Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L

[branden]

From a bit of reading here and there, I gathered that the Zeiss 50mm f/2 (lenses?) is (are?) better than the f1.4 variant.

I don't know about better; I think it's just a matter of priorities. The Zeiss 1.4/50's priorities are around portraiture: good bokeh and very fast apertures. The Zeiss 2/50's priorities are not people-based, so factors such as minimum focus distance, lack of distortion, flat focal planes, and extreme sharpness have much more influence on the design.

Although I shoot everything, my true love is landscape photography, so the 2/50 is what I chose.

[Zuuyi]

I suggest going with the 50/1.8 on your 7D.  If you like the distance of shot get the 85L once you go to the 5d3.  If you want it wider get the 50L; if you want it tighter I suggest the 100/2.8 Macro.

Because most people like the 50 on a Crop but when you go to Full Frame it will feel too wide and that's why most have the 85L or up on Full Frame.

[wickidwombat]

I ended up going with the 50 1.4 Its a great lens, small, ligtht, compact, everything all my other lenses are not
I was also considering the 1.2 at 4 times the price, and 1kg all the reviews didnt give it enough of an edge over the 1.4 so i saveed some money and went with it, its a great lens. Now having said that i got a Nikon 50 f1.4G at the same time and I have to say canon need to step up their game for about the same price the nikon absolutely kills the canon 1.4 in every aspect build, AF speed sharpness center and corner, the nikon has a 9 blade aperture and has perfect bokeh and ultra smooth blur, sometimes I wonder if it would have been better to sell all my canon gear and switch to only nikon rather than the other way round.

I think canon need to bring in a Mk2 version of the 1.4 to match the Nikon they will sell like crazy

Also I absolutely love the angle of view of the 50mm on the 5Dmk2 its a great light walk around combo

If i had to decide between the 50 1.2 and the 1.4 again I think i would still get the 1.4 I just dont think the 1.2 gives the value for the added price and more importantly the weight my bags heavy enough

As an extra aside I've tried the 50 1.4 with my Kenko TC and its a pretty nice combo at f2 and narrower
f2.8 is very nice with this combo especially for ligth weight tighter portrait shots can just keep the TC in a pocket when walking around

[pwp]

Great! Another "which 50?" thread. It's often discussed and always relevant.

I had the Canon EF 50 f/1.4 and it was kind of OK, emergency use only at F/1.4, getting good at f/2 and quite acceptable from f/2.8 through to f/8. Never stellar.

This was replaced earlier this year with the well reviewed Sigma 50 f/1.4. What an odd lens. It's been carefully calibrated to my bodies but delivers erratic results. It's a bit like the girl in the children's nursery rhyme..."and when she was good she was very very good, but when she was bad she was horrid..."

Between f/1.4 and f/2.8 which is where I use this lens, the results can abruptly vary from unbelievably good to unusably soft. This is on projects where care is taken with focus, shutter speed is high enough to discount shake or motion blur...it's just erratic when it comes to focus.

A bit of reading online seems to confirm this as a characteristic of the Sigma 50 f/1.4. Grrrrr.

Most likely I'll take a hit on this lens and try another Canon 50 f/1.4. Just give me a good copy this time!

Paul Wright

[Harley]

Another option for the budget-minded is to find an old Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 and get the Ed Mika adapter (there's plenty of info about that here on the Forum) to make it EOS compatible.  It's a fully manual lens but the adapter enables AF confirmation and EXIF.  It's a great focal length on a crop: 88mm FF equivalent.  Crazy bokeh.  It's not a lens for everybody but it's worth a look to see if it's a lens for you.  It is my favorite lens, hands down.
...and it's f/1.2...!

[stohmax]

i bought the 50 1,8 II for my 400d a few years ago. The IQ and BQ are good for the price. even after 4 years of use its still working. when i bought my 5d2 i realized that the lens is too short for portrait so i bought the ef 85 1.8 with is superb for the price. a half year ago i made pictures of my sisters children and the 85 1.8 was to long and the 50 1.8 ii focus was slow and wide open not really sharp. So i bought the ef 50 1.4, in my opinion its much better than the 1,8 ii because the af is faster, the image quality is better. i had good results even at 1,4 at 2,0 ist very sharp. i was also thinking about the 50 1.2 but i decided to save the money to replace the samyang 35 1.4 with the ef 35 1.4 L incause of the autofocus.

[Jamesy]

I had the Canon EF 50 f/1.4 and it was kind of OK, emergency use only at F/1.4, getting good at f/2 and quite acceptable from f/2.8 through to f/8. Never stellar.

Most likely I'll take a hit on this lens and try another Canon 50 f/1.4. Just give me a good copy this time!

I had a 50 1.4 and feel exactly the same way, I sold it after a month of so. I have had the 50 1.8 for years and only use it occasionally as the AF is so-so and it is a tad noisy too. After 2.0 my copy is pretty decent.

