Battle of the 50mm's (1.2L , ZE 1.4, ZE 2.0)

[polandspringuy]

Neuro - based on your advice a while back I ended up picking up the 5D mark iii + kit lens along with the 50L.  I couldn't be happier.  I knew of the focus shift with the 50L and haven't been able to find an ideal solution to it so I've only shot wide open.  I might try Live View now that you mention it.  I just went through the "No Focusing Screens for 5D MIII" thread and came away a bit dismayed.  I guess I'll just continue to shoot only at 1.2 and use the kit lens for all other scenarios...

[bdunbar79]

Neuro - based on your advice a while back I ended up picking up the 5D mark iii + kit lens along with the 50L.  I couldn't be happier.  I knew of the focus shift with the 50L and haven't been able to find an ideal solution to it so I've only shot wide open.  I might try Live View now that you mention it.  I just went through the "No Focusing Screens for 5D MIII" thread and came away a bit dismayed.  I guess I'll just continue to shoot only at 1.2 and use the kit lens for all other scenarios...

What does everyone mean by this focus shift?  I shoot the 50L all the time way down from wide open, as high as f/11 Wednesday.  I didn't see any focus problem ever, in any of the 100 shots I took at f/11.  They are tack sharp.

[polandspringuy]

bdunbar - did you shoot at all between f2 - f4?  As I understand it focus shift is most apparent in that range.  Others here can explain it better but by f5.6 or so DoF is great enough to mask the issue.   

[bdunbar79]

bdunbar - did you shoot at all between f2 - f4?  As I understand it focus shift is most apparent in that range.  Others here can explain it better but by f5.6 or so DoF is great enough to mask the issue.

Oh I understand.  The posts made it sound like anything other than f/1.2.  Got ya.

[Michael_pfh]

I was torn between the 50L and the ZE 50 2.0 MP - eventually got the latter one and am very happy with it.
Since I already got the 85L I did not need the F1.2 on my 50.

MF hasn't been an issue so far, it's easier to manually hit the focus than with most L's in MF mode. The IQ and build quality of the ZE are outstanding, love the bokeh. The macro functionality is nice but cannot put up with a dedicated macro lens due to the comparably small magnification. Haven't tried extension tubes yet...

[Marsu42]

You'd almost certainly need a high precision focusing screen (3rd party in the case of the 5DIII) instead of the stock screen.

Do you know where to get these 3rd party screens for the 5d3, and how much an exchange costs? It won't be cheap I guess if this is one of the reasons for people getting a 1dx instead?

[infared]

I went thru this myself.  I didn't buy any of these lenses. (Now I do own a Zeiss 21mm 2.8..so I am not totally opposed to manual glass...love this lens!)..but for a 50mm which is a workhorse, everyday-use lens, I needed and wanted "fast" AF. I ended up buying and loving the Sigma 50mm f/1.4.  I researched the 3 lenses you are looking at and also the Canon f/1.4.  In the end ( I NEVER thought I would own a Sigma lens, trust me) I bought it for a number of reasons. The fast auto focus, the fast f/stop and the "quality" of the bokeh when the lens is wide open. All my other lenses are Canon L lenses (except for the Canon 15mm fisheye).  I own the 16-35mm II, the 85mm f/1.2, the 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and 1.4x III converter. I sold my 24-105mm in anticipation of the release of the new 24-70 f/2.8 II...and got caught holding the (empty) bag when Canon changed the ship date...but I will own that lens upon its arrival.
That being said...I do not think that the Sigma is a compromise in any way. I just got a 5DMkIII (but have not used it much yet)...so my references are from the MkII.  I have found the Sigma to have good autofocus, great bokeh wide open (a little soft but all of these large aperture lenses are not their sharpest wide open)..and with the aperture closed down a little the lens is AMAZINGLY sharp. Really. Also...I found the Sigma to be less expensive and not as much of a beast to tote around like the Canon 50mm f/1.2, an  yet  the Sigma "approaches" that lense's bokeh.  (I think that the Canon f/1.2 lens may auto-focus more slowly, too,  than the Sigma..but I could be wrong on the point..not sure)    The Sigma has the best balance of all of these lenses for me.  I know that everyone's shooting style and needs are different...so this may not be the prime normal lens for everyone, but I have been very happy with my choice in this area.

[Albi86]

I would leave the 50 f/1.4 out. It's priced very low for a Zeiss lens, and there's a reason for it.

Your doubt may be summarized in a very simple question: do you need f/1.2 or AF?
If yes, buy the Canon L.
If not, buy the Zeiss Makro.

Also note that the Zeiss + Canon f/1.4 would cost more or less the same as the 50 f/1.2 alone. If you really love this focal lenght you can get both and use the Canon when AF or wider aperture is fundamental.

