December 22, 2014, 10:26:36 PM

Author Topic: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4  (Read 7124 times)

knoxtown

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2013, 11:09:46 PM »
Just wanted to jump in here...

Is the 50L a magic lens? Not even close, it certainly has its flaws. Most people definitely don't need it, but if you do, you already know it (and can easily justify it). For most people, the money is better spent on the new 24-70, or just a 50 1.4 and save the rest for something else you need. For my work, I need it and couldn't imagine working without it.

Is it as good as the 85 1.2 or the 135, nope. Does it compliment them for specific needs, absolutely.

All of that said, if you want it, buy it. Just understand that the images you get from it, for most people, isn't going to translate into a reason to spend 1500 on a 50.

Happy shopping everyone.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2013, 11:12:36 PM by knoxtown »
Conflict Photographer - 5d Mark III, 50mm 1.2, 20mm 2.8, 24mm 1.4, Sigma 35mm 1.4, 70-200 2.8

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2013, 11:09:46 PM »

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ************
  • Posts: 15238
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #16 on: August 18, 2013, 11:13:06 PM »
I know bokeh can be subjective, but would you contend that the 50's bokeh is on par with the 85/135/200?

I'd contend that it's better.  The 50/1.2 was intentionally designed for superior bokeh, and I'd argue that Canon succeeded.  How do you design a lens for exceptional bokeh?  You don't fully correct for spherical aberration - and that undercorrection is the tradeoff that results in the 'flaws' some people perceive in the 50L, such as a slight reduction in sharpness and the focus shift when stopping down slightly with very close subjects.  Not only is the bokeh superior, the combination of a normal focal length with an f/1.2 aperture means relatively more blur for a close background than is achieved with longer lenses.  So, for close subjects with close, busy backgrounds, the 50L going to blur out the background more, and more pleasingly.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4373
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2013, 12:05:32 AM »
For a lot of shots, yeah. I find that I prefer the sharpness/bokeh quality on my f/1.4 after about f/2.  And a lot of times, I'll keep it at f/2.8.  At those aperture settings, there is virtually no difference in IQ between the two lenses.  And I think that's the point the guy was trying to make.

If f2.8 is your fav. then save your money for 24-70 II. It much more versatile and sharp @ f2.8

There is no fun shooting f2.8 with f1ish lens, that just me of course.

Besides, most wedding shooters would carry 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 anyways.

Not to be argumentative, but I know you are possibly the biggest supporter of the f/1.2 here.  Outside of the bokeh, can you replicate the contrast and color in lightroom

And again... not to be argumentative... or maybe I should say, With all due respect (Talladega Nights anyone?), I haven't heard of the 50 f/1.2L having a magic bokeh except recently.  The 135L yes, the 85mm f/1.2L yes, even the 200mm f/2L... I've even heard contrasting opinions regarding the bokeh of the 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii.

I know bokeh can be subjective, but would you contend that the 50's bokeh is on par with the 85/135/200?

With raw file, photo above can be easily PP x2 to x3 better. Those are just one of goofy photos I took at work with JPEG. Standard setting on 5D III.

"I haven't heard of the 50 f/1.2L having a magic bokeh except recently" ==>  because you were too busy shooting with 50 f1.4 @ f2.8 that's why :P :P  ;D   ;)

"I know bokeh can be subjective, but would you contend that the 50's bokeh is on par with the 85/135/200?" ==> try to rent 50L. AFMA is almost required. start shooting from f1.2 to f1.6(mine is great at f1.4, others claimed f1.6ish). Magic distance 4-5ft away from your model. Once you done this exp, pls share your photos with us ;)
« Last Edit: August 19, 2013, 12:26:10 AM by Dylan777 »
Bodies: 1DX -- 5D III
Zooms: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Primes: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1407
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2013, 12:53:39 AM »
Not to be argumentative, but I know you are possibly the biggest supporter of the f/1.2 here.  Outside of the bokeh, can you replicate the contrast and color in lightroom? 

And again... not to be argumentative... or maybe I should say, With all due respect (Talladega Nights anyone?), I haven't heard of the 50 f/1.2L having a magic bokeh except recently.  The 135L yes, the 85mm f/1.2L yes, even the 200mm f/2L... I've even heard contrasting opinions regarding the bokeh of the 70-200mm f/2.8L Is mkii.

