50mm Canon, some advice please

[NgaiHill]

So I've been working some long hours lately and have decided to reward myself with a new lens. I spotted a 50 mm f/1.8 the other day at a price I'm happy with ($229 NZD). Initially when I saw it I didn't realise it was the 1.8 and I went to my sister's work (potential staff discount) to see what the price was like there. The price I got was $849 NZD but it turned out that was for the 50 mm f/1.4. With a staff discount I could get it for $760 and there are a couple on Trade Me for less than $600. The guy at the shop where the 1.8 was showed it to me and said that the main reason for the price difference is that the 1.8 is CHEEP and the 1.4 much better quality. He reckoned if I bought the cheaper one I'd probably regret it in the long run and end up buying the 1.4 eventually anyway.

So my question is, is he right? Should I shell out the extra bucks for the 1.4 - is it that much better than the 1.8 to justify the huge price difference? Or is the 1.8 good enough that I won't end up hating it and wishing I'd bought the 1.4. I understand that the 1.4 is faster and possibly sharper but three times the price more? I shoot mainly landscape & close ups but would like to shoot more portrait/people as well.
Please give me some advice on the relative merits of the two lenses and help me decide how much of my hard earned dollars I should spend.
Thanks in advance.

[OsmosisStudios]

In terms of image quality, you probably wont see a difference, except maybe wide open (or close to it)
The difference lies in the build and material quality. The f/1.4 version is built considerably better than the f/1.8

[Saralonde]

I originally bought the 1.8 a few years ago. While it took me a bit of time to get used to a prime, I learned to love that little "thrifty 50". Unfortunately, it broke after a year. At that point I bought the 1.4 which gets heavy use and has held up very well.

If you are not used to primes and are unsure about how much use it will get, I'd start with the less expensive model. It is a great lens for the price, a bargain for what it can do. But the quality of the 1.4 is worth the extra cost if it will see heavy use.

[dlambert]

The best part about the 50mm f/1.8 is that it's affordable enough for photographers to try, even if they're not "prime people". It's fast enough and clear enough that (IMO) it shows the benefits of prime lenses without being a huge investment. The build quality is pretty similar to the 18-55.

If you know at this point that you'll be using it a ton, or if you know that you've just got to have USM (and FTM) or the higher build quality of the f/1.4, then get that one; otherwise, the f/1.8 is a fine place to start.

@inkista posted this link yesterday -- take a look at the comparison of these 50's -- this might help you judge for yourself if the price difference is worth it in terms of image quality:

EF 50mm f/1.0L, f/1.4 and f/1.8 Bokeh

[inkista]

To me, the main reason to go for the cheaper one as a "first lens" is that you may not yet be sure that 50mm is the focal length you want. Some folks take to it like a duck takes to water but others find it has too narrow a field of view for the spaces and working distances they like. For example, getting full body shots with a 50mm indoors can sometimes be hard in smaller spaces.

There's this whole weird controversy about "normal on a crop", but suffice it to say that 50mm may not work best for you. You might be better off with either the 85/1.8 or the 35/2 (or Sigma 30/1.4). The 50/1.8 II can help you figure out which one. (You could also try using an EXIF analyzer).

The main advantages the 50/1.4 has over the 50/1.8 II are:

1). Better build quality
2). 2/3 of a stop more on the max. aperture
3). Better manual focus features (has a focus scale, better more usable focus ring)
4). USM (ultrasonic motor: silent and faster autofocus). Overall, the AF performance of this lens is better than the f/1.8's. And you also have full-time manual focus (i.e., you don't have to flip the AF/MF switch to adjust the focus manually without possibly damaging the lens).

But, image quality wise, the 50/1.8 II may actually beat the 50/1.4 on a crop body by a hair (the performance flips the other way on full frame).

It is, undoubtedly, the most-recommended lens for purchase and the best bang-for-the-buck lens Canon makes. It is a decent lens with an astonishingly low pricetag.

[NgaiHill]

Thanks everyone for your advice, you've certainly helped clarify the decision for me.

Inkista - I note you charge 5 cents for photogear advice - unfortunately NZ doesn't have 5 cent pieces in our currency anymore, could we look at first one free and I'll tell everyone I meet how knowledgable you are?

Seriously, I appreciate the time you all took to reply, hope I can share the results sometime soon.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by NgaiHill

Inkista - I note you charge 5 cents for photogear advice - unfortunately NZ doesn't have 5 cent pieces in our currency anymore, could we look at first one free and I'll tell everyone I meet how knowledgable you are?

Sure! I'll take the 5¢ in endorsements from the coinage-disadvantaged.

[NgaiHill]

Originally Posted by inkista

Sure! I'll take the 5¢ in endorsements from the coinage-disadvantaged.

OMG! Made me spill my cuppa tea!
Yeah we are sooo coinage-deficient here, haven't had 1 & 2 cent pieces for over a decade and the $1 & 2 aren't paper anymore either Just the big stuff in the wallet these days - or nothing at all, which is more often the case.