May 27, 2018, 10:03:32 AM

Author Topic: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?  (Read 14043 times)

sulla

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
    • my flickr page
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2018, 07:48:51 AM »
I, too, believe that there will be hardly any noticeable IQ differences between the 1.2 and the 1.4 lenses. The main difference is certainly build quality. I never used the 1.2, but I never liked the build quality of my 1.4, which was frankly awful. I liked the images, however. They are a bit soft wider open than f/2, but still, I liked the look of the images a lot.

Cory, if you intend to shoot at narrower than 2.8 only, then why not use the 50 1.8 ? IQ at 2.8 should be very nice and again costs only a fracion of the 50 1.4 and is again much smaller. Build quality should also be better than on the 1.4.

If you can cope with the significantly narrower framing of the pancake 40 2.8, you will know yourself that it is a wonderful lens with perfect IQ, even wide open, and its cheap and small. But it will frame noticeably wider and thus be less suited to typical portrait photography. 40 is not 50 by a large amount.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2018, 07:57:19 AM by sulla »
5D & EF 8-15, EF 16-35 2.8 II, EF 24 1.4 II, EF 24-70 2.8 II, EF 35 1.4 II, EF 40, MP-E 65 Macro, EF 85 1.2 II, TS-E 90, EF 100 L Macro, EF 70-200 2.8 II

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2018, 07:48:51 AM »

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 #31 on: January 03, 2018, 08:08:21 AM »
For example, the very fastest AF drive currently available for Canon is the old 100mm f/2 USM on a 1DXmkII or 7DmkII (it's actually disgusting how fast that lens is on those bodies and makes you wonder why they've not reused that motor in any other lens), but on any 5D it's nothing special and on the 80D it's actually slower than the 18-135 STM.
Says who? Canon have made various claims through the years on their fastest focusing lens, normally the latest 300 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8, I've never seen them mention the 100 f2.

I know when I got my 300 f2.8 IS new they claimed it was their fastest focusing lens ever.
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.

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6618
  • USM > STM
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2018, 11:18:59 AM »
For example, the very fastest AF drive currently available for Canon is the old 100mm f/2 USM on a 1DXmkII or 7DmkII (it's actually disgusting how fast that lens is on those bodies and makes you wonder why they've not reused that motor in any other lens), but on any 5D it's nothing special and on the 80D it's actually slower than the 18-135 STM.
Says who? Canon have made various claims through the years on their fastest focusing lens, normally the latest 300 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8, I've never seen them mention the 100 f2.

I know when I got my 300 f2.8 IS new they claimed it was their fastest focusing lens ever.

We need a damn AF speed & AF hit rate / consistency website, for crying out loud.

No claim short of the general YAPODFC is more common here than 'the AF on ______ stinks' and we cannot seem to actually document that for some reason.

- A

wsmith96

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 882
  • Advancing Amateur
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #33 on: January 03, 2018, 11:23:48 AM »
I, too, believe that there will be hardly any noticeable IQ differences between the 1.2 and the 1.4 lenses. The main difference is certainly build quality. I never used the 1.2, but I never liked the build quality of my 1.4, which was frankly awful. I liked the images, however. They are a bit soft wider open than f/2, but still, I liked the look of the images a lot.

Cory, if you intend to shoot at narrower than 2.8 only, then why not use the 50 1.8 ? IQ at 2.8 should be very nice and again costs only a fracion of the 50 1.4 and is again much smaller. Build quality should also be better than on the 1.4.

If you can cope with the significantly narrower framing of the pancake 40 2.8, you will know yourself that it is a wonderful lens with perfect IQ, even wide open, and its cheap and small. But it will frame noticeably wider and thus be less suited to typical portrait photography. 40 is not 50 by a large amount.

I found this comparison on SLR lounge:  https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-50mm-prime/

It has examples for side by side comparisons.

