Canon 50mm 1.4, is it worth it?

KeenanRIVALS wrote in post #16225262
I think the 40mm 2.8 is a good lens, it may not be as great in low light, but you get crazy sharpness with it, also perfect for walk around. I currently have the 10-22, 24-105 and picking up the 40mm just for that gap. It can even be used for full body portrait shots as well, the 1.8 is great as well though, bokeh and awesome in low light. Im not a fan of the Canon 1.4, I just dont think its night and day as some people say, guess it depends on what your shooting. For that money I'd rather buy a Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC II.

In reference to my night/day scenario. The 1.8ii missed focus as much as it hit it seemed, not to mention it was slower and it very loud. When you did hit focus it could produce great images, I just got tired of fighting with it. $100 vs the $225 I gave for a 1.4, the 1.4 was night/day for the small price bump.

toolman21 wrote in post #16225367
In reference to my night/day scenario. The 1.8ii missed focus as much as it hit it seemed, not to mention it was slower and it very loud. When you did hit focus it could produce great images, I just got tired of fighting with it. $100 vs the $225 I gave for a 1.4, the 1.4 was night/day for the small price bump.

In that case maybe your right, I think the 1.8 has potential at taking a great shot or great video, but if you factor in time then maybe it is worth it to make the switch. My 1.8 was slow in terms of auto focusing, but I never really use that feature.

Now that I think about it the effort it took into taking a great shot is the reason I no longer have 1.8 and moved on to purchasing the 2.8 Pancake.

Very simple if money is no object the Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS. If money is a concern the Sigma 17-50
f2.8 is a good choice at half the price of the Canon. Also look at the Tamron don't know much about it
but I would think same price range as the Sigma.

I personally have the Sigma 17-50 and am very happy with it. It sits between my Canon 10-22 and my 70-200L f4 IS.

KeenanRIVALS wrote in post #16225447
In that case maybe your right, I think the 1.8 has potential at taking a great shot or great video, but if you factor in time then maybe it is worth it to make the switch. My 1.8 was slow in terms of auto focusing, but I never really use that feature.

Now that I think about it the effort it took into taking a great shot is the reason I no longer have 1.8 and moved on to purchasing the 2.8 Pancake.

I have been tempted to get a pancake 40mm because of the low profile, price and for general use on a crop 50mm is a bit tight. All reports say it is a solid lens. Although I think the Sigma 30mm might be an even better 'general use' prime on a crop just because it is wider.

In response to the question, unless you want a prime specifically I would agree with the above posters that if money is no issue just pick up the Canon 17-55 2.8 lens. The Sigma and Tamron non-vc are also suitable replacements for budget minded people. It is a useful range to have at a constant 2.8. It is next on my list of lens purchase more than likely.

Sirrith wrote in post #16219547
I dislike the Canon 50/1.4, so I do not recommend it.

Can you state your reason/s for disliking it?

why not go with a manual focus lens?

zeiss 50 1.4 T* Planar is really good. yea, you lose the AF but the IQ and build quality is sooo much better imo. goes for the same price used as the canon 50 1.4. you can always get an AF confirm chip with an adapter to help.

jonathanheierle wrote in post #16218873
As long as I can capture very fast moving motion in good focus I'm happy, mountain biking and land scapes is my main files of work right now, I haven't looked into other styles but will soon

Some of my favorite Mountain bike pictures with my 7D come from my 50 1.8. As long as you track the rider before they get where you want to start snapping pics it locks on just fine. It just takes it a second to gain that lock. Ive also had some really good luck with my 40 pancake.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/mysticfalcon/7​494188672/

I am also in the standard zoom camp. I want the option to zoom with my lens and not my feet when I am on-the-go and need to take the quick snapshot. An ultra wide can be too wide, not allowing me to zoom in on something interesting. A 50mm prime is nice, but, I will have to take the time to zoom with my feet --- if I got the time to do this and your subject coorporates, it is rewarding, but, that isn't always the case.

As for the 50/1.4 itself, I looked at my options this way:
1. 50/1.8 II --- great price. Very small. Hate manually focusing it and the rotating front element. Stopped down, it was fine, but, my copy was from my film camera days and probably wasn't a good sample.
2. Canon 50/1.4 --- I like the AF performance and bokeh more than the 50/1.8's. Very acceptable image quality. Price was OK. I do wish it had a modern AF.
3. Canon 50/1.2L --- expensive, big, and heavy. If I loved the 50mm focal range more, I would have bought one because it is an L prime. Given the price, I considered and then bought the 35L instead to complement my 85L.
4. Sigma 50/1.4 --- I *really* want to love this lens. Great build. Excellent image quality. But, the AF was inconsistent at different distances and across my three DSLR bodies. If Sigma upgrades it to an ART version, I'm definitely buying it.

I have done a whole review on it comparing it directly to the Canon 1.2

Click on following link:

http://johncarnessali.​com/camera-lens-tests/5338

Here are a few comparisons.. More comparisons at the link above.

Moonpix wrote in post #16232860
I have done a whole review on it comparing it directly to the Canon 1.2

Click on following link:

http://johncarnessali.​com/camera-lens-tests/5338

Here are a few comparisons.. More comparisons at the link above.

Impressive. Thanks.