I've had the 1.8 and the 1.4. No doubt they are both a great lens however I have stuck with the 1.4. 3 reasons: 1. The build quality is so much better, it feels like you are putting a nice lens on your camera rather than a toy lens. 2. Quiet and quick focusing thanks to the usm motor. 3. Low light performance for AF and image quality is better albeit marginally. Treat yourself, treat your camera.
I am shooting events with 50mm f1.8. Sometimes people are joking about smallest lens on a biggest DSLR (1D mkII), but they don't complain about final pics. Great lens for 60€.
I have both, and the 1.4 is a lot sharper wide open with a lot less colour fringing and better microcontrast. It was worth the extra money, in my opinion.
Interesting video. I had the 1.8 for almost two years now. I thought about upgrading to 1.4 but cancelled that plan after seeing this video. But eventually I bought the 1.4 usm. In terms of image quality there's not much of a difference. The 1.4 has a dreamy look wide open. The 1.8 looks more natural wide open. 1.4@2.0 is still a bit dreamy in the corners, but the centre sharpness is better than the 1.8@2.0. At 2.8 or narrower both are pretty sharp but again the 1.4 is very slightly sharper. Overall IQ-wise the 1.8 is a great choice and the IQ alone doesn't justify the upgrade. Nevertheless I keep the 1.4 and sold the 1.8 - here's why: - The AF of the 1.4 isn't faster as the AF of the 1.8 in bright daylight, but in low light situations and even on e very cloudy day my 1.8 did a lot of focus hunting - and often after some back and forth it was not spot on. In those situations the 1.4 is much more reliable. I had some otherwise great portrait shots where the 1.8 AF was slightly off - that's annoying. That was the main reason for the upgrade. - On an APS sensor I don't really want to go beyond ISO1600. ISO3200 is tolerable at times but not desirable. So 2/3 stops more light can make a difference even if you sacrifice IQ. It's okay because centre sharpness is still good almost wide open. To me the centre sharpness of the 1.4@1.6 is about the same as the 1.8@2.0 - Sometimes I shot short video clips to use as transitions that make photo presentations more interesting. Pulling focus with the 1.8 is not just a PITA. It's close to impossible (especially when you want to use follow focus). It's much better with 1.4 - although it's anything but the smoothest USM MF Ring I used so far. Bottom line: if you are satisfied with the 1.8's AF and you don't need 2/3 stops more light, keep the 1.8. If $1000 don't scare you off get the new 2014 Sigma 50/1.4A - it's incredible - it eats all canon 50mm for breakfast - at once. Even wide open it offers an IQ that up until now was only available for photographers who paid $4K for the Zeiss Otus.
The canon 50mm 1.8 is by far the most popular lens of all times from all manufacturers. It has the best value for money. Great sharpness and bokeh for just 100 dollars.💵 The next lens that every canon dSLR user should buy after the default kit lens. A real investment. Nikon doesn't have an equivalent lens at this price. One of the reasons canon is leader in dSLRs.
The 50mm 1.8 is not supposed to have its focus wheel turned when set to AF. you can really damage the motor, I've learned that the hard way, just FYI. Great videos Matt, and thanks for all your effort.
Exactly what I was thinking. Watch as he forces the focus ring. Good review otherwise but people say the 1.8 is prone to breaking. Prob only under force (like in this video!). Even if it did snap you can buy another and still be way under budget compared to the 1.4.
I've had the 50/1.8 mk I (metal mount and distance window), 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 at the same time for a while, but have since sold the 1.4 though. The 1.8 is a fine lens, but in RL especially if you use Servo AI on moving subjects, it is slower to track and that's when it starts hunting. The 1.4 is a bit faster under those conditions, but when it loses track it starts fluttering. The 1.4 can have a nervous looking bokeh at times. The 1.2 has the best AF performance tracking moving subjects and under lower light conditions. But you have to watch that mid day sun. At a real pinch the 1.8 mk 2 is nice, but I'd go for the 1.4 instead. But the original 1.8 that's a different matter. Very sharp and a good (well 1980s) type build. If you can find one (look for people selling old EOS film cameras) buy it. I bought mine in mint condition together with a user grade EOS film body for EUR 7,- The 1.2 is one of my favorites, but not as great as the 85/1.2 which is in a class of its own. Never tried the the 1.0 Had a Nikon 1.2 for a while, that was interesting.
The reference prime lens for Canon is the 135 mm f/2 L :-) Very sharp, nice colors & bokeh, well-built, focusses very quickly, focusses very close, etc. etc. The 35 mm f/1.4 L is also very good and problem free as well. In the 50 mm length, the 50 mm f/1.4 is the best buy IMO (performance / handling is good, it is compact and light), but the AF mechanics break often so we, Canon aficionados as you call it, are desperately waiting for an upgrade to this lens.