I have the 50 1.4 and find it to be quite sharp from f2.0 on.  I've only compared it to the 1.8 and I found them to be very similar.  As others have stated, the 1.8 is a bargain for quality if you normally shooting from 2.8 on.
What I do today is important because I am exchanging a day of my life for it.
60D | 80D | 10-22 | Rokinon 14 2.8 | 17-55 | 24-105L | 50 1.4 | 60 Macro | 85 1.8 | 100 2.8L Macro | 70-200 2.8L Mk II | 100-400L Mk II | 430EX II x 3 | ST-E2 | 270EX | 1.4 Extender III

Random Orbits

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2044
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #34 on: January 03, 2018, 12:23:38 PM »
Hmm... now knowing that the 85L IS made several compromises to get the IS into the design, I wonder how feasible it is to have a non-L 50mm with IS.  Would Canon go with two IS options at 50mm?

  • Option 1:  a modification to the existing 50 f/1.4 to add IS but leave most of the optical characteristics the same.
  • Option 2:  a 50 f/1.4L IS that is largely based on the work done for the 85L IS

I would have loved to see Canon keeping it's max aperture advantage, but it seems like more corrected versions are getting slower and slower (200 f/1.8 -> 200 f/2, 50 f/1 -> 50 f/1.2 -> 50 f/1.4IS?, 85 f/1.2 -> 85 f/1.4 IS).

ahsanford

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6618
  • USM > STM
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #35 on: January 03, 2018, 01:59:20 PM »
Hmm... now knowing that the 85L IS made several compromises to get the IS into the design, I wonder how feasible it is to have a non-L 50mm with IS. 

...because they've pulled it off in a 35 f/2 lens, and few are complaining of the compromises that lens had to accept.

The non-L lenses are not built around atom-splitting sharpness.  They are built around very good sharpness in a not so huge package.  I could see a 50 f/1.4 IS USM fitting in a package in-between the size/weight of the 50 f/1.2L and 50 f/1.4 Canon currently sells today, and I think it would work just fine. 

Now whether Canon wants to offer such a lens is something we could debate (and have debated quite a bit before).  Canon very well may 'pull an 85' and offer this as an f/1.4L IS to be sold alongside the f/1.2L and not update the non-L.

- A

Random Orbits

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2044
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2018, 03:21:02 PM »
Hmm... now knowing that the 85L IS made several compromises to get the IS into the design, I wonder how feasible it is to have a non-L 50mm with IS. 

...because they've pulled it off in a 35 f/2 lens, and few are complaining of the compromises that lens had to accept.

The non-L lenses are not built around atom-splitting sharpness.  They are built around very good sharpness in a not so huge package.  I could see a 50 f/1.4 IS USM fitting in a package in-between the size/weight of the 50 f/1.2L and 50 f/1.4 Canon currently sells today, and I think it would work just fine. 

Now whether Canon wants to offer such a lens is something we could debate (and have debated quite a bit before).  Canon very well may 'pull an 85' and offer this as an f/1.4L IS to be sold alongside the f/1.2L and not update the non-L.

- A

The 50 f/1.2 rear element is closer in size to the 85 f/1.2 II than the 35 f/2 IS, which was why I was positing that if a non-L 50 f/1.4 with IS came out, it might use similar optics to the existing 50 f/1.4, which is small.  I thought that the 50L and 85L II share similar designs, and I'm wondering if Canon is taking a similar tact this time too.

I would like to see an IS version of the existing 50 f/1.4, but that may be too close to the rumored 50L f/1.4 IS.  With the 85 f/1.4 IS, Canon has shown that it doesn't value absolute sharpness above all other factors (unlike Otus and 85A).  The 50L is used primarily as a portrait lens (like the 85), so bokeh and other factors become significant factors in addition to edge-to-edge sharpness.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2018, 03:21:02 PM »

BillB

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #37 on: January 03, 2018, 04:37:52 PM »

We need a damn AF speed & AF hit rate / consistency website, for crying out loud.

No claim short of the general YAPODFC is more common here than 'the AF on ______ stinks' and we cannot seem to actually document that for some reason.

- A

Your best hope might be to be to get Roger Cicala interested in setting a database up, or at least in offering an opinion on whether there are significant AF accuracy differences among lenses.

In 2012 he did some work on AF and discovered to his surprise that newer Canon lenses (e.g. EF 28mm IS and 40 mm pancake) when paired with a newer Canon camera (e.g. 5DIII) were much more accurate than older lenses, because of an iterative focussing design that Canon had introduced.  Presumably the feature has been included in lenses and higher end cameras that Canon has released since then, but I don't think Roger has written anything about it since his 2012 work, and Canon has never said anything about it so far as I know.

