Buy 50mm f1.2L now or wait for the II?

[Grumbaki]

+1 to Ramon and Tabor.

With your budget, your considerations and my tastes in focals, I'd go 6d+Sig35+85L

But taste for specific focals is personnal, we have quite a few 50 fans on the forum too...

[mrjgx]

I think I know now what primes I will be getting in the next few months / years.

35L + Sig 50 1.4 + 85L + 70200 IS II

I skipped the 50L after countless bad reviews I found on the net, the other L doesn't seems to have many negative reviews though so my money is hopefully worth to spend on

[MLfan3]

the 50L is a great lens but it is not the best performer at a lab test like DXO or photozone.de.
but who cares as it performs really well in real world.
so if you get a great deal on it , then go for it but other wise wait mk2 version.

[rs]

I think I know now what primes I will be getting in the next few months / years.

35L + Sig 50 1.4 + 85L + 70200 IS II

I skipped the 50L after countless bad reviews I found on the net, the other L doesn't seems to have many negative reviews though so my money is hopefully worth to spend on

I have the 70-200 II and the Sigma 50/1.4. Both great lenses, but be prepared for a little bit of hassle when it comes to getting a good copy of the Sigma.

Many people have had to return theirs two or three times to get a good copy. I was lucky, and it took just one swap out (the first one had major AF issues). Sharpness of this lens is very good - better in my opinion than the Canon 50's, and no focus shift when stopped down. Out of all my lenses (including three L lenses), the Sigma's bokeh quality is in a whole different league. I've used the Canon 50/1.4 quite a bit, and that Canon doesn't get even remotely close to the Sigma.

[discojuggernaut]

I think I know now what primes I will be getting in the next few months / years.

35L + Sig 50 1.4 + 85L + 70200 IS II

I skipped the 50L after countless bad reviews I found on the net, the other L doesn't seems to have many negative reviews though so my money is hopefully worth to spend on

I think this is a good combo.  The 70-200 is great for fast focus and versatility.  The 85L is sexier than the 50L.  The 50 Sigma is great bang for the buck.  Any 50mm does well as a single-lens walkaround solution. The 35 (i'd go with Sigma at this moment) makes a great combo with an 85mm or a 70-200.

Lots of people go for the 35/85/135 prime trinity.  I had the 24/50/135 trinity for a while and liked it (wide/normal/tele).  I still have the 24mm, but all these glowing reports of the 24-70 II are making me consider selling it

And i doubt that a 50L II will be out in the foreseeable future, although a 50mm f/1.4 IS seems likely.

[BrettS]

PLEASE DON'T BUY THE 50MM 1.2!!
I bought 2 of them for my company and i sold them because sharpness is bad and it has a strange glow at all apertures.

Maybe it's just the copies i had but i doubt it.
I also have two 85mm 1.2 II's to compare to and the 50's ate serious dirt every time.

I'm thinking they will come up with a new model of the 50 1.2 since it is so bad at sharpness and it won't survive when +30MP cameras come around.

I'm waiting for a new version but even more for the new TS-E45mm that is hopefully coming soon!

Ugh. </facepalm>

If I could be so bold as to quote neuro:

Excellent bokeh was a priority for Canon with the 50L. They stated, "With the increasing popularity of digital SLR cameras, calls for large aperture single-focal length lenses with excellent image quality and pleasing bokeh (blur effects) for portraits have increased," (Tech Report, 11/2006).  Spherical aberration results in a loss of sharpness, but completely correcting for spherical aberration results in a harsh, jittery bokeh. In the 50L design, the spherical aberration was left deliberately undercorrected to produce the creamy bokeh for which the lens is known.

Also, this thread is quite interesting. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10798.0

Now repeat after me: Sharpness was not a primary design goal with the Canon 50L.

And please stop disseminating poorly researched opinions.

[mrjgx]

I need some clarifications..im not quite sure about this focus shift issues, so it means it only happen at small aperture?

At 1.2-1.8 is there any problem with focus shift? Because im buying the lens just to use for the bokehness and at large aperture.

Thx

[rs]

The 50L suffers from focus shift, which is where stopping down the lens changes where it focuses. AF is performed wide open, so it should nail the focus at f1.2 - but stop it down, and it will be slightly off. If you stop down as far as say f5.6 or f8, the increased DoF should be enough to keep your subject in focus. But apertures between wide open and large DoF settings will be affected by varying amounts. Someone with plenty of hands on experience should be able to provide more accurate info than me, but I believe the 50L suffers from focus shift the most at about f2

[GMCPhotographics]

PLEASE DON'T BUY THE 50MM 1.2!!
I bought 2 of them for my company and i sold them because sharpness is bad and it has a strange glow at all apertures.

Maybe it's just the copies i had but i doubt it.
I also have two 85mm 1.2 II's to compare to and the 50's ate serious dirt every time.

I'm thinking they will come up with a new model of the 50 1.2 since it is so bad at sharpness and it won't survive when +30MP cameras come around.

I'm waiting for a new version but even more for the new TS-E45mm that is hopefully coming soon!

Ugh. </facepalm>

If I could be so bold as to quote neuro:

Excellent bokeh was a priority for Canon with the 50L. They stated, "With the increasing popularity of digital SLR cameras, calls for large aperture single-focal length lenses with excellent image quality and pleasing bokeh (blur effects) for portraits have increased," (Tech Report, 11/2006).  Spherical aberration results in a loss of sharpness, but completely correcting for spherical aberration results in a harsh, jittery bokeh. In the 50L design, the spherical aberration was left deliberately undercorrected to produce the creamy bokeh for which the lens is known.

