PDA

View Full Version : Canon 50mm f1.4 on ebay



Pihsiak
05-20-2006, 03:09 AM
http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1-4-USM-Lens-NR_W0QQitemZ7619505954QQcategoryZ4687QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

guy is located in calgary... worth it?

lint
05-20-2006, 10:35 AM
Depends on the final bid price. They go for around $275USD, so even factoring shipping and GST, it's probably better to look south of the border.

And by comparison, if you have a 50 1.8 it's probably not worth the upgrade. You're going to be paying 3x the amount for a 1/3 stop increase. Sure the focus is a little faster and the bokeh is a bit smoother. I just found that it wasn't enough to justify the cost.

TurboMedic
05-20-2006, 02:28 PM
Its my understanding that there is a slight improvement in sharpness, at least with the Nikon 1.4 vs 1.8's, mostly because no lens is really sharpest wide open, and the 1.4 is stopped down x1 at 1.8 so theoretically it could be sharper....is it worth the extra cost? I don't think so, I have yet to see images I would "improve on" from a 1.8 lens...

Newk
05-20-2006, 04:02 PM
you are not only getting a full stop you are also getting a faster and quieter focus. I plan on getting one for miself eventually, but that price is no bargin for a used lense.
you can find them new for that.

Pihsiak
05-20-2006, 07:55 PM
hmmm the camera store has it for $470 plus tax... about $503 after tax...


auction ends in 2 hrs... guy is willing to meet in Calgary.

but 50mm becomes 75ish after the digital convergence...

Pihsiak
05-20-2006, 07:58 PM
http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7619611334&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1


was looking for the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS, found the non IS one
retails for 1,490. Ebay has it for 1,022 right now good lens for those wild life people

lint
05-21-2006, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by Newk
you are not only getting a full stop you are also getting a faster and quieter focus. I plan on getting one for miself eventually, but that price is no bargin for a used lense.
you can find them new for that.

F1.4 to f2.0 is a full stop.

I like the buzz, but mines a mk I

BerserkerCatSplat
05-21-2006, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Pihsiak
http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7619611334&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1


was looking for the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS, found the non IS one
retails for 1,490. Ebay has it for 1,022 right now good lens for those wild life people

Look into the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, all the chatter I've heard ranks it right up with L glass for much less money. Besides, it's not that ugly cream colour. :barf:

JTI
05-21-2006, 01:53 PM
Wow, Nikon's version of the 50mm 1.8 is less than $100 new. And let me tell you, it's worth every penny.

C4S
05-21-2006, 04:09 PM
Yes .. both Nikon or Canon 50mm F1.8 is like only $100 US ..

however, the Nikon version is just much better then the Canon one ...

If under $400 .. then it is not bad to get the 1.4 version, it is nicer then the 1.8 II version, and USM.

Well .. I am still happy with my 1.8 mark I .. so .. I hvn't bought the 1.4 USM version .. :dunno:

Ben
05-21-2006, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


Look into the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, all the chatter I've heard ranks it right up with L glass for much less money. Besides, it's not that ugly cream colour. :barf:

L Glass is awesome, and I love how they are white. People know you're using top knotch gear, and more importantly, they dont get smokin hot when shooting in the sun all day. The quality of the optis in an l-series lens need to be able to maintain this exact precision in all situations. A hot lens can throw off optics as well as all the moving parts inside.

:)

BerserkerCatSplat
05-21-2006, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by Ben


L Glass is awesome, and I love how they are white. People know you're using top knotch gear, and more importantly, they dont get smokin hot when shooting in the sun all day. The quality of the optis in an l-series lens need to be able to maintain this exact precision in all situations. A hot lens can throw off optics as well as all the moving parts inside.

:)

The heat issue is an excellent point, I'd never thought of that. The more metal they use in the lens, the more it's affected. (I think it's safe to say that L lenses have a lot of metal content.)

Food for thought, indeed.

D'z Nutz
05-21-2006, 10:31 PM
It's not just the metal. The glass has fluorite in L telephotos, which expand and contract to the heat. Older lenses (not necessarily Canon) that used fluorite were often prone to cracking when the lenses were subjected to too much heat.



Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat
Look into the Sigma 70-200 F2.8, all the chatter I've heard ranks it right up with L glass for much less money.

If focus speed is necessary, go with the Canon. If it's not an issue and money is, the Sigma.

BerserkerCatSplat
05-22-2006, 10:10 AM
Is Canon's USM that much faster than Sigma's HSM?

D'z Nutz
05-22-2006, 10:53 AM
Like night and day.

AccentAE86
05-22-2006, 03:19 PM
I would recommend the EF 50 1.4 to anyone. It is not even comparable with the 50 1.8. (I have both) It focuses faster, hunts less in low light, and misses focus about a hundred times less than the 1.8.

That and it's RIDICULOUSLY sharp, where the 1.8 is not.
Here's a pic from the 50 1.4, and a 100% crop from the same shot:
(This is resized for web):
http://yoonl.brinkster.net/misc/IMG_8234.JPG

(This is not resized, only cropped at 100%):
http://yoonl.brinkster.net/misc/IMG_8234-1.JPG

It has more blades than the 1.8 and the bokeh is the best of the bunch. You can't lose with the EF 50 1.4. It's worth every penny of the $469 the camera store asks.

