Is There Really-----: That much difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 Canon Lens ? Do you feel that the price difference is worth it ???

donrent Loc: Punta Gorda , Fl

That much difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 Canon Lens ?
Do you feel that the price difference is worth it ???

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

donrent wrote:

That much difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 Canon Lens ?
Do you feel that the price difference is worth it ???

I do.

The 1.4 is a great lens and worth the measily extra cash.

Have you seen the shootout between the 1.2, the 1.4, and the 1.8 on Digital Rev TV?
http://youtu.be/44FqqE6ukjY

photophly Loc: Old Bridge NJ

rpavich wrote:

donrent wrote:

That much difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 Canon Lens ?
Do you feel that the price difference is worth it ???

I do.

The 1.4 is a great lens and worth the measily extra cash.

Have you seen the shootout between the 1.2, the 1.4, and the 1.8 on Digital Rev TV?
http://youtu.be/44FqqE6ukjY

Great test.....Thanx

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

I shoot Nikon, not Canon, but the answer is the same. If you really want the most bokeh (least depth of field), you get the widest aperture (smallest f/#) you can afford. I have a 50mm f/1.2 and wouldn't trade it.

If you're not going for the most bokeh and will be shooting at f/1.8 or more, go for the f/1.8 lens.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

PrairieSeasons wrote:

I shoot Nikon, not Canon, but the answer is the same. If you really want the most bokeh (least depth of field), you get the widest aperture (smallest f/#) you can afford. I have a 50mm f/1.2 and wouldn't trade it.

If you're not going for the most bokeh and will be shooting at f/1.8 or more, go for the f/1.8 lens.

In the case of the canon specifically though the 1.2 is $1,400.00.

The 1.4 is $350.00 and is 90% the lens that the 1.2 is.

That was my point for posting the video.

Turbo Loc: Raleigh, NC

I bought the F1.8 for about $100 a few weeks ago. Great value for the $$ and crystal clear pics.

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

PrairieSeasons wrote:

I shoot Nikon, not Canon, but the answer is the same. If you really want the most bokeh (least depth of field), you get the widest aperture (smallest f/#) you can afford. I have a 50mm f/1.2 and wouldn't trade it.

If you're not going for the most bokeh and will be shooting at f/1.8 or more, go for the f/1.8 lens.

I don't mean to be rude, but bokeh is not the same as DOF.
Bokeh refers to the quailty of the out of focus background not the depth.

PrairieSeasons Loc: Red River of the North

photocat wrote:

PrairieSeasons wrote:

I shoot Nikon, not Canon, but the answer is the same. If you really want the most bokeh (least depth of field), you get the widest aperture (smallest f/#) you can afford. I have a 50mm f/1.2 and wouldn't trade it.

If you're not going for the most bokeh and will be shooting at f/1.8 or more, go for the f/1.8 lens.

I don't mean to be rude, but bokeh is not the same as DOF.
Bokeh refers to the quailty of the out of focus background not the depth.

Actually, bokeh occurs in the parts of the photo that exist outside the depth of field. They are closely related, and one uses a lens with a shallow depth of field in order to make a photo with the opportunity for bokeh.

You may not mean to be rude, but you do sound somewhat anal retentive.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

PrairieSeasons wrote:

quote=photocat quote=PrairieSeasons I shoot Niko... (show quote)

Well..they aren't the same thing and since this site is filled with people learning from what's posted, pointing out an inaccurate statement has some value right?

Don't take offense....they aren't the same thing though related.

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

PrairieSeasons wrote:

I shoot Nikon, not Canon, but the answer is the same. If you really want the most bokeh (least depth of field), you get the widest aperture (smallest f/#) you can afford. I have a 50mm f/1.2 and wouldn't trade it.

If you're not going for the most bokeh and will be shooting at f/1.8 or more, go for the f/1.8 lens.

bokeh depends on so much more than simply the aperature of one's lens

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

Anal retentive or not; it is important for beginners not to get confused. There is so much mis-formation abounding on the internet as it is, why continue that pattern.

If you find it necessary to be right, be my guest.

We may certainly disagree about a definition but value judging someone you have never met is a bit strong.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

donrent wrote:

That much difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 Canon Lens ?
Do you feel that the price difference is worth it ???

I don't have Canon, only Nikon. I had two 50mm 1.2, one 50mm 1.4, and one 50mm 1.8 all at the same time.

Sold three and kept the 50mm 1.8 for the following reasons.

1. Didn't use wide open that often, used a 105mm for portraits.

2. Most of the time I was stopped down to f4 anyway where I couldn't tell the difference in a 8 x 10 print

3. The 50mm 1.8 stops down to f22 while the other two stop down to f16

4. And finally, the 50mm 1.8 is cheap and a whole lot lighter than the other two so I don't bother with using any protective filters which is another sheet of glass that could cause aberrations.

docrob Loc: Durango, Colorado

just cuz i think beginner's should be a bit confused.....helps them work it out and learn.....maybe....me, i tend to be anal expulsive.

papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Boy, am I glad this is such a friendly place. Although I am glad one of you knows the difference between the two. Give me the correct information every time.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

papakatz45 wrote:

Boy, am I glad this is such a friendly place. Although I am glad one of you knows the difference between the two. Give me the correct information every time.

A few extra stops with film was a big thing back in the film days.

It's much easier with digital, you don't have to replace the roll of film, just crank up the ISO. And with the sensitivity in the newer sensors it pretty much makes 1.2 lenses unnecessary unless you're into portraiture and you want that extreme background blur.