I know bokeh can be subjective, but would you contend that the 50's bokeh is on par with the 85/135/200?

The topic comes up from time to time, but this has been going on for years.

The 50L is not for everyone.  For IQ parameters that are easily compared (i.e. resolution), the 50L is not leaps and bounds above its non-L brethren.  I tried the 50 f/1.4 on several crop bodies (including the 7D) and it was a maddening experience.  AF accuracy and consistency was bad from f/1.4 to f/2, and colors were flat/tended to washed out wide open.  I had the 17-55 f/2.8 IS at the time, and I saw no value in the 50 f/1.4.  Test reviews tend to evaluate lenses using LV pointed at static subjects.  The 50 f/1.4 that I used performed much better in LV, but there was no way that I'd use an AF lens only in that way, and with AI servo, it tracked horribly.  The experience was so bad that I didn't even try another fast prime for a while.  It wasn't until I tried a 35L that it dawned on me how much better the 50 f/1.4 should have been.  I got my 50L used because after reading a lot on the net, I was inclined not to like it.  I figured I could resell it at a slight loss, at least well within a rental fee, so I gave it a go.  It's been a couple years, but I still have it, and for a while it was my most used lens because I didn't have a midrange zoom for a while after moving to FF.

If you are expecting to use the 50L like how you would use any L lens, you will be disappointed.  It has a lot of quirks, and I won't bother shooting near MFD with it.  However, if I'm with friends and family and it's dim (esp. indoors or at night and when no one wants/expects the flash to go off all the time), the 50L is my first choice because I can rely on it wide open and because it's the most versatile focal length for me.  Would I sell if it Canon comes up with a better alternative?  Absolutely.  Do forum members that own the 50L own it just because of the red ring?  No, but it is on the correct side of the cost/benefit analysis for us.

dirtcastle

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
    • Eric Nord Flickr Page
Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2013, 01:31:32 AM »
I'm satisfied with the relative IQ of the 50/1.4. But the build quality makes me nervous for sure.

Haydn1971

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 427
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2013, 02:05:56 AM »
This discussion could change soon - given that Canon has been busy replacing its old non-L primes with new models that are twice as expensive...

The 24mm, 28mm & 35mm have all been replaced with new fancy IS lenses, there have been suggestions on here that the 28mm f1.8 could be at risk of being chopped - why have 2 primes at what is today a odd focal length - which leaves the 50mm f1.8 & f1.4, both pre digital, both rather flimsy affairs, with the current ISO performance of new cameras, I'm half expecting a replacement f2.0/1.8 IS at a premium and a less than £150 nifty fifty f2.8 pancake without IS, with the 85mm following soon after, don't bother with the 100mm because the L is still "quite" cheap, but perhaps a cut price ultrawide prime to follow too...  16-18mm f2.8 prime perhaps ? Would it need IS ???  Would it kill sales on the 14mm ?

Regards, Haydn

:: View my photostream on Flickr, Canon EOS 6D, EOS M ,  16-35mm II, 24-70mm II, 70-300mm L, 135mm f2.0 L, 22mm f2.0, Lensbaby, EOS M adaptor, Cosina CT1G film SLR & 50mm f2.0 lens

mwh1964

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 207
  • 5D3
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2013, 09:54:38 AM »
Just got the 50L of CL. What a nice piece of photographic equipment. Have been shooting exclusively @1.2-1.8. Think it's really sharp and fantastic at these f-stops. Really have to concentrate to nail focus though, but results pay off the efforts. Really good bokeh as well even though I don't have some of the bokeh fantastical lenses to compare with.   Much better build quality than my 50 f1.4. No comparison actually. Probably going to keep both as they serve different purposes. Will see how it turns out following the initial first love. So far I am really happy with my purchase.
5D3 | 16-35L IS | 24-70L II | 24-105L | 70-200L II | 70-300L | 15 fisheye | 35 IS | 40 STM | 50 f1.4 | 100L | B&W Kaesemann | 2 x 600 EX-RT | ST-E3-RT | MR14-EX | EOS M + 22 STM + 90 EX | Manfrotto | Billingham | Lowepro | Think Tank

