David against Goliath? Canon 50mm 1.4 vs. Canon 1.8 II

Although I am the imaging performance of my old Canon 50mm 1.8 II had always believed and it accompanied me for many years, I became increasingly dissatisfied with the autofocus. So I picked up at some point to the Canon 50mm 1.4. Was it worth the switch? What are the differences? I would like to discuss in this review.

Production / processing quality, size, weight

Here one can see the first serious difference. The Canon 1.4 is slightly larger (by the larger maximum aperture) and serious when it weighs no kg. It is also to a great extent made of plastic, but it significantly affects quality and more robust. The bayonet is made of metal and also the feel is considerably higher quality. However me the build quality of the Canon 1.8 had never been very disturbed when I did not have shame want to use.

In addition, is now indeed known that the Canon 1.4 no pressure / impacts to the front port like, as this can very quickly lead to failure of the autofocus. Before buying I was alerted by the review of Peter Silie here at Amazon. My research revealed that this corresponds to the fact, so I already had the lens hood before I bought the lens at all. Since then opened the box and the lens was removed, I have not removed the lens hood. While this means that the Canon 1.4 takes a little extra space in your pocket, but I look at this now as inevitable. For the great tip I've already thanked me at Peter Silie with a positive review!

Service

Very pleasant is the greater focus ring which is good sized and failed grip. In order for the fumbling at the Canon 1.8 is finally over! FTM (Full Time Manual) also offers the possibility, even after focusing (per autofocus) nor to move the focal plane manually As the name just says.

Image quality / image quality

Like the Canon 1.8 Canon 1.4 is slightly out of focus with its open aperture. In order to explore the strengths and weaknesses, I recorded several aperture rows of diverse motives of a tripod. In the center, the Canon 1.4 is from an aperture of 2.0 or 2.2 (depending on the subject) much better, the image edges are lagging a little behind here, pick up significantly and are at 2.8 to 4.0 approximately level with the center. In my opinion, the focus reaches its maximum at f 7.1 or 8. stop 11 takes the edge again slightly, but what is perfectly normal due to the diffraction blur. My old Canon 1.8, however, was at f 2.8 significantly sharper (here again the problem of the edges) and the edges brought on only at 5.6. Overall, my Canon 1.4 shows only minimal sharper than the Canon 1.8. The reserve toward the open aperture adheres, as can be seen, in some limits, so that the differences between the two lenses actually be quite low.

Particularly suitable for the sharpness evaluation incidentally showed motifs with a large dynamic range. As (unexpectedly) Best Picture for this, there was a simple recording of one of my L lenses (Canon 6D, manual focus, ISO 100, Av). Here in particular the white line on the black AF switch. At full aperture the white flows out something. Incidentally, these small errors can focus very well corrected in Lightroom, what I would not have thought.

On a full frame camera shows up at maximum aperture a strong vignetting, but which can also be removed with a mouse click in Lightroom.

Autofocus

Herein lies my opinion, the real added value of 1.4 compared to the Canon 1.8er variant. The USM works quite reliably and quickly, although this is not a real ring-type USM, such as the Canon 85mm 1.8, which in my opinion is a little better, but this is whining at a high level. For larger apertures, and particularly at maximum aperture, it may therefore happen quickly that the auto focus times beside it. At first I had to have the fear a false focus. Day-long tests have shown that the deviation was absolutely minimal. Therefore, I have the lens just easily optimized only by AF fine adjustment. Under ideal conditions, now everything works fine, but is dealing with such a large aperture, from the hand out, naturally not very easy and also the auto focus is not always 100 percent right. You focus for example on a person's eyes, the autofocus may like to get stuck to the lashes. Since the sharpness level is so low here, this can sometimes cause slight blurring. My tip: focus on the eyes, continuous fire (3-4 record) and the camera easily move back and forth (!). One of the photos is sure to be sharp. The USM is much quieter than the standard Focus driving the 50mm 1.8 II, is obvious.

++ Faster, quieter and more precise autofocus as the 50mm 1.8 II
+ Better processing than the 50mm 1.8 II
+ Very good maximum sharpness
+ Larger maximum aperture and thus a little more light-Reserve

- Relatively soft at full aperture
--Empfindlichkeit Due to the front port or the construction of the auto focus. A lens hood is a must and should always remain on the lens.
- Maximum sharpness only at relatively high f-number.
- Vignetting at open aperture (with Lightroom and so no problem)

My personal conclusion

Who on-location is often (especially indoors or in low light) traveling will appreciate the plus towards USM autofocus quickly. However, those who have carried out in good light or always focused manually from a tripod and already a 50mm 1.8 only outdoor shootings, does not necessarily have to take 320 Euro in the hand and can remain in good conscience while Nifty Fifty. But as so often, the improvements in the details. The image quality is slightly better, the service is a real coup for the fingers (especially during the manual focus from a tripod) and in low light you can sometimes take up screen 2 without completely muddy pictures to fear. Overall, the transition has paid off for me personally, because the Canon 1.4 is much better suited for some of my applications. More and more I had the 50mm 1.8 II at weddings home, because I had made the autofocus more than once a spanner in the works. Especially in low light I was annoyed that he was not a target.
On a full frame camera gives a great image detail for reports, torso and full-body portraits. I have already documented a complete civil wedding only with a 50mm lens. The 50mm are on an APS-C camera more suitable for facial or maximum torso Portraits because effectively gives a focal length of around 80mm here. This is for example for a wedding (without changing lenses) usually too much. In particular, on the subsequent celebration is frequently gets into trouble, since one often already standing with his back to the wall and just not give up the space. 35mm would probably make more sense here in APS-C. On full frame I can particularly recommend a combination with the Canon 85mm 1.8, thereby being simply flexible. A (ultra-) Wide and this one is well equipped for most situations.