# 5D Mark III & EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens or 1.4



## Realgeni (Mar 11, 2012)

What do you recomend?

1.8 or 1.4?

I am more leaning towards 1.8 since Mark-III had better ISO and also 1.8 is much lower priced compared to 1.4


----------



## stilscream (Mar 11, 2012)

really? you're thinking about putting a $100 lens on a $3500 camera? Spend extra $$ on your lenses and you'll be happy you did. The 35mm f1.4L USM is a great lens on my 7D. FYI.


----------



## Realgeni (Mar 11, 2012)

Well when I a spending $3500/- on the body, I want to take advantge of the power and features of Mark III, but also save money by choosing wisely.

Any better suggestions based on experince with 1.8 and 1.4 would be apprecited, not just based on the price difference.


----------



## thien135 (Mar 11, 2012)

1.4 of course... btw, like the comment above.... invest more money in lens lol


----------



## Fleetie (Mar 11, 2012)

It does seem a little incongruous, or unbalanced, but from what I have read, the 50/1.8 II is an extremely sharp lens once it's stopped down a bit.

It won't give you much OOF blur / bokeh, but if all you want is sharp images at a fixed 50mm, then it should be fine.

FWIW, I use the 50/1.4 and I am very pleased with it. It's quite a fast lens, too, by which I mean that although it's "only" an f/1.4, it actually lets more light through wide-open than my old Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/1.2 lens does! I.e. its T-stop rating must be quite good.

The 50/1.4 has more iris blades than the 5 (IIRC) of the f/1.8. so OOF point light sources will look more round (i.e. better) on the 1.4 than the 1.8. On the 1.8, such OOF blobs are rendered as pentagons, pretty much.


----------



## jrista (Mar 11, 2012)

I would venture that when you reach ultra-wide apertures like that, its not as much about lens speed (you really aren't gaining all that much from 1.8 to 1.4 (2/3rds of a stop under the best of conditions, not factoring in the effects of vignetting). Ultra-wide apertures give you very thin DOF, extra creamy boke, and a often a bit of feature-and focus-softening spherical aberration. 

Due to the effects of vignetting, you lose about an extra 1/3rd of a stop on the f/1.4, so your total speed gain is probably closer to 1/3rd of a stop than 2/3rds of a stop over the f/1.8. The f/1.4 is a better built and designed lens (its not all plastic like the 50/1.8), it has a better diaphragm that produces much nicer OOF blur (boke), and that extra 2/3rds of a stop gives you a thinner DOF and larger maximum blur circle. It maintains a bit of CA and spherical aberration at wide apertures that help soften focus (nice for portraiture.) Its super sharp stopped down to around f/2 or smaller. If you need all that for what you shoot, then I'd get the f/1.4. If you are thinking about lens speed, your probably not going to gain as much with the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 as you might think. You would need to go to the 50 f/1.2 L to really get a useful improvement in terms of lens speed over the f/1.8 (given that it has about the same vignetting at f/1.2 as the f/1.8 at max aperture.)


----------



## Positron (Mar 11, 2012)

Even though the 1.8 is a better value per dollar, the 1.4 is definitely a better lens. I'd think on a FF camera you'd want it even if only for balance, but you also get the benefit of faster focus, better bokeh, and the fact hat stopped down to the same aperture it's slightly sharper -- along with the obvious fact that if you need the 1.4 you have it. You do get a real improvement for your extra $250.


----------



## Gagan (Mar 11, 2012)

I agree with the other posts, spending another $250 and getting the 50mm 1.4 would not only a great investment, but also a great lens for your bokeh. Ever since I purchased my 50 1.4 I have never gone back to use the 1.8. The body is solid, very sturdy and the quality of pictures is amazing, it will become your everyday lens and would be a great fit on the 5d Mark III.
On the other hand the 50 1.8 build quality is very cheap, it is a plastic body. 
Although the picture quality is great on the 1.8, I would highly recommend getting the 50 1.4


----------



## sandymandy (Mar 11, 2012)

50mm 1.4. It got better build quality and faster reliable focus. The 1.8 can sometimes get annoying focussing crappy. Dont forget to add lens cap ES-71II


----------



## Realgeni (Mar 11, 2012)

Thank you everyone 

Looks like 1.4 it is.

Main purpose would be for Potriate and Indoor shooting.

What other situations have you used this lens for?


----------



## DJL329 (Mar 11, 2012)

Realgeni said:


> Thank you everyone
> 
> Looks like 1.4 it is.
> 
> ...



I use the 50mm f/1.4 as my "walk/hike around" lens, unless I'm out specifically shooting wildlife. Nature and landscapes (use the 28mm f/1.8, too) are my typical subjects.

If shooting portraits is one of your main purposes, also check out the 85mm f/1.8.


----------



## Jamesy (Mar 11, 2012)

I have owned both the 1.4 and 1.8 and shot them on a 40D and 5D classic. I agree that the build, AF and bokeh are superior on the 1.4 and it is better balanced on the pro-sumer/pro bodies. That said, I found a lot of CA and purple fringing on the 1.4 copy I owned - upon further research I found it is very common with this lens.

I have heard many people people are very happy with the Sigma 50/1.4, it is a newer design and heftier piece of glass - it has a 77mm filter size. There are focus issues with the Sigma so it may take persistence to find a good copy.

As DJL29 said, the 85/1.8 on the 5D(*) would be great for portraits - I have one and it is one of my favourite lenses.


----------



## thien135 (Mar 11, 2012)

btw, if u need a portrait lens . Sigma 85 1.4 is an excellent one. Very sharp


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 11, 2012)

Realgeni said:


> Thank you everyone
> 
> Looks like 1.4 it is.
> 
> ...