I bought the 1.4 for one reason. Flickr has groups for everything and is an amazing resource. The group for the 'nifty fifty' had quite a few images of broken or damaged lenses, many owners were claiming that it was their second or third lens. In the group for the 1.4 there were (at the time) no images of broken lenses. I'm not in the habit of breaking lenses, but thought the more sturdy build was the way to go.
Nice review. I upgraded from the 1.8 to the 1.4 as its a lot less noisy and it hunts less, but the main reason is that I've broken 2 1.8s and the much better build quality really shows if you handle both lenses. The other interesting thing was said by a camera repairer, who mentioned that a fairly common problem was that 1.8's got stuck on the camera due to the plastic mount
That was a good review, but the one thing I was hoping to see was a shoot-off in low-light conditions. I would think that one possible reason to buy the f1.2 would be for improved shooting in low-light.
I will reiterate what others have said here; don't turn the focus ring on the 1.8 when set to AF, you are grinding against the focus motor when you do that.
I have the 1.8 MK I and have had the 1.8 MK II as well as used a 1.4. the difference between the 1.8's and 1.4 is barely recognisable in IQ and the focus speed is the same in both. The only thing you really loose with the 1.8 is the USM motor, but to be honest it focuses so fast that you barely notice it unlike in say a non-USM telephoto. The MK I 1.8 has superior build quality so if you can find one buy it but if not the IQ between the two 1.8's is the same.
There is a good reason that 50mm f1.8 is called the classic "Nifty Fifty" and your video totally support the true merit of this under appreciated gem, plastiky, cheap looking but totally Priceless glass.
Thank you man!!! This is what I was looking for to see! I have 50mm 1.8 and now I want to upgrade to 1.4 so I wanted to see all this performances! Thanks again!
Thanks matt i am a wedding photographer in the uk and own both 50m1.8 and 1.4. I can say sharpness there is not much in it but in low light the 1.4 blows the 1.8 out of the water for focus speed. The 1.8 does focus to be honest but hunts a lot. And i find the 1.4 doesnt miss focus wide open has much :)
Matt, the f/1.8 is NOT designed to manually adjust the focus while in AF mode. You'll risk ruining the motor. Only USM lenses are designed to allow manual focus adjustment.
I used to have 50mm F4 twice and it broke down and to got it fixed it cost me over £100 to get it fixed so I decided to invest on the 50mm F1.2L two years ago and is was a good idea
I'm upgrading from 1.8 to 1.4... I loved the 1.8 in terms of image quality vs price and tought me a lot but it really is like taking a toy from your lense bag, that's one reason. other is the extra light you can get (would be my fastest lense so far) but in practical terms and reason 3, will be to use it at 2.8 for shallow depth and very sharp subjet in focus...
Cheers Matt. I tried to make a reasonable explanation for such a price hike in the 1.2 over the 1.4 outside of weather sealing, but failed. They couldn't make it a 9 blade for that price? lol. In this kind of lens where all three can do the job superbly, it really comes down to construction, so I'm with on Canon making a metal USM 1.8 that is maybe $200-250. At least then the cost can be justified.
I've seen quite a few comparison videos of these 50mm primes. And clearly this is the best of all those videos. Does a very objective test. I was swaying towards the 1.4, but now i think the 1.8 is also something to be considered. Thanks for posting.
Thats messed up, i wasn't even watching the video. Had it running in the backround, and I HEARD you joke dropping the lense and my heart STILL stopped. :D
Actually the 1.4 is less then 3 times the price of the 1.8 (at least where i live) and there are other reasons to get it, like FTM, FF compatible and the same 58mm filter thread as the kit lens, so all of the filters you already have will work, more accessible focus ring, etc.
2 things about the 1.8. First, it has 5 aperture blades, not 6. Second, the motor inside the 1.8 is not USM, so of course, it focuses louder and if you keep overriding it, that would burn out the motor. It is simply not designed for overriding like those with USM. But the 1.8 is actually worth more than what it costs. Nice review as always, subscribed!!!
I initially bought the 1.8 but returned it after two days. I found focus to be hit and miss, sometimes front- sometimes backfocusing, especially bad in closeup situations and wide open (expensive if you're shooting film like I am and can't rely on consistently getting the shot in one, two frames). Manual focus also is pretty hard with the flimsy ring. Returned it, got the 1.4 and have never looked back. Much better build quality much better manual focus capability, much more accurate focusing.
I'm happy you confirmed what I already knew, since my budget it's not big enough for 1.2 I went for the 1.8 since from what I could tell by seeing pictures from both online there wasn't a significant difference.
Thanks for the review Matt. I have the 1.8 and I'm happy with it (although I had to adjust the micro-focus feature in my camera body because I was experiencing some focus deviation). Between f6.3 and f8 this lens is amazingly sharp.
