What are the differences between the EF 50mm f/1.4 use and EF-S 18-55mm IS

[FREDMCFADDEN]

My daughter has asked for my old camera and I have given it to her. It is the Rebel EOS T1i. She wants some new lens's but before I invest I would like to know a few things. The 2 lens's we currently have are the EF-S 18-55 IS and the EF-S 55-250 mm F/4-5.6 IS. What are the differences between the EF 50mm f/1.4 use and EF-S 18-55mm IS? She wants me to buy the EF 50mm f/1.4. 

Thanks in advance.

[ebiggs1]

"My lens had/has zero problems and focused dead-on."

And neither do most of them.  Bob from Boston just got one on one side of the tolerance range and his camera is probably on the other end.  It happens, there is no doubt.

[TTMartin]

---

@FREDMCFADDEN wrote:

My daughter has asked for my old camera and I have given it to her. It is the Rebel EOS T1i. She wants some new lens's but before I invest I would like to know a few things. The 2 lens's we currently have are the EF-S 18-55 IS and the EF-S 55-250 mm F/4-5.6 IS. What are the differences between the EF 50mm f/1.4 use and EF-S 18-55mm IS? She wants me to buy the EF 50mm f/1.4. 

Thanks in advance.

---

First I would get her the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM this is Canon's newest 50mm lens. In my opinion it is actually a better lens than the EF 50mm f/1.4. The bonus is that it is less than half the cost. Note the STM in the lens name, do not buy the older EF 50mm f/1.8 II, that lens is not on par with either the EF 50mm f/1.4 or the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. 

As others have answered a prime lens gives you a shallower depth of field, better low light perfromance and generally better image quality.

[Waddizzle]

I think that the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM would be the best buy over the 50mm f/1.8 II and the 50mm f/1.4 USM. 

Someone called the 50mm f/1.8 II the "fantastic plastic" lens.  That's a good name for it.  Because the connection to the camera is made of plastic.  For less than the cost of 12 pack of beer, you can have a connection made of metal.  The majority opinion also feels that the f/1.8 STM has better image quality, so I'll take their word for it. All that I know is that I can take fantastic shots using the STM version on a full frame 6D.  Much better than the kit lens, 18-55mm, that I got with a T5.

The marginal gain in speed with the 1.4 USM may not be worth the extra cost.  Image quality is comparable, according to most reviews that I read, which led me to go with the 1.8 over the 1.4.  I don't think the additional cost is worth it until you get an "L" series lens, one that is weather sealed against the elements.

Finally, I would not surprise her with the 1.8 STM.  If she picked the 1.4 USM, then it is almost a certainty that she is aware of the 1.8 STM, and passed it up.  The best argument in favor of the 1.8 is that the 1.4, while a click faster, does not represent a significant gain in Image Quality.  Most reviews that I have read from people who have both seem to think that the 1.4 just isn't worth the significantly higher cost.

The above shot was taken at 1/800 sec with a 6D using ISO-100 at f/8.  The sun was almost directly at my back.  I also used a CPL filter, which I seem to have fortuitously turned to just the right position.  Pure luck, if you  ask me.

[ebiggs1]

"The best argument in favor of the 1.8 is that the 1.4, while a click faster, does not represent a significant gain in Image Quality."

But IQ and/or any single spec does not a make a lens.  You must consider all the specs.  I, as a rule, don't make comments on lenses I don't have hands on experience with, can say there is no place where the 50mm f1.8 II bests the f1.4 version.  Not one!  I don't have, nor do I have any intention of buying, the STM version but it is going to have to a whole lot better to best the f1.4 version.  For instance the OOF parts of the photo of the f1.8 II are miserable.  Not to mention bokeh or light-falloff.

"I don't think the additional cost is worth it until you get an "L" series lens, one that is weather sealed against the elements."

Again reading instead of doing ! This is misleading.  The ef 50mm f1.2L is not weather sealed unless it has a UV filter installed.

I do own and use and love this lens which trounces all the others.  There is nothing like f1.4 if that is what you want.  And there is certainly nothing like f1.2.

However, I am steadfast saying Scott's , or a new, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is the best of all for her.  Far more friendly than a prime 50mm, if she has only the one lens.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

...

However, I am steadfast saying Scott's , or a new, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens is the best of all for [Fred's daughter].  Far more friendly than a prime 50mm, if she has only the one lens.

---

I have to concur with Ernie that it makes a lot of sense to try to part Scott from his unused 17-55. It is certainly more versatile, and a better match for a Rebel body, than a 50mm prime.

One other caution about that lens that I forgot to mention eralier: It's so big that it can cast a significant shadow if you try to use the built-in flash. I found that to be true on a 7D, so it will certainly be the case on a Rebel. So an external flash is very much in order. Which isn't necessarily bad; a serious photographer will usually prefer an external flash anyway, for a variety of reasons.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"The best argument in favor of the 1.8 is that the 1.4, while a click faster, does not represent a significant gain in Image Quality."

