Canon EF 50 mm - 1.8 or 1.4 USM?

[sn4il]

I want to get 50 mm lens for 20D. Which one would You recommend? Is it worth to spend extra $200 to grab 1.4 USM?
mAx

[condyk]

If you'd otherwise spend the cash on cigarettes and beer then the answer is YES!

I find the 1.8 amazing value but I think I got a very nice copy. You won't lose much buying the 1.8 as resale value is good. If you like it you keep it, if you don't then sell it and get a 1.4.

[sixshot]

Depends if you have the money....Thats what I often read in these forums and also feel the same way. If you can afford the 50mm 1.4 get it. Or if you can track down the 50mm 1.0 L, get that!! If not, get the 1.8 which is still a great lens with great value.

[the7ferret]

I saw a review yesterday and now i cant find it, he compared both the 1.8, 1.4 and the 24-70 2.8L

Between the two primes he stated the biggest and most profound difference was the extra stop. Sharpness, color, contrast were all practicly equal, Focus was better with the 1.4 as it has USM, and that the Bokeh was slightly better, the 24-70 2.8l was a different monster.

[Jon Foster]

I really like the 1.4. It takes great pictures and has better build quality.

Jon.

[tim]

I've stopped using my 50mm F1.8 as the focus isn't accurate enough for me when shooting wide open. The 1.4 should be much better as it's USM. I had a lot of photos out of focus when I used the 1.8 wide open for theatre photos.

[Dante King]

Not to mention that the focus ring on the 50 1.8 is really hard to use and TINY! But hell what do you expect form a $70 lens. It kicks some serious butt for $70 I had a nice copy and now the mad doc frankenstein has it. I went with the 50 1.4 for the usm and FTMF.