File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/!
I am indecisive. Help me Justify getting a 50mm 1.4 over 1.8 (canon)
HALP ME!
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
>>233000
>> Anonymous
>>233039
moar proof!
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
     File :-(, x)
Man up and dish out the extra $200 for the 1.4! All the coooool kids are doing it!

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:08:11 13:41:18Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/1.4Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
man up and get a real 50mm
>> lehesai
Better build quality, usm and sharper images. Isn't that reason enough to buy the 1.4?
>> Anonymous
i can adjust your damned USM in photoshop... im not spending an extra 100 on a lens that lets in a minute amount more light.

from what ive seen with the nikon version the sharpness is about the same for both.
>> Anonymous
>>233070

see>>233061

>>233094i can adjust your damned USM in photoshop...

please be a troll
>> Anonymous
50 1.8 is shit, noisy AF, plastic fragile case, plastic mount (facepalm), horrible flares, horrible CA, 40% of those lenses got some FF/BF issues,

and this>>233051
is great option go to some photo site and watch some samlples its way better than canon 1,8 and 1,4
but also got FF/BH issues, so make sure to test lens before buy
>> Anonymous
zeiss 50/1.4

smc takumar 50/1.4

for legendary 50s
>> Anonymous
>>233051
Just because it shoots test charts better wide open does not mean it's a better lens.

The Sigma 50/1.4 is meant as a go-to low light lens for people with their slow f/3.5-5.6 zooms, including and especially chumps stuck a D40. Sort of like a bargain Noct-Nikkor: designed to be best (or close to it) wide open because it's a go-to lens for people with normally slower lenses when there's no fucking light.

Which is fine. Some people prefer zooms, which will always be slower. But that doesn't mean it's the fifty to get. It's also much bigger (and if you don't shoot in a studio and/or don't schelp around a giant bag, this is a real consideration), and subjectively IMO it doesn't hold a candle to the EF 50/1.4.

Mike Johnston, a major lens reviewer, ranked the EF 50/1.4 the sixth best 50mm (presumably just 50mms for 135 film, since that's all that was on the list) of all time.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/02/great-50mm-lenses.html

Now, granted, this was before the Sigma, but I doubt he'd stick the Sigma on that list now, and it pretty much means you can't go wrong by buying it when someone with more experience with lenses than all of /p/ put together sticks it on that list.

(This is also an answer to the OP.)
>> Anonymous
>>233119

^butthurt canon 50/1.4 fag
>> Anonymous
# 2 BABY! WOOOOO YEEEAH!
>> Anonymous
>>233119Just because it shoots test charts better wide open does not mean it's a better lens.

Uh.. optically, yes it's better. Actually, it's motherfucking better than just about every 50mm out there for resolution.

>> The Sigma 50/1.4 is meant as a go-to low light lens for people with their slow f/3.5-5.6 zooms, including and especially chumps stuck a D40. Sort of like a bargain Noct-Nikkor: designed to be best (or close to it) wide open because it's a go-to lens for people with normally slower lenses when there's no fucking light. Which is fine. Some people prefer zooms, which will always be slower.

Wait, what the flying fuck? Why are we talking about zooms here?

Because the Sigma works fucking great wide open, it's a leans for low light for people who use slow zooms? WHAT THE FUCK kind of logic is that?

Put all 50mms and use all of them wide open. The Sigma clearly performs better. What the fuck are you trying to justify that it's meant to be used in low light.

>> But that doesn't mean it's the fifty to get. It's also much bigger (and if you don't shoot in a studio and/or don't schelp around a giant bag, this is a real consideration)

Oh wow, it really is huge, what will I do? Give me a fucking break.

>> and subjectively IMO it doesn't hold a candle to the EF 50/1.4.

You're entitled to liking an optically inferior lens.

>> Mike Johnston, a major lens reviewer, ranked the EF 50/1.4 the sixth best 50mm (presumably just 50mms for 135 film, since that's all that was on the list) of all time.

He's entitled to liking optically inferior lenses.

>> Now, granted, this was before the Sigma, but I doubt he'd stick the Sigma on that list now, and it pretty much means you can't go wrong by buying it when someone with more experience with lenses than all of /p/ put together sticks it on that list.

Wow, just fucking wow. Fanboy much? That last paragraph, Jesus Christ.
>> Anonymous
why the hell should i justify it

ive never seen why anyone would get the 1.4

i mean sure its usm but what, are you going to shoot action @ 1.4?
>> Anonymous
>50 1.8 is shit, noisy AF, plastic fragile case, plastic >mount (facepalm), horrible flares, horrible CA, 40% of >those lenses got some FF/BF issues,

lol no. its made out of plastic, its dc af, but optically its pretty superior to most everything. And for $60 on ebay im not bitching about the build. If it breaks ill buy a new one.
>> Butterfy !xlgRMYva6s
>>233169
breakdancing in clubs!
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>233116
If you're talking historic lenses, the Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar isn't nearly as legendary as its 50/1.5 Sonnar predecessor. Of course this is totally irrelevant to OP because no true 50 Sonnar will mount to an SLR.

>>233119
The only thing you've said that makes any sense at all is that size is a consideration. So far from the samples I've seen there's no reason to hate on the Sigma, and bringing in an "expert" opinion is pointless if he's never actually seen the Sigma and you're just guessing his opinion. I mean, sticking your opinion in his mouth.

>>233111
ahahahahah have you even used the 50/1.8
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
The bokeh of the 1.4 makes it over 9000 times better. 1.8 bokeh looks like a wrapped condom.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
     File :-(, x)
here's a shameless self promotion

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:08:12 03:19:01Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1600Lens Aperturef/1.4Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width750Image Height500RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
The 1.8's great for the price, but you'll go through 3 or 4 because every time you give it a moderately hard knock it'll split in half and refuse to go together again. I'm on my 3rd one...
>>233051
This is what you want.