Canon 2515A003 Black Friday Deals!
 |
Canon 2515A003 Black Friday Deals!.
Product: Canon 2515A003 Amazon Price: Too low to display Availability: In Stock |
Compare Prices on Canon 2515A003
With the 50mm f1.8 lens available for less than a hundred dollars, why use so grand more to accumulate the f1.4? The reply is, you may not need to. It all depends on your seriousness, budget, and how long you need your lens to last.
If you want a "starter lens" for shooting at 50mm (or with prime lenses in general), the f1.8 would be a grand prefer. 50mm is a very useful and intuitive focal length to use some time with, because it sees the world at the same distance as your naked spy (regardless of your camera's cut factor) . So you could lift the f1.8 cheaply, regard it as a "play with it" lens, and salvage a nice introduction to "prime lens quality." The f1.8 will seem like a grand step up from kit lenses and most consumer-priced zooms, and unbelievable bang for few bucks.
So if the f1.8 is such a spacious bargain, why would the f1.4 be among Canon's most all-time favorite lenses? It's that the f1.8 can rob the large shot within determined conditions, but the f1.4 delivers within a remarkable wider range of conditions. In other words, "You acquire what you pay for," and we'll establish the best for last.
Affordable-but-Solid Contruction: The f1.4 will likely have a great longer life than the cheaper plastic beget of the f1.8, and preserve more resale value. It's an investment, rather than a commodity. And it'll be more distinct on your camera and in your hand. (My first one finally needed some calibration, after 80,000 shots and outrageous wear-and-tear from frequent swapping with my other primes.) Users sometimes describe the front glass falling out of their f1.8s. For the f1.4, the main issues revolve around the Micro USM focus motor, which is not as sturdy as lawful USM.
Focus Versatility: The f1.4 lets your camera autofocus, and then lets you tweak further by hand without flipping a switch - that's called "Full-Time Manual Focus." The f1.8 requires switching aid and forth between auto and manual focus. The f1.8 is famously noisy/buzzy during autofocus, has a bare-minimum focus ring, and no distance scale. The f1.4 will autofocus more reliably, especially in dusky light, though it will fail occasionally when starved.
Resistance to Abberation: Chromatic abberation (fringe colors) and barrel distortion are evident-but-low for both lenses at wide apertures - that's "prime lens quality." But in comparison tests, the f1.8 is more susceptible to vignetting (shadows around the corners), halation (aesthetic around the highlights), and lens flare. For instance, lens flare within the f1.4 tends to be more tightly controlled - "in focus" - whereas a intellectual light source is more like to blow out the whole shot in the f1.8. All these factors improve when stopped down, but fling about a close unhurried the f1.4.
Color: However, if the f1.8 catches up at f/8 to the f1.4 by many standards, it rarely catches up to the f1.4's saturation. The f1.4 has "proper-to-strong" color richness at all but the widest apertures, while the f1.8's shots are worthy more likely to require postwork. (I do, however, come by better saturation from my 24mm f2.8 and 100mm Macro f2.8. The 50 f1.4's saturation seems good-not-great by comparison.)
"Headroom": The engineering of both lenses lets you resolve the tradeoff between "most possible light" or "most possible clarity." It's by produce that you can determine "more light for less crisp," or halt down for sharpness. *Samples vary*, but the average 50mm f1.4 should consistently "secure down to attractive" more quick, "animated enough" by f/2.0, "very very bewitching" by f/2.8 (often exceeding the professional 24-70mm f2.8 L when wide initiate), and delivering "unreal spellbinding" by f/4. (I saw insane "specks of mascara sharpness" at f/3.5 from my first f1.4.) Again, the f1.8 will probably breeze about a conclude slow that curve.
My second 50mm f1.4 performed even better than my first, accurate out of the box, "marginally curious" at f/1.4 and increasingly beyond reproach by f/1.8-2. (At f/1.4-1.6, it suffers only from halation and some light fall-off in darker areas.) So if obscene sharpness is primary for you, shop with a strategy that will let you return your lens or collect it calibrated if not up to your needs. My guess is that my first one was more typical out of the box, but it approached the performance of the second after calibration.
(It's also worth noting that the premium-priced 50mm f1.2L is drastically more engaging (and better performing generally) at wide apertures, but *less* curious at f/2.8 through f/8. The f1.4 is a better "walkaround" performer than the f1.2L lens that costs four times as great.)
Regarding light return specifically, my bear experience in lens-swapping baffled me, until I read other reports that the f1.4 exposes a third of a halt brighter than most other Canon lenses. It's brighter in the viewfinder generally, and really IS a whole finish "faster" than the f1.8 at maximum apertures (i.e., the same accept exposure at half the shutter race) . If you're willing to sacrifice some clarity, that extra close can effect a gargantuan contrast when you're challenged by spirited targets in rude light.
(For instance, shooting "wide originate" for performers in dusky venues. Faster shutter for less motion blur. More light for better color. And the edges may be soft at 100% magnification, but *relatively* distinct compared to the out-of-focus background. That "illusion of clarity" isn't as likely to print very well, but resizes very rapid for the web.)