Thanks for your effort... this video should be useful for anyone in the market for a Canon 50mm. The 50mm 1.8 is a nice performer and great for most people's needs, but I feel that a working pro work benefit with the 1.4's better built quality.
I bought the 1.8 a while ago and the 1.4 a few days ago. Yes, it costs more. But in my opinion the image quality and autofocus are better. Also you have the manual override, which the 1.8 DOES NOT have. You can override the AF but you'll screw up the lens. For the price of the 1.8 you'll get amazing quality, but the 1.4 is even better.
I really deals with the camera being used, not the lens. I have a Rebel XSi which hunts for focus at low light with the 50mm 1.8, but my Canon Elan IIe can grab focus fast with the 1.8 in the same lighting conditions thanks to it having an dedicated IR light. A lens can't fix the limit of the camera body's technology.
Did i mentioned it has the best buildquality? .It is weathersealed. .it has a ground and polished aspherical lens element wich cost a fortuyn.The 85mm 1.2 has also and thats why both lenses so expensive.
I think your conclusion is bang on. The cheapie 50 1.8 is tinny, but for the price it's great. I have it on a full frame camera, and it takes better shots than I do. If I had the bucks I'd buy the 1.2, but why? I'm no pro. Thanks for a good review.
Need to see a comparison of image sharpness as well as a low light test. The 1.8 hunts and shutters like it's on a turbulent flight in anything but ideal light in my experience. I can't wait to replace it with a 1.4 and the price is coming down on that now because Canon will be putting out a 1.4II shortly.
I have owned a Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MK 1 version for about 30 years and never needed anything with a wider aperture The MK 1 version has a thick metal bayonet mount a tighter focus ring and a distance scale for manual mode and not the self disintegrating barrel of the mark 2 nor the constant AF faults of the MK or the STM ( you will find loads of them for spares repairs on eBay or other site I am not worried about the older type of AF motor nor the slightly tight MF focusing ring that needs a proper photographer to use it or because there is a longer focusing travel from close to 10 foot after hat it's as quick as any newer lenses
there's rumors of a 50mm 1.8 IS, but Canon charges like $500-1000 more for just the IS feature on their newer prime lenses so we'll have to see! I think one priced in between the 1.8 and 1.4 with IS would be great. And like the others have mentions I didn't know the 1.8 had manual override? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
I first had the 1.8, but the bokeh is really crap !! Now the 1.4 is a large more better in terms of bokeh ... but really fragile. Canon changed the USM ramp twice !! But despite that I really love it ... Sharpness is not the all thing, creamy bokeh is cooool ! Thanks Matt again for making me spare 1000€ in the 1.2 ...
ONE MAJOR TIP TO SAVE YOUR LENSES: WHEN YOU TURN THE FOCUS RING SWITCH TO MANUAL FOCUS BECAUSE IN TIME AUTOFOCUS WIL CRACK... ALSO WHEN YOU TURN OFF YOUR DLSR SWITCH THE LENS TO MANUAL FOCUS
I wish you did a low light test. I had the 50mm 1.8 II and it was horrible for grabbing focus in low light compared to the 1.4 and 1.2 even on my 1ds mk2. The 1.8 was fatiguing for me. I recommend it to beginners because of the price point, but most shooters who've used a lot of gear would most likely use the 1.4 professionally for the smoother bokeh, usm and better low light focusing abilities without the price of the 1.2
Thank you so much to "do canon" reviews also. I went to canon (hard to decide between Nikon and Canon), but I subscribed to your channel because you were the most real world reviews on youtube. I found many of your videos so helpful (the extension tubes are my fav video from you). Thanks again, and cheers from Sonora, Mexico. Happy "clicks"!
Hi Matt, I have the 1.8 plastic fantastic for over a year now and I´m not that impressed with it to be honest. The image quality is as you described it but the more you use the lens, the worse it performs in terms of focussing-speed. These cheap lenses are built to only last a few years and I already have problems with the little motor inside the lens. New there might only be a litte difference between the three lenses, but the next lens for me is the 1.4, because it is better build. Thanx
by the way, I totally agree, from everything that I hear....the 1.2 is NOT worth the extra aperture. Sure, it takes a nice picture from what I could tell, but defintely not worth over $1000 more than the 1.8, which takes decent pictures in it's own right. I say 1.4 if you're a professional (better build quality) - 1.8 for hobbyist
How so? The lens is where you control the amount of light that reaches the sensor through your aperture and shutter settings. If it were indeed my camera and not the lens, then that would mean shopping for lenses with wider possible apertures is a waste?
Thanks for the review but you didnt mention two VERY important things. 1. The difference in performance in regards to shooting in dark lighting. 2. The fact that the f1.8 does not perfectly fit the full frame sensor cameras (5d or 1d) without getting black corners. I loved the song plastic mr. fantastic though lol
I looked at all three nad would have loved the 1.2L but ended up buying the Sigma f1.4 DG EX. A little bit more expensive than the Canon f1.4 but way better in my opinion. Try the Nikon fit Sigma Matt.
