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

PineBomb wrote in post #17626736
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.

I'm one of those complainers. It would be one thing if the 85mm 1.8 performed similarly in AF to the 50mm 1.4, but the 85mm 1.8 has way better and more consistent AF at the same price point. Granted, I'm sure there's design differences because of different FL and aperture. However, I just think the 50 1.4 is a dud lens.

AF performance is a big issue for me and I know it isn't for some since they are buying $4k Otus which is manual focus only. Kudos to the people who use MF only - but it's just not something I'm on board with. I'm an enthusiast, not a pro, and I mostly take photos of my children. One is 3 and runs around like crazy - I just want to AI servo her and get reasonably sharp photos. I've slogged through AF issues on my Canon EF 50 1.4 and Sigma 70-200 2.8 and it's just frustrating....those lenses are both sold.

I guess my point is that AF performance can be a big deal to some and a non-issue to others. I'm in the former camp - it's up there as one of the top considerations when I'm deciding on a lens purchase.

I never said AF accuracy or speed were non-issues to me. To the contrary, they are critical concerns for everything I shoot. IQ is irrelevant if it's not hitting. There's nothing in my kit that I can't rely on, and that includes a 50 art.

PineBomb wrote in post #17626836
I never said AF accuracy or speed were non-issues to me. To the contrary, they are critical concerns for everything I shoot. IQ is irrelevant if it's not hitting. There's nothing in my kit that I can't rely on, and that includes a 50 art.

I wasn't saying you - just in general. Otus buyers obviously don't care about AF at all.

I think my AF experience with my Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS steered me away from the Art....irrational it may be. If I didn't have that experience, I'd probably own an 50 Art right now instead of the 50L.

BeerWolf wrote in post #17626822
I'm one of those complainers. It would be one thing if the 85mm 1.8 performed similarly in AF to the 50mm 1.4, but the 85mm 1.8 has way better and more consistent AF at the same price point. Granted, I'm sure there's design differences because of different FL and aperture. However, I just think the 50 1.4 is a dud lens.

Makes me wonder if I don't have a less than perfect 85/1.8 because I don't really see a difference in AF hit rate between that and my 50/1.4. Both hit about 80% but my 135/2 is more like 95%.

FEChariot wrote in post #17627261
Makes me wonder if I don't have a less than perfect 85/1.8 because I don't really see a difference in AF hit rate between that and my 50/1.4. Both hit about 80% but my 135/2 is more like 95%.

My EF 85 1.8 hit rate far exceeded my EF 50 1.4, and I know I'm not the only one. I'd look into that if I were you.

1.4 every time. For no other reason than because when you need it the focus ring is just that much better. On both the 1.8's including the stm, the focus ring may as well be non-existent. Of course, this comes from someone that uses manual focus override quite a bit.