50 1.4 on 5d3 anyone?

[bykes]

Getting some great responses here.  Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2.  A wise choice?  Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?

[RS2021]

Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2.  A wise choice?  Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?

There is a short and long answer to this...

The short answer is generally no, given the competent performance of 1.4... but the long answer would continue further...

 *unless* you have specific need for the better IQ from f1.2 to f2 or so and it's build... after that, the argument becomes more tenuous as 50 1.4 is no slouch. Then again, people don't get 50L to shoot at f 22. I do like the 50mm view on occasion but it does not live on any of my bodies...but your shooting style may favor 50mm or you may need that low light performance from the L for events or indoors...but here, subjectively, the normal field of view is not my cup of tea. Slightly wider is more edgy indoors and out.

50L 1.2 frequently generates diametrically opposed and usually strong opinions. I am no big fan, but I am sure you will hear equally valid points from its supporters.

[Shane1.4]

Don't get it. You will not notice a $1,000 difference over the 1.4. I went down the same path, bought the 1.2 and then sold it to again have the 1.4. Spend the money elsewhere.

[CharlieB]

Have not had the 1.2 version...

This I can say about the 1.4 version, and I've had an older one, and now a current one (the same design).

The image quality _can_ be very good from about f/2.0 out.  From f/1.4 ti f/2.0... expect a certain creaminess in addition to the very shallow DOF.

Both of my own copes were fairly inconsistent in terms of focus repeatability.  When shooting fairly close, at f/2.0 my own lenses would not focus the same place twice... the margin of error for very precise focus is somewhat hampered by the design of the mechanism.  Realistic apertures of f/4-f/11 were consistent enough that you'd never see a problem, and results are very very good.  Its that shallow DOF area... that the lens has a bit of an issue with.  Not an AFMA issue, but a "make the lens do the exact same thing twice" issue.  Mechanical slop, in other words.

I like the lens.... optically very very good for a 50/1.4 - one of the best out there...  so use the slight caveats to judge its performance for your own needs.

I hope someone can say the 50/1.2 is mechanically tighter and consistent repeatable focus is not an issue.

[RustyTheGeek]

The 50mm 1.4 is a cheap crappy lens. Invest in the 35mm 1.4 L instead.

Its not that terrible.  I've used the 50mm 1.4 Professionally for sometime before getting the 50L.

Its a good lens for the $$$.

Ditto.  It's a good lens.  I've taken wonderful pictures with it.  I almost sold it and then used it again for some portraits and decided to keep it.

[captainkanji]

The 50 1.4 takes fantastic shots.  I broke mine though.  I took it out of my camera bag the other day, and it made a rattle.  I took off the back cap to discover the back lens element had come off.  Not sure if it just came unscrewed or broke from a bump. I probably set my bag down too hard. It's less than a year old so it's under warranty and I'll be sending it in this week for service.  I will miss it, since it is my go to low light lens.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Getting some great responses here.  Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2.  A wise choice?  Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?

What you get for the extra $$ is a lot more glass, better construction, and the ability to have super shallow depth of field.
You have to pay lots of $$$ to get even a tiny improvement.  Good used 50mm f/1.4's are available for $250, and are better on FF than the Sigma 50mm.  The Sigma is optimized for crop bodies and does very well there.

[Nishi Drew]

The CA and purple flaring and double lining in bokeh are turning me away from the Canon 50 F/1.4 , I generally shoot at F/2.0 and the results are decent on FF, ideally I want to shoot at F/2.8 as it's sharp all around with minial CA and still shallow enough, but highlights are not circular, and in general the bokeh of the lens could be a lot better. And crazy triangle highlights in corners at 1.8 ~ 2.8 or so, they really tear up the image sometimes. And besides, aside from weight and cost, shooting a normal prime at F/2.8 so often tells me to just go and get a zoom lens. I'll keep the lens for 'product shots' or anything that needs the fantastic sharpness from F/4.0 though, it's a good length for the sort of stuff I like too. However, the lens was best on crop, although somewhat long, the overall performance wasn't as bad there.
Now I'm looking at the Sig 35mm, turns out something wider for scenes and portraits are what I was after too~

[skitron]

Good used 50mm f/1.4's are available for $250, and are better on FF than the Sigma 50mm.  The Sigma is optimized for crop bodies and does very well there.

