No wonder. I was thinking about the cheaper version and didn’t know the difference isn’t just IS: http://www.canon.com/camera-museu...t/2013/02/
50mm almost matches the sharpness of 35 at f/2. Beyond that, 50mm keeps up everywhere except the very edges. I'd say the sharpness differences aren't much [the-digital-picture.com]
, especially since these are at 100% crop and since the edges at lower apertures are usually in the bokeh region.
So that leaves IS and wider field. Assuming IS gives 2-3 stop advantage, that lens can shoot as slow as 1/5-1/9 hand-held, compared to about 1/50 for the 50mm f/1.4. But the 50 is 1 stop faster for moving objects. I don’t know, given the $800 price tag compared to only $300 for 50mm, to me it doesn’t seem to be worth it. It’s not that much wider than the 50mm. Unless I’m missing something, I should probably get the 50mm and some other focal length later. If it's not possible to shoot a group of 3-5 people inside an apartment with 50mm, then I guess the 35 is an option.
By the way, the stock lens is not nearly as sharp as the 50 1.4. The 40mm STM is sharper, but again not as sharp as the 50mm. Given that 6D cannot use the STM for continuous autofocus, I don’t think that’s a good lens to keep. That would be a good lens for the T4i.
I'm still surprised how the L lenses get beat by regular Canon and even non-Canon lenses. I guess they're not all they're cracked up to be!
Edit: 50mm 1.4 + 70-200mm 4 L [amazon.com]
together can cost under $1k, which should be a nice setup.