Comparison of Canon's 50/1.2 vs 50/1.4 vs 50/1.8

[Michael]

Here's just a take on the 50mm for the 50/1.8 vs 50/1.4 vs 50/1.2 after having used all three...



Canon EF 50mm F1.8

The good things about this lens is basically, the price. It's cheap. You can purchase a few of it and go to war with Mother Nature. "Oops, I cracked the lens. No worries, got a spare." It's light too, so it's pretty handy to carry around. It's a very fast lens at F1.8 aperture and people will find this prime lens even better than many of the zoom lenses. I kinda feel that if you attach this lens to a EOS 350D or 400D and walk around, people might even think you have a megazoom P&S camera.

So what's the bad? Well, for a start, the micromotor in the lens is noisy. Often, in low light conditions, it hunts; Something you do not want to happen to you when you bought this fast lens for low light shooting. Manual focusing is a pain because of the loose and small focusing ring. Bokeh is terrible and weird and the images come out soft when shot wide open. Yes, lots of Canon users will recommend this lens, saying the quality is good and they can't tell the difference between this and the 50/1.4 but I have to tell you this, the moment you go Full Frame, toss this away - you no longer have the 1.6x multiplication factor to save this lens.

Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM

What can I say? It's a more expensive lens, more than 3 times the cost of the 50/1.8 lens. However, when you're talking about focusing speed, accuracy and control, the 50/1.4 USM wins hands down. Not only is it faster with it's wider aperture, the focusing is quicker, quieter and easier to focus manually. The focusing ring is pretty easy to adjust minor tweaks and it's bokeh is far superior to that of the 50/1.8 lens. Its build feels more sturdy and doesn't give this "cheap" look. Image quality is better in terms of contrast, colour and sharpness; Even when wide open, on a full frame, it's still way better than it's cheaper counterpart.

Canon EF 50mm F1.2L USM

It's an L. What more can you expect? Unlike the slightly warmer cast from the other two 50mm lenses, the image taken from this lens remains extremely contrasty and the colour is simply stunning. The flare control is wonderful, the bokeh is awesome and the focusing is extremely fast. Unfortunately, the size and weight of this lens makes it uneven holding with the smaller DSLR camera bodies as the centre of gravity now shifts toward the lens. Thankfully, it still is not too long such that it will droop when you mount this on your tripod, at least it's small enough to fit snugly into your palm.

50mm... They are all the same focal length, all equally fast, it won't make a difference...

Not true. You'd be surprised at the differences. It's not just about the aperture of fast lenses, it's also about the number of elements, groups as well as the blades that form up that aperture. Image quality of contrast and colour are also different between all three lenses.


Bokeh differences at F4.0, 100% crop.

The image above shows the different bokehs you will get for the 1.2L, the 1.4USM and the 1.8 all shot at the same scene. Immediately, one can notice the difference. The out of focus lights in the background are extremely round for the 50/1.2L and it still remains round even when stopped low down. It's quite hard to distinguish between the 1.4 and the 1.2 as they both are 8 blades but wait, take a look at the bottom right of the magnification loupe. See the roundness of the 1.2L? Now that sets apart the differences.

How about the build and handling?

The build quality is totally different. The lens elements on the 50/1.8 are made of plastic while both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 are made of glass. From the first look, you can identify the differences in their finishing. Built like a tank is the 50/1.2 very solid feel, heavy and the focusing is well damped. The plasticky 50/1.8 does not use internal focusing, so it's extremely difficult to mount filters in the front for usage. The 50/1.4 overall is one that you trade off quality and build, for price and portability. A lens drop test indicate that both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 perform quite well, nothing chipped off or damaged, with the 50/1.8 still in perfect condition while the 50/1.4 requires a little bit of calibration. The 50/1.2? Well, I didn't dare try...

Clearly, the F1.2L is the winner, so I should get that lens...

NO! The review is here to give you some ideas about the differences in the three lenses. It doesn't mean that you should always get the best. Think about your needs, and think which lens can satisfy your requirements. From there, you can move on towards a decision. If you are shooting events and need to avoid lens flare, then the 1.2L is indeed for you. Not only does it rarely hunt, the focusing is fast yet deliberate and it's often on target from the first press of the shutter...

So, what will you recommend?

If you are just looking for a cheap lens to try out your hand on primes, go for the 50/1.8 as it's not only very affordable, you are even able to do a technique called "reverse macro" using that lens and it's pretty fun and creative thing to do. However, if you are serious about shooting at night, during travels and would love a proper manual focusing ring, then the 50/1.4 is for you. Sure, you will still be nitpicking about the details and quality, but hey, at least it's about 5 times less than a 50/1.2L...

Any lens test? Can I rely on this?

