Can you tell the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8?
Jul 12, 2019
Dunja Đuđić Kalinin
Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, concerts, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.
Share:
Both f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses are pretty fast and they can both come in handy in low-light situations. Also, they both give you soft, creamy bokeh when wide open. Although the difference between these two apertures is not huge, f/1.4 lenses cost two or three times more than their f/1.8 counterparts. Is it worth paying extra cash for a slightly faster lens? In this video, Pierre T. Lambert uses them side by side and puts you on the test: can you tell the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8?
To give you a few examples, here are some primes with a maximum aperture of f/1.4 and f/1.8, along with their prices:
- Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G ($216.95) vs. Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G ($446.95)
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM ($125) vs. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM ($349)
- Nikon AF S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G ($476.95) vs. Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G ($1,596.95)
- Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM ($369) vs. Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM ($1,599)
In the video, Pierre shows you some photos taken with both f/1.4 and f/1.8. He shoots wide open, but also at f/2.8 and f/4. When you look at the photos, can you tell them apart? Which one was taken with which aperture?
Honestly, I wasn’t able to tell. I could only differentiate between close-up photos shot wide open and those at f/4, but I had no idea whether the wide open ones were shot at f/1.4 or f/1.8. For my eye, that difference is too subtle. The bokeh looks very similar between f/1.8 and f/1.4. In terms of low-light capabilities, there’s not even one stop of light difference between the two apertures. Personally, when I was buying my prime lenses, I went for the maximum aperture of f/1.8. It’s more than enough for my needs, and the price is significantly lower than the f/1.4 version.
So, does it make sense to invest in an f/1.4 lens? Of course it does. First of all, some of the lenses only exist in this variant, so it’s your only option. But also, it all depends on your needs and your shooting style. I just found it interesting how subtle the differences are. And if you’re having second thoughts about which lens to buy… Well, this could save you some cash. : )
[f/1.4 VS f/1.8 Can YOU Tell The Difference? (this will save you money) via ISO 1200]
Dunja Đuđić Kalinin
Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, concerts, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
12 responses to “Can you tell the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8?”
Wow, one of the aperture is removing tourists from pictures!
No
The difference is about £200…
The difference between f1.8 and f1.4 is less than one f stop . The difference in depth of field is negligible. . The real difference is when the lens is stopped down to the optimum sharpness that will cover the whole of the frame edge to edge. The f1.4 will be sharper edge to edge around f6.3 and the other lens around f8 . The other real difference is how deep your pockets are ! ?
Trevor Olner in theory yes. In real life not. The canon 50mm for example, the 1.8 is sharper in almost every Situation than the 1.4
Tim Knecht it can also depend on the batch as well
I got my 18-35 f/1.8 and my 50mm f/1.8 on a D5600 and S5 Pro, never felt the need for 1.4… But I feel the need to get a 50-100 f/1.8?
Higher end lens-makers such as Leica and Zeiss only offer an f2 and f1.4 lens generally. They don’t offer an intermediate because they don’t make budget lenses. The whole purpose of the 1.8 is like charging 9.99 instead of $10. 1.8 sounds better than f2.
The difference is often on the build of the lens not on the image quality. Canon users call the 1.8 lens “plastic fantastic” Awesome image qu
In my experience this is where vintage glass really proves itself. If I use a modern 1.8 vs a vintage 1.4 (same focal length) the difference is clear. Characteristics of the actual lenses aside, the DOF is noticeably thinner.
I agree it’s rarely a huge difference between those two apertures, and you’re especially not going to see any difference when you’re shooting wide shots where the majority of your focus points are far away. Where you’ll see the most difference is a close subject with some distance to the background, preferably with some specular highlights to show bokeh ball size and shape. The shot of the phone was the closest to that. Sorry but wide shots of city streets and buildings are far from a comprehensive test comparing these already subtly different apertures.
I’m kinda new to this as I am replacing my Sony DSC 828 with a new Sony a6400 with 2 lenses. After some reading, the consensus seems to be an F/1.4 v the F/1.7 or F/1.8. Main reason was slightly increased closer focus and the edges… sharper. For the added $30 difference, I went with the Meike F/1.4. Personally I believe Sony is asking at least twice plus what the lenses should be sold for. The Sony version of this lense has added stabilization, and is $430 (v. $99). That’s kinda crazy. Differences among Sony and 3 or 4 other 3rd parties, very little.