Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

[BrettS]

again- who are talking or discussing  bokeh?.  I are answering about the resolution test-NOTHING ELSE
Why are you people dragging in another parameters?
Shall we also discuss anomalies like  coma, CA, focus shift  or whatever?
Read now the 4 links I have provided and make a own assumption about how good the 50/1,2 are compared to 50/1,4 from Canon

Indeed. I have read and I see the advantages of the 50 f/1.2L. You have stirred me into renting a 50 f/1.2L with a mind to purchasing if I like it's qualities.

50/1.2 are a expensive, overrated lens compare to 50/1,4.

A very absolute statement in conflict with both the reviews, and your opening paragraph (above). Perhaps you should have stated:

"50/1.2 are a expensive, overrated lens compare to a 50/1,4 in terms of resolution test-NOTHING ELSE."

Having read the reviews, I would have to disagree with your absolute statement.

[erwinwang]

And how are you Interpret  or explain  photozone and lenstip resolution test? In the middle and borders/edge?
AND it is only resolution I am discussing , read back
What do you se at f-2.0 and up to 5,6  ?
I think we have some different experiences of testing lenses and look at  the results, I my self have only 30 years of experience, from 18x24 9x12 6x7  6x6  24x36 and APS lenses

And are you people wondering about the bokeh? put Vaseline on a filter, live the middle free.

Object distance,man.always remember the object distance.

Close target imatest results are just unfair to  wide-angle/ultra large aperture or any non-macro lenses that produce large amount of corner fall off and field curvature.But in field situation you probably will never meet conditions demand exactly flat focus plane performance in very close distance.And obviously that is not what fifties designed for.

Resolution is not a problem shooting objects beyond4 to 5 feet.Though not razor sharp,but very rich details.Sharpness doesn't equals to resolution.Detail contrast affects much on sharpness,which can be easily solved using any sharpening filter.

[erwinwang]

Here is some more 100% screen crops wide open in original raw on Lightroom4.

[RLPhoto]

It is not much to own to that price, it is only ( and now Im using the word uninformed people) who think 50/1,2 is something special. good luck and Elvis is still alive, live in Motala Sweden

Had all the canon 50mm's, and the 50L is the best performing from F1.2-2.8. Its fantastic.

Tell me which one of the four links i have
 Provided shows that 50/1,2 is better at 2,0 than 50/1,4
Are all this 4 test humbug? Like some think about DXO  Dr test

Don't need to. My experience in using the equipment has proved to me the value of the 50L.

[erwinwang]

Sharpness is not everything.(for sure 50L is not lack of capable here )

The magic about this glass is how it handles harsh light condition,how it renders the colors in such a amazing tone and the elegant gradation of DOF.That combines a impression of a photography.Never a audience will praise your work because it is razor sharp,especially girls your shot .Solely struggling on sharpness is really childish for any photographer other than equipment fan.

Just treat it like a price-smart version of Noctilux.

[erwinwang]

All in all 50L is not short in any aspect to be a fine 50mm lens.

Worth every penny.

[Zlatko]

Just treat it like a price-smart version of Noctilux.

Yes!  You've got the right idea.  A price-smart version of the Noctilux ... and with autofocus! 

Thanks for the photo samples!

[RuneL]

I don't get why people claim you can't do anything but art at f 1.2. I've done several things solely at 1.2 that were published and were definitely not art but reportage and features and portraits and sports.

I love it when the fous is spot on and hate it too because it's so expensive and the build quality isn't exactly good.

[mrmarks]

erwinwang, thanks for the beautiful shots and sharing your views. As a user of 50L and 50f1.4, I can't agree more to your views.

[caruser]

erwinwang, thanks for the beautiful shots and sharing your views. As a user of 50L and 50f1.4, I can't agree more to your views.

Does that mean you have both of them? And, if yes, any deeper reason than simply not (yet) having sold the old one after upgrading?

[mrmarks]

I sold the f1.4 some time after getting the f1.2.

[Zlatko]

Just treat it like a price-smart version of Noctilux.

