is it worth to go for Canon 50mm 1.4

Hi,
Seeking lens advice...
I have seen in Best Buy 50mm 1.4 for $299. And I was thinking whether it is worth to buy it? I mean will it make much of difference in IQ other than the speed and built quality. I currently own T4i, 50 1.8, 40mm, 2.8, 85mm 1.8 , 18-55 II , 55-250mm II and the Speedlight 430 II EX. I don't use flash often unless really needed.
I'm mostly take family pictures and scenery. My kids r 3 & 7 so I take theirs very often.
Does 50mm 1.4 have any issue with focusing or having trouble with the Micro USM?
Or any other lens suggestion ...

Thanks in advance.

I have the 1.4 and think it's a great lens for the money spent. I know it's slow focusing in low light, but other than that I haven't had any issues. I've read others who have complaints, so it may be worth your time searching for all threads about this particular lens since so much has been said both good and bad.

I'd recommend it but if you already have the 50 mm 1.8 and 40 mm 2.8, I'm thinking there may be other things that money could be better spent on.

It focuses faster and more accurately than the 50 f/1.8, but still not as fast as a true ring USM lens. The bokeh is more pleasing than the f/1.8. I have owned both the f/1.8 and f/1.4, and ended up selling both.

I own the same lens you own plus the 50 1.4 I found the 1.8 to focus slow when trying to photograph a moving toddler in low light. I picked up a 1.4 a few weeks ago but haven't really tested it out in low light. It didn't feel cheap compared to the 1.8. Search through the threads some people recommend the sigma 50 1.4 over canon.

I (many years ago) bought the 1.8, didn't like it, took it back and got the 1.4 and was much happier.

Maybe i got a very bad 1.8 but the colours were very washed out and IQ wide open was very poor.

The 1.4 doesn't focus anything like as fast as your 85, but it is better than the 50mm 1.8.

The 50 1.4 is worth it if you use the focus scale on the lens barrel, and are the type to tweak focus manually with the focus ring. The 50 1.8 is a great lens to explore wide apertures with, but those are the primary reasons why I purchased a 50 1.4, along with better build quality.

It's worth it; and I agree about the low light sometimes it does hunt.

But the price difference is justified by much smoother focus & bokeh than the 1.8 and really makes the subject pop. It doesn't feel like a cheap toy either.

I'd get the sigma 50. canon 50 1.4 has pretty bad bokeh.

Interesting question, as I'm also in need of a normal lens. Have heard mixed comments and reviews anent the Canon 50mm 1.4. I have the 'nifty-fifty' and love its sharpness, but manual focusing is a pain with it, so is the need to use a step-up ring to use my polariser with it.

I considered Sigma's offering, but the reports about that are even worse. Sigma is a crapshoot, it seems.

What other options are there, though? Tamron has no 50's and Zeiss' 1.4, in spite of its build quality, is too soft wide open and has focus shift issues.

Bleary landscape of options indeed.

Wait a few months and see what canons new 50 is like. That's what I'm going with atm.

Expect it to be in the $600 - $800 price range at launch tho...

Scott M wrote in post #16506530
It focuses faster and more accurately than the 50 f/1.8, but still not as fast as a true ring USM lens. The bokeh is more pleasing than the f/1.8. I have owned both the f/1.8 and f/1.4, and ended up selling both.

My sentiments and experience exactly. Each lens was worth the money to me at the time and it was east to sell them and move on.

Spend your money on a Sigma 30 instead.

More versatile, sharper and not prone to AF failure.

I think the sigma issues are there, but I honestly think it's more of a "vocal minority" than anything else.

go look at the sigmalux image thread, there are many people using this lens that LOVE it. the problem is no one ever makes a thread "my sigma 50 focuses perfect"

the images out of the sigmalux are way better than the canon IMO.

i'm looking to pick one up myself, if I get a lemon I'll let you know :P

FWIW, the 50 1.4 I owned was the sharpest lens I've ever used, period. Only reason I sold it was to get the 17-40L I have now (which isn't as sharp as the 50 was). The downside to shooting with a 50 1.4 is that it may make you disappointed with your other lenses.

Limbwalker wrote in post #16507484
FWIW, the 50 1.4 I owned was the sharpest lens I've ever used, period. Only reason I sold it was to get the 17-40L I have now (which isn't as sharp as the 50 was). The downside to shooting with a 50 1.4 is that it may make you disappointed with your other lenses.

sharpness is 1 measure of a lens.

color, contrast, bokeh are 3 more that the sigma absolutely smashes the canon in. oh, it's also sharp.