Canon 50mm 1.8 vs Canon 50mm 1.4

[mollycusack]

Hey Guys!
I am not very tech savvy- AT ALL!! however I am a photography student, 3rd year, assisting as much as I can, and keen as mustard even though I struggle with the techie stuff.
So I focus on wedding photography at the moment, as well as environmental portraits.
I have a Canon 5D Mk1 and my 2 lenses are 50mm 1.8 and 28mm 2.8
I love my lenses, but I want more!!!
In regards to wedding photography, what are the benefits of a 50mm 1.8 over a 1.4??
I don't work with zoom lenses and I probably never will, so if not the 1.4, what other lenses can you recomend for my kit?
-molly

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... In regards to wedding photography, what are the benefits of a 50mm 1.8 over a 1.4??
I don't work with zoom lenses and I probably never will, so if not the 1.4, what other lenses can you recomend for my kit?
-molly

None.

Since you are into classic, fixed focal length lenses, then perhaps the "classical trio" is in order: 28-50-135? Canon has a fantastic 135/2, but if it is outside of your budget, then 100/2 is the next best thing.

EDIT: I Initially misread the first sentence above to mean "benefits of 1.4 over 1.8", thus I answered "none"

[mollycusack]

I've just read about canon 50mm 1.2? is that much different than canon 50mm 1.8?
What is a Canon 135/2 all about?
Ta

[Ken Bennett]

You already have a 50mm lens, right? The f/1.8 version? That's a fine lens for now. A longer focal length lens, like the 100/2 or the 135/2 referenced above, will give you a tighter angle of view for portraits and candid action photography.

The 50/1.4 or the 50/1.2 have a larger maximum aperture, so they let in more light, at an increase in weight and cost.

Since you already have a nice wide angle and "normal" lens (the 28 and 50), the next logical lens would be an 85, 100, or 135. In my personal opinion, the 100/2 is a good choice. All that said, if you are willing to try a zoom, and have some extra cash, the 70-200/4 or 70-200/2.8 really are worth every penny to a professional wedding photographer. The f/2.8 is the better choice for this, but a lot more expensive. (Makes the 100/2 look like a bargain :-)

I always let my assistants and students borrow gear. Perhaps the photographers you are assisting can talk with you about your choices.

[scooby70]

I'd go (indeed I did go...) for the Siggy 50mm f1.4. I haven't seen a review yet in which the Canon 50mm f1.4 beats it, the Siggy seems to win every one, and I think it'll give you better bokeh than the 50mm f1.8.

You may also want to take a look at the Siggy 85mm f1.4. I have both their 50 and 85mm f1.4's and they're both very good IMVHO and the 85mm is if anything better than the 50mm. They both work very well on my 5D.

If funds allow I'd also ditch the 28mm f2.8 and go for a f1.8.

[Bernard ODonovan]

''environmental portraits'' = 35mm (you have two nice alternatives though)

''In regards to wedding photography, what are the benefits of a 50mm 1.8 over a 1.4??'' = The 1.8 will be smaller, lighter and cheaper to replace if you break or loose it 

''so if not the 1.4, what other lenses can you recomend for my kit?'' = The 85mm would be a nice next step. Very useful portrait lens. The 135mm can be a bit long depending on what your shooting so if your not sure, the 85mm is both a classic and safe next move. Do try a 100 or 135 though as you may like them. The world looks pretty full frame on a 135mm, so if you can handle the increase in focal length then you can get some nice effects. The Canon 135mm F2 is a nice lens, very sharp and nice out of focus, same for the Canon 85mm F1.8. The 135mm with a hood on is significantly bigger than what you have used but still quite a light and well balanced lens. You may consider the 100 as a go between if your unsure between the two.

Google wedding photographers and the kit they use and view the effects they get. Try to find out what combination and processing was used to get an end result. If they crop it could be misleading, so read and check as much as you can...

[DaveCurtis]

I would look at the 85 f1.2. It has great bokeh. The 50mm f1.2 is nice too when shot wide open or their abouts. The 50mm f1.8 is  good value lens. Very sharp when stopped down. As a portrait lens at f1.8 it wouldn't be my choice.

