One is very good generally and especially reversed, the other is even more bulky than the 50/1.4 and has even more speed.
Peeter
Achal Pashine wrote:
>scots wha hae
> mercansu i tobano
Let's write everything in English. not everybody undertand Klingon
As far as my take on 1.8 versus 1.4 issue: Bob/Greg said it nicely. It can be not be a black and white answer (unlike: "I am going to ask each world leader whether you are with us or with them").
Personally, I like 1.4 because I could go for it. but if I were on a tight budget, I would have gone for 50/1.8, which is a damn nice lens for its price. I believe that 50/1.8 has only 5 diaphragm blades versus 8 in 50/1.4 that produces softer bokeh, also the flare is considerably bad for 1.8 (for Canon; I forget whether Rui has canon or nikon). But, as other posters said, these things are subjective and can be tasted personally. There is no need to take any offense for those suggestions.
my 3 cents.
Achal
