Impressive 50mm 1.8

When I got my first DSLR (350D) in 2005 I bought the body and a 50 1.8 II rather than the kit lens. Later I acquired some zooms, and traded in the 50mm.
Recently I looked up my first shots taken with the 50 1.8, and was amazed at the IQ, how sharp and detailed they were. In fact I don't think any other lens I have had since came near.
Now I have a 5D and 24-105L, which I love. However I imagine the 50mm on the 5D would produce great reesults. So my impulse was to get another 50mm 1.8, but having reconsidered the position, my thoughts/questions are as follows:
1) The 24-105 L includes 50mm, so why duplicate?
2) The 50 mm 1.8 is inexpensive, so go for it anyway.
3) Is the 50 1.4 worth the extra?

Any thoughts/feedback on this would be welcome, especially on question 1.

some people have said that they will take the 50mm 1.4 because it has a metal mount. but i have also heard them say that they have close to the same quality in photos. me personally, i have the 50mm 1.8 on order because i used both of them in a camera store, and both had very similar results. so i chose the one that was more wallet friendly.
shannon

i love my 50 1.8. for the small amount of money, you can try it out just to see if you like it

I have a 50 1.8 that I absolutely LOVE. Very fast and like you said, great IQ. NOT to mention, i bought mine for like $60. Why not buy it?

DallasPhoto wrote in post #3610361
I have a 50 1.8 that I absolutely LOVE. Very fast and like you said, great IQ. NOT to mention, i bought mine for like $60. Why not buy it?

man i wish i knew where you bought yours. lol.

Pixels wrote in post #3610295
1) The 24-105 L includes 50mm, so why duplicate?

because while the 24-105 covers the 50mm range, it can only do f/4. the 50mm f/1.8 (or f/1.4) allows for a MUCH shallower depth of field, which can mean superb low-light performance or more room for creativity and experimenting with shallow DOF.

Pixels wrote in post #3610295
2) The 50 mm 1.8 is inexpensive, so go for it anyway.

at the very least, do get the 50mm f/1.8 --- it's so cheap! i got mine on this forum for $55 shipped used with a rubber hood --- how can you pass up a $55 lens with such great optics?

Pixels wrote in post #3610295
3) Is the 50 1.4 worth the extra?

this is a debatable topic. to some, the 1.4 is well worth the extra cost. benefits are MUCH better build quality, metal mount, distance meter, 8 blade aperture (better bokeh), and many more. but to others, it isn't worth the extra cost, because while the 1.4 is about 4x more expensive (based on MSRP), it is not 4x better in terms of optical quality. the optics are close enough that many would prefer to save the difference between the 2 lenses and settle with the 1.8

personally, i LOVE my 50mm f/1.8, but i plan on getting the f/1.4 later on when funds allow it and i've upgraded my other lenses

get the 1.8... i plan to sometime in the next few days. i've owned it in the past but for a dumb reason i sold it. now i miss it! if you want metal mount, youll pay twice, but the mk 1 is metal mount. AND it has distance scale.

Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens - $80 Shipped

Pixels wrote in post #3610295
However I imagine the 50mm on the 5D would produce great reesults. So my impulse was to get another 50mm 1.8, but having reconsidered the position, my thoughts/questions are as follows:
1) The 24-105 L includes 50mm, so why duplicate?
2) The 50 mm 1.8 is inexpensive, so go for it anyway.
3) Is the 50 1.4 worth the extra?

Any thoughts/feedback on this would be welcome.

Shoebox beat me to it, I left my computer for awhile then posted.

The 50 mm 1.8 or 1.4 is NOT duplicative of the 24-105 L BECAUSE the 50 gives you a 1.8 (or 1.4 if you get that) aperture which you CANNOT get with the 24-105 because that is an F4 lens. Moreover, the 24-105 is not a lens for indoors IF you are trying to achieve subject isolation via bokeh. With the 50 1.8, or 1.4, you'll be able to achieve indoor bokeh for subject isolation AND without flash. Those will be able to see in the dark, whereas the 24-105 really needs a flash.

I believe the 50 1.4 is worth the extra money for the build. I never had the 50 1.8, but I really, really love my 50 1.4.

Hope this helps.

The 50 1.4 is great, but the nifty fifty, there is just something about this lens.

I don't think the 50/1.8 is that good of a lens, but I think every photographer should at least have it in his or her collection. Why? Because, despite being soft wide open and lacking decent AF, it's a very capable lens for what it is. For only $80, you get a lens that can do things most lenses can't, especially if used properly.

Don't forget USM on the f/1.4 also. From what I have read, the 1.4 has better IQ in low light, as the 1.8 hunts a bit more.

The 8blade aperture, USM, low-light IQ, and build quality were reasons enough for me to justify spending the extra money.

I tell ya the 50 1.8 can do everything. it is a
Makro Lens(with reversion ring)
It can shoot IR
it is AL able
it is a Portrait Lens
it is sharp
it is cheap
...
I just loved it but i did the same mistake got rid of it. Might get the 50 1,4 so.
to everybody out there keep yours.

Other than it's attractive price I didn't like the 50/1.8 at all. Once I moved up to full frame I sold it and bought a 50/1.4. I love it. I use it more than my 24-105 now. I never did try my 1.8 on my 5D but I'm sure I would have liked it's focal length and relative IQ. It's build quality probably would have drove me up a wall, though.

The 50mm 1.8 is a great lens for what it is, but if you plan on shooting in low light and there will not be much contrast in the image I do recommend switching to manual focus due to the 50mm having a tendency to search (a lot) to find focus.