Canon 50mm f1.4 on ebay

[Pihsiak]

http://cgi.ebay.ca/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1...QQcmdZViewItem

guy is located in calgary... worth it?

[lint]

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]

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]

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]

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]

http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...MEWA%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]

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]

Originally posted by Pihsiak
http://cgi.ebay.ca/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?...%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.

[JTI]

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]

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 ..

[Ben]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Is Canon's USM that much faster than Sigma's HSM?

[D'z Nutz]

Like night and day.

[AccentAE86]

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):


(This is not resized, only cropped at 100%):


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]

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.

[AccentAE86]

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.

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]

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]

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