His 2012 work is in the Lensrental blog archives, and you can find it by googling Lensrental AF accuracy.   Autofocus Reality Part 3B: Canon cameras dated Aug 1, 2012 has links to Parts 1,2, and 3A.



aceflibble

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2018, 06:38:57 AM »
edit: Okay, didn't mean to type so much... again. I've made the font smaller, should cut down space. I don't expect everyone/anyone to read all this. If you do want to read all this, hit the 'quote' button or copy & paste it into word and up the font yourself. Short version: some lenses you wouldn't think are great, and Canon don't advertise as being great, actually are really great at something. Whether that's actually any use to you or not is another matter.

Says who? Canon have made various claims through the years on their fastest focusing lens, normally the latest 300 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8, I've never seen them mention the 100 f2.

I know when I got my 300 f2.8 IS new they claimed it was their fastest focusing lens ever.
Manufactures make all sorts of claims. Fuji claimed their X-T2 was the fastest-focusing camera on the market, until Sony made the same claim, then Pentax did, and then Nikon did. Canon say the 80D's got the best dynamic range of all their cameras, yet the truth is it only does so because it lies about the ISO ratings and even then only manages to uphold that range for the ISO 100 setting (which is actually closer to ISO 50). Fuji claim their lenses are the highest-resolving lenses money can buy, but you'd sure never know it 'cause their camera's processors bake in so many adjustments even with raw files that there's no way for the lenses to be tested properly.

Canon pretty much shift their claims depending on what they want to sell at any given time. They make a helluva lot of money on the 300mm f/2.8 IS, so they go out of their way to say it's the fastest and most optically-perfect lens they make. The 400mm f/2.8 IS is actually optically better, but they don't make as much money on that so they'd rather the claim went to the 300mm instead. The 50mm f/1.8 STM at f/4 is sharper than the 50mm f/1.2L at f/4, but do you think Canon would ever advertise that their most-expensive 'pro' 50mm can ever be beaten in any way by their cheapest? (Which also already sells bucketloads and so doesn't need and wouldn't benefit from the marketing.)

The Canon 100mm f/2 USM is kind of an awkward stepchild for Canon and you won't see them advertising it much unless you specifically ask them about it. It's a holdover from the 80s where people still hadn't fully settled into 85mm as 'the' portrait focal length, and having both an 85 and a 100mm was deemed important by manufacturers who didn't know which would 'win'. As it is the 85mm ended up gaining in popularity so the 100mm focal length died off a bit (same with 28mm, as 24mm grew) and became relegated to macro duty and special effects. The 100mm f/2 continues to be made basically only because the 85mm f/1.8 is so popular and they share components (see also: 28mm f/1.8 to the 50mm f/1.4, the 24mm IS and 28mm IS, and Tamron's 45mm and 35mm), so the 100mm became a kind of "eh, we've got nothing to lose" deal for Canon. They don't make much money off of it but it also doesn't cost them much to keep producing, resulting in a very small but very low-risk profit. Hence it stays in production but they don't promote it.
Because of how the late 80s went and the 85mm becoming more popular, it's often assumed that the 85mm f/1.8 was the first lens designed and the 100mm f/2 was born as a variation of the 85mm, but it was actually the other way around. (People foten forget the 100mm was actually released about 6 months before the 85mm.) This is why the 85mm doesn't focus as quickly or confidently as the 100mm and its optics are a tiny fraction worse. It was all made for the 100mm first and the 85mm had to kind of 'make do'. But since 85mm simply became a much more popular length shortly after, Canon and everyone else just kind of forgot about the 100mm.

