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

In every regard except the obvious, i like the 1.8stm better than the 1.4. I was gping to get the 1.2L, but the 1.8stm will do for now.

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.

What I've found is the EF 50mm f/1.4 can have focusing issues at f/1.4 handheld in AI Servo. At f/1.4 on a tripod in One Shot the 50mm f/1.4 will nail focus a heap better.

Not shooting an f/1.4 lens at 1.4 is a waste of money and lens character IMO.
My 50 1.4 is equally bad regarding AF, but it's razor sharp at 1.4 and has a film look on FF at wide apertures.
I went ahead and ordered a split-prism focusing screen from eBay for about $30 to install in my 6D.
Manual focusing with the stock screen is even worse on the 6D than on 20D, because the image magnification is lower in the viewfinder.

I like the increased depth of field at F2. F2 is. It not always fast enough, but wider apertures are available on the F1.4 lens. My 50F1.4 sharpens going from F1.4 to F1.6, but I don't get the results from it like my 35, unless I am stopped down to F2.8. I could just as easily use my Sigma 50F2.8 macro lens in good lighting.

If the new lens were better at F2 in some way that matters in the final results, I would get one. Right now I am waiting for more reviews, and more feedback from owners. All of the 50s are sharp at F4. In a quick test, I couldn't tell the photos apart at F2.8 when taken from my Canon 1.4 and Sigma 2.8.

Well, I've been thinking this over, I just placed an order with B&H for the 50 mm f/1.4 USM lens.
$70 off and free shipping did the trick.
This is my second try with this lens, I didn't like the first one that I had a few years ago. Maybe on my 6D I will like it better than on the 40D.

I really like this lens and I find the slight softness wide open a desirable characteristic for portraiture, particularly if you're going for a slightly dreamy look.

I haven't found this lens to be any more problematic focusing in low light than any other of my Canon lenses.

Here's a link to a wide open shot in super low existing light, hand held at about 1/45 sec.

https://flic.kr/p/pSE4​oh

I've used an EF 50mm f/1.8 II and an EF 50mm f/1.4, and I certainly prefer the f/1.4. The f/1.8 was certainly decent for the price, but the f/1.4 was worth the upgrade, in my opinion. I might just be lucky, but mine focuses just fine on my 5D, and is quite possibly my sharpest lens. I've never tried the new 50mm f/1.8 STM, but, for me, I'd skip it and buy another 50mm f/1.4. YMMV.

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.

I must disagree. The STM is slow, but it doesn't struggle. It is quite accurate.

Its weak point is that it cannot handle back light at all.

Tom

Well, the 50 mm f/1.4 arrived yesterday. Initial testing outside around the house indicates that this copy is at least as soft at the lower end as the copy that I had a few years ago.
It doesn't become sharp until 2.5 or higher. And yes, the AF is rather slow even outside in natural light.
I'm going to give it another day or so. If I'm not better impressed, back to B&H it goes.

Unless you need f/1.4, it is really hard to beat the value in the 50 STM. I was pleasantly surprised how sharp mine is even wide open, and AF is consistent.

I've been using a 50 1.4 for years and it was my favorite lens. I moved to a 50L for the 1.2, and build, and to a lesser extent the focus. I never had much of an issue with the focus on the 1.4, but it wasn't great either.

I had been holding onto the 50 1.4 as a back up and smaller option, but I thin I'm going to sell it and get a cheaper one eventually (probably the new one, especially if I can get it used) just for having a small prime around. This thread has been helpful.

I like the noew 50mm 1.8 STM.

One Point is not so nice, it is really slow. I think, the 50mm 1.8 II is faster, but very loud.

Just about all the comments in this thread are perfect examples of why I'm anxiously waiting for an updated 50 1.4 from Canon. There just doesn't seem to be any great options for 50mm primes, just a bunch of trade-offs. The 1.8 is excellent value, the 1.4 has better IQ and sharpness, known AF motor failure, and perhaps not worth the price jump over the 1.8. The 1.2 is a huge price increase and at that price point you would expect to not have any glaring deficits...but then there are the issues of it being particularly soft wide open as well as focus-shift issues. Sigma's 50mm has it's own AF inconsistencies.

I've owned the 1.8, the 1.4 (twice), and rented the 1.2 and the Sigma. You can see from my signature which option I was most happy with.

FWIW, I'm looking into purchasing another 50mm for the main purpose of having a compact, highly portable fast prime of "normal" focal length. That rules out the 1.2 and the Sigma (I don't think they are worth their price anyways). I'm convinced that the 1.4 is not $200+ better than the 1.8. So, I find myself with the optically worst lens of the bunch as the best option.

mannetti21 wrote in post #17626378
Just about all the comments in this thread are perfect examples of why I'm anxiously waiting for an updated 50 1.4 from Canon. There just doesn't seem to be any great options for 50mm primes, just a bunch of trade-offs.

Yep, pretty much. Just went through this myself...owned 50 1.8, 50 1.4 and now 50 1.2L. Who knows...Canon could make a 50 1.2 II down the line too like they did with the 85.

I didn't hate my 1.8 like my 1.4. I really didn't like the 1.4 - just hunting for focus way too often even with enough light. In low light, AF was almost unusable. And AF concerns steered me away from the 50 ART.

It sometimes disappoints me that Canon has stuck with the 1.4 for so long. But I also understand it. The design and performance is satisfactory, and the average product life cycle of a Canon lens is pretty long. Add to that the complexities of rolling out revisions for 50mm lenses at three different price points all the while bleeding from aggressive third-party competition. If Canon releases a mid-level f/1.4 at a price point and quality level that challenges the Sigma Art, it will surely cannibalize sales of the 50L, so they have to get their ducks in a row, so to speak.

When you're talking about anything wider than f/2--and particularly f/1.4 and faster--I think some users can be a little too harsh with those lenses. EVERYBODY has more misses shooting at those apertures because there's little room for error. My 50 f/1.8 II was my first lens after switching from SLR to DSLR. Build was meh, but the performance was fine. I missed a terrible amount of shots at f/1.8 in dim light, but that wasn't a surprise. The f/1.4 was a good upgrade. I preferred its IQ over that of the f/1.8, and the AF accuracy was acceptable in studio light, with speedlite or generous daylight. But I had to abandon it for things like shooting bands in clubs.

The lower-priced 50mm lenses are good for casual users and even professionals, but the Sigma Art and the 50L will deliver stunning images if you want to spend that kind of money. I used a friend's 50L briefly, but I settled on the 50 Art for my own reasons. When I hear incessant complaints about AF inconsistency, focus shift, and weight, I yawn. Sure there are many people complaining about the oddities of those lenses, but the accomplished users quietly getting terrific results were too numerous for me to ignore. Get the tool you need that has a price and feature set you can live with. If it doesn't perform as expected, exchange it for a new copy. Third-party manufacturers have to reverse engineer Canon's AF algorithm, and they've had a tough go in the past, but they're getting pretty damned good at it now. I've had 2 Sigma Art lenses: an 18-35 for my 7d and the 50 Art that I now use on a 5d3. The 18-35 took a bit of work to fine tune AF accuracy, but I got it there. The 50 Art was bang-on right out of the box, and it hits moving targets wide open in dim light.

EDIT: Just one guy's opinion. YMMV.