50mm 1.2

[imansf]

I wanted to purchase a 50mm 1.2 but wanted to know if a new 50mm will be coming out soon. Putting budget aside, would you get a 50mm 1.2 or a 1.4?

[untitled10]

if you're putting budget aside why wouldn't you get the 1.2?
its faster, sharper and has better build quality.

[neuroanatomist]

The 50/1.2L was released in 2007 - it's very unlikey there will be an update in the near future.

I'd say get the L lens, unless you always plan to shoot at f/2.8 or narrower (in which case, why get a prime?).

[thepancakeman]

if you're putting budget aside why wouldn't you get the 1.2?
its faster, sharper and has better build quality.

I thought the 1.2 was really slow to focus?  Or was that the 85mm?

[neuroanatomist]

I thought the 1.2 was really slow to focus?  Or was that the 85mm?

That's the 85L.  The 50L is quite fast.

[Z]

if you're putting budget aside why wouldn't you get the 1.2?
its faster, sharper and has better build quality.

Is it sharper? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7

Admittedly I've picked the aperture of f/5.6 to illustrate a point. At f/1.4 it would be sharper indeed. But if sharpness is the deciding factor, the f/1.2 L does not excel. The bokeh, and by that I mean the quality of the background blur, is why people tend to pick the f/1.2, as well as its weather sealing/build quality, wider aperture (though I have heard some controversy about the truth of its "1.2" aperture, but I won't speculate on that) and red ring.

[imansf]

Should I not buy it then and just stick to my 24-105L?

[msdarkroom]

I would strongly consider this Zeiss 50:  http://amzn.to/JvlU7I

I love it. It is an excellent lens, very well built, very high IQ. It's MF, which I find to be something that slows me down - in a good way - and forces me to think about my images before I make them.

Give it a look. It's awesome.

-MS

[thepancakeman]

I wanted to purchase a 50mm 1.2 but wanted to know if a new 50mm will be coming out soon. Putting budget aside, would you get a 50mm 1.2 or a 1.4?

Just to play the devil's advocate--if we're putting budget aside, and there are indeed advantages to the 1.4 (there are obivously some to the 1.2), why not get both?   

[robbymack]

budget aside 1.2, however if you asked what's the best value for your lens $ in the canon 50mm line up, it's hard to argue with the 1.8 or 1.4  The 1.2 does not, at least in my mind, justify it's price tag.  Probably more important questions of whether one would buy this lens without the constraints of a budget (which seems very rhetorical) is what you plan to shoot with it, what your current kit looks like, and whether or not you make, or plan to make, $ off your captures? 

[Viggo]

if you're putting budget aside why wouldn't you get the 1.2?
its faster, sharper and has better build quality.

Is it sharper? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7

Admittedly I've picked the aperture of f/5.6 to illustrate a point. At f/1.4 it would be sharper indeed. But if sharpness is the deciding factor, the f/1.2 L does not excel. The bokeh, and by that I mean the quality of the background blur, is why people tend to pick the f/1.2, as well as its weather sealing/build quality, wider aperture (though I have heard some controversy about the truth of its "1.2" aperture, but I won't speculate on that) and red ring.

I don't think I have ever even considered using any of my fast primes, except the 24 and 17 at apertures narrower than 2,0. 5,6 comparison? Not why you buy 1,2 lens.

[EOBeav]

I wanted to purchase a 50mm 1.2 but wanted to know if a new 50mm will be coming out soon. Putting budget aside, would you get a 50mm 1.2 or a 1.4?

If you've got the bucks, go for it. I love spending other people's money. But as I've said in previous comments on here, the difference in IQ between the two are negligible at f/2.0-ish and lower. I would say only get the f/1.2 if you really depend on bokeh quality to pay your bills. Otherwise, get the f/1.4 and another lens for about a grand.

[Z]

I don't think I have ever even considered using any of my fast primes, except the 24 and 17 at apertures narrower than 2,0. 5,6 comparison? Not why you buy 1,2 lens.

Fine, fair point. Use the link I provided to do the same comparison at f/2 then. My point still stands.

[Random Orbits]

I don't think I have ever even considered using any of my fast primes, except the 24 and 17 at apertures narrower than 2,0. 5,6 comparison? Not why you buy 1,2 lens.

Fine, fair point. Use the link I provided to do the same comparison at f/2 then. My point still stands.

I wish TDP would re-evaluate the 50L.  I've borrowed a f/1.4 and I got a used f/1.2.  The f/1.2 focuses more accurately than the f/1.4 wide open.  My experience more closely mirrors what Lens Rentals (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout) found on their 50mm shootout rather than TDP's evaluation.  I could not get consistent AF with the 50 f/1.4 with apertures larger than f/2.8, but I can with the 50L.  I tend to use the 50L wide open and f/4 and smaller since I don't have a mid-range zoom after moving to FF.

[imansf]

What Filter should I purchase for the 50mm 1.2?