EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

I have been researching this lens and was wondering if the build quality is really as muh of an issue as I have read. So if you own this lens can you please give me your opinion?

What did you see? I was recently looking at a range of lenses, and this is the one I just bought. It came on Wednesday and I've been playing with it a bit since then. It's a nice lens, seems solid, and the only limitations I see at the moment are the ones behind my camera. (I'm an amateur, not pro. Ymmv.)

Look at reviews on most lenses and you'll find someone has an issue with it. The 50 f/1.4 seems a really good lens with - for me - acceptable compromises. Look at reviews at Adorama, as well as reviews you Google on the lens. If you're not sure, don't buy it. (Google "review ef 50mm f/1.4 usm".)

I went for this lens because I take lots of low light photos. I wanted a faster lens. Actually I wanted a faster camera. One alternative was a 7D. Given the cost, I figured a faster lens would be cheaper. For me, the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM was my best compromise on cost and performance.

When looking at reviews, I didn't see anything that looked particularly untoward regarding the lens. There were some that didn't look very good, and in most cases were more expensive. I actually wanted a wide angle lens (in the 20 to 24mm range), but this one really fit better.

Good luck! Hope this helps.

On the Canon website it is the overwelming complaint that I had read.

i had this lens, bought it used locally. The build quality was quite bad. Honestly, it felt very similar to my 18-55 kit lens. The AF was quick, not fast. It has the microgear "usm" IE: not true USM (ring type) so its faster then non USM lenses, but not as fast as real USM motors, sold it immediately since i already have my beloved sigma 30 and the nifty 50.

If you are looking for something in the 50mm focal length range and want speed, check out the sigma 50 1.4 Not only is the build quality far superior, it comes with a 5 year warranty, nice soft padded carrying pouch, and the hood. My friend purchased the sigma 50 after i showed him the canon 50 1.4 and he was glad i convinced him to go with the sigma.

The sigma costs more but after factoring in the costs of the canon hood, and getting a pouch (okay this might not be worth anything to you), and the peace of mind of a 5 year warranty, getting the sigma is a no brainer.

The build quality is like a toy. The AF wasn't fast enough for when I shot sports. The image quality is good though. At f1.4 the sharpness isn't all eye candy. I usually stopped it down to 2.8.

I've had this lens since Christmas and it's served me well starting off. Build quality, I agree, could be a bit more solid feeling, but the focus wring is smooth. I love how handy it is in low light.

I still don't know why they can't make a Mark II version of the 50 f1.4. Redesign it slightly for Digital Camera's (reduce CA's), get sharpness up by F2, and give it Ring-USM.

Some of Canons EF Zooms are cheaper, has better build quality, *and* Ring-USM. For example, the EF 28-105 II USM (210$), and the EF 28-135 f/3.5-56 IS USM (which has Image Stabilization to boot) - 315$. I'm sure these zooms cost more to manufacture than a much simpler prime.

I had no problems with mine when I had it. I wouldn't worry about the build quality, especially if you want to use it for portraits.

I sold mine when I bought my 35 f/1.4L. Now I kind of wish I have it still. I might buy another one. Or maybe go cheap and get the 1.8.

It's fine for it's price.
I wouldn't go as far as to say the build quality is like a toy. It is not. It's a solid piece of camera gear. It does have some shortcomings like sharpness wide open, aberrations, and lack of ring USM, but the price is fair enough for a lens of that quality. Actually, I never had a problem with the lack of ring USM. It was quiet and accurate. i think that is overhyped as a shortcoming. I mean, you even have FTM so really, how terrible is it that there is no ring USM? Ring USM doesn't guarantee more focusing speed either.

It's a decent lens. I only sold mine because it wasn't sharp wide open and I had to use it at F/2 to be happy with it. The sigma 30 did the job for me better. But I wouldn't call the 50 1.4 a bad or poor value lens.

SiaoP wrote in post #9305770
The build quality is like a toy. The AF wasn't fast enough for when I shot sports. The image quality is good though. At f1.4 the sharpness isn't all eye candy. I usually stopped it down to 2.8.

If you ever played with a 1.8 50mm... you'd think completely the opposite.
I personally think the build of the 1.4 is up there in quality and build.

Is the build quality about the same as the 35/2? I think I read that somewhere. If so at least it should be a couple of steps better than the 1.8 Mk II.

I really hate the build and AF noise on the 1.8, but it is one of my most used lenses, so I have been pretty set on getting the Canon 1.4

and is the usm as quiet as ring USM? I know it isn't quite as fast, but is it noisy?

I had the 50 1.8 and traded up for the 50 1.4 and have not regretted it at all.

It's clearly better (build-quality and imagewise) than the 50/1.8, but it's not up there with the really good lenses. (I had one for a while, and it was fine, but I didn't get along with a 50mm FL on my mkIII for some reason, so I sold it.)

mickeyjuice wrote in post #9306269
but it's not up there with the really good lenses.

Yep, definitely not - the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM is built much better than the 50 f1.4 Micro USM. Additionally, the EF 85mm f/1.8 is also well built ( as good as the 28 ), has ring USM and costs the same as the 50..

Just got one tonnight.

I think i´m going to love this focal length on my 5d. Seems great so far, super sharp even at 1.4 which surprised me.