Well, before you place that order (or otherwise commit yourself), you may want to take a look at this article:QuoteFor image quality, the 50/1.8 is the best value lens in Canon's entire range. The only possible reason anyone could have for not owning this lens is because he/she already owns one of the other more expensive Canon 50mm lenses.Sold, will order one today
How well the lenses handle highlights. The f/1.4 seems to produce more pleasant results IMHO.Interesting! But it's still not clear what you mean. More pleasant in what way? Does the 50/1.8 produce a slightly bluer color balance, as opposed to the slightly warmer balance of the 50/1.4? You are not suggesting that highlight detail is actually 'sharper' with the 50/1.8 are you or that the 50/1.8 causes highlights to be more easily blown?
It's not a matter of over-exposure or color-casting (the 1.4 is dead-neutral in my testing), but a matter of how well the lens handles the transition to over-exposure.QuoteHow well the lenses handle highlights. The f/1.4 seems to produce more pleasant results IMHO.Interesting! But it's still not clear what you mean. More pleasant in what way? Does the 50/1.8 produce a slightly bluer color balance, as opposed to the slightly warmer balance of the 50/1.4? You are not suggesting that highlight detail is actually 'sharper' with the 50/1.8 are you or that the 50/1.8 causes highlights to be more easily blown?
Could it be that these two lenses require slightly different exposures for the exact same lighting conditions. This is a difference that seems apparent sometimes when I compare lenses before buying, with a few test shots. At the same aperture and FL, one lens might seem to require a slightly different exposure.
Mike Johnston gives this same example on harsh-highlights in SMP (02-09-22 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-09-22.shtml)) but I don't think the small image in the article fully potrays the effet. Search for the part where he covers the Nikon 50mm f/1.8.I'm none the wiser. It's impossible to draw any conclusions on such subtle matters from completely different images taken under different lighting conditions.
For image quality, the 50/1.8 is the best value lens in Canon's entire range. The only possible reason anyone could have for not owning this lens is because he/she already owns one of the other more expensive Canon 50mm lenses.Sold, will order one today
Thanks for the link, looks interesting,QuoteWell, before you place that order (or otherwise commit yourself), you may want to take a look at this article:QuoteFor image quality, the 50/1.8 is the best value lens in Canon's entire range. The only possible reason anyone could have for not owning this lens is because he/she already owns one of the other more expensive Canon 50mm lenses.Sold, will order one today
http://www.akam.no/artikkel/7065 (http://www.akam.no/artikkel/7065)
Although in Norwegian, the pictures are plainly marked and tell their own story.
In brief, there is another reason for not owning the f/1.8 lens: the f/1.4 lens is noticeably better at both sharpness and contrast.
I've been thinking of getting a 50mm 1.8 becuase I shoot a large amount of low light action, and flash isnt always an option.That depends on what your low light action is like.
(...)
So, i guess where I'm heading is this: if I don't stop it down, and I do use it wide open, how will it work for me then? I imagine that I'm not nearly as nit picky as some on this fourm when it comes to somethings, I would rather have a soft shot than no shot at all, but in your opinions will this work well wide open?
One reason I'm going to buy my second 1.8 ==> I dropped mine the other day and it broke. It didn't break because it was plastic, it broke because it fell from 7 feet onto a very hard floor.I dropped my 50mm f/1.4 on some cement from about 4.5 feet up. Luckfully the hood was mounted on it backwards which absorbed most of the impact and saved it. The rear element poped out but all that was needed was for it to be screwed back in and have the elements re-aligned. $70 in repairs. Pretty darn lucky.
Did I feel bad? Nope.
If I had dropped a 1.4 or my 70-200 I would have been sick to my stomach.
Daniel's points are all valid, except the 'silliness' issue. (That's just plain silly, Daniel :D ).
And I'm not clear what 'harsh highlights" mean. Perhaps you could explain that.
Interesting! Is this effect noticeable at f8 or just the wider apertures where one expects expensive lenses to be better? Next time I'm in Kuala Lumpur I might pick up a 50/2.8 macro which I believe is a notch better than the 50/1.4.Hmm.. I actually haven't paid that close attention to the aperture. I should. It doesn't seem to be any specific range, although f/4-f/8 is most used.