Yes!  You've got the right idea.  A price-smart version of the Noctilux ... and with autofocus! 

Thanks for the photo samples!

well that makes things not  better.
In the middle  at F-1.0 you can achieve something  who looks like  little bit of sharpness but  other parts of the picture is not at all sharp.

The lens provides the images  a particular character, and it does very well in the display cabinet.

I don't know about the display cabinet, but the Canon 50/1.2 does very well in the hands of Sebastião Salgado, David Burnett, Paolo Pellegrin, Mario Sorrenti, Denis Reggie and Pete Souza, among others.

[erwinwang]

Just treat it like a price-smart version of Noctilux.

Yes!  You've got the right idea.  A price-smart version of the Noctilux ... and with autofocus! 

Thanks for the photo samples!

of course Jeff Ascough,I love his works
well that makes things not  better.
In the middle  at F-1.0 you can achieve something  who looks like  little bit of sharpness but  other parts of the picture is not at all sharp.

The lens provides the images  a particular character, and it does very well in the display cabinet.

I don't know about the display cabinet, but the Canon 50/1.2 does very well in the hands of Sebastião Salgado, David Burnett, Paolo Pellegrin, Mario Sorrenti, Denis Reggie and Pete Souza, among others.

[GMCPhotographics]

Anyone else notice the focal jump between the 50L and 50 1.4?
The 50mm f1.4 is longer than the 50L. By my eyes, the 50L is pretty spot on to 50mm, but the 50 1.4 is closer to 60mm....maybe 58mm?

[BrettS]

You can obviously not interpret lenstip measurement , lenstip  figures first and  then photozone  .  Read Imagin-Resource test where they thought the lens was faulty. se Turners report.

Let's summarize.  You say 50/1.4 has better resolution.  DigiAngel's bicycle photos above (thank you!) show us the reality.

You say 50/1.4 is sharper overall and you cite the Lenstip tests.  The Lenstip tests show that it depends on the aperture.  For example, if you look at the centers (red), the 50/1.4 is better at f/1.4, and the 50/1.2 is better at f/2, and both lenses are equal at f/2.8, and the 50/1.4 is better at f/4.  This back and forth lead is similar to what was found by LensRentals.  It seems you took most of the blue (edge) dots out of the 50/1.2 chart from Lenstip, but I presume the blue dots mean the same edge point on both charts.   There again, which is better depends on the aperture.

You asked me to look at Imaging Resource but your link is to SLRGear (?), so I clipped SLRGear's blur charts which show the 50/1.2 as distinctly better at f/1.4.  The lower, darker and flatter the blur chart, the better the resolution, and the 50/1.2 lens definitely shows a better blur chart at f/1.4 and f/2; by f/2.8 they are comparable.  SLRGear was disappointed with the 50/1.2 lens based on its price, but they did say (in their "Tanner Report") that "It's blur profile is somewhat better than that of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide open".  Looking at the blur charts, there is no question about that.

You link to The Digital Picture (TDP), but their charts show that which is better depends on where you look and which aperture.  For example, at f/1.8, the 50/1.2 shows a better center and mid-frame, but a worse corner.  At f/1.8, I would rather shoot the 50/1.2 lens than the 50/1.4 lens.  TDP's results supports this.

You dismissed the LensRentals test results as "wrong".  Well, just dismissing test results doesn't help your argument about the "myth", especially when their results are similar to those on Lenstip, TDP and SLRGear.

I'll grant you that Photozone's test shows the 50/1.4 as much better than the 50/1.2; that stands out as the anomaly among all of these sources.  Of all the sources you cited, this one supports your point.

you are falling for the myth , like some others
if you can read the different test shows that 50/1,4 has better over all sharpness than 50/1,2
how difficult can it be???
what is you do not understand?

I've addressed all of the test results, especially in my previous reply to you.  I won't keep repeating myself.  I've tried to keep this discussion factual, discussing the various tests.  You seem intent on condescension and I won't reply to that.

+1