1.4 or 1.8 Canon 50mm?

[ltketch]

I have been toying with the idea of getting a Canon 50mm for my Bessa R, why should I get the 1.4 over the 1.8? Is the price difference worth it for that bit extra light?

 

[rover]

Both are very good. I happen to like the 1.4 a tad better an use that almost all of the time when it was my only fast 50. That said, the 1.8 is relatively small, an excellent image maker, and for the cost it is about the best bang for your buck you can get for an LTM 50.

I think you have two good lenses to choose from, can't go wrong with either.

 

[xayraa33]

get the 1.8, cheaper to buy and a superb lens.
there is one on our classifieds BTW.

 

[Spider67]

Very good experiences with the 1,8 Serenar on my Bessa R!
It's fifty years older than the camera but has a very good qhality even at 1,8!

 

[OurManInTangier]

I use the Canon 1.8 and absolutely love it. I have no experience with the 1.4 however so can't compare the two but simply for the money it really is quite superb. Most of the images in my gallery were taken with my 50mm 1.8 and I recently bought a Canon 35mm f/2.8 as I'm so impressed with the Canon quality....the 35mm turned out to be an excellent purchase too.

As others have said I assume you can't go far wrong with either but I know you won't go wrong with the 1.8

 

[ferider]

The 1.4 is a superb lens, sharp edge to edge down to 1.4.
Smaller and better built than the CV Nokton, with comparable
image quality, IMO.

Also, 48mm filters are much easier to find than 40mm.

Best,

Roland.

 

[furcafe]

Only you can really answer that question. As others have posted, both lenses are optically excellent (& excellent values for the money, too). Do you often wish you had an extra stop when shooting? For me, the almost-1-stop difference between f/1.4 & f/1.8 is big (i.e., much more than a "bit extra") & more than makes up for any difference in size/weight, but your photographic needs may be different.

. . . why should I get the 1.4 over the 1.8? Is the price difference worth it for that bit extra light?

 

[ferider]

Here you can see how relatively small the 1.4 is:

I didn't have the Canon lens when I had my R so the R3a will have to do ...

Price difference at KEH, both lens EX (and black) is US 87 (they have a 1.4 for US 286).

Best,

Roland.

 

[ltketch]

Roland thats a nice looking combo, to my eyes the Glass to Camera ratio seems well balanced.

I missed the 1.8 in the classifieds as I was asleep!

I like the idea of the extra stop from of the 1.4 as it will more likely be the "take it out at night to dinner" lens, so will look as chasing one of those, a decent looking one just went on Ebay for US$187, a suitable price for me!

That said, I do appreciate all of your comments and have not totally dismissed the 1.8, im now just swinging towards the 1.4 much more.

Andrew

 

[rogue_designer]

I ended up selling my 1.4, and keeping the 1.8 (going to the 50 1.2 for low light).

I like the 1.8 (chrome) for a general carry around lens. It looks cool, feels good to use, and takes great pics.

 

[Joe Vitessa]

Actually, I find the 50mm 1.4 to be a bit heavy paired with my Bessa R. It's a nicely made lens, but it really pulls the camera front down. I prefer it much more on my M2. I have no experience with the 1.8.

Joe

 

[tedwhite]

I have the 1.8 on my R and it's quite a nice lens, sharp and fast. The only other 50 in my arsenal is the M42 50/1.4 Super Takumar that I use on my Spotmatic, so I really have no other standard of comparison. Both are excellent.

Ted

 

[raid]

I have the 50/1.8 [for general purpose] and the 50/1.2 (for low light).
The 50/1.4 would either replace both or be not needed.

 

[tedwhite]

Raid, you can sell both, get the 1.4 and be money ahead!

Ted (apprentice financial adviser)

 

[peterm1]

You know its sad but I think the 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 all have their own qualities and should definitely be owned by each an every one of us. :^)

 

[ltketch]

If I could afford it (and I can’t) wouldn't it be better just to get the 1.2 as it covers the others stops, or are the qualities of the others enough to warrant separate ownership?

 

[rogue_designer]

the trade off with the 1.2 is that it really is a heavier bigger lens. It uses bigger filters, the (original) hood is harder the find. So depending on your needs - it may not make sense. I also find it a bit more prone to flare in full sunlight.

For me, I like to carry the smaller 1.8, since the filters are the same size as for my 35, which makes a nice daily carry combo (one in the bag) and a lighter camera. Reserving the 1.2 only for night shooting, or special purposes.

 

[conradyiu]

As all said, both lens are great. I prefer the 1.8 as it is in low cost with excellent quality.

 

[raid]

I have the J-3 50/1.5 as my "middle" choice of lens between the 1.2 and the 1.8.