Yes. This is assuming the ideal conditions that you manage to find the perfect copy of your 50mm. The truth is, there are a couple of lemon copies on the market, or even without so, the design is such that you will have to make do with the problems. Firstly, the commonly know problem of backfocusing does exist in the 50/1.2 which is totally a non issue with the other two lenses. A focusing chart found that it does back focus about 2mm from the focused spot. Although it may not seem like much, considering the depth of view of F1.2 and you'll realise that it is a very big issue. Nothing too worrying since you can still send it back to Canon Service Centre for calibration. Interestingly, the cheap 50/1.8 is found to be the sharpest among the lot when using F8.

Any statistics for the 50mms?



[under construction]

[espn]

For those who are interested in the 50 f/1.4, note that although it's fast, it's also easy to miss. The tolerable difference in DOF where you focus is very little, it's either u hit or miss (badly).

Good for low-light, but that's about the plus point from the way I see it. Speed-wise, 50 f/1.8 is sufficient for a lot of usages.

[chathamroad]

For those who are interested in the 50 f/1.4, note that although it's fast, it's also easy to miss. The tolerable difference in DOF where you focus is very little, it's either u hit or miss (badly).

Good for low-light, but that's about the plus point from the way I see it. Speed-wise, 50 f/1.8 is sufficient for a lot of usages.

Hi ESPN,

Thanks for your valuable input.  For that matter, there is really no real reason to buy the 50 1.4, as the only advantage is about 1/2 f-stop?

Is the 50 1.8 DOF also rather narrow?  I thought it's is not much wider than the 1.4.  If I shoot at, for example, f2.4 with both the 50 1.8 and 50 1.4, isn't the DOF the same?  If not, how much diffeerence?

Is there any difference in the quality of the glass used in making the 2 lenses?  What is the quality of the color and contrast?  If the only difference between the 2 lenses is 1/2 f-stop, why wound anyone buy the more expansive 50 1.4?  does not make any sense.  What do you think?

[Michael]

The bokeh, the slightly faster f-stop, the faster focusing and the quality of the glass in terms of colour, contrast and sharpness. I've found F2.2 to F2.8 remakably pleasant with both lenses however you're talking about the soft out-of-focus feel that the 50/1.4 gives that is so much better than the 50/1.8.

[kel]

The bokeh, the slightly faster f-stop, the faster focusing and the quality of the glass in terms of colour, contrast and sharpness. I've found F2.2 to F2.8 remakably pleasant with both lenses however you're talking about the soft out-of-focus feel that the 50/1.4 gives that is so much better than the 50/1.8.

agree, and the focus area is small...is either u hit or miss with a little tolerance...

[evershine]

Once you are used to USM, 50 F/1.8 can be very irritating!  The focusing speed and accuracy of 50 F/1.8 can be quite annoying and frustrating under lowlight. When i say lowlight i mean a cloudy day indoor.

Actually it can work quite well on FF with 50mm,but not for portrait, a tighter crop for shooting events or even night street shoot handhold @iso1600.

[jediforce4ever]

I don't like the color coming outta the two lenses...

[Michael]

For the amount you paid, I'd say it's acceptable.

I'd pick the 135/2 any day provided i have the cash

[jediforce4ever]

I'd pick the 35mmf1.4!!

[TP]

So, how is 50mm 1.4 compare with 35mm 1.4 on FF? Anyone has used both lens before? How is the vignetting of 35mm?

[Michael]

hmmm...

35F1.4L on FF


SLURP SLURP!

[sk.images]

Hi ESPN,

Thanks for your valuable input.  For that matter, there is really no real reason to buy the 50 1.4, as the only advantage is about 1/2 f-stop?

Is the 50 1.8 DOF also rather narrow?  I thought it's is not much wider than the 1.4.  If I shoot at, for example, f2.4 with both the 50 1.8 and 50 1.4, isn't the DOF the same?  If not, how much diffeerence?

Is there any difference in the quality of the glass used in making the 2 lenses?  What is the quality of the color and contrast?  If the only difference between the 2 lenses is 1/2 f-stop, why wound anyone buy the more expansive 50 1.4?  does not make any sense.  What do you think?

I think you're missing the point.  There are a number of reasons to buy the 1.4 (even though the 1.8 is bar far the best value EF lens availale). (Some already mentioned) - Contrast and colour are noticeably better in the 1.4, the focussing speed is significantly faster, quieter and more accurate (less tendency to hunt in low light) and build quality is significantly better.  Of course there are differences in the quality of the glass - in the 1.8 most of the glass is actually plastic.

I moved from the 1.8 to the 1.4 and don't regret it.

For those saying that shooting with the 1.4 is hit and miss - it is with the 1.8 as well under the same circumstance.  But this is only a problem if you are actually shooting wide open - which you rarely need to do unless its for a specific reason, e.g. very low light or specifically for the razor thin DOF.

[hwchoy]

the 50/1.4 has quiite a few more aperture blades than the 50/1.8 (well 8 vs 5 to be specific) and you get quite different bokeh and light spotting and star rays.

[benny]

How come the f/2.5 is not here?

Cheers,

[Michael]

Cause it's more of a macro lens. I don't bother. 100mm the way to go...