But IQ and/or any single spec does not a make a lens.  You must consider all the specs.  I, as a rule, don't make comments on lenses I don't have hands on experience with, can say there is no place where the 50mm f1.8 II bests the f1.4 version.  Not one!  I don't have, nor do I have any intention of buying, the STM version but it is going to have to a whole lot better to best the f1.4 version.  For instance the OOF parts of the photo of the f1.8 II are miserable.  Not to mention bokeh or light-falloff.

---

I don't think anyone here recommended the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. They are recommending the new EF 50mm f/1.8 STM.

The EF 50mm f/1.8 STM bests the EF 50mm f/1.4 in almost every way except maximum aperture and the EF 50mm f/1.4 needs to be stopped down to f/1.8 to match the sharpness of the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM

Bokeh - The EF 50mm f/1.8 STM has 7 curved aperture blades. So it has a better bokeh than either the 50mm f/1.4 with its 8 straight aperture blades, or the EF 50mm f/1.8 II with its 5 straight aperture blades. The EF 50mm f/.4 and EF 50mm f/1.8 II do make better sunstars since the have straight aperture blades.

Focus speed and accuracy - The EF 50mm f/1.4 is not ring type USM, it was micro-motor USM. The STM focus motor in the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM can be thought of as a more refined version of the USM micro-motor. The STM focus is fast, quiet, and precise. The focus motor in the EF 50mm f/1.8 II was simply awful.

Cost - The EF 50mm f/1.8 STM costs half the cost of the EF 50mm f/1.4 and it is a better lens overall.

If you already own the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM no you shouldn't go out and buy the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM. But, for someone choosing their first 50mm lens the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is the clear winner.

[TTMartin]

The MTFs tell the story.

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

EF 50mm f/1.8 STM

Reading and understanding lens MTF charts

[Waddizzle]

@Ernie

"

"The best argument in favor of the 1.8 is that the 1.4, while a click faster, does not represent a significant gain in Image Quality."

But IQ and/or any single spec does not a make a lens.  You must consider all the specs.  I, as a rule, don't make comments on lenses I don't have hands on experience with, can say there is no place where the 50mm f1.8 II bests the f1.4 version.  Not one!"

---------------------------------------------------------

Please, do not quote me out of context.

"The best argument in favor of the 1.8 is that the 1.4, while a click faster, does not represent a significant gain in Image Quality.  Most reviews that I have read from people who have both seem to think that the 1.4 just isn't worth the significantly higher cost."

I made no pretense to having owned both lenses, either.  I made it clear that I was speaking about reviews, not experience.  I have no doubt that at some point you read reviews before testing or making a lens purchase yourself.

[ebiggs1]

"I made no pretense to having owned both lenses, either.  I made it clear that I was speaking about reviews, not experience.  I have no doubt that at some point you read reviews before testing or making a lens purchase yourself."

I don't believe, or meant, the intent was to indicate anything about you.  But it was about me.  I try to not make statements about gear I have not personally used. No, as a general rule I am not a review reader.  I make reviews!. 

The reviewers are simply too unreliable.  You can get an agenda driven reviewer.  I know what I do and how I did it.  You don't know most of those people or how they operate.  Some don't even have command of the English language.  You have two choices.  You can do or you can read.  I prefer to do.  Not to say either is right or wrong.  This is me.  Not anyone else.

I can't give a personal assessment of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM Lens.  I have never touched one.  I have used the other two 50mm f1.8's.  I have owned the f1.4 copy for a long time before selling it on.  For the record, none of them come even close to the f1.2L version.  My personal interest in a 50mm stops there.

I do check out DXO which I believe to be highly suspect on its measurements.  I keep that in mind.  I do read PP because they include measurements and real tests. And I have a small list of people I know and have had interaction with over my long career.  That's about it in reviews.

Biggs siad,

"But IQ and/or any single spec does not a make a lens.  You must consider all the specs."

This is such a common mistake made by beginners and amateurs, They really can only see or concentrate on IQ.  Not realizing the full package.

BTW, if you make a claim that I know to be wrong, I will challenge it.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

The reviewers are simply too unreliable.  You can get an agenda driven reviewer.  I know what I do and how I did it.  You don't know most of those people or how they operate.  Some don't even have command of the English language. 

---

I agree and it is obvious some companies pay for positive reviews which certainly gives the reviewer an agenda.

And then there is just familiarity with the equipment. It is sometimes painful to watch someone who primarily uses Nikon equipment review Canon cameras. An example was a Nikon shooter reviewing the AF system on the 6D for sports, without adjusting any of the tracking settings. The 6D's AF is much better than those reviews would lead you to believe. Or the blogger who said that if your 70D needs micro-focus adjustment the camera is defective. Pure incompetence in my opinion.