How Nifty is Your Fifty? Comparing Canon's 50mm f/1.4 USM and 50mm f/1.8 II Lenses

It's inevitable. At some point in every young Canon photographer's life, he or she will come to a crossroads: Go with the faster, sturdier, more expensive Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM, or settle for the cheaper Canon 50 mm f/1.8 II?

I personally went with the 50mm 1.8 (or the Nifty Fifty, as it's often called), and have always wondered 'what if?' But then, just days ago, that question was answered when Aaron Dickey, Traction's graphic designer, snagged himself the 50mm 1.4.

Testing and side-by-side comparisons ensued, and, really, I feel that both of us came away supporting our individual purchases. 

Now, before I get too far into this, I should say that I'm in no way a professional photographer and this is in no way a technical comparison. Just a few fairly superficial tests that satisfied our curiosity, and hopefully will yours, too.

First off, there's no denying that the 50mm 1.4 is the better constructed of the two. It's heavier, it's more solid, it has a metal mount and distance scale. The Nifty Fifty, on the other hand, has a heart of plastic. To be honest, it sorta feels like a McDonald's toy you know your kids are going to obliterate in an afternoon. Which has a lot to do with the next purchase decision factor...

Price. The 50mm 1.4 with all its fancy metal will cost you in the neighborhood of $340-$380. The 50mm 1.8 is a light, plastic-y $100. 

Affecting that price, as well, are the mechanics of the lenses. Both are capabale of autofocus and manual focus (though the 1.4 has full time manual and the 1.8 has a practically non-existent MF ring). Neither have image stabilization. The 1.4 has a USM, or ultrasonic motor, to quiet and smooth the focusing. Focusing with the 1.8 isn't nearly as discreet.

Both lenses are EF mounts, so they can be mounted on Canon's full frame and crop frame camera bodies.

In low light, both seem to hunt for focus just as much as the other. A slight edge in focusing quickness might go to the 1.4, but without a stopwatch to prove it, I feel like the USM just makes it seem quicker.

Lastly, the 50mm 1.4 is a stop faster than the 50mm 1.8. And for a lot of people, that makes all the difference. 

But the real question is: How do they peform? To answer that, we set up our scene with Red Stripe bottles (Hooray Beer!), took shoots through one lens' range of apertures, then switched lenses and did the same. All shots were taken on a Canon T2i in AV mode with ISO at 100. Lighting was constant and consistent throughout the test.

Lens1 refers to the 50mm f/1.4 always on the left, and Lens2 refers to the 50mm f/1.8 always on the right. 

Click each comparison below to see them in all their 2048 x 682 glory.

As expected, the depth of field at f/1.4 for Lens1 is indeed shallower than f/1.8 on Lens2. Lens1 seems to expose a little brighter, while Lens2 looks a little sharper at the focal point.

Same story as above with both set to f/1.8. Lens1 a little brighter, Lens2 a little sharper. f/1.8 on Lens1 seems be a little shallower than f/1.8 on Lens2.

This could be the sweet spot for both lenses at f/2.8. Nice sharp focus. Lens1 is still brigher and a tad shallower.

f/3.5 - Nearly identical.

f/5.6 - Twinsies.

f/8 - Who's who?

f/16 - Same.

f/22 - Same again.

Another variable setting these two lenses apart, and potentially playing into your purchasing decision, is the quality and shape of bokeh they create. In fact, outside of the build quality, I would say this is the most obvious difference between the two.

With just five non-rounded aperture blades, the 50mm 1.8 creates a pentagonal bokeh the U.S. Department of Defense would be proud of. The 50mm 1.4, on the other hand, turns its bokeh into an eight-bladed octagon. The Pentagon vs. The Octagon. Let's get ready to rumble!

In the side-by-side comparisons below, we used a strand of LED Christmas lights for the bokeh, set the lenses to manual focus, picked a point of focus well in front of the lights, and, again, stopped down through one lens's range of apertures before switching to the next lens. Unfortunately, we couldn't keep the lights from changing colors, but, ultimately, didn't feel this had any ill effects on our bokeh comparison.

At f/1.4 and f/1.8, respectively, Lens1 and Lens2 both create a pleasantly soft and round bokeh. With a wider aperture, Lens1 is undeniably fatter and creamier. 

At f/1.8, the bokeh from Lens1 begins to take on the shape of its eight aperture blades. Lens2, again at its widest point, is nice and round.

At f/2, Lens2 begins revealing its 5-sided bokeh, though a bit sloppily.  

Lens2 is still a bit sloppy at f/2.2, but starting to take a more angular shape like Lens1.

From this point on, the bokeh are basically identical in every way except for the shape.  

f/3.5

f/5

All said and done, our comparison test reveals there are definitely a few distinct differences between the two lenses. Which is better, though, is hard to say.

The build quality of the 50mm 1.4, with its wider aperture and shapelier bokeh, is a big plus. But the much smaller price tag of the 50mm 1.8, along with its seemingly sharper focus at wider apertures, is impossible to overlook.

Of course, some of the more technical nuances between the two are going to be lost on a photographer of my expertise. Regardless, my conclusion is that I'm sticking with the 50mm f/1.8, and probably would three times over before moving on to the 50mm f/1.4.