50 1.2L vs 50 1.4

Hmm, this gets asked so many times in these forums, but i'd say if you are a professional planning to use fast performing autofocus 50mm lens on people photography like in weddings - then sure, absolutely, go for it! 50L with a body like 5D mk III works just so great. With older body like 5D mk II works great too, but you are kinda stuck with the central focus point for 100 % reliable focusing (@ f/1.2).

If you are normal, amateur/semi-professional who still appreciates great image quality with 50mm focal lenght - I wouldn't put so much money on a 50mm f/1.2 like Canon 50L. You can bumb up the ISO easily with 5D mk. III so you don't really need f/1.2. There are other fantastic alternatives for 50L which fully rival the image quality of the 50L. Sigma 50mm (optically the Sigma 50mm is very close to Canon 50L, and beats the Canon 50mm 1.4 easily in IQ). If manual focusing is not a problem for you, I suggest take a look at vintage lenses like Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4, Nikkor 50mm, Zeiss 50mm f1.4 (this one is not that sharp though), or Rokkor 50mm/58mm. Zeiss 50 MP (f/2) is an absolutely awesome lens as well.

kin2son wrote in post #15850514
I'd consider the Sigma 35mm.

35mm is the new 50mm, I find it better as a general lens than 50mm.

[QUOTE=CircuitR;158506​43]Physically the L is a beast of a lens. It literally draws attention when your out in public.
quote]

Nearly fell off my chair reading some of these responses.

But the one below is really making sense.

iCatchU wrote in post #15850823
Colour rendition of 50L is the best amongest L primes. IMHO, yes, it is worth.

The 50L is king, it's bloody amazing - period! If it wasn't then it wouldn't cost so much.

Understand that's it's not within most peoples' budget and good results can be realised with the cheaper options.

I've gone the cheaper option on many lenses after reading so many reviews by people who often only comment on sharpness. I've sold all my non-L lenses as they have let me down on colour, focus, noise, build to name a few. Every lens I've owned has been sharp, but that's such a one dimensional view of a lens.

The 50L is better on every count than the cheaper options, pls believe me. If you can afford it. buy it.

billppw350z wrote in post #15851082
... The auto focus accuracy/consistency of the L is much better than the non-L wider than f2.8 (as good as my other L primes), and they are about the same smaller than f2.8. The non-L focuses insignificantly faster in good light. The L’s low light auto focusing ability is extraordinary. Better than any of my other fast L primes. It will literally snap into focus in a dark room where other lenses just hunt and fail. It’s downright difficult to make the L flare. Both lenses are sharp. The L is slightly but noticeably sharper wider than f2, somewhere between f2 and f2.8 they become the same, and I can’t see a difference smaller than f2.8.
...

You can’t fix an out of focus picture in post and there are rarely “do overs” in photography. When the moment is gone, it’s gone.

Specifically; this explains why I went with the 50L over one of the 50 f/1.4s. Whether that is worth the price different to you; that's a different story.