Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

[RLPhoto]

Zlatko

You have rejected four recognized test sites results concerning 50/1.2 and resolution compared  to 50/1,4.
Then you have  have mixed up  the results from
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

As you can se, 50/1,2 are less sharp than 50/1.4  at F-1,4

The center is better on the 50L and there is less haze in shots i've taken from the 50L vs the 1.4.

[Marsu42]

As you can se, 50/1,2 are less sharp than 50/1.4  at F-1,4

You have to select the 2nd 50L sample, the first one is a "bad copy":

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The center is better on the 50L and there is less haze in shots i've taken from the 50L vs the 1.4.

Somehow the intra-Canon dogfight between the 50L and the old and rather crappy 50/1.4 seems a little strange to me, if there is a cheaper alternative it'd be the Sigma:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=473&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

[RLPhoto]

Zlatko

You have rejected four recognized test sites results concerning 50/1.2 and resolution compared  to 50/1,4.
Then you have  have mixed up  the results from
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

As you can se, 50/1,2 are less sharp than 50/1.4  at F-1,4

The center is better on the 50L and there is less haze in shots i've taken from the 50L vs the 1.4.

over all better resolution with 50/1,4   at 1,4  and 2,0 than with 50/1,2

Nah, Look at the diagonal lines mid-frame on the 50L @ F/2, It has better contrast. Its the same story up to F/2.8.

[RLPhoto]

Did you even look at the lines?  Its pretty obvious.

[RLPhoto]

Did you even look at the lines?  Its pretty obvious.

That the 50/1,4 is better yes, and you can se that also in photo zone measurement figures at 2.0 , 2,8 etc etc

I guess you didn't get the memo. 

[wayno]

Agree with the above. Mine's decently sharp at 1.4 too.

[Zlatko]

As you can se, 50/1,2 are less sharp than 50/1.4  at F-1,4

You have to select the 2nd 50L sample, the first one is a "bad copy":

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Thanks for that link.  Yes, the second copy is better than the first.  TDP shows that at f/1.4 and at f/2, the 50/1.2 lens is better at center and worse at corners.  In that aperture range, I would rather shoot the 50/1.2 lens than the 50/1.4 lens as the center is more important than the corners.  Strangely, the SLRGear blur charts show the 50/1.4 to be much worse in the corners at f/1.4.

[Zlatko]

Zlatko

You have rejected four recognized test sites results concerning 50/1.2 and resolution compared  to 50/1,4.

I haven't rejected any of the test sites.  I discussed all of them (several times).  Photozone is the only one that supports your view that the 50/1.4 offers better resolution overall.  The others show the the better resolution depends on the aperture and the part of the frame.  As someone mentioned above, perhaps Photozone is testing at a closer distance than the other sites (?).

[mrmarks]

FWIW, here's a comparison done in 2006 with a 5D body between the  f1.2 and f1.4 http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm

[JVLphoto]

One day one of you guys will actually take some photos 

"...... and the old and rather crappy 50/1.4......."

That might be your experience with your copy of the lens, it isn't mine as I keep saying. I bought this lens in 2004 and it has never been to Canon, or anywhere else, for service work, unlike nearly every L lens I own, it also needs zero micro AF adjustment. It has been round the world several times, it has flown on planes and in balloons, it has sailed half the oceans and seas, it has rattled around carelessly in camera bags and rollers the entire time it hasn't been a rest stop for my 1Ds MkIII, and 1Vhs's before that, it has been thoughtlessly ignored and under appreciated its entire life, it is mine and it just works.

1/ 50 f1.4 @ 1.8 full FF image
2/ 100% crop from above image, I have printed this to 16"x24", IQ is perfect
3/ 50 f1.4 @ f1.8 full FF image with red crop box on it
4/ 100% crop of above image, frome edge of frame

Now I don't know what results you guys are getting, or indeed if half of you shoot at all, but if a lens consistently returns images like this I really don't feel the need to "upgrade" it for >$1,000

Well put!

[Marsu42]

One day one of you guys will actually take some photos 
"...... and the old and rather crappy 50/1.4......."

