March 21, 2009 at 4:41 pm #1565
besides the cheaply built f/1.8 and the fact that it’s noisy, how would i justify spending 4 times as much money on the f/1.4? i can deal with plastic and noise for that much less money.
i’ve read reviews on the odd autofocusing on the f/1.8 – does anyone have any personal experience to share before i decide to spend $85 for the f/1.8 vs. $387 for the f/1.4? (prices from amazon.)March 21, 2009 at 5:04 pm #21982olavfParticipant
the f/1.4 is a rock-solid lens. Personally I think it’s worth more than what I paid for it – seems like I have it on the camera a good 60-70% of the time these days.March 22, 2009 at 4:06 am #21983staplermofoParticipant
Didn’t someone post a thread about the front element of his f/1.8 just popping out?
I only have the f/1.8, and it’s nice, but the autofocus kinda sucks. It hunts, it short focuses, the lens rattles when you shake it, manual focusing is hard (tiny focus ring which turns about 2 degrees) and the color isn’t so great. The bokeh on the f/1.4 is a lot nicer too. Other than all that, I love it. It’s sharp, light, and I don’t have to worry about protecting it.
Reviews of both are on dpreview, check out those sample images.
Is there a local camera place where you could try them both out?March 22, 2009 at 2:27 pm #21984swampaParticipant
I can’t compare Canon to Canon. But I have the Canon f/1.8 and the Nikon f/1.4 (and the Canon version seems to be about the same price so I’m assuming they are fairly equivalent!)
My opinion is that if you can afford it, go for the f/1.4. The speed (in both focus and low light), construction and the bokeh make it a great lens while the f/1.8 is just a good lens.March 22, 2009 at 4:19 pm #21985schneeParticipant
FWIW, the f/1.4 won the Fartography Mmmmm Bokeh contest. It is a nice lens and I’m finding it on my body more and more – small, fast, light, fun. I’ve heard it is the lens Canon uses as its color reference, but I can’t vouch for that.
OTOH, the f/1.8 is pretty inexpensive.March 22, 2009 at 5:38 pm #21986
cost is the kicker. i will check to see if there is a local shop to try them both out, then decide if i can wait a while longer to save for the f/1.4.March 22, 2009 at 8:09 pm #21987nobigdealParticipant
I like my 1.8. If I had the extra $ I would get a 1.4 but for what I paid ($50 on eBay) it does the trick. You could always buy the 1.8 and use it while you save up for the 1.4. Who knows not everybody likes shooting with primes and you may find that the 1.8 is a good fit for how you use the lens.March 22, 2009 at 11:52 pm #21988millera9Participant
I have never used either of those lenses, but I do have a 35mm f/1.4 that I use quite a lot. One thing that I’ve found is that being able to stop-down to 1.4 is really useful in only a very few shooting situations. It’s fun and sometimes it produces interesting results, but I don’t think I have any shots taken at 1.4 that would have been noticeably degraded by shooting at 1.8. My advice would be to not base your decision only on the extra speed; but to base it on the other things you may gain from buying a more expensive – and ostensibly better – lens (less aberration, better colors, better bokeh, etc.)March 23, 2009 at 2:48 am #21989orionidParticipant
cost is the kicker. i will check to see if there is a local shop to try them both out, then decide if i can wait a while longer to save for the f/1.4.
Depending how far you are from NYC, it’s worth the experience to check out B&H’s main store at least once. And they’re very try-before-you-buy freindly, and in my limited experience (two trips) have extremely knowledgeable staff. They also have an uncredible used section with decent prices.March 24, 2009 at 2:55 am #21990
for the cost of visiting NYC, i could buy the lens most definitely 🙂 (i live in central MN).
i found a local shop that rents equipment. i’m going to check the lenses out and see what happens. i’m torn!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.