If you wanted to go wider the 35mmf1.4L is nice or my choice, the newish Zeiss 35mm f1.4 (manual focus and big and heavy but amazing bokeh)

[Jim Pascoe]

I am going to assume that you do not want to spend a fortune - based on the gear you already have.  The Canon 50mm 1.4 is not that well made, the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is better.  But your existing 50mm lens is fine.  The Canon 135mm f2 is a beautiful lens and you will be astounded by the quality.  However for weddings it is on the long side considering it is not a zoom and without an image stabiliser is tricky in the very low light you can encounter at weddings.  The 70-200 IS lenses are much more practical despite the fact I use mostly primes for weddings now.  Personally the 85mm 1.8 is a much more useful lens most of the time because it is light, small, and produces excellent images.  The 100mm f2.8 (the older one) is also good as it is also a macro.  However the 28, 50 and 85 would be an excellent wedding kit because it would cover 90% of the needed range, is very light, and also very cheap!  If you have any more funds I would certainly make sure I had a second body which is needed as a backup, and also means you can run two cameras with different lenses, very useful when using primes.  In fact, if you are photographing a wedding on your own, having a second body is much more necessary than any new lenses.

The 50mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.2 produce great images but they are very expensive, VERY heavy, and in the case of the 85, personally I would rather use the 85 1.8 for weddings (the 1.2 is just a crazy weight for a prime).

Jim

[hasselbladfan]

Fully agree about the 135mm/2. One of the best AF portrait lenses.
IMO, head and shoulders above the 100mm.

[hjulenissen]

I use a crop camera, so my preferences are perhaps 1.6x wider than yours - when comparing lenses mm for mm.

I have the 50mm f/1.8 II and use it a lot. It is cheap, light and works in low light.

I also have the 85mm f/1.8, that is supposedly very similar to the 100mm f/2.0 that many people have recommended here. I think that this would shine (even more) on FF than on crop.

Canon does have some medium tele macro lenses that can do double-duty as portrait++.

-h

[graeme]

I'd be slightly concerned about using the 50 1.8 for professional work - it feels very cheaply put together. I had one which hadn't been used much that that stopped working. Very sharp for the price but I thought that the bokeh was a bit rough. I suppose it's so cheap that you could get a second one as a spare.

Graeme

[Bernard ODonovan]

''I've just read about canon 50mm 1.2? is that much different than canon 50mm 1.8?''   = It's more expensive, heavy and bulky. Canon probably brought it out as a sort of ''85mm F1.2 for cropped frame'' as much as another 50mm for full frame. Canon's EF 50 History is a little strange.

EF 50 F1.0 = Soft but does get sharp by F8 so still usable. Very heavy lens with slow moving focus for a 50. Floating optics meant it was delineated and so similar to a good Macro lens, it did not have barrel or pincushion distortion. It was very rare and very expensive.  Quiet Ring USM using fly by wire focus

EF 50 F2.5 Macro = Great lense. Probably too slow for you but a nicely delineated lens with good optical performance. Noisy motor focus

EF 50 F1.8 = Some say sold at a loss to help launch the original EF system. Very sharp at F8. Bokeh fine for soft effect wide open, the aperture blade between extremes may give rougher bokeh but for most it is a great lens. Noisy motor focus

EF 50 F1.8 MK2 = The same optics as the original it went on to replace, save for a different mounting of one element. Lots of plastic including the mount. Noisy motor focus

EF 50 F1.4 = Nicer Bokeh then the F1.8 versions but the USM was not a ring motor (Canon experimenting again on their 50mm's). So some did not love it for that reason. More distortion (Barrel) than the F1.8's

EF 50 F1.2 = More recent. No floating optics and distortion to match. Seems more suited for crop frame users. Some would have preferred a really good 50 F1.4 L lens, but Canon seem to play around with this focal length were other makers tend to refine it. Still some must love it, especially if they need the F1.2. Quiet USM and good build quality

''What is a Canon 135/2 all about? ''    = Buy it if you like the focal length. One of Canon's all time best lenses.

[LesPalenik]

what are the benefits of a 50mm 1.8 over a 1.4?

Less expensive, smaller and lighter.
Although quite sharp, 1.8 is cheaper built with a plastic barrel and lens mount. The MF ring is practically useless, without distance window or marking.

1.4mm lens is overall slightly sharper, has better colors, a nicer bookeh, and quieter AF. It will last much longer and it is a much better choice for video.