Which 50mm option?

I've started a photography course this week, and I'm considering getting a 50mm lens for my course work.

As I'm carrying my kit most days with me (in my Hadley Pro), I have only space for my 5D with 70-200 f4L and either 17-40 f4L or 24-105 f4L.

Got space in the bag for a 50 in addition to the 17-40 f4L, giving me 17-40, 50, 70-200.

Big question is, which 50 should I go for. Reason for including the Nikkor 50 f1.4 is that I own this lens already, so all I would need is an AIS - EOS adaptor ring.

Just put some money into it and get a 1.4 you wont be sorry.

I have no experience of the Nikkor , but do own the 50 1.4 . i am happy with it above F2.8 , its as sharp as a pin.

If you allready have the nikkor, the cheapest option is the adapter. It's only usefull if you are comfortable with MF and not in fast situations.
Otherwise: 50/1.8 Mk1 or 50/1.4. Unless you have excess money to burn or a very specific need: then get the 50/1.2

There is a nice comparison on the 50/1.8 vs. 50/1.8 vs 50/1.4 here.

Stick with the Nikon. It's a very good lens and the lack of AF will help you concentrate on the important aspects of photography during your course, i.e. composition, framing and light.

Canon 1.4. It's good enough to last you a lifetime...

foxbat wrote in post #2210477
composition, framing and light.

Id prefer to be worried about that as opposed to focus.

I think the EF 50 f/1.4 is kind of a no brainer. Awesome lens on the 5D. Maybe sell the Nikon lens on eBay to help defray the cost?

I've owned the 1.8 MK II and the 1.4. While the improvement wasn't as drastic as I had hoped, the 1.4 is a better overall lens and in the grand scheme of things it's not that much more money. That was my vote. As for the 1.2 I guess we'll see but it would have to be pretty amazing to justify that cost differential, in my opinion.

foxbat wrote in post #2210477
Stick with the Nikon. It's a very good lens and the lack of AF will help you concentrate on the important aspects of photography during your course, i.e. composition, framing and light.

I agree. I have the exact same lens. Buy the adaptor ring and you can use it in AV or M mode. Just when you step down the aperture ring on the lens, it gets darker or lighter. But you'll get used to it. At any rate it's a great experiment.

The 50 1.4 - Much better build and AF than the 1.8(s) and the new 1.2 is just stoopid money for what you will gain over the f/1.4 IMO

Stick with a Canon f/1.4...it has full functionality on your camera, as well as decent optics. Contrary to popular opinion, using a manual lens does nothing to improve your photographic skills, it just means you know how to use a manual lens (it is just like a standard transmission in a car...knowing how to shift gears doesn't make you a better driver, just means you can drive more vehicles). And if you really want to do manual...just set your camera to manual and turn the AF off on the lens. Bingo...Full manual without messing around with adapters and questionable optics.

My wife and I own the 1.4 (though she carries it in her bag ). It's a great little lens, good price range. It captures great color, I've never noticed CA, and the bokeh is great. I'd use it as a portrait lens any day of the week. Good all around prime. Not to ruffle the feathers of the "L" types out there, but IMHO, the 1.4 is right up there with the greats. Of course, I've not shot with the 1.2 yet, but that's a lens that's a bit out of my price range.

I chose the f/1.4 as the only ones I have actually owned and/or used are that and the f/1.8. I hated the f/1.8. I have never used the f/1.2 so cannot comment on it. I personally think it is ridiculous to comment on a lens you have not owned or at least used.

After much internal debate, I chose the 1.4 for build and focusing advantages over the 1.8.