Actually I was refering to the micro usm on the lens which I found annoying when I tried it (as a potential replacement for my 50/1.. Btw I am not a big fan of the "get out and shoot" reasoning to prove a point - all discussed gear is ok to good and of course good shots can be taken with it, that doesn't prevent me from looking at the rather minor differences anyway when deciding what to buy.

[GMCPhotographics]

It seems to me that there are two distinct camps here and this is only my interpretation of the previous three pages. There's the group who have bought a very expensive lens (50L) and are justifying it's merits (there are many but not with sharpness) with viggor and there are those who have the 50mm f1.4, a vastly cheaper model and they are generally more aggressive in their arguments and think that most 50L owners are crazy fools who buy kit because they like the red ring.
I have to say that I have owned two 50mm f1.4 lenses. One broke after a few years, it literally fell apart and the other I sold when i bought my 50L. The 50L is a vastly superior product. It feels a lot nicer to use, the AF ring feels quality and it's more usable and refined. The sharpness for an L lens is very disappointing and I nearly sent my copy back to the shop because I was shocked at how weak it was compared to my other primes. But it does have more contrast, wide open the files need minimal post processing. The flare is a lot less too. But it's so much more robust in it's construction. I've had mine for 5 years and it's never missed a beat...but it's not a lens I'd call "sharp". It's a reliable workhorse, but not Canon's finest.
I would never criticize a photographer for their choice in kit, it's a personal decision based around cost and features. No two people need the same kit. But I wonder if there is a bit of gear envy which goes on with this lens choice.
I just wish Canon would hurry up and make a better 50L, one which we can all be proud of. I think a 50mm f1.8 IS would be a great idea too.

[bdunbar79]

It seems to me that there are two distinct camps here and this is only my interpretation of the previous three pages. There's the group who have bought a very expensive lens (50L) and are justifying it's merits (there are many but not with sharpness) with viggor and there are those who have the 50mm f1.4, a vastly cheaper model and they are generally more aggressive in their arguments and think that most 50L owners are crazy fools who buy kit because they like the red ring.
I have to say that I have owned two 50mm f1.4 lenses. One broke after a few years, it literally fell apart and the other I sold when i bought my 50L. The 50L is a vastly superior product. It feels a lot nicer to use, the AF ring feels quality and it's more usable and refined. The sharpness for an L lens is very disappointing and I nearly sent my copy back to the shop because I was shocked at how weak it was compared to my other primes. But it does have more contrast, wide open the files need minimal post processing. The flare is a lot less too. But it's so much more robust in it's construction. I've had mine for 5 years and it's never missed a beat...but it's not a lens I'd call "sharp". It's a reliable workhorse, but not Canon's finest.
I would never criticize a photographer for their choice in kit, it's a personal decision based around cost and features. No two people need the same kit. But I wonder if there is a bit of gear envy which goes on with this lens choice.
I just wish Canon would hurry up and make a better 50L, one which we can all be proud of. I think a 50mm f1.8 IS would be a great idea too.

I don't think it's gear envy for me.  I could afford and purchased the 50L.  I also tried a copy of the 50 f/1.4 at the same time.  I shot many photos and sold the 50L and kep the 1.4.  At the apertures I shoot, it is sharper.  Period.  I don't care much about build quality, I care about IQ of the photos.  Plus, I can break 2 of them, buying a total of 3 50 f/1.4's for what the price of a single 50L cost back then.  The 50L is hands down Canon's weakest L lens and the reason I dispute it so heavily is not to persuade others, but I guess because deep down I am so disappointed with Canon regarding this lens.  Consider the 135L.  It's much cheaper, but much, much better.  I don't think anyone is a crazy fool for purchasing the lens at all.  I do think, however, that some buy it just because it's an L lens, but you know what, that's their personal decision and none of my business.

[MartinAchatzi]

well, it is a very special lens. And it should be used with a tripod. Don`t laugh....but the field of depth at 1.2 is soooooo small.....Just a little move by model or photographer...and your point of focus has gone...
Sorry for my bad old school english 

[RLPhoto]

well, it is a very special lens. And it should be used with a tripod. Don`t laugh....but the field of depth at 1.2 is soooooo small.....Just a little move by model or photographer...and your point of focus has gone...
Sorry for my bad old school english 

the field of depth is small an the resolution are not convincing for the price, a highly over rated lens who may impress
on some people

Test charts don't impress everyone.