Not one 50mm I want to buy

If you don't want to spend the money for the 50L, just get the 50/1.4... either the Canon or the Sigma. They are fine and will do better than you expect.

I use the Canon and tend to stop it down to f2 or f2.2 when I want a sharper shot... it's usable, but not entirely sharp wide open. The Sigma is sharper wide open. Bokeh is fine on both... not as nice as the L, but - hey - they aren't f1.2 lenses. The Canon has an 8-bladed aperture and the Sigma 9-bladed. Some think the Sigma is slightly smoother, I honestly can't see the difference. The Sigma is ridiculously large and heavy for a 50/1.4. It uses 77mm filters, larger even than the 50L. It's also a bit of a crap shoot getting a good copy of the Siggy 50/1.4... sometimes you have to do the exchange with an understanding retailer, or send the lens in for calibration. I don't know if Sigma is offering an ART version of it yet, that will be possible for users to calibrate themselves (not that they should need to, IMO).

AF on the Canon is fast and accurate... comparable to other Canon USM lenses in the same build/price level such as the 85/1.8 and 28/1.8. Build is about the same as the 10-22mm you have (except it's a lot smaller lens, of course). If you get the Canon, get the lens hood that's sold separately, too. It's important to protect the lens both when shooting and reversed when stored. The hybrid AF system of the EF 50/1.4 is a little too easily damaged by a hard knock on the front barrel of the lens or on the focus ring. But the hood helps protect it nicely. Also try not to manually override AF. As a USM lens, you are supposed to be able to do full time manual... but a lot of users think that with this particular lens that leads to more rapid wear of the AF mechanism.

I worried about this stuff before I bought the 50/1.4.... Then I got it, used it and have had no problems with it what-so-ever for 8 or ten years... so IMO the "issues" of the lens are a bit blown out of proportion. In fact, I bought it used so I don't really know how old it is... but it came with the hood and I always use it, so maybe that's why it's held up so well. I'm not a very big fan of 50mm on a full frame camera... but this lens really works for me and has seen a lot of use on crop cameras.

amfoto1 wrote in post #16061080
I use the Canon and tend to stop it down to f2 or f2.2 when I want a sharper shot... it's usable, but not entirely sharp wide open.

AF on the Canon is fast and accurate... comparable to other Canon USM lenses in the same build/price level such as the 85/1.8 and 28/1.8.

I think if this is the case it will do me just fine - if I can get it to track almost as well as the 85 it will be good enough. Unless I suddenly decide I really really like the FL a lot, then I would plump for he L.

Thanks for the hood reminder too.

amfoto1 wrote in post #16061080
I worried about this stuff before I bought the 50/1.4.... Then I got it, used it and have had no problems with it what-so-ever for 8 or ten years... so IMO the "issues" of the lens are a bit blown out of proportion. In fact, I bought it used so I don't really know how old it is... but it came with the hood and I always use it, so maybe that's why it's held up so well. I'm not a very big fan of 50mm on a full frame camera... but this lens really works for me and has seen a lot of use on crop cameras.

my 50 1.4 straight up broke, and I keep the lens hood on 100% of the time. I can occasionally get the AF to work, but it fails after a few uses.

so you either have a bad lens, or you dont, and perhaps that explains the loud complains.

with the sigma 50 problems, you can still get in some good shots opposed to manual focus only.

ejenner wrote in post #16055982
So as a bit of a rant....

I've never really thought much about 50mm lenses, I don't use that FL length much, but over the last year there are been a few times when the 85 is too long and a reasonably fast 50mm (f2 or faster) would be nice. And I haven't bought a lens for 6 months so I thought I'd take a more serious look at the 50's out there.

So I started actually seriously looking and realized that if I want nice bokeh and something that focuses consistently/quickly I'm looking at $1500.

Bollocks!

Makes me realize what good value the 135L is. I don't mind spending money of good glass that I'm going to use a lot, but I'd rather put that $1500 to an 85L and lose the sigma.

Of course I could just get the sigma 50, but I already have a love-hate relationship with the S-85 (somewhat frustrating AF to use, but always come away with really nice images).

Not sure I'm prepared for messing with the sigma or the bokeh of the Canon 1.4 (been looking at samples). Not sure if the Canon would handle indoor sports like basketball either. If I do get the Canon 1.4 it will be feeling like a lens I'm forced into buying rather than one I really wanted.

Really, shouldn't this be the easiest FL to design and produce something reasonable? No decent 50 1.8 even? I had one on my A-1 that was OK as far as I could tell - at least it was built well.

/rant.

Anyone else bought a lens that they needed but were not really excited about getting?

I felt the same way when I bought my 50mm 1.4. Don't think all problems are solved at the $1500 price point; if they were, I would have convinced myself it was worth the money. After previously owning the 50 1.4 on a crop, I eventually sold it for something wider. Once I went to full frame, I researched for months trying to pick the right 50. I ended up with the f/1.4 again. From a technical aspect, it's sort of a mediocre prime lens, but at 300-$350, I'm perfectly ok with that. A mediocre or even slightly better than mediocre 50mm at $1000+ is harder to swallow. Even with the risk of having the AF motor fail, you can buy the lens 3 times before you get into the L lens price range. Owned my first 50 1.4 for 2yrs without issues, and my current 50 for about a year without issue.

With that said, the sharpness is more than adequate for me even at 1.4, focus speed is average in good light and acceptable in low light, and it was no less accurate than any other non-L lens I've used...with the exception of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, which is essentially an L-lens without the red ring.

amfoto1 wrote in post #16061080
AF on the Canon is fast and accurate... comparable to other Canon USM lenses in the same build/price level such as the 85/1.8 and 28/1.8.

I own all three of these lenses, and feel the 50mm f/1.4's micro motor AF system is inferior to the 28mm and 85mm lenses that use ring USM. The AF on the 28 and 85 is noticeably smoother and quicker, especially in lower light.

I never cared for the auto focus of Canon EF 70-300 IS (non-L) lens for the same reason -- it had the same micro motor, and suffered in the same way.

smorter wrote in post #16057302
The 24-70 II added a huge price premium too. And that had no IS.

My conclusion is that IS doesn't add much to the cost of a new version of a lens. The new optical design does.

adjusted for inflation I believe there is only a couple hundred dollars difference between debut prices for the brick and the II so the premium isn't as big as people make it out to be.

It's time to go Leica! Spend $6000 on a body then get the $10,000 Noctilux. Problem solved! (And bank account drained!! )

tempest68 wrote in post #16065220
It's time to go Leica! Spend $6000 on a body then get the $10,000 Noctilux. Problem solved! (And bank account drained!! )

LOL, Yup. All for a 50 which right now isn't exactly my favorite FL (although I could have done with a fast 50mm yesterday). Hey I get to get a divorce too! Bonus; and if the Leica didn't drain my account, that will!

Reminded me of someone I saw recently taking a quick family shot with a Leica - being all discrete like with his 'small' camera. I made a long 'nice' sound and he looked up and smiled. It was just so funny the way he whipped out the camera like a p&S only to have someone sort of 'catch him out'.