@@adrinathegreat3095 we should all stay with the kit lens then
I stumbled on this site accidentally one of them that just showed up.
Good honesty test really enjoyed it, thank you.
Awesome, thank you!
50mm 1.8 is great but if I have the money to afford 50mm 1.4, I'll go with the ezpensive lens at its more reliable in low light
Thanks for sharing 👍
I sorted that issue right out... Skipped both of those and bought an 85mm 1.8 USM from eBay for 120 quid... Once you get around it and learn it's pros and cons, it becomes one of 5 best Canon portrait lenses... At a fraction of the price.
That's good price and lens 👍
You got me staring at the screen to the point where I'm going to need some bifocal lenses.
Hard to tell for sure! 😊
Next time you do one of these I suggest doing a white border and when you switch to the second lens do a black border so it inverts back and forth. Just having one small digit that's changing means I can't concentrate on the image because I have to watch for a tiny change in the f-stop, not the effect of it. Thanks
I have my choice, without going to a nuclear physicist... love that line!
Thanks.
Ha, thanks 👍
Thank you very much. Loved the video and the analysis, helped me a lot to make my decision. Tomorrow i am going to buy the 1.8. Thanks again.
You're welcome 👍
Great Video! My only reason for shooting with a faster lens is better low light capability! I often shoot indoors and appreciate not having to push the ISO. I would have loved to have seen you shoot in low light situations comparing the two lens.
Thanks glad you liked it 👍
Thank you so much for all of the information in this video. It helped me decide on a lens. Your explanation and testing was great.
You're very welcome!
Pro tip: The difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 bokeh can be made up by focusing from a little closer with the f/1.8.
Brilliant tip!
yesterday i ordered a new 50stm1,8 for my older aps-c camera and i don't think i would make a mistake, it will be my first fixed glass for a reasonable price because i am planning a 85L and newer camera for the future
Really helpful video and certainly will help people make a discussion correct for them.
Thanks, glad you liked it 👍
If you're shooting at f/22 you're going to induce diffraction. In fact once your camera exceeds 20 MP you're probably limited to f/11. Frankly the only reason to buy the 1.4 is the bokeh. But for the same money you can get a Rokinon 50 mm f/1.2 manual focus. With newer cameras having Focus Peaking there's no reason to avoid manual focus. Personally I just bought the 1.8 because even portraits get shot around 2.8 - 4.
The 50mm 1.8 when focused perfectly displays nearly no CA, slightly past focus will result in green CA around bright objects while falling short will cause slight purple CA. Hit it perfectly there is nearly none. The 50mm 1.8 is the best deal going right now. You can not buy a better lens for less money, unless of course your cool with adapting and having no auto focus.
The f1.8 has autofocus...
Perhaps it was good to include the focus in the comparison: the 1.4 has USM?
If you're a pro out on assignment and tempted by the 1.8, bring two. Drop one and it'll break. On carpet. Ask me how I know.
Two is one and one is none.
I feel you missed an important test. Autofocus. The old Nifty Fifty had terrible autofocus and was super loud. The F1.4 is known for having pretty slow autofocus. I am not sure about new nifty fifty. I feel this would be an important factor in what lens you should buy. If the 1.4 allows you to more reliably get an image handheld, or if is better at keeping track of moving subjects then that would influence which lens I would buy...
I agree with Dean. I have the two lenses.
If you work with portraits at 1.4 or 1.8 the DOF is very small and the accuracy of 1.4 is much much better that the 1.8.
I took the Canon 1.8 II to the service to adjust the Front Focus, but they could not fix it.
I did the same with the 1.4 and the focus was perfect.
Great video. Thanks!
Hi, Loved watching your video.
I have a question regarding which "lens" should I use to record my Art videos. I probably Shoot overhead shots in my video and already have Canon 200d with the kit lens but the footage is not really sharp and crisp. I just want to increase my video quality with a budget lens. Hope you will help me out with a perfect answer.
