I like your version of comparison for these two lenses.. I do like the 50mm 1.8 just couldn't put a finger on what it was missing for me, then I tried the 50mm 1.4 and my favourite thing is the colour difference I notice between the lenses. for me the 1.4 produces more colours but side by side both are sharp. As you say start with the 1.8 if new to photography and if you like this field of view down the line pick up a 1.4 if you want the extra bokeh.
I was also pretty impressed how much better such a "high quality" nifty fifty can be, but i only had el cheapo lenses like a 28-105mm USM allrounder for at least proper focus, one of the cheapest but at least "good" 50mm macros (Sigma 2,8 EX) and one of the worst teles money can buy (again, el cheapo EF 75-300mm but at least IS and "fake" USM)
I know this is an older video, but would you recommend either one of these for outdoor filming and vlogging? Maybe less vlogging filming one self, but in general. I've been using a GoPro and a Pocket 3 and really want to step up my game - especially for better colors.
It’s stupidly easy: if you shoot aps-c, you can get away with the 1.8 and it’s a great lense. If you’re on full frame, there’s no question about it, get the 1.4! Regardless what youtube tells you!!!
The build quality gap between the two of them is a lot smaller vs the 1.8 II compared to the 1.4. The STM is a lot closer and if you are upgrading from the older version, it might be all you need. Better build, better focusing and better ergonomics.
I probably wouldn't upgrade from the Canon 50 1.8 to the Canon 50 1.4 but the Sigma 50 1.4 is something I would totally look into. And again man, great video!
Yeah, unless they release a new Canon 50mm 1.4 for the same price, it’s hard to justify the price. The Sigma looks amazing, but very pricey. Thanks again, man!
Yesterday I decided to upgrade from 1.8 to 1.4. I was happy after watching the video but now I read the comments and I'm confused hahaha. I use it for toy photography and indoor pictures in general, maybe I should have stayed with the 1.8?
Am new to photography. Found the 1.4 used online for the price of the 1.8 and jumped on it. Hopefully I can make the best of it with my t7. Thanks for comparison
many people berate the f1.4 usm it is actually very sharp at f1.6, if you shoot real objects and not test charts i ditched my f1.8 without ever looking back much better lens in real world situations.
@@PaulHeimlund yup, it's very good for photography! for video work, it's always better to get a 45mm f1.8 prime from Tamron with image stabilization, if one is dead set on using a fast standard lens
Other than the better low light with the wider aperture, what would be the use of the 1.1? I saw some posted rare 1.1f for several grand on ebay looking into the 50mm and I would think the depth of field aside from 2 dimensional objects would be to short for portraits and more for scenery or something else I’m not aware of. From the comparison it looks like the 1.4f doesn’t give enough depth to keep a whole face/head shot in focus? Just got the 1.8 i. The mail and ugh, I hate it being plastic, had an older nikon manual 50mm prime and the build quality was great. Maybe there are older ef 50mm from canon, or do I have to use the RF mount for one?
Hi i paint small models (warhammer) they are like the size ish of lego characters and i have a canon camera would you say this is a good lens for pictures of them? Small and sharp ? Or is there something else you would recommend for DSLR
I'd recommend the 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro over the 50mm 1.4/1.8 if you're only photographing small models. Extension tubes can also work if you're on a tighter budget.
Yeah, I know man. I used the 1dx ii paired with a Tamron 24-70mm. I stopped using both that camera and lens a while ago as the af was next to unusable 😩
first of all, I must give you a big thumb up for your english. it is perfectly readible even for us - not using english daily. thanks for the comparison, it is very usefull. the result is the same like it was 10years ago. f/1.4 is not worth three times higher price. cheers.
Why the 50mm 1.8 STM is hard to attach to the camera? I bought this lens on the canon store and it came with fungus. And I didn't like the lens. That's why I was thinking about buying 50mm 1.4. Where I live (in Brazil) it coasts twice more expensive. About $ 260. While the STM coasts $ 140...
Weird regarding the lens mounting. It should work perfectly. I would go onto the store and show them the issue and then get a new one. $260 for a new 1.4 is actually a good deal if you decide to upgrade ;)
Maaan.. I just spent 200 dollars on a 50mm 1.4 lens .... I do have a 50mm 1.8 but not the original japanese made one and I was not nearly satisfied with it so thats why I ordered the 1.4 original. I hope its worth it man. I will be using it for photos only using my beautiful canon 5d classic which I am in love with the photos it takes until I used the fake lens.
Hey! There are many (boring) videos comparing the two. Image quality is very similar. For me the most important differences are highlighted in the video, which are bokeh/depth of field, AF, and noise ;)
Great video! I've actually owned the 1.4 for 10 years now paired with my 7D and I'm about to switch to mirrorless, wondering if I should sell it and get the rf 1.8 or just get the adapter and keep the 1.4
Thanks! The new rf 1.8 looks really good and you’d probably get better image quality, especially regarding chromatic aberration. I bought a $20 manual adapter for my Sony camera and use the 1.4 with that, although mostly as a b camera. So, I’d get the rf 1.8 and start out with a cheap adapter for the 1.4. You can always get an electronic adapter later on ;)
well, i had 3 options: 1) 1,8 STM for 120€ 2) a very old 1,8 50mm without even USM but "only" 40€ 3) 1,4 for 130€ Since i never plan to use the 1.4 or DSLR at all for video (thats the smartphone+gimbals job....) and the 130€ were still "cheap".... its just fine. I really love the big aperture, cant wait for the next live concert where i never catched enough light with F2.8-4,5 and/or the autofocus of my (only) 2.8 lens was slow af... The 50mm 1.4 catches a lot more light, love it!