The Sigma is spec'd for full frame and works very well on FF with very similar caveats as the 50L on FF. Meaning very similar light falloff, softness towards frame edges, etc. But that said, it does work great on a crop.

The nice thing is that in practice, if you don't get hung up on the vendor, there are three good 50s to choose from with the Sigma sitting between the Canon 1.4 and 1.2L both in terms of price and "what it does". Consider the "asthetics" of the 1.4 and of the 1.2L as a range of sorts, and the Sigma sits between them about 2/3 of that range towards the 1.2L imo.

Toss the nifty 50 into the mix and we have four good 50s to choose from, all with a different optomization/price formulas. And as usual, a shot with the nifty by someone really capable and shooting a compelling subject is going to trump a shot with the 50L by a noob shooting his cat on the living room floor. 

[7enderbender]

Getting some great responses here.  Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2.  A wise choice?  Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?

I'm one of those who love their 50 1.2. But my advice would be to only buy it if you really know why you want it and what to do with it. I would start with the 1.4 or any of the other lower price choices. If it turns out that you use 50mm primes a lot and that you like to shoot at wide aperture then you can make a case for the 50L. Or not. It all depends. Or as somebody here said once: if you have to ask you probably don't need it.

[7enderbender]

Good used 50mm f/1.4's are available for $250, and are better on FF than the Sigma 50mm.  The Sigma is optimized for crop bodies and does very well there.

The Sigma is spec'd for full frame and works very well on FF with very similar caveats as the 50L on FF. Meaning very similar light falloff, softness towards frame edges, etc. But that said, it does work great on a crop.

The nice thing is that in practice, if you don't get hung up on the vendor, there are three good 50s to choose from with the Sigma sitting between the Canon 1.4 and 1.2L both in terms of price and "what it does". Consider the "asthetics" of the 1.4 and of the 1.2L as a range of sorts, and the Sigma sits between them about 2/3 of that range towards the 1.2L imo.

Toss the nifty 50 into the mix and we have four good 50s to choose from, all with a different optomization/price formulas. And as usual, a shot with the nifty by someone really capable and shooting a compelling subject is going to trump a shot with the 50L by a noob shooting his cat on the living room floor. 

I'd add a few more choices to consider: Zeiss and old FD/FL lenses with the Ed Mika adapter. Both would be manual focus.

[bykes]

Getting some great responses here.  Now I also considered plunking down the cash for the 50L 1.2.  A wise choice?  Or does the price not justify the purchase over the 50 1.4?

I'm one of those who love their 50 1.2. But my advice would be to only buy it if you really know why you want it and what to do with it. I would start with the 1.4 or any of the other lower price choices. If it turns out that you use 50mm primes a lot and that you like to shoot at wide aperture then you can make a case for the 50L. Or not. It all depends. Or as somebody here said once: if you have to ask you probably don't need it.

Thats probably what I'll do....I'll start with the 1.4. 

[bykes]

Got it yesterday.  Great lens! I'm going to have fun with it.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm thinking about picking up the 50 1.4 for a fast option instead of lugging my 24-105 around to family events etc.  Is anyone using one on a 5d3?  Your thoughts?

Noticeably sharper than the 24-105 although that is when it focuses. The AF on it is worse than on the 24-105. It does focus a bit more reliably on the 5D3 than on most older cameras, which helps a lot, but still is a bit so-so in the AF department, especially shooting f/2 and under (but it won't drive you totally insane on a 5D3 as it might on some other bodies so it's workable).
I do use it as a super fast/low DOF complement to my 24-70 2.8 (and earlier to my 17-50 2..

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Everyone seems to bashing the 35 1.4 advice that someone gave but it seems like decent advice to me. Personally I find 35mm more interesting than 50mm on FF (if you shot a 24-70 or 35-70 or 24-105 etc. how many shots are at 50mm? I bet the fewest). And the 50mm does have a delicate AF that is prone to breaking. The 35L works better. The new sigma, assuming the AF works well and since it is Sigma who knows, hopefully they have that in order these days (even if not it can't be worse than the 50 1.4 AF though even if it might not quite match the 35L), might be something to look into too since it has a good price and tests craaaaazy sharp.

But that said 50mm 1.4 is a nice lens too (other than the AF motor on the Canon).