When they were first released, the bodies available didn't vary much in terms of AF drive speed, which meant expectations of the 'fastest' AF were pretty low. The 100mm was marketed as a fast-focusing lens at first, but with it being a matter of tiny fractions of a second at the time and not anything earth-shattering, it's not something which ever really caught on. With the 85mm shortly overshadowing it, that aspect of the 100mm lens was quickly forgotten. In 1999 the 300mm f/2.8 IS was released, updating the '87 300mm, and that became Canon's golden child; they'd found a way to charge nearly twice the price for a lens without the manufacturing costs increasing much at all. Suddenly, Canon made every claim imaginable about the 300mm f/2.8 IS. It was the most optically perfect, fastest-focusing, toughest lens in the world, and the lightest of its type. Of course it wasn't actually as optically perfect as many macro lenses, it wasn't as fast to focus as many smaller lenses, it wasn't really as tough as some more balanced primes, and it was only the second-lightest big aperture telephoto lens... but none of that stopped Canon from promoting its new cashcow as such. (For the record, do not get me wrong, the 300mm f/2.8 IS and its mk II revision are gorgeous lenses.)

And yes, they recycle these claims for every new or revised big lens. Don't forget they also started to claim they were painting their biggest lenses white for the sake of durability. (And totally not just as a really easy way to the lenses to stand out and advertise the brand.) And the old lenses get forgotten more and more.

Fact is, the 100mm f/2 is the fastest-focusing lens Canon has. They used to tell you that themselves proudly, and they still will if you directly ask Canon reps about it. It's an easy focal length to produce, and it's a relatively compact lens with most of the construction actually being taken up by the AF motor. There's not a lot of glass to push and it doesn't have to be pushed far. Not all bodies deliver full power to the AF motors of all lenses—for example, the original 7D gives full power to the IS 'big whites' but less power to anything smaller—but on the bodies which do give every lens the full whack (e.g. 1DX2), that 100mm is the single-best autofocusing lens Canon makes. It's only gotten faster as newer bodies have been able to give it more and more power.
Every other lens they've made since has either had a better motor but hampered by having more glass/further to push (i.e. every telephoto lens, every macro lens, and every zoom), or they've had less glass to move but worse motors. (i.e. The really low-budget EF-S lenses and the first generation of STM lenses.) Of course, some lenses suffer from both lots of glass and weaker motors. (The 85mm f/1.2 is never going to win any speed awards.) The 100mm is somewhat lucky, and remains moderately unique (the 85mm f/1.8 borrowing some parts and not using them as well notwithstanding), because that focal length and aperture at that size is basically the perfect balance as far as focusing motors go. While the 100mm f/2.8L Macro has to cope with a longer focus throw and higher gear ratio, the 135mm f/2 has to push slightly more glass, and shorter lenses aren't granted the same amount of space for their motors to have enough leverage to focus ultra-quickly, the 100mm gets the balance as close to perfect as physically possible.

However, you can look at it is a series of negatives, too. Having a small focus range to shift through can also be interpreted as having a poor minimum focus distance. Having gearing built for speed can be interpreted as having loose, inaccurate manual focus control. f/2's balance of light-vs-size isn't such a great trade if what you really want is f/1.4, let alone f/1.2 as a lot of people want in a medium-telephoto prime. For a lot of people the whole lens is useless because 100mm is such an oddball focal length now, and no focus motor in the world would make them pick it up over an 85+135 combo or a 70-200.

 
Which, to bring us back to the main topic at hand, can (mostly) be applied to the 50mm f/1.4, too. In fact the 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 100mm f/2 were first designed and marketed as 'the' prime kit for Canon, with Canon going as far as to make sure they all share filter threads so all three could be bought and used as a matching set... until 24mm became more popular than 28mm and 85mm slaughtered 100mm and Canon started pretending those two lenses didn't exist. The 50mm f/1.4 is a flawed lens in many ways but actually is still better than more expensive options in others (at least in certain scenarios; see my previous post about the 50mms for details on when and where the 1.4 really shines), much like the 100mm f/2. Whether the positives outweigh the negatives is something each individual user will have to judge for themselves. Lenses like the 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2 don't have the unique talking points of f/1.2 or IS or macro capabilities to make them easily-bought, must-haves, but for 'medium' shooting, let's say f/4 in standard daylight on a mid-priced 6D body... they can actually wind up beating more expensive, specialist lenses.
 

If you believe Canon's marketing, every lens is perfect for everything and you're a fool if you don't give them a direct line to your bank account. Reality is, every lens they make is good for something and not so great for other things. Some of their best-performing lenses get very little time in the spotlight while some of their more average lenses are always front-and-center. Canon's marketing and claims are driven by what will make them the most money, and don't really reflect the reality of using any of these lenses.

