May 27, 2018, 06:08:00 AM

Author Topic: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?  (Read 14031 times)

Cory

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
    • Cory Steiner Photography
Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« on: January 01, 2018, 08:18:39 AM »
Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)?  Or even a little difference?
Thanks.
6D, 16-35 4.0 IS, 40, 135 2.0
430EXII, Induro AT113/Sirui K-20x, Sirui T-025x
www.runningphotography.com

canon rumors FORUM

Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« on: January 01, 2018, 08:18:39 AM »

BillB

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2018, 08:32:39 AM »
Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)?  Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

There seem to be three things that people don't like about the f1.4:  IQ wide open, autofocus, and iffy durability. Other people like its IQ stopped down to F2.8 or beyond.  I don't use mine all that much, partly because I don't use 50 mm that often, but also because stopped down, I am happy with the IQ of my zoom in that range and like its flexibility.

Larsskv

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Enthusiast with Canon related GAS
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2018, 08:35:55 AM »
Color, contrast and bokeh is better on the 50L. The difference in overall image quality shows best in apertures from f1.2 till f2.8. From f2.8 the 50 f1.4 is as least as sharp, probably sharper. Color and bokeh remains better on the 50L at smaller apertures.

I don’t like the 50f1.4 much, but I love my 50L. It isn’t the technically best lens, but it creates great looking images. If you have the money, and if you like to shoot at large apertures, I wholeheartedly recommend the 50L.

You should look up Dustin Abbots review of the 50L. He sums up the strengths and weaknesses of the 50L in a very good way.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6859
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2018, 09:33:22 AM »
Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)?  Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

No. And nobody can tell the difference unless they have same shot comparisons, they think they can but I have done this before, challenged people to blind comparisons of different images and nobody even gets close to reliable accuracy, indeed most fail to even get a random average so end up being wrong more than they are right.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Larsskv

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Enthusiast with Canon related GAS
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2018, 11:57:01 AM »
Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)?  Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

No. And nobody can tell the difference unless they have same shot comparisons, they think they can but I have done this before, challenged people to blind comparisons of different images and nobody even gets close to reliable accuracy, indeed most fail to even get a random average so end up being wrong more than they are right.

Yes. It is a difference, and it is noticeable when you have used the lenses and gotten to know them. Whether or not one reliably can pick out which lens took which picture in a blind comparison doesn’t prove anything. Compare them side by side, and the differences become obvious.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6859
  • Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2018, 01:01:01 PM »
Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)?  Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

No. And nobody can tell the difference unless they have same shot comparisons, they think they can but I have done this before, challenged people to blind comparisons of different images and nobody even gets close to reliable accuracy, indeed most fail to even get a random average so end up being wrong more than they are right.

Yes. It is a difference, and it is noticeable when you have used the lenses and gotten to know them. Whether or not one reliably can pick out which lens took which picture in a blind comparison doesn’t prove anything. Compare them side by side, and the differences become obvious.

Yes that's what everybody says, then fails miserably to be able to actually identify images taken with their lens that has a 'special look'. My point is if it isn't identifiable, and repeated test have proven it isn't, then it isn't special, in which case there is no real difference, which was the OP's question.

I am not saying there aren't good reasons to buy the 1.2, or the 1.4, over the other, just that a 'distinctive look' when shot at f2.8 isn't one of them. Content and post processing will have a vastly greater impact on the image than any differences in the lenses.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, DR, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Larsskv

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 539
  • Enthusiast with Canon related GAS
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2018, 02:30:00 PM »
Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)?  Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

No. And nobody can tell the difference unless they have same shot comparisons, they think they can but I have done this before, challenged people to blind comparisons of different images and nobody even gets close to reliable accuracy, indeed most fail to even get a random average so end up being wrong more than they are right.

Yes. It is a difference, and it is noticeable when you have used the lenses and gotten to know them. Whether or not one reliably can pick out which lens took which picture in a blind comparison doesn’t prove anything. Compare them side by side, and the differences become obvious.

Yes that's what everybody says, then fails miserably to be able to actually identify images taken with their lens that has a 'special look'. My point is if it isn't identifiable, and repeated test have proven it isn't, then it isn't special, in which case there is no real difference, which was the OP's question.

I am not saying there aren't good reasons to buy the 1.2, or the 1.4, over the other, just that a 'distinctive look' when shot at f2.8 isn't one of them. Content and post processing will have a vastly greater impact on the image than any differences in the lenses.

