Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

[Canon Rumors]

Discuss the review of the EF 50 f/1.2L

[vscd]

In my opinion this lense is a shame for the given price. It's well build and wheather sealed and of course this counts sometimes more than anything else, but if you check out the testresults (f.e.



...you can't use the open aperture for something except art and you have to get down to at least f2.5 to get a sharp picture. So you pay a lot more for a fraction of a EV-step you can't even use and you have better results with the 50mm 1.4 up to aperture 2.5 and more (!). Just save the money and get the 100mm 2.8 Macro L IS as extra lense for the same price, together.

The 85mm 1.2 L II is the total difference, the 85mm is marvelous. But the 50mm is to be replaced, soon. Hopefully. If your company buys you the stuff or the buildquality is imnportant, get it. If you collect red rings, get it too. Otherwise... save the money.

Edit:   Just to compare it to the Canon 50mm 1.4:

[RS2021]

Roger Cicala of lensrental sums it up nicely...this is a highly controversial lens with users divided on liking it or hating it.

For a key, standard prime flagship L lens this shouldn't be the case.

For the price point, if you have to explain this, that, or the other (between f1.2 and f 2.8 it is sharper than my aunt's tongue...blah blah)... sorry...it should just work... No explanations should be necessary.

[Matthew Saville]

I'm sorry but, the only reason the 50 1.2 is so highly regarded is because Canon intentionally leaves the 50 1.4 as such a piece of crap.  It is a classic "entice to upgrade" tactic.  I know this is going to sound like flame bait but as a Nikon user myself, since we simply do not have f/1.2 (with autofocus) as an option thus far, Nikon has gone the opposite route:  Both their f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm's are absolutely killer.  My 50mm f/1.8 AFS-G has identical sharpness to the Canon 50 1.2 L at f/1.8, and it cost me $200.

I totally agree that with their larger lens mount, Canon will always be the king of bokeh, and f/1.2 is f/1.2.  But just some food for thought.  Personally, though I own Nikon I do shoot both Nikon and Canon, and what I'd love to see from Canon is a better 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, those two options are much more practical for the masses.  Part of the whole point of primes, in my opinion, is to be light and small.  Both of the Canon 1.2 primes are downright "compensating for something" size, I feel like many pros only buy them as a status symbol when they don't even come close to pushing the envelope far enough to actually need the DOF that the f/1.2 offers; they would create identical images if Canon had a sharp-as-heck f/1.4 or f/1.8 with solid construction.  Heck even my 50 1.8 has a weather sealing gasket!

Respectfully,
=Matt=

[ecka]

Sigmalux is still the best fast fifty

[RS2021]

Don't hijack this thread with nikon comparisons...what is available in the EF line up is the most relavent....often the contentious area is the value for the price comparisons between the f1.2L and f1.4 canon 50's.

Once we venture into nikonland, the arguments will just feed the trolls. So please don't  take the bait.

[Normalnorm]

Sigmalux is still the best fast fifty

After buying the Canon 1.4 and going through three copies without finding one that could focus properly I picked up the Sigma. It is super sharp and the focus actually works. Build quality is excellent. Lack of 1.2 seems meaningless.

I am really looking forward to the 35 1.4 when I get the funds.

[EOBeav]

There is absolutely no new information here that hasn't been presented before on The Digital Picture, et al.   The bottom line is that if you shoot professionally wide open (>f/2),  you'll want the 50L. Personally, I wouldn't turn one down if given one, but I do have the 50mm f/1.4 that works just fine.

[CrimsonBlue]

I've owned every version of this lens (1.8, 1.4, 1.2) and they are all worth the price you pay.  The 1.2L does amazing work, but you also have to have a good command of the camera with such razor sharp DoF.  I noticed a little backfocusing in low light, but it produces top-notch images 95% of the time.

[Daniel Flather]

All the photos except the bokeh photo are taken with the 50L.  A little bias?  But after owning the 1.8 Mrk 1, 1.4, and the 1.2L, I know the bias for the 1.2.

The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.

[RS2021]

There is absolutely no new information here that hasn't been presented before on The Digital Picture, et al.   The bottom line is that if you shoot professionally wide open (>f/2),  you'll want the 50L. Personally, I wouldn't turn one down if given one, but I do have the 50mm f/1.4 that works just fine.

+1... Sums up my view. I don't know why this review was dragged up again waving the f1.2 fan club flag.  Way too much has been said already about this overrated lens. I sold mine and haven't looked back. Next!

[Zlatko]

Nikon has gone the opposite route:  Both their f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm's are absolutely killer.

I haven't tried the Nikon 50/1.8, but the Nikon 50/1.4 is certainly not killer.  It's ok, but the Canon 50/1.2 draws better.  People look at the resolution numbers and seem to ignore the actual photographs.  To judge a lens properly, you have to look at the photographs it makes.  Resolution numbers can only tell you so much.  The Canon 50/1.2 has a very beautiful way of drawing pictures, especially in the f/1.6 to f/2.5 range.  I've gotten wonderful results from it that go beyond what the resolution numbers would tell me.  In that aperture range, there is no issue with focus shift.  And with the 5D3, focus is more reliable than with past camera bodies.  It seems to me that the lens designers had a certain artistic look in mind, and they succeeded brilliantly.  Sure, we all wish for a sharper 50, as good as the $4K Leica 50/1.4, but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities.  And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.

[drjlo]

The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.

I don't know about that, but despite all the bashing about its sharpness, according to Lensrentals testing, the 50L is the sharpest lens from f/1.2 to f/2.0 including alll Canon, Zeiss, Nikon, and Sigma 50mm choices. 

What I love about the 50L is how it retains such nice contrast and color below f/2.0, which is something my Canon 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4 could not do, not to mention the superior bokeh of 50L .

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

[Robert Welch]

I currently use a Canon 50/1.4 and am happy with it. But I am looking forward to trying the 50L 1.2 one day. The photos I've seen from it are indeed special, it strikes me that this lens is for those who want a certain feel to their photos, a unique quality that can't be delivered from just any lens. There are many 'sharp' lenses out there, but there are few than can take a photo which you can actually identify which lens was used. Not every photo taken with a 50L can be identified as such, obviously, but there are photos I've seen that have a quality which can be identified as having been taken with this lens (and such can be said for the 85L, as well as certain other lenses made by Lieca, Carl Zeiss and perhaps a few others). This quality from these images isn't something that can be measured on a graph, but only by the eye of the beholder. I've seen enough such images to convince me there is something special in these lenses, and while you can still take wonderful photos with other lenses, you can't take the exact same photo as you could with a lens like the 50L unless you use the 50L in such a way that you take advantage of it's unique qualities. It's not a general purpose lens, seems to me, the 50/1.4 would be better suited to that. But if you want to explore your creative potential with a single lens, the 50L is probably one of the better choices, seems to me.

[Wilmark]

I too have found this lens to be disappointing. It is really a different beast. It is quite good for cinematic video. Unfortunately most of the reviews dont make these differences well known - that is the focus and CA issues.