I own both the 1.8 and the 1.4 and I've shot them both in concerts. I prefer the 1.8 at concerts because I'm not afraid to get it banged up. If it does break (which has happened to my 1.8) it's not a super hard hit on the wallet. Trust me, the 1.8 was let off easy in this review!
If you read the manual that came with the 50mm 1.8 it clearly says not to turn the focusing ring when the lens is in auto focus mode. You'll burn out the motor and grind the gears that way. I don't care if you waste your own money but don't instruct others to do the same!
Thanks for the vid. I have a video background, but am diving into DSLRs and photography, and the 1.8 was always going to be my first lens focus. Your comparison combined with the price points, make me feel better about the decision.
This is so awesome. I was just milling over which lens to buy. and this was really informative. I hope you didn't have to buy all these lenses, because I would love to see more of these videos.
being large aperture lenses a low light test would be great as I personally use lenses like the 1.4 as a star trail lens but would love to have seen comparisons. Great review though, thanks and keep em coming.
...the Canon 40/2.8 is a better buy than both the 50/1.8 and 1.4. 40 is a bit wider and images from the 40 looks so nice, great bokeh and nice vignetting (built in instagram lol ;)
its not really necessary because its sucha a short focal length. and if they built it in it would add weight and bulk and would make it more expensive which is not what you want.
As a added info from my personal and unofficial "crash test" with the F1.8... The focus and motordrive shattered when it got dropped with the 500D. There is nothing taking any stress or impact from the outer shell and delivering it straight to the bits in the middle. Also, all gears and guids were 100% plastic. So not sure if it will last very long in active use. So yea, you get what you pay for. I personnaly wouldn't get another one, and I would save my money for the 1.4. And fuck no for 1.2 :D
Mat, you are wrong on your reply I think... Canon EF 50/1.8 and Tamron 90/2.8 are two lenses with a lot more focusing issues, especially in low light, at least on the 5Dmk2. The lens is a part of the problem, it isn't.just the AF sensor. Other lenses generally perform AF better. I.m pretty sure it isn't imagination.
True Nikon man, trying to take the lens off the wrong way @ 09:35 ;) Cheers, I sold the 1.8 for the 1.4 but to be fair the 1.8 was the best value for money lens I have ever had, so sharp at around f/5.6 !
The 1.8II does not have manual focus override. if you try to turn it in AF mode, you are fighting the servo and can damage the lens.
NOO! Don't turn the focus ring on that f/1.8 in AF mode!! It sent shivers down my spine! But great video :-)
I've had the 1.8 and the 1.4. No doubt they are both a great lens however I have stuck with the 1.4.
3 reasons:
1. The build quality is so much better, it feels like you are putting a nice lens on your camera rather than a toy lens.
2. Quiet and quick focusing thanks to the usm motor.
3. Low light performance for AF and image quality is better albeit marginally.
Treat yourself, treat your camera.
I am shooting events with 50mm f1.8. Sometimes people are joking about smallest lens on a biggest DSLR (1D mkII), but they don't complain about final pics. Great lens for 60€.
Please do not turn the focus ring on the 1.8 when it's in AF-Mode. Do it a few times and you will destroy your focusmotor.
what is the focus ring?
Nevermind I understand what you said
this guy and another guy said you dont on this lens. or at least that your meant to be able to?
Best 50mm review! I have 1.8 and was thinking about 1.4 but your review save me 400 bucks. Thank you! ))
I have both, and the 1.4 is a lot sharper wide open with a lot less colour fringing and better microcontrast. It was worth the extra money, in my opinion.
i just get tokina 35 mm fix and it is AMAZING! ))
And I got the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II and it is amazing as well. What's your point?
ftpaddict
my testing shows 1.8 sharper at 1.8 than the 1.4 at 1.8
Most likely due to sample variation. Perhaps you got a very good copy of the 1.8 and a bad one of the 1.4, or I got the reverse.
Interesting video. I had the 1.8 for almost two years now. I thought about upgrading to 1.4 but cancelled that plan after seeing this video. But eventually I bought the 1.4 usm.
In terms of image quality there's not much of a difference. The 1.4 has a dreamy look wide open. The 1.8 looks more natural wide open. 1.4@2.0 is still a bit dreamy in the corners, but the centre sharpness is better than the 1.8@2.0. At 2.8 or narrower both are pretty sharp but again the 1.4 is very slightly sharper. Overall IQ-wise the 1.8 is a great choice and the IQ alone doesn't justify the upgrade. Nevertheless I keep the 1.4 and sold the 1.8 - here's why:
- The AF of the 1.4 isn't faster as the AF of the 1.8 in bright daylight, but in low light situations and even on e very cloudy day my 1.8 did a lot of focus hunting - and often after some back and forth it was not spot on. In those situations the 1.4 is much more reliable. I had some otherwise great portrait shots where the 1.8 AF was slightly off - that's annoying. That was the main reason for the upgrade.
