Some of you people really need to look at this lens as a whole and stop focusing on the fact that it's "only f/2.8." Sure, the 50 1.8 II is a whole 1 1/3 stop faster. Awesome. But how practical is it really to be shooting with such a shallow DoF all the time?
Wide aperture isn't all about shallow DoF, it's also about low light.
I understood the comment to mean
'shooting in low light, wide open means that you have the downside of a shallow DOF'
Well, shallow DOF isn't necessarily a downside, and if one stands sufficiently far, hyperfocal distance can give a very big depth of field.
I was in a band show the day before yesterday, and there was a raised platform at the back of the hall about 3-4m high. Standing there with a 24mm f/1.4 L at f/2 (hyperfocal distance 9.62m), I could get a wide shot of the band & audience dancing all in focus. Maybe I could even get the shot standing on one of the chairs next to the bar at the back.
Not making money from my photography equipment, and not being rich enough to buy all L, I buy primes elsewhere. So far I bought 4 primes by Sigma & Samyang, the one relevant to this discussion being the 35mm f/1.4. If the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 was as good, it would be my next lens.