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #21 on: September 02, 2013, 09:54:38 AM »

alexturton

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 206
  • I shoot what i find interesting; nothing else
    • View Profile
    • My flickr
Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2013, 08:03:28 AM »
Just got the 50L of CL. What a nice piece of photographic equipment. Have been shooting exclusively @1.2-1.8. Think it's really sharp and fantastic at these f-stops. Really have to concentrate to nail focus though, but results pay off the efforts. Really good bokeh as well even though I don't have some of the bokeh fantastical lenses to compare with.   Much better build quality than my 50 f1.4. No comparison actually. Probably going to keep both as they serve different purposes. Will see how it turns out following the initial first love. So far I am really happy with my purchase.

any sample shots?
Bodies: 5d mk iii, 60d
Primes: 24L 1.4, Sigma 35 1.4, 40 pancake, 50L 1.2, 85L 1.2 ii, 8mm fisheye, lensbaby, 100L macro.
Zooms: 16-35 2.8 ii, 24-70 2.8 ii, 70-200 2.8 is ii, 120-400

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3546
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2013, 08:44:05 AM »
I like 50L. It has everything I need in a 50mm.

Act444

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 348
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2013, 05:00:57 PM »
Ever since switching to FF, I've been looking for a decent 50mm lens. I've yet to find one.

I tried the 50L. Couldn't get a SINGLE sharp shot with it even after nearly 100 pics and fiddling with focus adjustment. I really wanted to like it but I know the soft shots would frustrate the --- out of me. So I wrote it off.

The 50 1.4 was much easier to use, but lacked the durability and weather sealing. Pics also had an odd color to it (couldn't really put my finger on it). As another poster mentioned, even on a 5D3 the servo tracking was horrendous...

spacetimeroger

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #25 on: September 14, 2013, 09:37:44 PM »
I use a 50mm f/1.4, professionally—all the time—I certainly wouldn't mind having the L version, but since I'm usually covering events, concerts and weddings, it's rare that I will end up using a high speed lens at this focal length wide open—and the 50 1.2 is a lens that begs to be shot wide open. Typically I'll keep my 50 around f/2-f/2.8. I've found that I like it a lot at f/2-2.8. It just renders a very nice look.

One photo attached here, at f/2.8 from a wedding I shot a few weeks ago, nothing particularly spectacular for showing off the lens, but it's a shot I had handy. 7D, ISO 1600, f/2.8, 1/250th, bounced flash.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 II is nice, of course, but I find that range so uninspiring that every time I've used a lens in that range (I used to use the older 28-80mm f/2.8-4 L) I'm disappointed with the shots...seems like they always end up rather "flat" to me. There's no substitute for zooming with your feet when it's possible to do so. There's also something to be said for the way small lenses can allow you to get closer to the action without freaking out the subject and allow you to get more dynamic compositions.

Plus the 50mm f/1.4 is super light, much lighter than a 24-70mm f/2.8, and weight definitely matters when shooting weddings & events--you're on your feet for 10+ hours shooting, and since I shoot so much with my 80-200mm f/2.8 L when I'm out, it's nice to be able to take a break from it with something like the 50/1.4 and give my arm a rest--plus it's just a fun lens to shoot with, and if something where to happen to it, it's easily replaced.

Maybe one day I'll grab the 50/1.2, just because I do like superfast lenses, but I don't think I'd get rid of my 50--it's a nice lens to leave on all the time because of it's size and speed. Actually, scratch the 50/1.2, I just need to save up $3-4K for a used 50mm f/1.0 L.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 09:44:07 PM by spacetimeroger »
EOS RT, Elan IIe, EOS-1, 5D MkII, Holga 6x6, Zeiss ZE 18mm f/3.5, 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake, Zeiss ZE 50mm f/1.4, Nikon 55m f/3.5 micro (w/adapter), Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS, Canon 80-200mm f/2.8 L (magic drainpipe), Canon 300mm f/2.8 L, EF 1.4x Extender, 580 EX, Pixma Pro 9000 mkII to make prints.

RMC33

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 424
    • View Profile
Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2013, 10:40:03 PM »
I can vouch for the magic of the 200 f/2~

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Conversation with pro re: 50L vs. 50 f/1.4
« Reply #26 on: September 14, 2013, 10:40:03 PM »