For a low cost portrait and indoor shooting lens, consider the 85mm f/1.8 first. Its the traditional portrait focal length and very food indoors.

Go to the Canon Refurb site and register for their e-mails. Then, when they have a 15% discount day, those who register get the code 1 day early and can quickly snap up a lens.

I've bought a few there, they are in as-new condition.

Note, they do go in and out of stock so check frequently, particularly on Fridays.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductListingViewAll_10051_10051_-1_22751_lowPrice_list#


----------



## libertyranger (Mar 11, 2012)

I'm actually in a similar situation. I currently own a T3i w/ the 18-55 kit lens. I'm selling it to offset the cost of a 5D Mk. III and one lens. I've been debating the one lens I want to get, but I have narrowed it down to a prime for best picture quality. I find that most of the pictures I take are around the 50mm point so I can just zoom with my feet...

Anyways, I am leaning towards the 50mm 1.4 lens too. Do you guys think it will be a good lens optically for the 5D? I don't want to have a nice body with a poor lens. I know it's more important to have good glass than a fantastic body.


----------



## mauro.canon (Mar 11, 2012)

50mm 1.4

from photozone.de
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/564-canon50f14ff?start=1

50mm 1.8

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/415-canon_50_18_ff?start=1


similar for aperture> 2.8


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 11, 2012)

I've used the 50 f/1.8 II on my 7D for portraits, and a 35mm for full-body portraits.
So on a 5D3, the 50 would be for full-body portraits and you'd need an 85mm for head/shoulders (body if you can step back far enough).

Frankly, I'm not the biggest fan of any of the current EF-mount 50mm lenses.
- The 50/1.2L I borrowed from a friend last week, shot on his 5D2 and my 7D. Great bokeh, the f/1.2 really helped in low-light, but wide-open it's just a bit soft. Not bad soft, but it's way better stopped down (at which point, why are you paying triple for the extra half-stop?).
- The 50/1.4 i've never used, it's the sharpest of the 3 for (most of) the same apertures, but a lot of people complain about the build and weird usm. Hexagonal bokeh is better than the 1.8, but not as nice as the 1.2. This will be next updated (of these 3).
- The 50/1.8 II, well you get what you pay for in build quality, AF in really low-light on my 7D is pretty much non-existent (the 5D3 should do better). But the glass ain't bad, especially past f/2.8. If you're shooting stopped down past f/4 or so, i'd pick this one out of the 3. Pentagonal bokeh matters less unless your subject is really close.

If you're going to take full advantage of the 5D3's high-iso quality, stop down past f/4 where bang-on AF and razor-thin dof matters less, even the 50mm macro will do you good.

I've also got the 85/1.8 and 100/2.0. Same as Spokane, I'd be going either of these for portraits or more if you can step back a bit. IQ is great wide open on both, which can't be said for the 50s that have to be stopped down to get better.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 11, 2012)

thien135 said:


> btw, if u need a portrait lens . Sigma 85 1.4 is an excellent one. Very sharp



ditto this, the 50mm f1.4 is nice on Full frame and I use it alot but the 85 is my go to portrait lens and at f2 it is super sharp with great blur bokeh colour and contrast


----------



## eeek (Mar 12, 2012)

Most every one that I know that has bought a 1.8 sells it and moves on to a 1.4. I would start with the 1.4.


----------



## dr croubie (Mar 12, 2012)

eeek said:


> Most every one that I know that has bought a 1.8 sells it and moves on to a 1.4. I would start with the 1.4.


Except me, I went from EF 50/1.8 II to Zeiss Flektogon 50/4.0, Takumar 50/1.4, ended up on the FL 55/1.2 (plus there's a Takumar 55/1.8 and 55/2.0 and a second Flektogon in there). Counting my 15-85 zoom, i've got 8 lenses covering the 50-55mm range. I really should sell some of them...

(4 more if i count my lensbaby 2x double glass, single glass, platic optics, all 50/2.0)


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 12, 2012)

I think the disadvantage of the 1.8 can be seen on this image


----------



## Brokeh (Mar 12, 2012)

If you are unsure of what lens to get between the 50 1.8 and 1.4, should you really be buying a 5D3? FWIW out of the 2 choices the 1.4 is more solid. I personally don't like the focusing rings on the 1.8 or the 1.4. They feel as cheap as they are.


----------



## mauro.canon (Mar 12, 2012)

50mm 1.2 example (italy photographer)


http://www.benedusi.it/it/gallery/my-best.html

all picture "my-best" are taken with 50mm 1.2 and sometimes 50mm 1.4


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 12, 2012)

mauro.canon said:


> 50mm 1.2 example (italy photographer)
> 
> 
> http://www.benedusi.it/it/gallery/my-best.html
> ...


NICE! if i could applaud you more than once i would


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Mar 12, 2012)

I'd say it kinda depends on your budget? Why not get the 50mm 1.2L? I know why since you've already stated it. Hm, if it were me, I would get the 1.4. Why bother with a 1.8 when you've got a 5dmkiii? Like everyone else has said, i suggest you save up a bit more and invest in a better lens


----------



## marekjoz (Mar 12, 2012)

I had 50 1.8 and it has really great IQ when you look how much you paid for it. Probably it's the best IQ/price factor in Canon lens lineup. But it's not too well built. It's focus ring is not useful (too small and doesn't allow for operation when lens in AF mode). Having 5d3 I think, sooner or later you'd want shoot any movie no matter what it would be. 1.8 is useless in this area because of not useful focus ring. 
Summarizing - it makes really good pictures but:
1. It doesn't have USM - really loud
2. AF might miss sometimes
3. Focus ring useless for manual setting 
4. Weak, plastic butli

If above is not important for you, then take 50 1.8 because you'll be happy with it.


----------