[risc32]

Yeah, that way you can try and guess what lens you might want to use and swap lenses all the time, or find out that you brought the wrong one. If you like playing guessing games, changing lenses, and carrying two lenses around buying two 50mm lenses sound like a great idea. 
 While I don't disagree with any of the details from neuro's posts, i have a 5d with optional super screen and I find my mk3 with standard screen easier to MF with. go figure.

[Chewy734]

thanks for the detailed post neuro

[Luke]

That being said...I do not think that the Sigma is a compromise in any way. I just got a 5DMkIII (but have not used it much yet)...so my references are from the MkII.  I have found the Sigma to have good autofocus, great bokeh wide open (a little soft but all of these large aperture lenses are not their sharpest wide open)..and with the aperture closed down a little the lens is AMAZINGLY sharp. Really. Also...I found the Sigma to be less expensive and not as much of a beast to tote around like the Canon 50mm f/1.2, an  yet  the Sigma "approaches" that lense's bokeh.  (I think that the Canon f/1.2 lens may auto-focus more slowly, too,  than the Sigma..but I could be wrong on the point..not sure)    The Sigma has the best balance of all of these lenses for me.  I know that everyone's shooting style and needs are different...so this may not be the prime normal lens for everyone, but I have been very happy with my choice in this area.

I gotta agree.. I picked up the sigma 50 as well... Love it.
It had a slight front focusing issue that I was able to fix with MFA.. I took it in to sigma along with the body, and had them calibrate it.. It reduced the front focus a bit.
I also like the fact that it's a 77mm filter size.

[samueljay]

Hey Guys!
Got my 50mm last night! Haven't had a chance to play with it too much yet, but absolutely loving what I've seen it so far, had no trouble manual focusing wide open yet, and the results are astounding! Thanks to everyone who helped me with my decision

[Radiating]

Hi All,
I've recently got my 5D Mark III, and got it with the kit lens, and in a months time I really want to pick up a good 50mm prime (I've come from film, and a good 50mm prime was the lens that stuck to my camera body the most), so I've narrowed it down to these three choices. I'm liking the 1.2L, as I was really quite impressed with the build quality of the 24-105 (I thought I'd hate it coming from all metal film lenses), and the fact that it has a bit of a larger aperture, and let's admit, it looks really nice too.

The other two options are both Zeiss, and I'm considering these due to their build quality (closer to what I was used to) and the fact they're manual focus only is a non issue for me, I'm quite used to it from when I shot film, and the 5D III's focusing screen is super bright, and very easy to MF in (even with the f/4 lens)

So basically, I'm just wondering what people who've maybe tried any of these lenses have thought and which you would reccomend I'm sure they're all fine lenses and I'll be just as happy with any, but would love to hear some opinions.

Thanks in advance all!

I would recommend getting a brand new Nikon 50mm 1.2 and using a Nikon to Canon AF confirm adapter.

http://www.adorama.com/NK5012.html

The Nikon 50mm 1.2 is the best 50mm lens ever made for image quality stopped down.



It's as sharp as the 50mm 1.4D is at f/2.8 at f/2.0. meaning it's "a stop sharper".

Here's a comparison between the 1.4D at f/2.8 (simulating the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 as it's not been tested by that website) and the Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro which is the sharpest 50mm lens you've posted:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=637&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=727&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Simply put the Nikon 50mm 1.2 is equivalent to the following lenses at f/2.0:

Zeiss 50mm f/2.0: Would have to be at f/2.8 to be equally sharp
Zeiss 50mm f/1.4: Would have to be at f/4.0 to be equally sharp
Canon 50mm 1.2: Would have to be at f/4.0 to be equally sharp

It has substantially better image quality than any other 50mm lens out there stopped down.

With that said the Nikon 50mm 1.2 is average at f/1.2 and average at f/1.4 (there are better 1.2 and 1.4 lenses but it's not bad), it's just the best 50mm lens AT or BELOW 50mm f/2.0 and it's nice to have the abbility to go to f/1.2 even if it's second or third best at that.

On top of that the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is built like a tank, it has better build quality than any of the lenses you listed by a huge margin, yes even the Zeiss lenses which most people can't fanthom being improved upon. It's build quality can be described as how a tank would be built if it were made by a swiss watch maker.

Anyways hope that helps.

[samueljay]

Haha it doesn't because I already decided and bought one But thank you for your detailed suggestion!

[koolman]

I own the Canon 50 1.4, and the zeiss 50mm macro f/2 (got it as a gift) used on my t2i.

The zeiss gives a unique type of 3d'sh shot. Its super sharp even wide open. I use the focus confirm (which actually works!) or LV.

You need a patient subject (model) to sit still for a MF portrait. The macro also close focuses insanely close and is fun for all kinds of still life photos.

I tried the 50L - and even though its nice, I could not see it offer more the $1k more then the 1.4

zeiss macro planar f/2 + t2i