The Canon 50mm f1.4 or f1.2?

50l is way better. It is particularly true if you often shoot from 1.2 to 2.0. The build and feel are great too. Still, the lens take times to get used to.

Without even reading any of the above responses, I'm going to just say this:

I think the 50 1.2 is a very overpriced lens considering some of the design flaws with that lens. I've found that with a proper microadjust, the 50 1.4 provides more than enough sharpness even wide open. I think most people would be hard pressed to identify sharpness differences between the two lens at normal viewing/print sizes. I've owned the lens twice and it's AF accuracy has been excellent. In regards to AF speed, I don't really care about having lightning fast AF for a prime at this focal length because most of my subjects are portraits, still-life, or scenery. Durability? Well, if you have very bad luck, the 1.4 can break and be replaced at full cost about 4 times before you reach the cost of a single 50 1.2. Also, the 1.4 creates great subject isolation and man times the DOF can actually be too thin in real life scenarios. As far as the f/1.2 for more light...well, the ISO performance on our 5D3's will easily take care of that.

All in all, I find it very difficult to justify the price difference when considering the performance difference. Just my $0.02

50L hands down. I have had many 50mms in the past and this baby will give you a distinctive look to your pictures. Beautiful bokeh, vivid colours (though you can manipulate this) and a 1.2!

The only lens that to me that does the same and does it better is the 85L (which I had but sold it for the 50L, purely for focal length reasons)

Mannetti21 is making me feel a little better about not having the coin for the L and wanting to go with the 1.4!

YodisMatt wrote in post #15524296
Mannetti21 is making me feel a little better about not having the coin for the L and wanting to go with the 1.4!

I was one click away from purchasing the 50L, cost wasn't really an issue, but I decided against it. I have a close friend with the 50L so I've seen the images he produces on a regular basis...I don't regret my decision as I haven't seen anything come out of the 50L the would be worth almost 4x the cost of my 50. IMO, it isn't one of Canon's best L lens options.

BrandonSi wrote in post #15521866
I imagine it's due to the back-focus issue / lack of floating element and curved focal 'plane'.

This.

I've been lusting for this lens for quite some time and hope to purchase it this year. There's more to image quality than sharpness. This lens, in the right hands, can produce images with a dreamy quality unlike any other. That, and build quality, is what you pay for.

Snafoo wrote in post #15525095
This.

I've been lusting for this lens for quite some time and hope to purchase it this year. There's more to image quality than sharpness. This lens, in the right hands, can produce images with a dreamy quality unlike any other. That, and build quality, is what you pay for.

I agree. Sharpness and AF accuracy are not the 50L's strong suit. If that's all you're chasing, then the 50 1.4 will do fine. Subject isolation at 1.4 is very nice, though the bokeh is far 'busier' looking than the 50L.

What makes the 50L stand out is its bokeh and color rendition. It doesn't have the 'pop' of the 85L, but I often like how the 50L keeps the background elements in context, yet blurs them out very smoothly and in such a way that it isn't distracting. It creates buttery smooth dreamy quality that I never got out of the 50 1.4.

Is all of that worth an extra $1k? That's debatable. I think what I like most about the 50L is that you get the color rendition and overall 'smoothness' of Canon's "L" lenses, in a very compact package, extremely fast aperture, and easy to work with focal length.