@@Luggruff mine had a partially broken AF i repaired myself since the 1.4 is pretty easy to disassemble, repair and assemble again. But i realized not long ago its still not worth it, a cheap EF 1.8 or a RF 1.8 for EOS R cameras is just THE WAY TO GO You cant imagine how nicer the RF 50 1.8 is compared to the EF 50 1.8 or 1.4, especially on the EOS RP the RF 50 is a "beast" of a lens with this small and light body
i had a 1.4 and the aperture change never ever made noise, yours most be in need of repairs i had the 1.8 Mkii and it's very bad compared with the 1.4 and the latest ef 1.8 and the rf 1.8 is better than the others, i find it has less contrast than the 1.4 but at least it didn't miss half the shots i take like the 1.4. the 1.4 all have a problem of back focus in fact all the usm lenses i have tried have this issue but with the primes it's worse i have owned the 85mm (2 different) 50mm 1.4, 100mm f2 and 100m macro f2.8 they all back focused no matter which aperture they were set to
Honestly I can't find any reason to prefer the oldish 1.4 version. The extra stop is not worth the price. You can find the 1.8 stm version for as low as 50 euros used. That's not even a question. Easy win for the 1.8 nifty fifty.
more natural looking bokeh on the 1.4 (biggest reason btw, the 1.8s bokeh looks ugly/bad), partially better when it comes to astrophotography (regarding IR and overall light sensitivity) and sometimes a good deal on an old 1.4 can be good reasons to take the 1.4, at least these were my reasons to take a cheap (2nd hand) 1.4 over a not much cheaper (2nd hand...) 1.8. and as "little" the difference might be from 1.8 to 1.4 , at least from 2.8 to 1.4 down i saw a HUGE step which made my milky way photos a lot sharper than i achieved before.
@@mrnobody5763 definately talks about any older 1.8, considering he said "50 euros" he probably talked about the first generation of the nifty fifty. The only 1.8 STMs were even anywhere between 120-250€, the "OG" 1.4s between 100-300 depending on condition/damage and absolutely ONLY the 1.8s of the first generations were sub 100€ (but then also partially for 30€!)
I bought 1,8 STM and nearly threw it into trash. It is a great lens overall and incredibly sharp. Sharper than a lot of L lenses. BUT the character of it's bokeh is absolutely YUCK! Sharp edges, lots of doubling and staircasing of contrasty edges in the background. It is supposed to be smooth and flowy, but instead it is gritty and jagged. Shooting portraits with a church in the background - church suddenly has two bell towers, blurred, but two. If we go by the quality of bokeh - you cannot even begin to compare these two lenses. It is like comparing oranges and sand.
I have the 50mm 1.4 and I was wondering if I was going to buy the 1.8 STM second hand before it becomes more rare and expensive (Canon unfortunately stopping its SLR range...) The aim would be just to have a lighter configuration, but what you say about the bokey makes me hesitate... Otherwise, do you know if the bokey of the 40mm 2.8 is better? 40mm is also a good focal length, and if the rendering and the bokey could be as good as the Rokkor of the Minolta 7SII it would really be great!
@@luc5798 I honestly have the 1.8 and it's great! Now I would suggest something to you if you are going to spend money on the 1.4 I would not suggest buying it at msrp full price I would suggest going to the actual canon website and buying one refurbished for about 100 usd now if you buy refurbished make sure you only buy from the official canon website refurbished does NOT mean used most likely people sent back the lens because they didn't like it because it's nit what they wanted you also get a warranty camera lens retain their value even if used I would highly suggest if you buy the 1.4 to buy off of canon website refurbished
@@oliverpineapple9186 You didn't read what I said correctly, I already have the 1.4! And since the last time, I also have the 1.8 STM. I found it second hand, I couldn't resist! It's smaller and lighter than the 1.4, I hope that the quality of the photos made with it will please me!
The 50mm will act like a 80mm lens on a crop body.... because on a crop body - APSC, there is a 1.6x crop factor. So if you want a 50mm look on an APSC, you will have to go with a 28mm lens.... giving you 45mm.
BUT unless you have a mirrorless camera, you cannot use any "speed booster". But I can use a Canon 0.75X wide angle converter on my 50mm f1.8 at the front of the lens to get 38.5mm lens f1.4 for EF/EF-S mount APSC DSLR.
No there is not much difference in the aperuture any 1.8 and wider is enough the only thing that is good is the marketing ploy to sell expensive lenses
f1.2 and f1.4 lenses have 8 aperture blades. f1.8 STM lens has 7 aperture blades, older f1.8 II (non STM) lens has ONLY 5 aperture blades. Which lens will have rounder "bokeh"? If you go for 50mm f1.8 make sure it is the newer STM version with 7 aperture blades.
