Canon 50mm F/1.4 vs Canon 50mm F/1.8 STM (Page 4): To me no there isn't a real difference, at least not enough to off set the difference in price. I have a f1/8 and it's an excellent...

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

MikeMcK wrote:

I have done a search and didn't find much to help me make this decision, so I am asking it here.

Is there enough of a difference between the 50mm F/1.4 and the F/1.8 to account for $200?

I have two STM lenses and have found them to be excellent.

My goal here is to be able to shoot my grandson in plays without the need for a flash, which isn't allowed.

thanks for your help.

To me no there isn't a real difference, at least not enough to off set the difference in price. I have a f1/8 and it's an excellent lens, sharp and crisp. I've included an example photo done under in home window light, see what you think. One thing I would caution you about doing shots like this one. At f/1.8 the DOF is extremely short so make sure that if you have more than one person in the shot you make sure they are equidistant from the lens otherwise you can experience focus problems.

Canon t3i / 50mm f/1.8

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

amfoto1 wrote:

Stage lighting is often brighter than one realizes, because it's spot lighting on only the subject that leaves the rest of the stage dark, giving the impression of low light. Before you invest in a big aperture prime lens, you might check it out.... Try to do some test shots if you can, perhaps during a rehearsal... And use the spot metering capabilities of your camera. Once you get some settings figured out, you can probably use them as a basis for all your shooting at that particular venue.

Another approach, if you can gain access to the stage during rehearsal, is to hold your hand up and get a reading under the same light as during the performance, and save that exposure reading for future reference.

MikeMck Loc: Southern Maryland on the Bay

Thank you.

Blasthoff Loc: Life halved NY and IN

MikeMcK wrote:

I have done a search and didn't find much to help me make this decision, so I am asking it here.

Is there enough of a difference between the 50mm F/1.4 and the F/1.8 to account for $200?

I have two STM lenses and have found them to be excellent.

My goal here is to be able to shoot my grandson in plays without the need for a flash, which isn't allowed.

thanks for your help.

If speed alone is the only consideration for $200, my advice is FORGET about it and don't look back. Solely on the context of f1.4 vs f1.8 has been vastly over-hyped for so long it's not funny. It's only 2/3 f-stop, or 1/80 vs 1/125, or ISO 160 vs ISO 100, take a pick. The point being, to the typical photographer,they are NOT far apart, certainly not $200 worth. The 50mm 1.8 will be every bit as "sharp". In fact, all things equal, a slower lens of the same focal length will always be inherently sharper, but the reason 1.4 versions cost so much more is in the optical design, which "corrects" much of the optical difference making a 1.8 and 1.4 pretty much equal.

That said, you should check out each lens in person. There may be "mechanical" differences between choices that affect you. Hopefully not. If both are fine to you, the choice is simple, buy something else with the $200 saved and stand proud on NOT succumbing to "snob" appeal. I'm not familiar with the Canon line so I can't recommend to you first hand.

mcmm Loc: Kansas

Why is the f1.2 not nifty? Price?

SharpShooter wrote:

No, only the $100 lens is nifty!!

The f1.2 if definitely NOT nifty!! :lol:
SS

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

mcmm wrote:

Why is the f1.2 not nifty? Price?

The term nifty fifty usually refers to low end 50 mm lenses like the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8, which costs around $100, one of the cheapest lenses available, with a mediocre plastic toy build, but with optics that provide results far superior to what one would expect. It's a decent fast primes lens, at a bargain price, that is affordable by everyone. That's why it's nifty.:)