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

[neuroanatomist]

So if anyone is on the fence from buying one,  just go ahead and snag one for as long as the date code starts with "UZ" == circa 2011.

If you are thinking of purchasing the 85 1.2L II buy one that has a date code "UZ" == circa 2011.

Sherwin, you mention this on two occasions.  Are you aware of some stealth modifications or other changes that make the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II lenses produced in 2011 better than older copies?  If so, what changes, and what's your source for the information?

Thanks!

[scottsdaleriots]

So if anyone is on the fence from buying one,  just go ahead and snag one for as long as the date code starts with "UZ" == circa 2011.

If you are thinking of purchasing the 85 1.2L II buy one that has a date code "UZ" == circa 2011.

Sherwin, you mention this on two occasions.  Are you aware of some stealth modifications or other changes that make the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II lenses produced in 2011 better than older copies?  If so, what changes, and what's your source for the information?

Thanks!

I've also heard that they've fixed the "back focussin"/focussing issue with the 50mm 1.2L in 'newer' copies. That still doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence to go and out spend a lot of money on the 50 prime. I've read other people say it in comments on other forums and on like review videos on youtube. Like on DigitalRev's one video testing out the 50's he says (in a short sentence) that the issues seem to be fixed. I'd love to know if it actujally has or not since I'm considering on buying a 50mm (thus far it looks like the 1.4 is prevailing by a bit).

How would you properly test out a 'fast 50mm' in a store in say less than 5mins with bad/insufficient lighting?

Very tentatively; don't try to read more into the results than you should.

Poor lighting conditions present the perfect opportunity to test out a "fast" 50mm prime - at least for the wide aperture performance.  I would make sure I could take some f/8 shots as well, though, to test out absolute sharpness (put it on a countertop for that).

What about getting one of the Nikon 50mm lenses and using a lens adapter? It's cheaper and I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area so I thought I'd just throw the idea out there. I was looking up videos of 7d's with the 50mm 1.4 lens (video footage of the combo not images/photos) on youtube and found that someone have used a nikon 50mm and adapted it to their 7d. Another person used a FD or something adapter to adapter some 50mm - I can't remember what it was.

This strikes me as a good idea, if you are OK with manual focus.  I've actually been considering getting an F-mount-to-EF adapter and a f/1.2 AI (or AI-s, but for that price you might as well get the Canon lens and keep the AF) sometime to play with.  Nikon also made a fast 55mm lens, apparently, so check that out too.

Not sure about sharpness on these, so buyer beware.

I'm not really good with manual focus - when I think it's in focus it's not as sharp as I want it to be lol

[neuroanatomist]

If you are thinking of purchasing the 85 1.2L II buy one that has a date code "UZ" == circa 2011.

Sherwin, you mention this on two occasions.  Are you aware of some stealth modifications or other changes that make the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II lenses produced in 2011 better than older copies?  If so, what changes, and what's your source for the information?

Thanks!

I've also heard that they've fixed the "back focussin"/focussing issue with the 50mm 1.2L in 'newer' copies.
[/quote]

The 50mm f/1.2L doesn't have a back focusing issue, it has focus shift that results in back-focusing with close subjects at wide apertures (except wide open).  That focus shift is due to the lens design, which is optimized for bokeh.  So if they 'fixed' the focus shift, they also negatively impacted the bokeh for which the lens is known...somehow, I doubt they did that.

[michael6liu]

I tested out both the 1.2L and 1.4 today in like 5 or minutes - really bad time constraints and there was really bad lighting in the store. I wanted to test out the sigma version but they didnt have it in store ha. They didnt have a chart so I couldnt do that ^ test.

I think I would need to spent more time testing these lenses.

Thanks to anyone who have contributed to this thread as I am also evaluating my options when it comes to 50mm & 85mm lenses.

As for the chart, you can print and bring one yourself. Just google "back focusing" (I know 50L doesn't have a back focusing problem as neuro already stressed many times...) and you'll find tons of info that provide you with the chart and how to test lenses. Good luck!

[wickidwombat]

well the sigma 85 f1.4 is definately worth a look i've never tried the 50 but i have been pretty happy with the canon 50 f1.4 for the size and cost

[scottsdaleriots]

I was considering the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 (canon of course), but then it's more expensive than the canon 1.2L 50mm. But I read that the Zeiss suffers from the same problem as the canon (50 1.2L) with the whole focus shift thing. Then I also read in one of the comments and reviews that it can be "easily" fixed by pressing the DOF button on the camera everytime you take a photo. That, to me, is a bit finicky. Can I just say that I find it a bit weird that a company/store (e.g. B&H) sells the canon 1.4 cheaper than the sigma 1.4. Yet here where I live (at least one store) is selling the sigma 1.4 cheaper than the canon 1.4. What's up with that? I am tempted to get the sigma in that regard and other factors that I've read from reviews than sigma 50mm 1.4 is better than canon 50mm 1.4.

As I've said I'm leaning towards the 50mm 1.4 (price is a big factor) but I don't understand how the filter would attach to the lens as the front bit extends about 1cm? Wouldn't the front part of the lens extending prevent the filter from being attached??

[plam_1980]

What about the 50mm 2.5 Compact Macro? I've read several reviews that is is much sharper than both 1.4 and 1.8 (at the expense of the smaller aperture of course). I own the 1.8, do you believe an upgrade to 1.4 is worhwile,since I do mostly indoor low-light shooting (mostly portraits, not sports or fast moving objects), but 1.4 is generally considered soft until 2.0-2.2

[wickidwombat]

I was considering the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 (canon of course), but then it's more expensive than the canon 1.2L 50mm. But I read that the Zeiss suffers from the same problem as the canon (50 1.2L) with the whole focus shift thing. Then I also read in one of the comments and reviews that it can be "easily" fixed by pressing the DOF button on the camera everytime you take a photo. That, to me, is a bit finicky. Can I just say that I find it a bit weird that a company/store (e.g. B&H) sells the canon 1.4 cheaper than the sigma 1.4. Yet here where I live (at least one store) is selling the sigma 1.4 cheaper than the canon 1.4. What's up with that? I am tempted to get the sigma in that regard and other factors that I've read from reviews than sigma 50mm 1.4 is better than canon 50mm 1.4.