So whether you're doubting if the 50mm f/1.2 is really that much better than the others or you're not sure the 100mm f/2 is really that fast or if you're looking at the 24-105 mk II and wondering why Canon even bothered, just know that the answer is never as simple as "whatever Canon says, goes". As I said here, the 100mm f/2 is the fastest-focusing Canon lens, at least one the bodies which allow it to be, but whether or not that's of any use to you is another matter entirely. As I said in my previous post, the 50mm f/1.4 can beat the 1.2 in many ways but whether those conditions will apply to your own shooting is something only you can judge. (I have no answer for why Canon bothered to remake the 24-105 when all they did was make it heavier.)
« Last Edit: January 04, 2018, 06:42:05 AM by aceflibble »

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 #39 on: January 04, 2018, 07:12:34 AM »
So you don't have anything to back up your claim?

The screenshots below are from the Canon book Lens Work, I forget which version.

I understand marketing make a fine distinction between misdirection and lying but they state, unequivocally, that the 300mm f2.8 IS has "The world’s fastest*1 autofocusing", not even Canon's, the fastest in the world when used on the NiCad driven higher end bodies.
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.

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 #40 on: January 04, 2018, 07:53:58 AM »
So you don't have anything to back up your claim?

The screenshots below are from the Canon book Lens Work, I forget which version.

I understand marketing make a fine distinction between misdirection and lying but they state, unequivocally, that the 300mm f2.8 IS has "The world’s fastest*1 autofocusing", not even Canon's, the fastest in the world when used on the NiCad driven higher end bodies.

Damn, private, for a few minutes I was able to feel that my 100/2 was better than your 300/2.8  ;D

Serious though, aceflibble has stated an awful lot of facts, and it does make me wonder how he knows all this when this information doesn't seem to be available anywhere. If true then I guess that much of it will be from "personal communication" with Canon. However, on the subject of the 100/2, I have always found it to be a better lens than the 85/1.8 principally in the fact that it focuses much better, not necessarily faster ( I use 5 series) but more accurately, and I've never been able to find out why this is. To me it seemed that the 85 was just a more budget version, being about 25% cheaper. As it is also "faster" and in recent times more people have fixated on prime speed, everyone buys the 85 and no one wants the 100.

I don't really agree with the idea that in the industry didn't know which way 85 and 100 was going to go. I seem to remember that many brands used "105", although I think even then Canon was on "100", but in recent times it's become a speed thing IMO, an 85 is faster than the equivalent 100 and as the two focal lengths are close The People want the 85. The way in which the 24 has taken over from the 28 is again IMO because in the '70s and '80s a 24 was about half as much again or even double a 28. Once more advanced manufacturing brought the prices together The People want the more exotic lens that previously couldn't be afforded. I hear of many people "hating" the 50mm focal length because that was what everyone used to have.....so it goes on, fashions change.

And by the way, the 50/1.2 L produces a beautiful, subtle rendering that gives the images a unique character.....  :-X

 ;)

Cory

  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 527
    • Cory Steiner Photography
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #41 on: January 04, 2018, 08:45:42 AM »
Would it be terrible to pivot into a "general" 50 vs. 85 on full-frame discussion? 
If 50 then clearly the 50 1.2 is what I'm after, but I'm thinking maybe 16-35, 40, 85 and 135 instead of 16-35, 40, 50 and 135. 
Assume that I'm an idiot which should completely eliminate the potential for any personal attacks.
6D, 16-35 4.0 IS, 40, 135 2.0
430EXII, Induro AT113/Sirui K-20x, Sirui T-025x
www.runningphotography.com

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 #42 on: January 04, 2018, 09:04:56 AM »
Would it be terrible to pivot into a "general" 50 vs. 85 on full-frame discussion? 
If 50 then clearly the 50 1.2 is what I'm after, but I'm thinking maybe 16-35, 40, 85 and 135 instead of 16-35, 40, 50 and 135. 
Assume that I'm an idiot which should completely eliminate the potential for any personal attacks.

It really is personal choice, there is no right or wrong unless you go to extremes and in this discussion it is all about splitting hairs.