Also, this thread is quite interesting. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10798.0

Now repeat after me: Sharpness was not a primary design goal with the Canon 50L.

And please stop disseminating poorly researched opinions.

Yarp...use, repeat.....oooo nice photos....there's far too many gear twitchers out there who take the view that only the ultimate lens is worthy of their lens bag. Or are looking for an excuse not to buy one. If you need the best 50mm which is currently available for the Canon mount, the 50 f1.2 L is it...regardless of it's faults.
Yes there's a focus shift at MFD when stopped down to f2.8. This lens isn't a macro lens and shouldn't be treated as such. But use live view and stop down and you can see the shift and compensate manually. To be fair, if you are that close and need to stop down then this should be on a tripod and you should be using live view to focus anyhow. Wide open and there's no issues with AF accuracy or shift. I've never understood the need for stopping down a fast prime...why not use a 24-70IIL instead? If you need a fast prime, shoot it wide open.

[verysimplejason]

Sigma/Canon 50mm F1.4.  For 50mm focal length I'd skip Canon F1.2L.  I'd rather have the 85mm F1.2L or the 135mm F2L for portraits.

[Cannon Man]

the 50L is a great lens but it is not the best performer at a lab test like DXO or photozone.de.
but who cares as it performs really well in real world.
so if you get a great deal on it , then go for it but other wise wait mk2 version.

My experience was completely opposite to yours?? Do you own a copy?? What i found was that the reviews are generally positive but in the real world it performs really bad! It back focuses, the sharpness is CRAP at all apertures and it has a weird glow/softness that i can't stand.

If i had a lot of money i would buy every existing copy of the 50 1.2 and blow them to pieces with dynamite and send the video to Canon asking to make a real world L series 50mm.

[Eldar]

I have owned 3 copies of this lens over the years. They have all performed consistently and in general I have been very happy with them. The only reason I don´t have it at the moment is because I use the 85mm f1.2L II and the Sigma f1.4 instead. There are in my view three main reasons to buy this lens. 1: It is in general the best available 50mm with a canon mount. 2: It has a build quality second to no other 50mm and 3: It gives you very good results at f1.2.

If your problems with this lens is that it does not outperform other lenses at f4, don´t  buy it. It is supposed to be used at f1.2. If the only IQ quality you care about is sharpness, don´t buy it, because that is not where it shines. If you have problems with focus shift at MFD, don´t buy it, because it is not a macro lens (focus shift has never been a problem for me, because I always used it wide open and seldom closer than 1.5m). But if you are looking for short DOF, good colors and great bokeh and 50mm is the focal length you are looking for, this is it!

Reading some of the posts here, I feel the same way as I do reading audiophile posts (hifi and music is my other addiction), where the quality of a setup is judged by how heart stopping the punch from the big drum is. Not much music in the frequencies down there. Yes I like sharpness, but I like good color, 3D pop from shallow DOF and beautiful bokeh more. For those of you with serious problems with this lens, and I am assuming that you don´t have bad copies, should probably look for faults else where.

[mrjgx]

I have owned 3 copies of this lens over the years. They have all performed consistently and in general I have been very happy with them. The only reason I don´t have it at the moment is because I use the 85mm f1.2L II and the Sigma f1.4 instead. There are in my view three main reasons to buy this lens. 1: It is in general the best available 50mm with a canon mount. 2: It has a build quality second to no other 50mm and 3: It gives you very good results at f1.2.

If your problems with this lens is that it does not outperform other lenses at f4, don´t  buy it. It is supposed to be used at f1.2. If the only IQ quality you care about is sharpness, don´t buy it, because that is not where it shines. If you have problems with focus shift at MFD, don´t buy it, because it is not a macro lens (focus shift has never been a problem for me, because I always used it wide open and seldom closer than 1.5m). But if you are looking for short DOF, good colors and great bokeh and 50mm is the focal length you are looking for, this is it!

Reading some of the posts here, I feel the same way as I do reading audiophile posts (hifi and music is my other addiction), where the quality of a setup is judged by how heart stopping the punch from the big drum is. Not much music in the frequencies down there. Yes I like sharpness, but I like good color, 3D pop from shallow DOF and beautiful bokeh more. For those of you with serious problems with this lens, and I am assuming that you don´t have bad copies, should probably look for faults else where.

Sounds like the conclusion of this thread! No issue for me since I plan to use it at 1.2 anyway..I'm after the bokehliciousness of the lens and that's all that matter in my pursuit of the lens. If I'm looking for sharpness I'll be getting the 135L straight away.

Anyway just to note that since I'm not going for a full frame body in the upcoming months, I'll buy the 35L first for traveling purposes

Thanks all for all the replies!

[BrettS]

My experience was completely opposite to yours?? Do you own a copy?? What i found was that the reviews are generally positive but in the real world it performs really bad! It back focuses, the sharpness is CRAP at all apertures and it has a weird glow/softness that i can't stand.

If i had a lot of money i would buy every existing copy of the 50 1.2 and blow them to pieces with dynamite and send the video to Canon asking to make a real world L series 50mm.

My experience was completely opposite to yours?? Do you own a Ford Fiesta?? What i found was that the reviews are generally positive but in the real world it performs really bad! It has poor acceleration, the horsepower is CRAP at all RPM and it has a weird glow/softness in the headlights that i can't stand.

If i had a lot of money i would buy every existing copy of the Ford Fiesta and blow them to pieces with dynamite and send the video to Ford asking to make a real world sports car.