Art and Sketch
Hi just go for the f1.8 if you're on a budget. Hope that helps :)
Thank you 😊
Interesting. What is the difference between the two in light gathering? In other words how many more minutes can one shoot into the dusk with a 1.4 as opposed to a 1.8? Is there a formula for that? Good video, appreciated.
f/1.4 lens is superior, obviously ...........
i just want a very nice lens to make my pictures sharper so what's the best lens to buy
Fantastic video, thank you so much for sharing. For me, I would go the 1.8 because I'm on a budget and not shooting a $10k shoot... If I was shooting a $10k shoot I would definitely go for the 1.4. Thanks again, love your video's, very cool info :-)
Thanks Marty, glad you liked it :)
1.2 for the 10k shoot. 1.4 for the family ;)
The 50mm f1.4 is great. I have a pretty big speck of dust on the inside of my copy but thankfully it doesn’t show up on the sensor or affect the photos. It really is a great and sharp lens. Never taken a bad shot with it.
Nicely explained thank u
You're welcome :)
Brilliant video man. Very fair and professional comparison of the two nifties.
Thanks a ton! 🙏
Only thing which is wrong for sure:
- The EF 1.4 is less sharp, even if it would be sharp, the CAs and purple fringing would defeat the better sharpness completely.
- Build quality, the EF is a lot worse. Especially compared to the RF 1.8 STM version and when it comes to the internals/mechanics of the EF 1.4.
I had already 3 EF 50 1.4s, multiple times bought, used a bit and sold. 2 of them i even repaired at least once. Absolutely cheap and fragile AF mechanics and the clutch design is a huge fail, literally failing in cold weather conditions. Thats also how you can test how worn out a a EF 50 1.4s AF/MF clutch is... try how well the focussing system, AF as well MF works in cold weather. The worse it gets at for example 0°C, the more you can be sure you have to replace/repair the AF/MF clutch and mechanism.
Does the 50 mm 1.8 work on a t7i rebel?
Hi, yes I believe it will
Yes, your camera can use all EF and EF-S lenses. The 50mm F1.8 is one of the 4 lenses I would suggest to anyone looking to build their library of lenses. Here is a list.
EF 50mm F1.8 STM - Great portrait lens, no other lens with this quality, speed, or sharpness is available at this price.
EF-S 55-250mm F4-5.6 IS STM - Best telephoto for under a grand, smokes the 75-300mm in all categories except overall reach.
EF-S 10-18mm F4.5-5.6 IS STM - For landscapes and architecture, this is a good wide lens, and is the least expensive one in the Canon line up. One of the only ones that has IS.
EF-S 24mm F2.8 STM - Adds F2.8 to your shooting for 150 USD. Good for shooting at moving subjects in low light, will do this better than the 18-55mm kit lens and at a wider angle than the 50mm F1.8.
All these lenses will add something different to your kit, are highly rated, and are affordable.
Kevin Diaz AMAZING thank you
Yes
great video, keep it up dude !
love the way you're talking and explaining, overall very informative and interesting.
Thanks for the comments and glad it helped you out 👍
For the price of the 1.4 you could buy 4 x 1.8s so it don't really matter if it's sturdier or not... 1.8 is a no brainier for me.
So truth. There is no point to the F1.4 these days. I really wish they would update it.
Another great video, a question that I have also thought about given the close specifications and the vast difference in price
Wow. That 1.8 performs surprisingly well. I use mine on a canon m50 with a viltrox speed booster, which gives it an extra stop! ; )
Thanks
I had the predecessor to the STM lens and the 1.4. Of all my lens, these are the only ones whose damage exceeded the repair costs. The 1.8's AF/MF switch is easy to break and then the USM failed. The 1.8 fell on concrete but my 5D mk II survived.
In my comparisons, I looked at the bokeh from 1.8 test shots I still had and the ones from the then new 1.4. The aperture blades in the 1.4 made a huge difference. The 1.8 pictures had near pentagon circles while the 1.4 were actually circular.