- On an APS sensor I don't really want to go beyond ISO1600. ISO3200 is tolerable at times but not desirable. So 2/3 stops more light can make a difference even if you sacrifice IQ. It's okay because centre sharpness is still good almost wide open. To me the centre sharpness of the 1.4@1.6 is about the same as the 1.8@2.0
- Sometimes I shot short video clips to use as transitions that make photo presentations more interesting. Pulling focus with the 1.8 is not just a PITA. It's close to impossible (especially when you want to use follow focus). It's much better with 1.4 - although it's anything but the smoothest USM MF Ring I used so far.
Bottom line: if you are satisfied with the 1.8's AF and you don't need 2/3 stops more light, keep the 1.8. If $1000 don't scare you off get the new 2014 Sigma 50/1.4A - it's incredible - it eats all canon 50mm for breakfast - at once. Even wide open it offers an IQ that up until now was only available for photographers who paid $4K for the Zeiss Otus.
Gr8.... Uh help me out.... Thanks for this explaination.....
The canon 50mm 1.8 is by far the most popular lens of all times from all manufacturers. It has the best value for money. Great sharpness and bokeh for just 100 dollars.💵 The next lens that every canon dSLR user should buy after the default kit lens. A real investment. Nikon doesn't have an equivalent lens at this price.
One of the reasons canon is leader in dSLRs.
The 50mm 1.8 is not supposed to have its focus wheel turned when set to AF. you can really damage the motor, I've learned that the hard way, just FYI.
Great videos Matt, and thanks for all your effort.
The 1.8 has not manual focus override... You're gonna crack your motor!
Really? ...so what does the a switch on the side that says "AF/MF" do?
I believe 2 versions came out, one has manual focus, the older ones do not.
He means overriding in autu focus which you only can in USM/Ultrasonic motors.
The 1.8 definitely has no manual override in auto mode.
Yes, you can do it, but you pretty much fight against the motor.
Exactly what I was thinking. Watch as he forces the focus ring. Good review otherwise but people say the 1.8 is prone to breaking. Prob only under force (like in this video!). Even if it did snap you can buy another and still be way under budget compared to the 1.4.
I've had the 50/1.8 mk I (metal mount and distance window), 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 at the same time for a while, but have since sold the 1.4 though.
The 1.8 is a fine lens, but in RL especially if you use Servo AI on moving subjects, it is slower to track and that's when it starts hunting.
The 1.4 is a bit faster under those conditions, but when it loses track it starts fluttering. The 1.4 can have a nervous looking bokeh at times.
The 1.2 has the best AF performance tracking moving subjects and under lower light conditions. But you have to watch that mid day sun.
At a real pinch the 1.8 mk 2 is nice, but I'd go for the 1.4 instead.
But the original 1.8 that's a different matter. Very sharp and a good (well 1980s) type build. If you can find one (look for people selling old EOS film cameras) buy it. I bought mine in mint condition together with a user grade EOS film body for EUR 7,-
The 1.2 is one of my favorites, but not as great as the 85/1.2 which is in a class of its own.
Never tried the the 1.0
Had a Nikon 1.2 for a while, that was interesting.
The reference prime lens for Canon is the 135 mm f/2 L :-) Very sharp, nice colors & bokeh, well-built, focusses very quickly, focusses very close, etc. etc. The 35 mm f/1.4 L is also very good and problem free as well. In the 50 mm length, the 50 mm f/1.4 is the best buy IMO (performance / handling is good, it is compact and light), but the AF mechanics break often so we, Canon aficionados as you call it, are desperately waiting for an upgrade to this lens.
I bought the 1.4 for one reason. Flickr has groups for everything and is an amazing resource. The group for the 'nifty fifty' had quite a few images of broken or damaged lenses, many owners were claiming that it was their second or third lens. In the group for the 1.4 there were (at the time) no images of broken lenses. I'm not in the habit of breaking lenses, but thought the more sturdy build was the way to go.
I guessed which photo was from which lens, I feel happy now :D
Mister fully plastic, really fantastic. :D Tutu tutu tutu....
Nice review.
I upgraded from the 1.8 to the 1.4 as its a lot less noisy and it hunts less, but the main reason is that I've broken 2 1.8s and the much better build quality really shows if you handle both lenses. The other interesting thing was said by a camera repairer, who mentioned that a fairly common problem was that 1.8's got stuck on the camera due to the plastic mount
That was a good review, but the one thing I was hoping to see was a shoot-off in low-light conditions. I would think that one possible reason to buy the f1.2 would be for improved shooting in low-light.