When scrolling through pictures on flickr, I can sometimes believe a picture is taken with a 50mm lens, while it was taken with a 135mm lens, or the other way around. Sometimes I mistake a picture taken with a MFT system for full frame. Does that prove that I am mistaken all the time? Does it mean that my general observations are only subjective? Does it mean that every lens of the same focal lenght and aperture will look the same, and that gear doesn’t matter for the end result?

As an amateur that only takes pictures for personal use, I will often shoot the same people in similar settings, and I do recognize differences, and I become aware of the “personality” of my different lenses. I have no doubt that I can mistake the 50L for a 50f1.4 in some pictures, but if you let me use the two lenses for myself, for shooting what I often shoot, I will be able to identify the 50L pictures 4 out of 5 times.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2018, 02:30:00 PM »

BillB

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2018, 03:07:53 PM »
Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)?  Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

No. And nobody can tell the difference unless they have same shot comparisons, they think they can but I have done this before, challenged people to blind comparisons of different images and nobody even gets close to reliable accuracy, indeed most fail to even get a random average so end up being wrong more than they are right.


Can people tell the difference if they have same shot comparisons? 

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3578
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2018, 04:27:14 PM »
This kind of a question is a real hot potatoe because there's two sides to the coin really. If you the user can see a difference and gain more satisfaction and pleasure from it then it's real. Just don't expect others to be able to see the difference  ;)

YuengLinger

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1733
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2018, 04:27:57 PM »
Wait for the new 50mmL.  Patiently.

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3578
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2018, 04:46:51 PM »
Wait for the new 50mmL.  Patiently.

Well it'll probably be a 1.4 if a new 50 L does turn up, maybe an IS aka the 85 and not replace the current one. The current 50L isn't a lens meant for charts, it has an optical formula virtually identical to the original 8 element Takumar produced by Pentax in the 60's to get one over on Zeiss. Apparently they lost money on every one due to the expense of producing the things. It's a lens that's meant to have a softness and early graduation in the out of focus zone, and I think sometimes this does come through. Of course you have to be a connoisseur to appreciate it  ;)

docsmith

  • EOS 5D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 649
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2018, 05:57:09 PM »
If you only are interested in f/2.8 and larger, I would get the 50 f/1.4.  Any difference, if noticeable, will be in rendering and personal opinion.  Greater than f/2.8, the f/1.4 lens is sharp across the frame, contrasty, and renders beautifully.  I owned the 50 f/1.4 for years before upgrading to the Sigma 50A.  At f/2, the center starts getting real good.  From f/2.8 and greater, it is simply a phenomenal lens.  The AF isn't bad, but is not fast.  I have heard reports, like others, of 50 f/1.4's getting dropped and ruined.  But mine functioned great for years under normal use. 

I only upgraded after getting frustrated with using it from f/1.4 to f/2 over the entire frame and edges from f/2 to f/2.8.  But if you are after greater than f/2.8, just get the f/1.4.  It is truly a classic.

YuengLinger

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1733
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2018, 06:26:09 PM »
If you only are interested in f/2.8 and larger, I would get the 50 f/1.4.  Any difference, if noticeable, will be in rendering and personal opinion.  Greater than f/2.8, the f/1.4 lens is sharp across the frame, contrasty, and renders beautifully.  I owned the 50 f/1.4 for years before upgrading to the Sigma 50A.  At f/2, the center starts getting real good.  From f/2.8 and greater, it is simply a phenomenal lens.  The AF isn't bad, but is not fast.  I have heard reports, like others, of 50 f/1.4's getting dropped and ruined.  But mine functioned great for years under normal use. 

I only upgraded after getting frustrated with using it from f/1.4 to f/2 over the entire frame and edges from f/2 to f/2.8.  But if you are after greater than f/2.8, just get the f/1.4.  It is truly a classic.

But if working f/2.8 and tighter, why not just use a 24-70mm f/2.8?

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2018, 06:26:09 PM »

slclick

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2476
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2018, 06:37:18 PM »
220, 221
Whahhhhhh I need more AF points

sdsr

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 902
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2018, 06:59:10 PM »

But if working f/2.8 and tighter, why not just use a 24-70mm f/2.8?


Because it's a fraction of the size, weight and price?  A better question might be why not just use a 50mm f/1.8, which is cheaper and smaller still and probably much the same at 2.8 (I've not used the latest one, though, so I can't comment first hand).

The reason to get the 50L is the sort of image it can create at f/1.2, not at f/2.8 (or if you sometimes want to focus manually: the f/1.4 is a pain because of its sloppy focus ring - unless mine was atypical). 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2018, 06:59:10 PM »