As I've said I'm leaning towards the 50mm 1.4 (price is a big factor) but I don't understand how the filter would attach to the lens as the front bit extends about 1cm? Wouldn't the front part of the lens extending prevent the filter from being attached??

on the canon 50 the filter threads are on the part that extends, I got one of the cheap ebay hoods for it for about 3 bucks or something and a little neoprene bag to keep it in the lens just fits in the bag then i put the hood over the bag and it is barely bigger than the lens alone but very well protected

[Viggo]

Focus shift of the 50 L isn't a problem unless you use it between 2,8 and 5,6. I'm so tired of trying to get people that say it's way overpriced to actually use it where it's clearly best, widest of apertures. The bokeh is in another league compared to any other 50 on the market. Resistance to flare is in another leauge, same with color and contrast, plus it's the fastest most accurate AF. Best build BY FAR, weathersealed. I mean, to say it's overpriced and not worth it compared to the 50 f,14 is wrong on so many levels. A friend of mine said it best "The people dogging the 50L tend to only shoot rulers and testcharts, I shoot people with it, and at that, it can't be beat"

There is no fantastic 50mm on the planet, I mean, compare them in every aspect to the 35's and 85's and both are clearly better, but the 50 focal is just fantastic so we all love them and buy them. and the 50 L is the best.

[branden]

I was considering the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 (canon of course), but then it's more expensive than the canon 1.2L 50mm. But I read that the Zeiss suffers from the same problem as the canon (50 1.2L) with the whole focus shift thing. Then I also read in one of the comments and reviews that it can be "easily" fixed by pressing the DOF button on the camera everytime you take a photo. That, to me, is a bit finicky. Can I just say that I find it a bit weird that a company/store (e.g. B&H) sells the canon 1.4 cheaper than the sigma 1.4. Yet here where I live (at least one store) is selling the sigma 1.4 cheaper than the canon 1.4. What's up with that? I am tempted to get the sigma in that regard and other factors that I've read from reviews than sigma 50mm 1.4 is better than canon 50mm 1.4.

As I've said I'm leaning towards the 50mm 1.4 (price is a big factor) but I don't understand how the filter would attach to the lens as the front bit extends about 1cm? Wouldn't the front part of the lens extending prevent the filter from being attached??

I am confused by your post...

First off, the Zeiss 1.4/50 currently retails for $725 on B&H, whereas the Canon 50mm f/1.2L retails for $1,358. So the Zeiss is not more expensive.

Second, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is retailing for $339, and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for $499. If you are getting prices significantly lower than those from a local camera store, then they are selling them at a major discount.

Third, none of the 50mm lenses have front elements that extend in front of the lens body. On all of them, the frontmost piece is always the filter ring, no matter where the lens is focused, so there are never any issues attaching filters to any of them.

Hopefully this clears some things up

[Fish_shooter]

What about the 50mm 2.5 Compact Macro? I've read several reviews that is is much sharper than both 1.4 and 1.8 (at the expense of the smaller aperture of course). I own the 1.8, do you believe an upgrade to 1.4 is worhwile,since I do mostly indoor low-light shooting (mostly portraits, not sports or fast moving objects), but 1.4 is generally considered soft until 2.0-2.2

I have the 50/2.5. It is quite sharp. Its main problem is the "toy motor" focusing. It needs an AF upgrade as well as weather sealing. I have looked into a 50/1.4 or 1.2, but would like focusing to at least one foot to make the lens more general purpose in nature.

[wickidwombat]

i'm pretty sure the 50 f1.4 will focus at a foot

[Fish_shooter]

i'm pretty sure the 50 f1.4 will focus at a foot

Nope, 1.5 feet.

[wickidwombat]

when are you guys going to get a real system of measurement anyway?

[shermanstank]

NEUROANATOMIST --

Sherwin, you mention this on two occasions.  Are you aware of some stealth modifications or other changes that make the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II lenses produced in 2011 better than older copies?  If so, what changes, and what's your source for the information?

Thanks!

I purchased both the 50 1.2L and 85 1.2L II from information I gathered from one of the  CANON 50L FLICKR group. I have been salivating to buy both primes ( for a very long time)  and was just waiting for the green signal to finally try them out and when I read that the focusing issues (50L) were resolved after mid 2010--- I decided to place an order from B&H.. (9/14/11)  which by the way has an excellent return policy. So I figured I had nothing to lose. When both lenses arrived, I took  them out for a spin and boy, I was just amazed on how well they focused and their image sharpness ( wide open). I really have no complaints from both purchases. I took a risk and I was rewarded with instant gratification ..Maybe pure luck ?? =D


Now, here's my POV,  if you are an amateur photographer like me who would like to shoot weddings professionally then buying the best lenses (which are not perfect lenses) makes sense-- The best lenses are usuallly excellent low light performers, excellent in color rendition and have very pleasing bokeh.  The 50L and 85L are very robust and can withstand abuse.  If I were getting paid thousands of dollars to cover a wedding, I want reliable lenses and camera bodies (weather sealed, etc).  I cannot afford failure or embarrassment of not getting the shot.   

So far, both lenses have met my expectations and I am very happy I got them.



Cheers,

Sherwin