Never stop doing what you do. Informative and humorous... Much appreciated.
I will reiterate what others have said here; don't turn the focus ring on the 1.8 when set to AF, you are grinding against the focus motor when you do that.
I have the 1.8 MK I and have had the 1.8 MK II as well as used a 1.4. the difference between the 1.8's and 1.4 is barely recognisable in IQ and the focus speed is the same in both. The only thing you really loose with the 1.8 is the USM motor, but to be honest it focuses so fast that you barely notice it unlike in say a non-USM telephoto. The MK I 1.8 has superior build quality so if you can find one buy it but if not the IQ between the two 1.8's is the same.
I have the 1.8 and am happy with it. If it needs to be replaced, it's cheap enough to not be a concern. Thanks for the comparison video!
There is a good reason that 50mm f1.8 is called the classic "Nifty Fifty" and your video totally support the true merit of this under appreciated gem, plastiky, cheap looking but totally Priceless glass.
Thank you man!!! This is what I was looking for to see! I have 50mm 1.8 and now I want to upgrade to 1.4 so I wanted to see all this performances! Thanks again!
Thanks matt i am a wedding photographer in the uk and own both 50m1.8 and 1.4. I can say sharpness there is not much in it but in low light the 1.4 blows the 1.8 out of the water for focus speed. The 1.8 does focus to be honest but hunts a lot. And i find the 1.4 doesnt miss focus wide open has much :)
The 1.8 is pretty much the only lens I use on my EOS 300 film body, great combo, you won't be dissapointed!
Turning the auto focus ring manually is like restarting your car when the car is already ON!
Matt, the f/1.8 is NOT designed to manually adjust the focus while in AF mode. You'll risk ruining the motor. Only USM lenses are designed to allow manual focus adjustment.
I used to have 50mm F4 twice and it broke down and to got it fixed it cost me over £100 to get it fixed so I decided to invest on the 50mm F1.2L two years ago and is was a good idea
As someone with a misfortune for breaking expensive things, I love how you wave your hand around with the 1.2!
I'm upgrading from 1.8 to 1.4... I loved the 1.8 in terms of image quality vs price and tought me a lot but it really is like taking a toy from your lense bag, that's one reason. other is the extra light you can get (would be my fastest lense so far) but in practical terms and reason 3, will be to use it at 2.8 for shallow depth and very sharp subjet in focus...
id love to see low light tests on these lenses as one of the main benefits is supposed to be low light performance ive heard
It basically a full frame 60D! :) A tad better build, but there's so many similarities!
i actually giggled too and i didnt even see your comment
Cheers Matt. I tried to make a reasonable explanation for such a price hike in the 1.2 over the 1.4 outside of weather sealing, but failed. They couldn't make it a 9 blade for that price? lol. In this kind of lens where all three can do the job superbly, it really comes down to construction, so I'm with on Canon making a metal USM 1.8 that is maybe $200-250. At least then the cost can be justified.
Higher end 50mm F1.8 = Canon EF 50mm F1.8 I (not II). It has a metal mount and great build quality.
I've seen quite a few comparison videos of these 50mm primes. And clearly this is the best of all those videos. Does a very objective test. I was swaying towards the 1.4, but now i think the 1.8 is also something to be considered. Thanks for posting.
Thats messed up, i wasn't even watching the video. Had it running in the backround, and I HEARD you joke dropping the lense and my heart STILL stopped. :D
4:28. Wow, was always uncertain about this claim, but I finally got to see it.
I bought the old 1.8 with the number scale on it. It is ultra sharp and my go to wedding lens along side my 40mm 2.8
Actually the 1.4 is less then 3 times the price of the 1.8 (at least where i live) and there are other reasons to get it, like FTM, FF compatible and the same 58mm filter thread as the kit lens, so all of the filters you already have will work, more accessible focus ring, etc.
Hi Matt, I own the 1.8 and 1.4. I love both of them.
2 things about the 1.8. First, it has 5 aperture blades, not 6. Second, the motor inside the 1.8 is not USM, so of course, it focuses louder and if you keep overriding it, that would burn out the motor. It is simply not designed for overriding like those with USM. But the 1.8 is actually worth more than what it costs. Nice review as always, subscribed!!!
I initially bought the 1.8 but returned it after two days. I found focus to be hit and miss, sometimes front- sometimes backfocusing, especially bad in closeup situations and wide open (expensive if you're shooting film like I am and can't rely on consistently getting the shot in one, two frames). Manual focus also is pretty hard with the flimsy ring. Returned it, got the 1.4 and have never looked back. Much better build quality much better manual focus capability, much more accurate focusing.
I'm happy you confirmed what I already knew, since my budget it's not big enough for 1.2 I went for the 1.8 since from what I could tell by seeing pictures from both online there wasn't a significant difference.
