Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 4, 2006, 8:31 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Striderxl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 300
Default

and was wondering if there was that much of a difference in the 50mm 1.8 and the 1.4?Since there is a big price difference.I am also going to buy the 28-135 IS cannon lens so I was wondering with the 20d if I would need the 1.4?I will be using the low light lens for my sons concerts and he has a cub scout camp coming up in July,so I dont know if the 1.8 is enough?



Thanks

Charlie
Striderxl is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 4, 2006, 2:46 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
mlhm5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 121
Default

A f1.4 lens is twice as fast as a f1.8 lens and about 3x the price.

Question is, do you need it?

I say no, unless you are shooting indoor sports and then you need f/2 or better. If you are using a digital camera because the DSLR Canon is noise free at an ISO of 800 and at 1600 there is hardly anything.

IMO f/2.8 looks pretty good for everyday shooting and you can get than on a zoom.

Save your money on the lens and buy a copy of Neatimage if you want to reduce the noise above ISO 800.

http://www.neatimage.com/




See for yourself

http://www.thezeal.com/photography/2...se-vs-iso.html


mlhm5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 5, 2006, 12:50 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

my main concern about having my sigma 30 1.4 is the thin DOF, rather than enough light. In most cases, I'll leave the aperture around 1.8-2.8 @ ISO 800-1600 . I'll only use 1.4 when I desire the DOF or when I ABOSOLUTELY need the extra light. There are only a few moments(I can only remember 3 instances in the past 6 monthes) that I had to use 1.4 & ISO 1600 for shutters speeds of 1/80-1/125.

But then again, my main photography is people. If you're at a concert, the distance b/t you and your subject may be large enough to increase the DOF to acceptable levels. One more thing that I've noticed is that my lens has a harder time focusing properly @ f/1.4 with subjects far away. If this behavior is normal for other large-aperture lenses, then you should ask yourself if it's really worth getting the F1.4 for concerts.
BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2006, 2:40 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
mlhm5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 121
Default

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Hyperfocal distance shooting should help
http://www.vividlight.com/articles/2314.htm
mlhm5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 6, 2006, 11:49 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 92
Default

I would take the f1.4: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/50v50

That said, I use the Sigma 30f1.4 a whole lot more than my 50 f1.4.
fstopjojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 3:46 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 28
Default

I am currently trying to decide between the sigma 30 1.4 and the canon 50 1.4. I am interested in your statement about using the sigma more often. Could you tell me a little more about why?



How do the two compare on other quality measures?
jcepp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2006, 4:04 PM   #7
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

jcepp wrote:
Quote:
I am currently trying to decide between the sigma 30 1.4 and the canon 50 1.4. I am interested in your statement about using the sigma more often. Could you tell me a little more about why?

How do the two compare on other quality measures?
I have the Canon EF-50mm f/1.4 - this lens is an antique by today standard...
(my copy @ least has considerable CA outside in bright light): http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65
The Sigma 30 f/1.4 EX in comparison was just released last year and is superb on a cropped dSLR!!! :idea:
-> check fstopjojo posting: http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/45926000/original
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2006, 12:37 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
BoYFrMSpC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 339
Default

Well, I wouldn't say the sigma's CA free- it does show up in situations (ie candle light in the dark). But I guess that's a situation where it's hard to avoid CA... I don't think it's as bad as NHL's posting.

I had to make a similiar decision before I chose the sigma 30. My reason over the 50 was because of the focal length. I was worried about indoor situations where I don't have a lot space to move around. Even with the 30, there are times when I'd like to back up more but can't. The only time I WISHED I had a longer focal length was trying head portraits.... And yes... even at an equiv 48mm for the 30mm, the head portraits aren't flattering...I ended up using the kit lens at 55mm... Being restricted to F/5.6 is far better than what I saw on that day with the 30mm...

Anyway, after the 50mm was out of the question, I compared the sigma's 30 1.4 to the canon's 30 1.8 which are similarly priced (in canada, at least). The sigma has a larger aperture and comes with the hood and case. The only advantage for canon is that it can be used on FF. But if I DID get a FF body, then I probably would not be using it often so why bother?

That was my little story of taking-the-whole-summer-of-2005-to-choose-a-lens... Do I regret? Nope

BoYFrMSpC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 11, 2006, 1:53 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
minutephotos.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 344
Default

I have used both the 50 1.8 and the 50 1.4 on a 20D and can not see any difference at all in picture quality. The 50 1.8 is plastica and very light while the 50 1.4 has the metal mount. The lens is so small and light I just don't see where the metal mount is even neccesary. I definately purchased the 50 1.8 becasue I have other lenses that also cover this range like my Tamron 28-75 2.8. With the 20d having such low noise even up to ISO 1600 the difference in 1.4 and 1.8 is just not worth the considerably extra money for a range that I really don't use that often. I am saving my money for the 17-40 F4L or the 16-35 F2.8L.




minutephotos.com is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:07 PM.