I have a 50/1.8 MK II and a 50/1.4. The 1.4 is much nicer to use, but I can't honestly say that one produces better images than the other under normal conditions. I have shot the same scene with the two different lenses, and the only difference I could see was that the 1.4 was a bit cooler in colour. I don't consider the plastic lens mount a problem, it probably causes less wear and tear on the camera mount when changing lenses. Any force that would break the lens mount, would destroy the camera mount too, I would think. I'd rather have the cheap lens mount be a "fuse", and save my camera.
I don't have a lens hood for the 1.8, but recently got one for the 1.4. I took some ribbing from my shooting buddies about the "$25.00 piece of plastic", but since I don't regularly use filters, there's some satisfaction in knowing that the lens is better protected, with no optical compromises. Geoff Doane > > I'm thinking of buying a 50mm f/1.4 USM. I think it was here I saw mention > of the 50mm f/1.8 that had a plastic mount and was prone to breakage? How > is the f/1.4 in this regard? * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
