I would suggest... neither.
If you want a standard/normal focal length, I'd suggest you look at the Canon 28/1.8. It's very compact and useful, mid-grade build (not as good as L series, but quite a bit better than entry level lenses), plus its focal length makes it more of a "normal" lens on an APS-C camera. A good alternative is the Sigma 30/1.4.
I really like 35mm focal length on a full frame camera, but don't have much love for it on a cropper. It's sort of an odd, slightly long normal lens on APS-C. If you want a short telephoto for portraits, IMHO for use on 7DII a 50/1.4, 85/1.8 or 85/1.4 are better choices (Canon or Sigma).
I read a review (Ken Rockwell) and then bought the 50mm (Canon) 1.8 which was said to be far superior to the 1.4. Works fine for me on a 70D.
Ken Rockwell is almost completely wrong. The EF 50/1.8 II is a cheap, junky little lens with surprisingly good image quality,... but it's surpassed by the EF 50/1.4 in many ways including image quality (durability, focus speed/accuracy, bokeh, control of flare and chromatic aberrations, color rendition and contrast). There have been myriad comparisons of the two lenses, since both have been in the Canon arsenal for decades.
Image quality differences are fairly subtle, but the f1.4 wins in most respects. Both lenses need to be stopped down. Rockwell is the only person on earth that claims the micro motor 50/1.8 II focuses more accurately and faster than the 50/1.4's USM. Rockwell either had a 50/1.8 on steroids or a really bad copy of 50/1.4.
The 50/1.8 II is widely known to have noisy and "iffy" micro motor autofocus. It is almost impossible to Micro Adjust, because it rarely focuses to the same place twice.
It's also widely known to be rather fragile. More than a few have simply broken in half (and aren't worth repairing).
The 5-bladed aperture of the 50/1.8 doesn't give as nice background blur as the 8-bladed aperture of the 50/1.4. (All of Rockwell's sample images are shot stopped way down to middle apertures, where either lens will work quite well.)
And the 50/1.4 has better flare control that results in better color saturation and overall contrast. Plus the EF 50/1.4 also has a distance/depth of field scale and a usable manual focus ring, both of which are lacking on the 50/1.8 (any version).
All these fast lenses improve when stopped down a bit. None of them are at their sharpest wide open. But they are able to blur down backgrounds quite nicely (not illustrated in any of Rockwell's images) at f2 and f2.5.
The EF 50/1.8 II has been a real bargain, actually quite capable considering it's the cheapest lens Canon offers. Highly recommended as a "first prime" (normal on full frame or short/portrait on APS-C)... so long as it will not be used hard or extensively.
Google "Canon 50mm" and you'll find much better info than Rockwell's. He is just plain wrong in many respects.
The new Canon EF 50/1.8 STM is another thing entirely. KR's review of this is more correct. The new lens is the same low price (about $125) and still has some of the plasticky construction as the older 50/1.8 II... but now using an improved STM focus drive (faster, quieter, smoother, more accurate)... and with a rounded, 7-blade aperture for better background blurs... and a metal bayonet mount that's a little more confidence-inspiring.... and a little more compact to boot (but uses a 49mm filter that's common, but an odd size among Canon lenses). Optically, it's the same as the 50/1.8 II but appears to have improved flare control that helps it deliver better color and contrast.