All I would say is that when it comes to a "portrait" type focal length lens, I have found that the longer you make it the harder and more restrictive it is to use well. Thus in terms of dof and sharpness an 85 is easier to use than a 135, but an 85 is still slightly too short to give a flattering perspective of a very highly frames face shot. Thus a 100 becomes a good compromise. However for general, less tightly frames portraits it's cheaper to get subject isolation by using a "normal" speed  85 mm lens than an exotic, really fast 50mm, and an 85 isn't much more demanding to use than a 50.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #42 on: January 04, 2018, 09:04:56 AM »

sulla

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
    • my flickr page
Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #43 on: January 04, 2018, 09:06:34 AM »
Would it be terrible to pivot into a "general" 50 vs. 85 on full-frame discussion? 
Certainly... :-)
The difference between your 40 and a 50 is small, and your next fixed focal lenght is 135, so yes, it makes more sense to add a 85 to your kit.
When I had the 50 1.4 i loved the perspective it gave me. I tested a friends 85 1.8, and I didn't like its perspective too much. Later, when I got a used 85 1.2 I very much appreciated its perspective and now it is one of my most used lenses. Yes, 85 is a great focal lenght to shoot with.

Question: Why do you prefer primes? Which feature of primes is it that you make use of?

While I love to shoot at low lights and thus need the brightness of fast primes, zooms are so much more useful in real life. I always have the wrong prime mounted for the second shot, and changing lenses all the time is not fun. Why not add a 70-200, eg. the excellent F/4 IS, instead of a fixed 85? Or the f/2.8 II, which acts as an excellent portrait lens, if f/4 is not enough?
5D & EF 8-15, EF 16-35 2.8 II, EF 24 1.4 II, EF 24-70 2.8 II, EF 35 1.4 II, EF 40, MP-E 65 Macro, EF 85 1.2 II, TS-E 90, EF 100 L Macro, EF 70-200 2.8 II

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 #44 on: January 04, 2018, 09:08:00 AM »
So you don't have anything to back up your claim?

The screenshots below are from the Canon book Lens Work, I forget which version.

I understand marketing make a fine distinction between misdirection and lying but they state, unequivocally, that the 300mm f2.8 IS has "The world’s fastest*1 autofocusing", not even Canon's, the fastest in the world when used on the NiCad driven higher end bodies.

Damn, private, for a few minutes I was able to feel that my 100/2 was better than your 300/2.8  ;D

Serious though, aceflibble has stated an awful lot of facts, and it does make me wonder how he knows all this when this information doesn't seem to be available anywhere. If true then I guess that much of it will be from "personal communication" with Canon. However, on the subject of the 100/2, I have always found it to be a better lens than the 85/1.8 principally in the fact that it focuses much better, not necessarily faster ( I use 5 series) but more accurately, and I've never been able to find out why this is. To me it seemed that the 85 was just a more budget version, being about 25% cheaper. As it is also "faster" and in recent times more people have fixated on prime speed, everyone buys the 85 and no one wants the 100.

I don't really agree with the idea that in the industry didn't know which way 85 and 100 was going to go. I seem to remember that many brands used "105", although I think even then Canon was on "100", but in recent times it's become a speed thing IMO, an 85 is faster than the equivalent 100 and as the two focal lengths are close The People want the 85. The way in which the 24 has taken over from the 28 is again IMO because in the '70s and '80s a 24 was about half as much again or even double a 28. Once more advanced manufacturing brought the prices together The People want the more exotic lens that previously couldn't be afforded. I hear of many people "hating" the 50mm focal length because that was what everyone used to have.....so it goes on, fashions change.

And by the way, the 50/1.2 L produces a beautiful, subtle rendering that gives the images a unique character.....  :-X

 ;)

 ;D

No he stated a lot of opinion, no facts.

One of my favorite specs is that the 50 f1.4 is sharper across the frame at f5.6 than the 100mm L Macro, a fact that is supported by my copies of both and Brian at TDP. I am under no illusions about sales marketing speak but do know the difference between carefully worded and annotated claims that must have some base in reality and broad generalizations that don't.

P.S. I agree on the uniqueness of the 50 1.2, it draws in a completely unique character.   :)

Cory, I like the 35 and 85 combination, as many have before.
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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?
« Reply #44 on: January 04, 2018, 09:08:00 AM »