Thanks for the review Matt. I have the 1.8 and I'm happy with it (although I had to adjust the micro-focus feature in my camera body because I was experiencing some focus deviation). Between f6.3 and f8 this lens is amazingly sharp.
Thanks for your effort... this video should be useful for anyone in the market for a Canon 50mm. The 50mm 1.8 is a nice performer and great for most people's needs, but I feel that a working pro work benefit with the 1.4's better built quality.
I bought the 1.8 a while ago and the 1.4 a few days ago. Yes, it costs more. But in my opinion the image quality and autofocus are better. Also you have the manual override, which the 1.8 DOES NOT have. You can override the AF but you'll screw up the lens. For the price of the 1.8 you'll get amazing quality, but the 1.4 is even better.
I really deals with the camera being used, not the lens. I have a Rebel XSi which hunts for focus at low light with the 50mm 1.8, but my Canon Elan IIe can grab focus fast with the 1.8 in the same lighting conditions thanks to it having an dedicated IR light. A lens can't fix the limit of the camera body's technology.
I agree. I think Matt should correct that.
Did i mentioned it has the best buildquality? .It is weathersealed. .it has a ground and polished aspherical lens element wich cost a fortuyn.The 85mm 1.2 has also and thats why both lenses so expensive.
not sure what you are asking
On your point about making a new 1.8, the 1st version of the 1.8 had a much better quality construction, the one you have there is a Mark II
I think your conclusion is bang on. The cheapie 50 1.8 is tinny, but for the price it's great. I have it on a full frame camera, and it takes better shots than I do. If I had the bucks I'd buy the 1.2, but why? I'm no pro. Thanks for a good review.
Need to see a comparison of image sharpness as well as a low light test. The 1.8 hunts and shutters like it's on a turbulent flight in anything but ideal light in my experience. I can't wait to replace it with a 1.4 and the price is coming down on that now because Canon will be putting out a 1.4II shortly.
I have owned a Canon EF 50mm F1.8 MK 1 version for about 30 years and never needed anything with a wider aperture
The MK 1 version has a thick metal bayonet mount a tighter focus ring and a distance scale for manual mode and not the self disintegrating barrel of the mark 2 nor the constant AF faults of the MK or the STM ( you will find loads of them for spares repairs on eBay or other site I am not worried about the older type of AF motor nor the slightly tight MF focusing ring that needs a proper photographer to use it or because there is a longer focusing travel from close to 10 foot after hat it's as quick as any newer lenses
there's rumors of a 50mm 1.8 IS, but Canon charges like $500-1000 more for just the IS feature on their newer prime lenses so we'll have to see! I think one priced in between the 1.8 and 1.4 with IS would be great. And like the others have mentions I didn't know the 1.8 had manual override? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
I first had the 1.8, but the bokeh is really crap !! Now the 1.4 is a large more better in terms of bokeh ... but really fragile. Canon changed the USM ramp twice !! But despite that I really love it ... Sharpness is not the all thing, creamy bokeh is cooool ! Thanks Matt again for making me spare 1000€ in the 1.2 ...
One of the best RUclips video qualities. Can you tell us what you are using ?
ONE MAJOR TIP TO SAVE YOUR LENSES: WHEN YOU TURN THE FOCUS RING SWITCH TO MANUAL FOCUS BECAUSE IN TIME AUTOFOCUS WIL CRACK... ALSO WHEN YOU TURN OFF YOUR DLSR SWITCH THE LENS TO MANUAL FOCUS
Thanks for the review Matt. I'm getting the 1.8.
I wish you did a low light test. I had the 50mm 1.8 II and it was horrible for grabbing focus in low light compared to the 1.4 and 1.2 even on my 1ds mk2. The 1.8 was fatiguing for me. I recommend it to beginners because of the price point, but most shooters who've used a lot of gear would most likely use the 1.4 professionally for the smoother bokeh, usm and better low light focusing abilities without the price of the 1.2
Thank you so much to "do canon" reviews also. I went to canon (hard to decide between Nikon and Canon), but I subscribed to your channel because you were the most real world reviews on youtube. I found many of your videos so helpful (the extension tubes are my fav video from you). Thanks again, and cheers from Sonora, Mexico. Happy "clicks"!
Awesome video and commentary 👌
Hi Matt,
I have the 1.8 plastic fantastic for over a year now and I´m not that impressed with it to be honest. The image quality is as you described it but the more you use the lens, the worse it performs in terms of focussing-speed. These cheap lenses are built to only last a few years and I already have problems with the little motor inside the lens.
New there might only be a litte difference between the three lenses, but the next lens for me is the 1.4, because it is better build.
