Upload & Sell: Off
jbourne -- I still don't get why all the 50mm lenses? You have the EF 50/1.4, the 50/1.8 II, trying to decide between them. And now your most likely and affordable manual lens being another 50mm, of undoubtedly lower IQ than either of these two Canon lenses.
You say you want something with more unique rendering than your 24-105L IS -- wouldn't either of those Canon 50mm lenses qualify, used at a larger aperture than f/4?
Sorry, but I'm not getting the issue here.
My perspective on it was this: I feel like 50mm on a full frame seems to be a very good "walkabout" length, hence my fixation on is length. Not too zoomed, and not too wide angle (although I imagine I should give 35mm a shot, too). So the way I see it is: I have the Canon 1.8 II if I were to need AF and pretty good IQ (since tests do appear to suggest that), but from what I understand (and again, sorely lacking experience in this regard) the alt lenses, like the Super Tak, the Planar 50/1.7 and so on have much more "character", whether it be bokeh quality, contrast, colour reproduction and so on. As I further understand it, the canon 1.4 is a good lens, but one that seems to be stuck somewhere in between: better bokeh than the 1.8, slightly softer in IQ, and otherwise very uneventful, without any special outstanding comments on contrast, colours and so on, compared to manual lenses.
Now granted - (back to a car analogy, ha) - an Acura or a Lexus would both likely get very few emotional rave reviews, but yet be very solid, reliable, and give repeatable performance, whereas a 1960s muscle car may be fun and glorious but finicky and subjective, which is what I may be setting myself up for here, but until we know we don't know, right