50mm 1.8 vs 1.4 - sharper or just better low light?

shabba

shabba

Messages
936
Edit My Images
No
Is the Canon/Sigma 1.4 50mm sharper than its 1.8 sister? Or are you just paying for its lower f/stop and therefore better performance in low light?

I know the build quality is better on the 1.4, so I'd maybe guess the focusing is a little nicer too.

PS this is not meant to open a debate on the Sigma 1.4 vs Canon 1.4, thanks :)
 
shabba said:
Is the Canon/Sigma 1.4 50mm sharper than its 1.8 sister? Or are you just paying for its lower f/stop and therefore better performance in low light?

I know the build quality is better on the 1.4, so I'd maybe guess the focusing is a little nicer too.

PS this is not meant to open a debate on the Sigma 1.4 vs Canon 1.4, thanks :)
Click to expand...

I just sold my 50mm 1.8 and I tested it one last time against the 50mm 1.4 to make sure I wasn't just paying over the odds by keeping the 1.4.

My basic tests showed that the 50mm 1.4 was sharper at 1.4 than the 1.8 at 1.8. The 1.4 just showed a lot more clarity when I pixel peeped. Although the 1.8 is perfectly usable, for professional work the silent focusing, full time manual, better build quality and sharper wide open means the cost of 1.4 is justifiable.
 
Thank you.

I would assume it has a larger 'sweet spot' than the 1.8. I can't see ever needing to shoot that low.
 
shabba said:
Thank you.

I would assume it has a larger 'sweet spot' than the 1.8. I can't see ever needing to shoot that low.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I think around f2.8 they are pretty much the same and very similar at f2. Try the 1.8, its cheap as chips and if you don't like it you can pretty much get your money back and move onto something else!
 
the bokeh on the 1.4 is miles ahead of the 1.8 as well so if you are shooting wide open the bokeh is much better!
 
I have the 1.8 already.

Thing is when would you realisically shoot at 1.4? Surely that is far too narrow a DOF?
 
shabba said:
I have the 1.8 already.

Thing is when would you realisically shoot at 1.4? Surely that is far too narrow a DOF?
Click to expand...
I guess it would depend what kind of picture you're trying to create though. I've seen pictures shot at 1.2 that look really nice, and I thought it would be way too shallow DOF-wise.
 
Have a look at the Sigma 50mm 1.4 which I found to be quite better than the Canon one.

Not opening a debate, you will just see a bigger difference in quality, again from my own experience.
 
micloi said:
Have a look at the Sigma 50mm 1.4 which I found to be quite better than the Canon one.

Not opening a debate, you will just see a bigger difference in quality, again from my own experience.
Click to expand...

I've heard the Sigma is better and I guess that makes sense as it costs a fair bit more (% wise) and usually Sigma designed to offer better value than Canon too.
 
shabba said:
I have the 1.8 already.

Thing is when would you realisically shoot at 1.4? Surely that is far too narrow a DOF?
Click to expand...


DoF is only paper thin at close distances, once you back off a bit DoF increases and at f1.4 by 40 feet DoF will be over 10 feet and even at 20 feet DoF is nearly three feet (figures for APS-C) and you might find yourself wishing you had an even wider aperture to give you more options.
 
shabba said:
I've heard the Sigma is better and I guess that makes sense as it costs a fair bit more (% wise) and usually Sigma designed to offer better value than Canon too.
Click to expand...

It's Sigma's best 50; Canon's best 50 is the 1.2L, so it's arguable that it is better value than the Canon, considering the size of the lenses especially :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top