crphoto8 Loc: Anaheim, California

Hi,

I've a Canon 50mm/1.8 lens and would like to hear advice about acquiring a 50mm/1.4.
Is it worth it? If so, should I get Canon or a 3rd party lens?

Thanks

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Consider the Sigma Art .

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

The Canon lens is cheap and engineered to work with your Canon camera.
It's more than sharp enough and will hold good resale value.
I don't recommend 3rd party lenses over Canon lenses and you'll NEVER need a dock! 3rd party are rarely as reliable. Good luck
SS

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I've read reviews that say the 50 f/1.8 is as good as the f/1.4 and the f/1.2 from about f/2.8 onward. The f/1.8 models are cheap and cheaply constructed with the top line performance. The Sigma Art is the 1.2L competitor although the aperture does not go as wide.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Lotsa blanket statements in their my friend :) That might have been true in the distant past when the dinosaurs roamed the earth but now, it's not.

However, having said that, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 being as cheap and small as it is...is fine for the OP's use unless the current 1.8 just isn't doing it for him/her.

The Sigma ART lenses are awesome..just stunning, but mucho-expensive compared to the Canon.

Zone-System-Grandpa Loc: Springfield, Ohio

++++++++++++++++++++++

I Will agree with you ~> Sigma's Art series lenses are awesome! My arsenal includes a few and it must be said that Sigma's art series lenses produce beautiful results across all spectrums and they are also built like a tank. Sigma does not cut corners when it comes to putting quality into their Art series lenses and I will even go on to say that they surpass the quality of many Nikkor lenses and Canon L series lenses that I have.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

could not agree more with you on this one. canon made great 50mm f1:1.4 lenses, all through the decades, beginning with their rangefinder cameras.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The best answer I can give you will depend on how comfortable do you feel using the f1.8 lens. I believe there is a 2/3 difference between the f1.8 and the f1.4 and you should ask yourself if 2/3 extra stops of light is more useful for you. The price will also make a difference.
I do not use Canon but I know the 50mm f1.8 lens is an excellent performer.
Whenever possible stay with OEM lenses.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Actually the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is a mediocore 50mm prime by today's standards. Many people have had problem with the build, not to mention focus issues and less than stellar softness. It is well past time to retire it for an updated version. Your personal feelings about third party lenses aside, there are much better choices out there.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

On a Canon 5Dr, the Sigma 50 f/1.4's light transmission passes almost as much light as the faster Canon 50mm f/1.2. The Sigma is also so much sharper than the Canon that the tested numbers might make you think there was a mistake somewhere. The Canon also has significantly higher vignetting and an absolutely huge amount of chromatic aberration by modern lens standards. Here are the DxoMark test results. The performance of the Canon 50mm f/1.2 is generally mediocre by modern standards. Its claim to fame is the very thin f/1.2 aperture.

Sigma 50mm f/1.4
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Sigma/Sigma-50mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon-mounted-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R__1009

Canon 50mm f/1.2
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Canon/EF50mm-f-1.2L-USM

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

It depends upon which 50/1.8 you have.

If it's the II or the original, the 50/1.4 has subtly better image quality and much better autofocus performance (the f1.4 is faster, quieter and more accurate). If yours is the 50/1.8 STM, you would see less improvement in image quality and autofocus performance, though the f1.4 is faster (but no quieter and not as smooth running)

The Canon 50/1.4 tends to be a little soft wide open... usable, but not at it's sharpest until it's stopped down to f2 or f2.2. The same is true of the f1.8 lenses, except are sharpest at f2.6 or f2.8 and beyond.

The 50/1.8s have a fairly deeply recessed front element, so might not need a lens hood. The 50/1.4 requires a hood (sold separately). The hood not only protects the front element from oblique light, it also protects the front barrel and, when reversed for storage, the focus ring from bumps. This is important because the 50/1.4's AF is a little fragile. It's not "true USM", but sort of a hybrid and the mechanism can be damaged by a hard bump on the front barrel (when using it) or on the focus ring (when it's stored, with the front barrel is fully retracted by setting focus to infinity). The 50/1.8s are simply lightly made and pretty plasticky in general. The STM and the original at least have a metal bayonet mount... the II has a plastic one! More than a few 50/1.8s have simply broken in half. So, short of the 50/1.2L for a whole lot more money, none of the Canon lenses are all that sturdily built.

Not that the 50/1.4 is bad. It's been around a long, long time (way overdue for an update) and there are probably hundreds of thousands of them that have given long, reliable service. I bought mine used about 12 or 14 years ago and have used it a lot in more recent years. I actually didn't use it much when I was shooting film (just not a big fan of 50mm on full frame... only bought it because I got a great deal), but I really I like it as a short telephoto portrait lens on my APS-C cameras and have used it a lot since I switched to digital. It's still working just fine after all these years, with minimal, reasonable care.

The Sigma lenses feel a lot more sturdily built. But they haven't been around nearly as long as the Canon 50mm lenses, and it's unlikely that as many have been made. So it's anyone's guess if they'll prove to be longer-lived and more durable. Both versions of the Sigma lenses are sharper wide open, but the original is less sharp beyond f5.6 (I don't know how the current "Art" compares). The background blur of the Sigmas is very nice, too... The 50/1.4 is quite good, too. The 50/1.8 STM is decent in this respect, too. The two earlier Canon 50/1.8 don't render as good background blur (fewer aperture blades).

The 50/1.8 also aren't quite as good handling flare and give slightly lower contrast and a little less color saturation than the Canon 50/1.4 or Sigmas. But the difference isn't all that much. You pretty much have to put test shots from each next to each other to see the difference.

There are quite a few comparisons out on the Internet. I suggest you do a search.

The EF 50/1.4 USM is one of the oldest Canon lenses in continuous production (23 years). It's way, way overdue for an update, perhaps along the lines of the EF 35/2.0 USM IS, EF 28/2.8 USM IS and EF 24/2.8 USM IS (all of which were significantly updated in 2012). I have little doubt that if/when they update it, Canon will stick IS in it (which it doesn't really need) and charge $150-200 more for it. The main things I'd like to see changed are a new aperture with 9 curved blades and a "true" USM focus system. Some tweaks to the optical formula might be nice, too.