50 1.4 or 50 1.8

I'd go with the 1.4, only because the build quality.

I use my f/1.8 often and it was an inexpensive investment. I know for myself that I would benefit from a faster lens (f/1.4). If I was to do it again, I'd go for the f/1.4 from the start.

I got the Canon 50f1.4. It is sharp at f1.4, but I prefer smaller apertures for photos of people.
Reviews say it is sharper at f1.8 than the f1.8 version wide open. That is a good reason for getting the f1.4 version. My copy has accurate and fast AF. AF is not as fast as the 85f1.8, but it is good.

Thanks again for the input.
I'll probably go with the 1.4

How long would you have to save for the 1.2?

I wouldn't. I want a descent lens that I'm not going to worry about getting stolen while it's mounted on my 3rd body. This will be sandwiched between 24L, 35L, and 85LII, 135L.

I mean if that is the lineup.... Might aswell....


Is your gear insured as personal property against theft?

I took out a policy on myself that covers(all personal property) my cameras, bike and sax...

Yes, but I have a high deductible. Realize you never get back from insurance what it will cost to replace with new.

If you know you are in a place where things are very easily stolen, yet the light is bright. Go for the 1.8.

Although 1.4 does have a lot more to offer. So generally, I'd say 1.4 unless you know things will be easily stolen.

Throwing the EF50 1.4 on a 40D gives me a pretty nice DSLR that wouldn't kill me if it got lost, stolen, wet or broken. Kinda the opposite of the 5DII with the 85L II, if you know what I mean.

rick_reno wrote in post #12848005
I'd go with the 1.4, only because the build quality.

Same here plus it's quiet. I didn't realize how much I appreciate this until I got a USM lens.

windpig wrote in post #12846492
What says anybody that's experienced both?

They're both junk. The f/1.4 is better than the f/1.8, but that's not saying much.

50mm f/1.8 pros: sharp as a tack at f/2.8 and onwards. Light as a feather for those long backpacking excursions.

50mm f/1.8 cons: the focus ring is worse than a $2 plastic toy camera. Autofocus is slow and sloppy. Ugly bokeh. Bad flare (or halation or something). Poor build quality.

50mm f/1.4 pros: pretty sharp at f/2.8. Good autofocus (certainly a whole lot better than the f/1.8).

50mm f/1.4 cons: Bad flare/glare (or whatever it is). Delicate build quality. My 1.4 fell about 2 feet onto a padded carpet and broke (wouldn't autofocus *or* manual focus until after a $100 repair). Terrifyingly hideous bokeh. Bokeh so ugly that the photos will have to be taken out back a shot. When the boogie man goes to bed at night, he checks his closet for the 50mm f/1.4 bokeh. I'm still in therapy for the horrendous bokeh I was exposed to due to all the years I was forced to use the 50mm f/1.4 against my will.

Here's what I suggest: make do with a manual focus lens until you can afford the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. My $70 Nikon 55mm f/2.8 (used from KEH) has a fantastic focus ring -- way better than either Canon autofocus lens. Plus the build quality is great. It has been banged, knocked, jolted, dropped, and pretty much abused, but still takes tack-sharp macros. The bokeh is a sight for sore eyes after having used the others for so long (though it's not amazing or anything). But of course the downsides are: slow (f/2.8), manual focus, manual aperture, and requires an (inexpensive) adapter.

I had the 50 f/1.4 on my 40D and didn't care for it. IQ and build quality both left a lot to be desired in my opinion. It's a USM lens, but it is not like the 85 f/1.8 or the 100mm macro. It wasn't very sharp wide open and the focal length felt awkward to me personally. AF was okay but the lens extends when focusing. I guess it is probably faster than the 85L but definitely no 35L. The lens also never got any use because the 35mm and 85mm focal lengths covered all of my needs.

I would say go for the 50 f/1.8 and decide if you like the focal length. If you like it and feel like you want more lens, give one of the other 50mm alternatives a try. Maybe the Sigma or one of the macro lenses with similar focal length.

35F2 has better build compare to 1.8 cost less compare to 1.4 and IMO would have better range on 40D.

kf095 wrote in post #12850880
35F2 has better build compare to 1.8 cost less compare to 1.4 and IMO would have better range on 40D.

This^^^

And if you want true USM/HSM, the Canon 28mm f/1.8 or sigma 30 f/1.4