EF 50mm f/1.4 or EF 50mm f/1.8?

I had the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM a couple of years ago. I wasn't pleased with it on my 40D and eventually sold it off.
Now with the new EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, I'm considering another 50mm lens for use on my 6D but can't decide which one.
I have the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM and I'm very pleased overall with the results on the 6D.
For those with both, which do you prefer?

Thanks.

Retired_97 wrote in post #17611099
I had the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM a couple of years ago. I wasn't pleased with it on my 40D and eventually sold it off.
Now with the new EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, I'm considering another 50mm lens for use on my 6D but can't decide which one.
I have the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM and I'm very pleased overall with the results on the 6D.
For those with both, which do you prefer?

Thanks.

I've had the 50 1.4 for a while. I got tired of its low-light focus inconsistency and bought a 50 STM. It suffers from the exact same problem. Very good in good light. Focus gets erratic in subdued lighting. I returned the STM.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17611106
I've had the 50 1.4 for a while. I got tired of its low-light focus inconsistency and bought a 50 STM. It suffers from the exact same problem. Very good in good light. Focus gets erratic in subdued lighting. I returned the STM.

Thanks for the low-light AF comparison. That's good to know.

Just to further clarify. Both suffered from poor AF in poor light, even with the flash focus-assist beam. Both needed to be stopped down to f/2.8 to nail focus regularly in typical indoor diminished lighting. Both are quite good wide open in good light.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17611114
Just to further clarify. Both suffered from poor AF in poor light, even with the flash focus-assist beam. Both needed to be stopped down to f/2.8 to nail focus regularly in typical indoor diminished lighting. Both are quite good wide open in good light.

My experience with the 1.4 was similar.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17611114
Just to further clarify. Both suffered from poor AF in poor light, even with the flash focus-assist beam. Both needed to be stopped down to f/2.8 to nail focus regularly in typical indoor diminished lighting. Both are quite good wide open in good light.

Not to argue, because I virtually never use my 1.4 wider than 2.2 for this reason, but aperture settings has no effect on Focus. All focusing is done wide open on any lens with camera controlled aperture. When you stop down to 2.8 it still focuses at 1.4 then on shutter click closes down the aperture and then opens again after the curtain. I'm pretty sure what you are experiencing is that the DOF at 2.8 is within the focus (in)tolerance, where it is not at anything wider.

The 50mm f1.4 is a dud in my opinion. Just poor AF.

I'm sure others disagree (especially those that use MF lenses), but I can't buy a lens that can't reliably autofocus. I'd love to buy the Sigma 50Art, but I can't get over the reports of AF issues and my own personal AF woes with my now-sold Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS.

I've had the nifty fifty, 50 1.4, and a 50 1.2L should be here in a few days. Was trying to decide between a new 50Art via CPW or a used 50L. Hope I made the right decision.

travisvwright wrote in post #17611140
Not to argue, because I virtually never use my 1.4 wider than 2.2 for this reason, but aperture settings has no effect on Focus. All focusing is done wide open on any lens with camera controlled aperture. When you stop down to 2.8 it still focuses at 1.4 then on shutter click closes down the aperture and then opens again after the curtain. I'm pretty sure what you are experiencing is that the DOF at 2.8 is within the focus (in)tolerance, where it is not at anything wider.

As a practical matter, in optimal lighting conditions my EF 50 1.4 performed satisfactorily at 1.4, but it was too inconsistent in low light to rely on. My 50 Art, OTOH, renewed my faith in 50mm lenses.

From what I am reading here, there is nothing to be gained by picking up the 50STM if you already have the F1.4 Canon. I am only interested in performance at F1.8 to F2.5. It looks like performance isn't all that different at wider apertures. Am I reading this correctly?

artyH wrote in post #17611242
From what I am reading here, there is nothing to be gained by picking up the 50STM if you already have the F1.4 Canon. I am only interested in performance at F1.8 to F2.5. It looks like performance isn't all that different at wider apertures. Am I reading this correctly?

You're basing that on the account of one person who has used both lenses. GeoKras1989 is the only person in this thread thus far to have used both lenses. The L and Art talk is off topic.

artyH wrote in post #17611242
From what I am reading here, there is nothing to be gained by picking up the 50STM if you already have the F1.4 Canon. I am only interested in performance at F1.8 to F2.5. It looks like performance isn't all that different at wider apertures. Am I reading this correctly?

I bought the STM version hoping it was more reliable than the f/1.4 USM version I already own. It was not. It was also slower to focus, and 2/3 stop slower. I returned it after 3 days. IMHO, the STM's only selling point is price. If you own a working 50 USM, or 1.8 II for that matter, the STM offers very little.

My Canon 50F1.4 is sharp at large apertures (F1.6-F2) but not nearly as sharp as I would like. I have no problems with it stopped down, and I also have the Sigma 50 macro lens. I have an open mind, but I need to see more evidence to get me to buy.
I would really like to see a 50 F2 IS, as sharp as my 35F 2 IS.

BeerWolf wrote in post #17611214
The 50mm f1.4 is a dud in my opinion. Just poor AF.

That was one of the reasons that I disliked the f/1.4 on my 40D. I also didn't think the copy that I had was very sharp at any stop.

Thanks for all the responses. Looks like I will still be without a 50mm for now.

Retired_97 wrote in post #17611099
I had the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM a couple of years ago. I wasn't pleased with it on my 40D and eventually sold it off.
Now with the new EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, I'm considering another 50mm lens for use on my 6D but can't decide which one.
I have the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM and I'm very pleased overall with the results on the 6D.
For those with both, which do you prefer?

Thanks.

Heya,

I've had the 50's and the 40. I still have the 40. The 50 F1.8 of any flavor, is a good lens if you like the 50mm focal length and you want basically an F2 lens. The 50 F1.4, well, that's if you really want F1.4. I skipped the Canon 50 F1.4, and favor the Sigma 50 F1.4 after using it. Better made. Just as good. But I use my 50mm F1.4 Super Takumar, so I don't feel the need for a new 50 F1.4 since it's sharp wide open as it is and perfectly good for me. I've gotten rid of several 50 F1.8's over the years, mostly gifting them away. The new Yongnuo 50 F1.8 is the ultimate "throw away lens" as it's just as good as the Canon's and is only $55, with autofocus. If I needed a cheap 50 with autofocus, that's what I'd get at this point. I keep the 40 still because it's well made. It's a solid lens. It's sharp, it's small, and it's quiet. It's not terribly fast, at F2.8. So that's my only reserve, but when I'm using it, I'm actually less concerned with having a super fast aperture as I generally use it for landscape, walk around and general portrait, so I'm ok with F2.8. If you're into the thinnest DOF possible, get an F1.4.

Very best,

I'll just second some comments having owned the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 before. They both are pretty bad at locking focus in low light. To wit, even my slow 'real' USM lenses like mike 24-105/4 L are actually better in low light than these fast primes.

Not that it is a cheap lens, but the reason I eventually just went to the 50L is that this is the only EOS mount fast 50mm prime that I think can be counted on for focus speed and accuracy in low light.