50/1.4 or 1.8?

[conradyiu]

I have been planning to get a 50/1.4, but I would like to know any difference in quality, boken contrast, etc between my 50/1.8 at stop 1.8 to 16. Any idea?
Thanks

 

[photobizzz]

Well I only have the Serenar version of the 1.8, contrast wide open is pretty mellow, little more as you stop down. Bokeh is very nice, smooth, the apature opening is almost perfectly round. The build quality is on the same level as a Leitz lens in my opinion. I had to take mine apart to clean some condensed oil off of one of the inner elements when I got it and it was very easy to take apart from the rear. I did not take the front element out though. I paid only $125 shipping included for mine from evilbay.The 1.4 version usually go for around $200 for a good copy. The only drawback is the 40mm filter size on the 1.8. I purchased a 40-40.5 adapter, uv and vented hood for about $25 and that solved the problem. I will post some photos from it shortly, I have a few frames left on this roll and once developed I will edit this post.

 

[steverett]

I have both lenses; I feel that the 1.8 is slightly sharper and contrastier at wide apertures than the 1.4 is. However it's nice having that extra stop, and the difference is hardly noticeable, so I've been mostly using the 1.4 recently. Both lenses seem to be equal quality to me.

 

[Rafael]

You should check out the lens comparison that Dave did HERE.

 

[indianavince]

With lenses this old you will have to test them individually. Most all will have some scratches... oil film (no matter how slight). The slower lenses are usually better.. Nikkor 50 f2 is always more highly regarded than the f1.4 and the f1.2 is usually rated pretty low at f 1.2... but if you need the extra stop... who's complaing. What is usually confirmed is that the 50 f2 is sharper at f2 than the 50 f1.2 at F2... understand? People think too much... cameras are fun... but a light camera for traveling is more usefull than a Nikon F3 with 85mm f 1.4 and a 35mm f1.4... I love those lenses but don't cary them around like I would my Canon P and 50mm f1.4. Go have fun don't worry so much.....

PS a couple of my fav. shot of my 6 month old son were made with a nikkor 50 f1.2... the edges are softish... but hey it's an effect. Can't be compared with the shots I made of my kids with a Leica Elmar 90... but hey those are so nice too. Diferent cameras are like different paint brushes to an artist. Some of those die hard Leica shooters will own 2 or 3 different 50mm lenses because of the different characteristics each posess. Personally I feel the 40mm for the CLE is one of the best normal lenses I have ever enjoyed using!!! It's sharp and smooth like a great Parmasan CHEESE!!! how's that for a comparison. Take some photos and eat some good cheese......

 

[conradyiu]

Thanks for all your advice! Perhaps, I really not need a 1.4

 

[tedwhite]

I've got the Canon 50/1.8 (not Serenar) and it's a great lens. Stopped down it's painfully sharp. I can't comment on shooting it wide open as I haven't done it yet. Living in the desert it's a bit hard to go round shooting wide open. Easier in Finland in winter, I suspect.

Ted

 

[peterm1]

Both the black and chrome ones are surprisingly good. (Actually I do not think there was a f1.4 in chrome, only in the later black/chrome build. The chrome equivalent was a 1.5 built to a different formula and also excellent.) The chrome f1.8 is also an excellent lens. I have all three and used to have the f1.5. My feeling is that the 1.4 is better than the summilux of the day and the 1.8 the equivalent of the summicron.