I've not tried either lens so I have no personal experience to lend you. But, whenever I have been torn between two lenses I check out this site:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...s-Reviews.aspx
The two lenses you are interested in have full write ups. There is a nice feature that allows you to compare test shots with each lens.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=0
Both compared at 1.8, the 1.4 lens looks better to me. On top of that you get a 1.4 aperture, better low light and bokeh.
The reviewer has put together a nice comparison of Canon's three 50mm prime lenses.
Quote:
The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens is the low end 50. It delivers very good image sharpness - especially for the extremely low price. It is even slightly sharper than the f/1.2 from f/2.8 through f/8 or so. It is very light (4.6 oz/130g) and very small (2.7" x 1.6"/68.2mm x 41.0mm - WxL). CA is minimal.
The downsides ... First, the lens feels like a toy (for the relative price, it is practically disposable). It has all-plastic construction including the lens mount (the optics are glass of course). A 5-blade aperture delivers a very harsh background blur quality and flare is a problem for this lens. It delivers only adequate color compared to the two other 50s. AF is noisy and the MF ring is barely useable - there is no FTM and no distance window or markings. The 50 f/1.8 extends up to 5/16" during focusing. But, it is a very sharp lens for a price that is a small fraction of the cost of the 50 f/1.4.
The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens falls in the middle of the three 50s I am discussing in many ways. It has the middle price, the middle build quality (decent), the middle weight (weighing 10.2 oz/290g), the middle size (WxL: 2.9" x 2"/73.8mm x 50.5mm) ... It delivers the middle background blur quality - much better than the f/1.8 but not as good as the f/1.2. It shows the middle amount of CA, but often shows strong halation at f/1.4 (yields a soft, dreamy look). It also shows the middle amount of flare - noticeably less than the f/1.8 and noticeably more than the f/1.2. Again, in the vignetting category, the 50 f/1.4 delivers better performance than the f/1.8 but does not perform as well as the f/1.2 (at the same aperture settings). It is slightly sharper than the 50 f/1.2 from f/2.5 through f/8 or so and slightly sharper than the 50 f/1.8 at all comparable apertures (the f/1.8 wins some Full Frame corner comparisons). The 50 f/1.4 quietly focuses slightly faster than the f/1.2, but is not well damped. The f/1.4's MF ring is much more usable than the 50 f/1.8's but is not nearly as nice as the 50 f/1.2's. Like the 50 f/1.8, the 50 f/1.4 extends up to 5/16" during focusing. My 50 f/1.4 exposes 1/3 stop brighter than the other two 50s (the other two being correct). The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens delivers excellent image quality for the price.
Although the maximum aperture opening differences between these lenses is obvious, the affect of the lens design and aperture blades on the background blur is not. In the above comparison image, the background blur of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens (left), Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens (middle) and Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens (right) are presented. These pictures were taken using identical (neutral) settings (that include an f/2.8 aperture). A tripod was used - the camera was focused on a stationary test target. In the top row of pictures, the difference in background blur harshness is easily seen. In the lower row of pictures, the effect of the shape and quantity of the aperture blades can easily be seen even at the relatively wide f/2.8 aperture. As I noted before, the f/1.2 performs best in the bokeh category - followed by the f/1.4.
|
Hope that helps.
Linear Mode
