Battle of the Prime 50's (1.4, 1.8, macro 2.5, Sigma 2.8 Macro)

Why would anyone choose the 50 1.8 over the 50 1.4 considering there was not money limit given?

I got my 50mm F/1.4 today

What a difference compared to the 1.8.

50/1.4, hands down. I honestly don't use my 50/1.8 much, so I'm trying to justify dropping $250- after I sell the 50/1.8- for the 50/1.4 when it will sit in my bag the majority of the time.

Benandbobbi wrote in post #2681295
Why would anyone choose the 50 1.8 over the 50 1.4 considering there was not money limit given?

I actually read someone who preferred the 50 1.8 over the 50 1.4 because in their line of work it was a rough environment and they would rather damage a cheap lens than an expensive one. However, I do agree with you, that there isn't much point in buying a 1.8 if you can afford the 1.4. This was just an interesting topic to me about which one more people had and why.

I love the speed of the 50mm 1.4 and voted for it, but honestly for a budget I wouldn't hesitate at all to recommend the 1.8. It's still fantastic and a fraction of the price.

Not to mix things up too much, but - the Contax / Zeiss 50mm 1.7 is an incredible lens, as good as their 1.4 through most of it's range. One of those used, with a Canon adapter (there are some good adapters available that you wouldn't need to be worried about), would be fairly cheap and a great tool.

In my opinion anyhow, obviously.

Never owned the 1.4, always used the 85/1.8 for portraits on my film camera. When I got my 20d, I found the 85 a bit long sometimes, knew I needed something shorter. Canon had the triple rebates going at the time and I was able to pick up the 2.5 macro for about the same price as the 1.8. I coludn't be happier with this lens. Pin-sharp wide open and good bokeh as well. Slower aperture and slower focusing than the 1.4, but still usable. Tends to hunt sometimes in low light, but not that bad really. If you're buying a 50 mainly for portraits, the 1.4 is probably the best bet, but the 2.5 macro is definitely more versatile if you're only going to buy one lens (and that was the original question). Pros: small, light-weight, reasonably well-built (much better than the 1.8), good bokeh, 1:2 macro. Cons: slower AF than 1.4, smaller max aperture (that's about it).

Jim