So the f1.8 can certainly perform some fair images, particularly in general daylight photography OR tightly-controlled conditions OR stopped down, but is less adaptable to though-provoking circumstances that the f1.4.
"The Best for Last...":
Now, with both these lenses, you accept the advantage of marvelously wide aperture, which can be archaic for a tight focal plane that lets the background (or foreground distractions) drop speedy out of focus. This is of course a cornerstone of creative photography, and both lenses give you plenty to perceive. (In practice, even f/2.8 delivers a glorious shallow depth of field in close-up shots, so these wider lenses give you even more room to play.)
However, there is such a thing as "blur quality," called "bokeh," based on the number of aperture blades within the lens. The f1.8 has five, and the f1.4 has eight. The f1.8 will record out-of-focus lights more pentagonally, the f1.4 more roundly. (In focus, those same lights will be eight-pointed stars with the f1.4, ten-pointed with the f1.8 - curious numbers of blades double the number of points.) But most importantly, the blur from the f1.8 can be rather "choppy," especially at wide apertures, while the f1.4's is consistently more "buttery quiet."
In other words, there's more to quality than sharpness - there's also quality where your shot is LESS than engaging. And this is where the f1.4 becomes "a well-liked lens" for some people, even at over three times the note of its diminuitive counterpart.
Make no mistake, the f1.8 would do an obliging "starter" lens. But the f1.4 is an exceptionally *serious* lens. Are you tranquil learning to appreciate photography? Then $80 is a ravishing imprint to pay for a lens you might outgrow. Or do you already cherish photography? Then $300 is a friendly impress for a just investment that will reliably pay off. So they're both bargains, fair seize what's best for you.
(Addendum - Canon also sells a 50mm f2.5 Macro lens around $250. If you NEED macro, it's reportedly resplendent pleasant, and for general purpose as well. But it's a) not even as expeditiously as the f1.8, b) more difficult to manually focus than the f1.4, and c) not as creamy in the bokeh, with six aperture blades instead of eight. And Canon's 100mm version is drastically more practical for macro work, and better performing generally. But the 50mm Macro does become a contender, at a "middle mark," if what you really need is one decent lens to do as many different things as possible, though none of them as well.)
I bought this lens to remove indoor portraits of my nine-month-old daughter using available light. I was tired of the harsh photos produced by the built-in flash on the Canon 20D or Digital Rebel. A bounce flash improves matters broad deal, but I wanted to recognize what could be done with a snappily lens.
The Canon 50mm 1.4 gobbles light. It opens up a world of indoor photography that is not possible with a 4.0 lens. The 50mm focal length combined with available light produces natural-looking results. It is exactly what your discover sees. Shadows and highlights are intact. It is a revelation if you're feeble to the harsh fall shadows and evenly-lit faces produced by flashes. This is a jarring step up in quality from snapshot to "wow"
As renowned, focus is soft at /1.4 and begins to sharpen at /2.0 to /2.8. Not a awful thing, though. Some of my popular pictures have been produced with the aperture wide initiate. The depth of field is so narrow at this point, that the subject's face is in focus, but the shoulders originate to blur.
I exhaust this lens with a 20D. The balance is perfect, the combination feels very professional and responsive. Operation is very simple. Go the camera into aperture priority mode (Av), eye though the understanding finder and adjust the aperture until you discover the shutter bustle is faster than 1/30th a second (30) .
I agonized over the 1.4 vs. the 1.8 versions of this lens. The additional end does provide more shooting options. Often I'm shooting at the edge of acceptable shutter accelerate, and juggling both aperture and ISO. Many reviews comparing the two talk about accomplish quality, focus motor speed/noise, etc, but the bottom line for me was the extra halt was totally worth it. If you want to shoot indoors without a flash, gather the 1.4. If you simply want a nice inviting lens at this focal length, the 1.8 is for you.
As a father, my only regret is I wish I had this lens earlier. From one parent to another, I'll say you the effect of the lens is irrelevant, as the pictures it produces are priceless.
Now, go construct a backup of your photo library.
This 50mm is improbable. I truly adore it. I debated a long time between the 1.8 and the 1.4. In the extinguish, I figured I'd never replace it again so accept the 1.4. I cherish it - the images it makes are staggering. Detached - it's pricy compared to the 1.8 - but not to L series lenses. I consider it's worth it. I read online it had barrel distortion wide commence - and it does if you really contemplate the image - but that's perfectly OK with me for the 1.4 shallow depth of field. Normal people will never peer that at all. One drawback you may not mediate of is that pretty wide inaugurate 1.4 aperture is not available to you if there is worthy light. It's so quick it's easy to overexpose - even with 1/4000th of a second shutter. It takes awesome portraits - awesome landscapes. This is a must have lens in every EOS owner's bag. Don't catch the 1.8 and wish you got this one. Procure this one and begin taking grand photos.
