ok, so i've bought the 50mm 1.4 USM and it's been great to me, especially with video in low light. however it's killing me that the the 1.8 II is almost 1/4 of the price. i know the 1.4 is a little sharper at the same aperature, but i'm not a pro, so i don't think i really need to spend that much money on such a small difference.

what are you guys thinking?

It's the law of diminishing returns. You pays your money and you makes your choice. Don't buy it if you don't need it.

If it's the f1.8 that I'm thinking of, that cheapie one with the cute nickname, be advised it's even shoddier than the kit lens and worst of all, the focus ring is about the width of a dime. There's not much to grasp at all of focusing.

Canon EF 50mm f 1.0L
File:Canon EF 50mm f 1.0L.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canon_EF_50mm_f_1.0L.JPG)

My 50mm 1.2L USM is even more expensive but is the favourite lens in my collection.

The 50mm 1.8 is great if you are shooting in a non-challenging setting. If you need to repeatedly change focus, it's not great for that. It's great for setting an interview shot though or something of that nature, and it does good in low light as well, though not as well as what I'd assume the 1.4 can do. I have the 1.8, and I desire the better lens. The focus ring is the real killer for me... it was hard on my last shoot to not fumble while trying to change focus.

An old Nikon 50mm 1.8 is dirt cheap used and gives fantastic results.

I have the 50mm 1.2L and love it. However, for a savings of $1,200 and the loss of 1/2 stop, I think the 1.4 is the "sweet spot" of 50mm Canon lenses.

however it's killing me that the the 1.8 II is almost 1/4 of the price. With glass, you get what you pay for. I have the f/1.8 II and yes it's dirt cheap and there's no reason not to own one due to its low price, but in my opinion it's no substitute for a much better built 50mm, which you already have in the f/1.4.

I've got the 1.8 and use it only for photography where I want the autofocus - it's a decent stills lens considering the cost and weight. For video the focus ring is almost useless - it's not just that it's a tiny ridge on the front of the lens (so your fingers can easily end up in the shot), the throw is so short that it's very difficult to be precise with the focus. I bought an adapter for my pentax 50mm F/1.4 SMC (not the new plasticky ones, old manual focus) and it's now become my favorite for video - and you can pick them up used in the same price range as the canon 1.8. If you want autofocus for stills then I'd say stick with the 1.4 you have now - otherwise I think you can do much better with old manual primes than the cheaper canon lenses.

Yup, the f1.4 50mm (best value for low light shooting IMO).

I am not at all happy with the 1.4, due to its softness wide open. The 1.8 is sharp from the get-go. To get a sharp image from the 1.4, you need to go to at minimum f/2.0, thus defeating the low light advantage.

See Ken Rockwell's spot-on review: Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f14.htm#perf)

The focus ring on the 1.8 is brutal, but unless you really need to rack precisely during a shot, you'll be happy with the sharpness.

But as always, you get what you pay for, and the 1.2 is tops by a mile.

For the price of the Canon 50/1.4, I bought two used Zeiss Contax 50/1.4, one AE and one MM so I would have both Bokeh styles covered. They are sharp with great contrast, and of course color match my other Zeiss lenses. They focus cine-wise for focus pulls, but are manual lenses, so no auto-focus here. They can be mounted to a 7D / 5DII / GH1 / with inexpensive lens adapters, and optically they are on par with the new Zeiss Compact Primes. One of these with an AF confirm C/Y to EF adapter mounted would make an excellent addition to anyones kit.

For the price of the Canon 50/1.4, I bought two used Zeiss Contax 50/1.4, one AE and one MM so I would have both Bokeh styles covered. .

Is there a thread here that discusses bokeh styles and how to achieve them?

After owning both the 1.8 and 1.4, and now the 1.2, I can tell you that I was less than impressed with the 1.4. Eric is right. Wide open it is not sharp. At 1.8, the cheap nifty fifty is sharper. And of course the 1.2 is just a dream. But here's another thing: CA. It was absolutely horrible on my 1.4, especially for subjects at a distance of 20+ feet. Actually the least CA of all three is--you guessed it--the $110 1.8.

Good advice on the Zeiss option. I'd look into that if you don't want to splurge on the 1.2.

I have a Canon 50mm f1.8II which I used with my D30 back in the day, for photos it's reasonable considering the price - for video on the 7D it's far from ideal.

My main gripe is the focus ring which is incredibly tiny and not at all positive - feels like it has some play in it.

I'm using the novoflex adapter to mount my ZF primes from my D90 on the 7D. The Zeiss 50mm is just a whole world away from the canon 50mm f1.8II. It really comes down to getting what you pay for.

Spent a lot of time playing around with 50mm lenses this week with my friend Van who was setting up a 7D kit.

I personally have the Canon 50mm f1.2L, Contax/Zeiss 50mm f1.4, Leica 50mm f1.4, Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 and Nikkor 55mm f2.8 micro at the moment.

I have also owned the Nikon AF 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2 and Canon 50mm f1.4 and f1.8.

This week we looked at the older Nikon manual focus 55mm f1.2 and 50mm f1.4 as well as another Contax/Zeiss 50mm f1.4 and a Nikon 55mm f3.5 macro.

It proving very hard to tell which is best which should come as no surprise. The Canon 50mm f1.2L is my workhorse and it is as sharp as people say, but I think the Contax bests it for colour and the Leica for sharpness. The micro Nikkors have the lowest CA and an old Nikon manual 50mm f1.4 also faired surprisingly well in this. I would take any of these over the Canon 50mm f1.4 or 1.8.

The Voigtlander and the Leica have the best manual focus action, both are so smooth.

Will try and do a more scientific test at some point.

Dan

Dan, you should pick up a Nikon AI 50mm f/1.8 for completeness.

And, if you get a chance, check each for breathing. Few photo lens reviews check breathing, as it doesn't matter for stills.

BTW, aside from the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, which has insane breathing (not surprising when it gets into the macro range), my lowly EF 28/1.8 breathes little, while the vaunted EF 85/1.8 breathes quite a bit. The 200/2.8L II is quite good. The EF 50/1.4 falls in the middle.

The 50mm is considered the standard because it resembles the human in in FOV. However, with the crop factor of APS-C, shouldn't the standard be the 1.6 equivalent? a 50mm is equivalent to 80mm, So the one prime to rule them all for APS-C should be what, 30mm?