I have had my eye on the Sigmalux 50 1.4 for over a year but am leery based on the reasons cited by PWP - these are well documented online.

Perhaps the Canon 50 1.4 Mk.II will knock it out of the park

[willrobb]

I used to use 50mm F1.4 lenses with film bodies and then a 30D. It was a great lens, light weight, cheap, great for portraits, but with heavy use a lot of dust got inside an that affected image quality.

I sold my primes and went through a zoom phase for a while, was vey happy wig my 24-70mm f2.8L but soon realised I needed a 50mm prime for portraits again and after much debate I got the 50mm 1.2L and I am really happy with my buy. I find back focusing not to be a problem unless you are at the minimal focus distance, otherwise it's not been a fine.

For beautiful bokeh, the 1.2L is just what you want. The 1.4 is a good lens, but it's not as well built or weather proofed as the 1.2L. It's a good investment.

[alipaulphotography]

I use the sigma 50mm f/1.4. It is excellent and has better centre sharpness at wider apertures than the canon. As I use my prime lenses almost exclusively at their widest apertures (with exceptions) - this was particularly valuable to me. It also comes with a hood and is built better.

I have not felt the need for f/1.2 as the depth of field gets too shallow for my uses. I have also used the f/1.8 when I first got a dslr and it is an excellent lens and should be bought by anyone who only has the kit lens. I didn't like it's bokeh however at all. Too few aperture blades produced hexagons in the background.

[pwp]

I use the sigma 50mm f/1.4. It is excellent and has better centre sharpness at wider apertures than the canon. As I use my prime lenses almost exclusively at their widest apertures....

Yes I agree, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has great centre sharpness. When mine nails it it really is faultless, way better than anything my old EF 50mm f/1.4 could deliver. But the AF inconsistencies mean I just can't risk using it on fast moving commissioned work. 

Does your copy deliver consistent results or does it suffer from the well documented "on again/off again" AF issues?

Paul Wright

[scottsdaleriots]

I the 1.2L is 10 years old, wouldn't that kinda warrant it for a mkII being in the works? 
These current rebates are tempting me to buy one, but I still can't decide. Thanks for everyone's input/advice. Curse Canon's marketing team - I want another L lens!!

[candyman]

Does your copy deliver consistent results or does it suffer from the well documented "on again/off again" AF issues?

Paul Wright

I also use a Sigma 50mm f1.4. I don't have the on / off AF issues
Though especially in cloudy / dark environment it took me some time to handle this lens when using hand-held aperture 1.4. I now manage that very well.

[DJL329]

I the 1.2L is 10 years old, wouldn't that kinda warrant it for a mkII being in the works? 
These current rebates are tempting me to buy one, but I still can't decide. Thanks for everyone's input/advice. Curse Canon's marketing team - I want another L lens!!

Actually, the 50mm f/1.2L is only 5 years old.  It was released at the end of 2006, so I wouldn't worry about a "Mark II" coming out soon.  Since there aren't any "perfect" lenses, each decision comes down to a trade-off.  Decide which feature(s) you want most and go with that one. 

[awinphoto]

I borrowed the 1.2L from canon and the 1.4 from canon before I made my purchase... I love the build and durability and USM of the 1.2L, but when it came down to practice, to me, even after MA, even after a lot of playing with it, it isn't that reliable....  On my cameras, my AF struggled with it for whatever reason... some photos would be spot on focus, and others (even after focus confirmation on) the photos were off...  It kinda gave me a weird "warmup" period where if i let the camera sit for a few moments and pick it up and start firing... the first 5-10 shots, the AF would be horrid... but once the camera and lens got warmed up the focus would target on and nail shot after shot after shot...  This was on my 7D.  I would be swayed in ruling a problem with MA if it wasn't for the fact that once it warmed up and had shots fired, it would eventually nail focus and be consistent from that point on... I also experienced problems with live view and manual focus showing focus and then taking the picture, the focus would be off... The lens just had too many quirks... the 1.4 is a lot older, archaic, clunky, sometimes hit and miss even with the halation, but it is a lot more consistent shot to shot and I frankly cant afford such a temperamental lens if I'm going to be plunking down that much money... I just feel canon whiffed on this lens even though i really did truely want to love this lens. 

[photophreek]

I've been on the fence about the 50 1.2L for some time now.  I come from the film world where 50mm was the standard lens and I thought I should have one.  I read all the reviews, looked at lots of images and almost had myself convinced, but not quite there.  Then I read awinphoto post about the 50 1.2L and all my concerns about this lens were detailed in this post and confirmed my fears that the 50 1.2L is not for me. 

I recently purchased the famed 85 1.2L II and expected the 50 1.2L to be the same, but it's not.  It's too bad Canon didn't stuff the 85mm f1.2L II into a 50mm focal length.  I'd buy that lens, but not the 50mm f1.2L.