Thanx
by the way, I totally agree, from everything that I hear....the 1.2 is NOT worth the extra aperture. Sure, it takes a nice picture from what I could tell, but defintely not worth over $1000 more than the 1.8, which takes decent pictures in it's own right. I say 1.4 if you're a professional (better build quality) - 1.8 for hobbyist
How so? The lens is where you control the amount of light that reaches the sensor through your aperture and shutter settings. If it were indeed my camera and not the lens, then that would mean shopping for lenses with wider possible apertures is a waste?
great review! i own a 50 1.8 II and its been with me throughout my travels and event its made out of plastic, it held up its own.
Thanks for the review but you didnt mention two VERY important things.
1. The difference in performance in regards to shooting in dark lighting.
2. The fact that the f1.8 does not perfectly fit the full frame sensor cameras (5d or 1d) without getting black corners.
I loved the song plastic mr. fantastic though lol
I've watched so many of your videos, I feel like I know you. Thanks for all the helpful, awesome videos. HUGE HUGE HELP!!
my 50mm 1.8 new nickname is plastic fantastic. I loved that name.
I looked at all three nad would have loved the 1.2L but ended up buying the Sigma f1.4 DG EX. A little bit more expensive than the Canon f1.4 but way better in my opinion.
Try the Nikon fit Sigma Matt.
Great comparison! Thank you Matt!
Thank you for making this video. I have a better understanding of which lens is best for me.
I own both the 1.8 and the 1.4 and I've shot them both in concerts. I prefer the 1.8 at concerts because I'm not afraid to get it banged up. If it does break (which has happened to my 1.8) it's not a super hard hit on the wallet.
Trust me, the 1.8 was let off easy in this review!
If you read the manual that came with the 50mm 1.8 it clearly says not to turn the focusing ring when the lens is in auto focus mode. You'll burn out the motor and grind the gears that way. I don't care if you waste your own money but don't instruct others to do the same!
Thanks for the vid.
I have a video background, but am diving into DSLRs and photography, and the 1.8 was always going to be my first lens focus. Your comparison combined with the price points, make me feel better about the decision.
This is so awesome. I was just milling over which lens to buy. and this was really informative. I hope you didn't have to buy all these lenses, because I would love to see more of these videos.
Great video. I am newer to photography, but I feel a lot more at east with buying the 1.8 and not feeling like I might be throwing my money away.
There's a 50mm f/1.2 af-s patent on Nikon Rumors, that's where I got it from.
share the love brother, share the love!
Would be interesting to throw in the Sigma 50 f1.4, it's my choice after the Canon equivalent and I don't regret the change
being large aperture lenses a low light test would be great as I personally use lenses like the 1.4 as a star trail lens but would love to have seen comparisons. Great review though, thanks and keep em coming.
Sharpness, contrast ,color these can be measured . How to judge bokeh ? Who set the rules, with what instrument ?
Good job. This is quality content.
...the Canon 40/2.8 is a better buy than both the 50/1.8 and 1.4. 40 is a bit wider and images from the 40 looks so nice, great bokeh and nice vignetting (built in instagram lol ;)
its not really necessary because its sucha a short focal length. and if they built it in it would add weight and bulk and would make it more expensive which is not what you want.
As a added info from my personal and unofficial "crash test" with the F1.8... The focus and motordrive shattered when it got dropped with the 500D. There is nothing taking any stress or impact from the outer shell and delivering it straight to the bits in the middle. Also, all gears and guids were 100% plastic. So not sure if it will last very long in active use. So yea, you get what you pay for. I personnaly wouldn't get another one, and I would save my money for the 1.4. And fuck no for 1.2 :D
bought the 1.8 last week .... for the price paid its an amazing lens!
Mat, you are wrong on your reply I think... Canon EF 50/1.8 and Tamron 90/2.8 are two lenses with a lot more focusing issues, especially in low light, at least on the 5Dmk2. The lens is a part of the problem, it isn't.just the AF sensor. Other lenses generally perform AF better. I.m pretty sure it isn't imagination.
The 1.8 is the best bang for the buck of any Canon lens
Very helpful video thank you my friend
In the bokeh of the 1.8 you can clearly see that it has 5 blades. And as Zach Ashcraft already mentioned, your eyes and your taste are the judge here.
king of the hill looks nice
What the hell Matt, Canon... I thought you were the Nikon guy.
Love the videos, and as a Canon user, its nice when you do reviews and videos on Canon gear. Cheers ;)
Oh and a proud 1.8 owner here ;)
Closest focus - hocus pocus. Great review. I've got he 1.8. I think I'll play with it a bit more now.
yes indeed,, avoid forced focus while in AF mode.
True Nikon man, trying to take the lens off the wrong way @ 09:35 ;)
Cheers, I sold the 1.8 for the 1.4 but to be fair the 1.8 was the best value for money lens I have ever had, so sharp at around f/5.6 !
Dear Mark, realy good Video but I would prefer some low light tests in the future
this helped, thanx, leaning towards the 1.2L
smallfaucet don’t we all... 😂😂