On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 10:17:44AM -0500, Patrice Chiniara wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, jm1209 wrote:
>
> > Could someone explain if the price difference between he 1.4 and 1.8
> > lens is worth the difference.
>
> If you absolutely need f/1.4, the slight difference in focusing speed and
> the metal build, then yes. For all other conditions, the f/1.8 is but a
> fine, fine lens...
I've used both, and as far as I'm concerned *the* difference between
those is the ease of manual focusing. The focus ring in the 1.8 is
just plain awful compared to the 1.4, and the latter has Full-Time
Manual focusing (that alone is worth the price difference for me;
if you always use AF it's irrelevant).
Otherwise I mostly agree with Patrick.
Autofocus speed difference is small (the 1.8 is much noisier though).
The metal build is important if you intend to depend on the lens under
circumstances where it can't be easily replaced (and even then you might
just get *two* 1.8's).
The 1.4 also has distance scale (I believe the 1.8 Mk I has also, current
version does not), which may or may not be of use to you. It does have
infrared correction mark, which might be useful if you're into that.
The f/1.4 is a tad sharper at some apertures, but not enough to matter IMHO,
they are both very sharp.
Then of course there are situations where the difference between f/1.8
and f/1.4 can make or break the picture...
Note though that the 50/1.4 vignettes rather badly wide open, which
limits the usefulness of the maximum aperture somewhat.
(It's still no worse than the 50/1.8 at any given aperture.)
--
Tapani Tarvainen
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
