Which lense?

dazftw

Right ive already chosen to get the sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO Lense as a general zoom lense see what I can do with it!

I want to get the canon 50mm but not sure whether to go for the 1.8 or 1.4? I will be using it for portraits mainly is it worth the price difference?

Thanks

6th

I'll be watching this thread because I'm looking for a 50mm myself and finances tell me I hoping for good comments about the 1.8

elven

Do you plan to drop it? If so, the 1.8 is rather less hardy, and yet rather cheaper to replace

Build quality is your main factor here. And the noise - before I had the 100mm macro I didn't notice just how noisy the 50mm is for focusing. The 1.4 is seriously more discreet. Fajitas has one, and so does Leinsterman, as far as I know.

All I have to admit is that I think it's quite possibly on my future shopping list, even though I already have the 1.8 (ie I'd buy it rather than a lens of a different focal length) - and I'm *not* a gear-head.

DotOrg

dazftw wrote:

Right ive already chosen to get the sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO Lense as a general zoom lense see what I can do with it!

I want to get the canon 50mm but not sure whether to go for the 1.8 or 1.4? I will be using it for portraits mainly is it worth the price difference?

Thanks

firstly, it's lens, not lense

and secondly, there is a difference in feel and picture from the 1.4 and 1.8 but compared to the sigma lens you're buying the image quality of both should be a lot better so buy the cheaper 1.8 until you get to a point where you can see why you need the more expensive 1.4 version

DaireQuinlan

DotOrg wrote:

firstly, it's lens, not lense

Welll, as a (pedantic) aside, much as I also hate the word 'lense', it -is- actually accepted usage unfortunately. I view it as an aberation more along the lines of using the word 'loose' instead of 'lose' which seems to be all too common nowadays ...

yellowdoor

DaireQuinlan wrote:

Welll, as a (pedantic) aside, much as I also hate the word 'lense', it -is- actually accepted usage unfortunately. I view it as an aberation more along the lines of using the word 'loose' instead of 'lose' which seems to be all too common nowadays ...

Should it not be 'an aside', given that pedantic is in brackets!

Sorry for going off topic.

Oriel

yellowdoor wrote:

Should it not be 'an aside', given that pedantic is in brackets!

No.

dazftw

Lense.. lens.. pfft you still know what im talking about :P

Im going to be buying these lens's? lense's? ??? lol in B&H in New York next week so its going to be cheaper than here its just $300 so thats about €250 or less so I dont mind spending money while I have the chance!

Biro

I have the 1.4. I've used the 1.8. The quality improvment is there, but not gaping. The USM is the most noticable improvement, but the 1.8 is better value for sure.

jlang

I have the 1.8 and if value is a concern - get this one. It's great. I'm told and can see that the 1.4 is also great and I'd love to ultimately have one, but is it 3 or 4 times as good? Not in my opinion, but opinions do differ.

Although, if you're looking seriously at the 1.4, also check out the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It's in a similar price range, but gives what I would figure to be a more useful view for portraits. I'm not talking the staged, studio kind of portrait where you can use a long lens from the other side of the room, but rather pics of friends and groups milling around at wedding, etc. I originally bought the 1.8 for my Canon 50e film camera where it gave a similar view, but find it a bit tight on the 400D with it's 1.6x crop sensor.

Fionn

i've got the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II and its the biz as far as i'm concerned
you can get good info on the range og 50mm here
good luck!

sineadw

I have the 1.8 and I love love love it. For the price it really is a fantastic piece of kit. The ONE thing I'd say against it (and its something I'm only feeling now, and even then only on occasion) is its autofocus speed. Its slow, but I don't know if the 1.4's any better. I've taken to manual focussing a lot recently (hard to get a candid portrait when you're sticking a camera in someone's face for 5 seconds saying "hang on!.." :rolleyes: ).

trooney

Fed up being injured out at the mo - still - so placed an Albert order for the 1.8 and some ext tubes. Maybe the world of macro can help alleviate the boredom.

ps... got the 'nifty fifty' cos lots of peeps on here recommend it, cheers.

dazftw

Yea its going on a 350D so I was wondering about the crop factor ill most likey go for the 1.8 so ill save a bit of money and can go for something else maybe a flash. This is the 1st time since I got the camera ive actually bought kit for it, I dont know why I didn't before, maybe its cause I have money now :rolleyes:

Biro

sineadw wrote:

I have the 1.8 and I love love love it. For the price it really is a fantastic piece of kit. The ONE thing I'd say against it (and its something I'm only feeling now, and even then only on occasion) is its autofocus speed. Its slow, but I don't know if the 1.4's any better. I've taken to manual focussing a lot recently (hard to get a candid portrait when you're sticking a camera in someone's face for 5 seconds saying "hang on!.." :rolleyes: ).

The 1.4 is a good bit quicker, thanks to the USM. That's the main advantage.
Still, you would probably be better off getting the 1.8 and a Speedlite 430.

ThOnda

A little off-topic. I have 50mm prime form my film camera and I've never used it for portraits with aperture smaller (smaller number, bigger hole) than 2.8. The DOF is killing me and I have to be very precise using that lense with bigger hole, because of the DOF.
I guess that 1.8 + good flash is better choice for now. And maybe a Cactus wireless flashgun release.

Please feel free to find, correct and even PM me any mistakes in spelling or grammar.