BerserkerCatSplat
05-22-2006, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by AccentAE86


That and it's RIDICULOUSLY sharp, where the 1.8 is not.


The Canon F1.8 isn't sharp? The picture you posted at F5.6 - where both the 1.8 and 1.4 should be comparably sharp, since they're not wide open. :dunno:

AccentAE86
05-22-2006, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by BerserkerCatSplat


The Canon F1.8 isn't sharp? The picture you posted at F5.6 - where both the 1.8 and 1.4 should be comparably sharp, since they're not wide open. :dunno:

ok, perhaps a little hasty. Not sharp in comparison to the 1.4. I don't do serious lens testing, but the 1.4 seems significantly sharper at all apertures below F11. At least with my copies.

My 1.8 @ F5.6 does not compare. And i found the 1.8 to be quite soft at anything below 2.8, where the 1.4 is already razor sharp starting at 2.0.

anyhow, just posting my personal experiences. Not looking to start a war... ;) I'd recommend the 50 1.8 to anyone as it's a lot of lens for the price.

BerserkerCatSplat
05-22-2006, 10:09 PM
No worries, I've just never had any experience with the Canon F1.8, just the Nikon one. The Nikon is razor-sharp at pretty much all apertures short of wide open, I expected the Canon to be much the same.

DJ Lazy
05-22-2006, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by AccentAE86


ok, perhaps a little hasty. Not sharp in comparison to the 1.4. I don't do serious lens testing, but the 1.4 seems significantly sharper at all apertures below F11. At least with my copies.

My 1.8 @ F5.6 does not compare. And i found the 1.8 to be quite soft at anything below 2.8, where the 1.4 is already razor sharp starting at 2.0.

anyhow, just posting my personal experiences. Not looking to start a war... ;) I'd recommend the 50 1.8 to anyone as it's a lot of lens for the price.

I'll have to disagree... ;) And this was taken with an extension tube or 2 added on... and the 50 1.8 @ 1.8

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a196/JDigitalPhotography/Abstract/Tip-of-the-Sword.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a196/JDigitalPhotography/Abstract/Tip-of-the-Sword-2.jpg

C4S
05-22-2006, 11:48 PM
DJ Lazy, is that from the mark I ?

I doubt if the mark II is that sharp ..

And Canon is doing that by purpose ... offering the MK II in very good low price, and then the 1.4 at a higher price, but better overall qulity.

When they were selling the MK I price was higher .. but better optic then the MK II now, and close to the 1.4, but no USM, and not as fast.
:D

AccentAE86
05-23-2006, 12:01 AM
I have the 50 1.8 mark 2 version. It is known that it is not as good as the mark 1.

Under controlled conditions with plenty of time to focus (or manual focus) and take a few trial shots, I had no problems getting sharp, nice photos from the 1.8. But in the dynamic pace of event photography, it was just missing the mark, hunting in low light causing me to completely lose a moment I wanted to catch, and just giving me grief that the 1.4 does not.

With the 1.4 I could get tack sharp photos handheld, walking around, on the first try, with mediocre light. The 1.8 would not deliver anywhere near as consistently. My definition of sharp is shooting under real-world conditions and getting a sharp image. We all have different real world conditions, and for me, the 1.4 really delivers.

Arguing about lenses... well... nobody ever agrees. I am VERY happy that the 1.8 works well for you. I just wish it did for me too.

DJ Lazy
05-23-2006, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by C4S
DJ Lazy, is that from the mark I ?

I doubt if the mark II is that sharp ..

Yup, taken with the Mark II, so maybe I just have a really solid copy of it... :dunno: I can only go by what I have.. so

benyl
05-23-2006, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by AccentAE86
I have the 50 1.8 mark 2 version. It is known that it is not as good as the mark 1.

Under controlled conditions with plenty of time to focus (or manual focus) and take a few trial shots, I had no problems getting sharp, nice photos from the 1.8. But in the dynamic pace of event photography, it was just missing the mark, hunting in low light causing me to completely lose a moment I wanted to catch, and just giving me grief that the 1.4 does not.

With the 1.4 I could get tack sharp photos handheld, walking around, on the first try, with mediocre light. The 1.8 would not deliver anywhere near as consistently. My definition of sharp is shooting under real-world conditions and getting a sharp image. We all have different real world conditions, and for me, the 1.4 really delivers.

Arguing about lenses... well... nobody ever agrees. I am VERY happy that the 1.8 works well for you. I just wish it did for me too.

If I paid 6 times more for a lens with an extra full stop, I would expect it to be much sharper than the cheaper one. You guys aren't really compairing apples.

TurboMedic
05-23-2006, 06:54 PM
Well the only true reason the 1.8's are cheaper is they were mass produced and sold as a kit on lots of older SLR's....they are more readily available, and continue to be made in large numbers.....at least thats how it is for Nikon.....

Ekliptix
05-23-2006, 09:05 PM
I have one, and I've owned the 1.8 II.
The only difference I find is the focusing speed and weight. The extra aperture is not worth it IMO.

I ordered mine from B&H Photo.

JTI
05-31-2006, 01:10 AM
the 1.8 is the best bang for the buck. You can't even argue that.

achca
05-31-2006, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by hung_lo
the 1.8 is the best bang for the buck. You can't even argue that.


^^^:werd: