50mm 1.2

[bdunbar79]

I own both the 1.4 and the 1.2L.  I NEVER use the 1.4 now.  Not because the 1.2L is L and looks awesome, the 50L makes nicer images.  Nicer does not imply sharper (and my comment is not bias to which lens is sharper), as most tend to believe.  If you only care for sharpness get the 50 macro.  The 24L, 50L, and 200/2.0L are special.  I'd like to try the 85L one day.  You don't buy f1.2/1.4/2.0 lenses and stop them down.

I actually use them both.  You're right, the 50L cannot really be "replaced" by any of the other primes below 2.8.  I use the 1.4 above that, maybe from 4.0 on, because it is sharper than the 50L, but I suppose in everyday circumstances you wouldn't really notice this.  If the 24-70L II is really sharp at 50mm, I will probably get rid of the 1.4 and use the zoom for that distance and aperture.  But no lens can go where the 50L can go, I agree with you 100% on that point.

[Daniel Flather]

...addition to the refinement in rendering.

+1

[melbournite]

I own both the 1.4 and the 1.2L.  I NEVER use the 1.4 now.  Not because the 1.2L is L and looks awesome, the 50L makes nicer images.  Nicer does not imply sharper (and my comment is not bias to which lens is sharper), as most tend to believe.  If you only care for sharpness get the 50 macro.  The 24L, 50L, and 200/2.0L are special.  I'd like to try the 85L one day.  You don't buy f1.2/1.4/2.0 lenses and stop them down.

I actually use them both.  You're right, the 50L cannot really be "replaced" by any of the other primes below 2.8.  I use the 1.4 above that, maybe from 4.0 on, because it is sharper than the 50L, but I suppose in everyday circumstances you wouldn't really notice this.  If the 24-70L II is really sharp at 50mm, I will probably get rid of the 1.4 and use the zoom for that distance and aperture.  But no lens can go where the 50L can go, I agree with you 100% on that point.

This has been a pertinent thread for me because I've had a dilemma recently over which 50mm to buy; the 1.2 or 1.4? .  Up till now I've gotten away without a 50mm prime but a job has come up where it will be ideal.  If the 24-70II was out already and it was as good as the 70-200II, I probably may not be looking at one of these. Although I mostly prefer to buy L and I would love to have creamy bokeh (for personal use), I just ordered the 1.4. Simple reason is that for the job, I need F8 and as everyone says, it's sharper. It also happens to be cheaper although that wasn't the deciding factor - the key factor was that, as mentioned a few times even in this thread, 'you don't buy the 1.2 and stop it down'. So I bought the 1.4 for that.  One day I intend to own the 1.2 as well but that may end up being when the MkII is released!

Thank you to all who have contributed to this thread and made my decision extremely difficult - even now while I wait for the 1.4 to arrive.

[bdunbar79]

If you really, really want to shoot a lot at 50mm, keep your 1.4, and later down the road buy a Canon refurbished 50 f/1.2L.  That's what I did.  I do like the 50L indoors and things like night street shots.  It's an amazing lens down there.  However, sometimes I'll take a zoom and my 50 1.4 with me if I'm out and about.  Should the 24-70L II zoom be anywhere near as sharp as the 1.4, then yeah, when you buy the 50L, sell the 1.4.  But at least you'll get a lot of practice at 50mm in the interim. 

[EvilTed]

Hmmm, I think you need to take advise from people who actually HAVE a 50 1.2 mounted to a 5D MK3
I have one mounted to mine 99% of the time.

PROS:
Fast focusing (yes on the MK3 it's as fast the 1.8 )
Sharp and kinda ordinary from F/2 down
Beautiful and dreamy wide open - something the 1.4 and 1.8 WILL NOT ACHIEVE

CONS:
Heavy
Expensive
Very hard to get shots in perfect focus wide open

I have the 50mm F/1.8 and this is a great lens optically for the $100 price tag.
Get this or the F/1.4 and you will have a great walk around lens. Lighter and better for learning composition than the 24-105 + they work in lower light.
I hated the 24-105 F/4 that came with my kit and sold it instantly.

HOWEVER
The 1.2 is a great lens.
Wide open it will give you something the others cannot.
I don't know about the Zeiss 50mm F/1.4, but there are issues with the focussing screens being fixed on the MK3.
It's supposedly excellent for video on the MK3 (because you use LiveView) and at $700 is half the price of the 1.2.
You are going to have a steep learning curve with either before you get a lot of keepers.

ASSIDE
I bought a Fuji X-Pro 1 + 35mm F/1.4 for my wife, but I've been "learning how to use it" before handing it off to her
This camera is capable of excellent results - some say it beats the 5D MK2 in IQ.
I think the MK3 + 50mm F/1.2 produces better results.
The Fuji 35mm (53mm equivalent) is sharp wide open and the result is you cannot achieve the dreamy bokeh of the 1.2.
So, it depends what you want.
The 1.2 can be stopped down and look like any other 50mm.
The other 50's cannot be opened up to look like the 1.2

My $0.02

ET

[Viggo]

I have the 50 L on the 5d3 very much of the time. BUT only after adjusting it with Reikan FoCal software. It was impossible to do with SpyderLens Cal and other manual tools. I bought a second copy with more STABLE focus, but not adjusted properly. After the software adjustment it is fantastic! I have always loved the lens, the hardest of all Canon lenses to use by far, with all it's faults, sorry, "it's a feature, not a fault", lol. Learn to use it and adjust it properly, and it gives you bokeh, color, contrast and wide open IQ that can't be matched by another 50. And it is very close to my 85 wide open now, which hasn't even been close to before.

Superb lens when adjusted, what will shorten your life dramtically or even kill you with frustration when it's not. Many people buy this lens and trade it off again because it is so hard to control. If you want a wide aperture normal'ish lens, the 85 and 35 will be better alternatives and WAY easier to get great results with, but only the 50 L is the best 50.