Canon 50 1.2 Full Review

[Cory]

I may have had every mainstream 50mm lens and they were all very very good (all the way "down" to the 1.8 STM).
None really made me say "this is it" so the search continued with my opposite-of-GAS minimalist life.
All research pointed to the Sigma Art. Not one thing wrong with it. Sharp as can be, focuses like a laser on my 6D and got very good shots with it, but there was something intangible missing (like what I get from my Canon 135 2.0).
So I took a leap of Canon-faith and swapped it out for the 50 1.2.
I have found photographic perfection. My life is now totally complete. All of the rendering that I seek in a photographic instrument.
Pics to follow. Been a little laid up with a (now resolved and was much better than it could have been) family medical crisis.
I avoided all of the technical stuff because it's all meaningless anyway. Love this lens and it'll likely live on my camera 70% of the time; if not more.

 

[Nelu]

I had that lens too, a few years ago. I sold it but I still think about it because the 1.8 STM I have right now is a piece of junk.
The videos I shot with the 50mm f/1.2 are so smooth...I really don't care about the so-called lens softness and focus creep; there's something special about this lens...

 

[ethanz]

Maybe I need to get an evaluation loan of this lens... What would you suggest shooting with it?

 

[martti]

I am so happy for you, Cory, not even jealous –though we share the same love.

 

[denstore]

I agree fully. I love my 50/1.2L. It's a great lens. I've never had any problem with autofocus, and the sharpness is enough for me. And yes, it has some of that magic you can see in the 135L.

 

[drjlo]

I do love how these "soft, outdated" lenses capture the soul of models better than modern biting-sharp lenses..

IMG_0744 by drjlo1, on Flickr

 

[YuengLinger]

I may have had every mainstream 50mm lens and they were all very very good (all the way "down" to the 1.8 STM).
None really made me say "this is it" so the search continued with my opposite-of-GAS minimalist life.
All research pointed to the Sigma Art. Not one thing wrong with it. Sharp as can be, focuses like a laser on my 6D and got very good shots with it, but there was something intangible missing (like what I get from my Canon 135 2.0).
So I took a leap of Canon-faith and swapped it out for the 50 1.2.
I have found photographic perfection. My life is now totally complete. All of the rendering that I seek in a photographic instrument.
Pics to follow. Been a little laid up with a (now resolved and was much better than it could have been) family medical crisis.
I avoided all of the technical stuff because it's all meaningless anyway. Love this lens and it'll likely live on my camera 70% of the time; if not more.

Did I miss a link? Or is this your "full review"?

 

[Cory]

Did I miss a link? Or is this your "full review"?

Totally it. I don't know much. Don't need to.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I love mine too, although when I bought it used I had to pay Canon to fix a decentered element. After that it's been great. I normally use it as a bokeh monster with natural light.

 

[martti]

You need to take a lot of shots as the f/1.2 DoF is so ever thin and kids move all the time.

 

[stevelee]

You could just take pictures of old guys. My ears keep getting fuzzier. You wouldn’t need that small a dof.

 

[jolyonralph]

Agree. It shows that sometimes a lens excels for something that you can't see in a lens MTF chart. I love my 50 1.2, I use it way more than the 85 1.2.

 

[privatebydesign]

I do love how these "soft, outdated" lenses capture the soul of models better than modern biting-sharp lenses..

IMG_0744 by drjlo1, on Flickr

They don't. They do render a scene with aberrations that more modern lenses don't have so the resultant images have a 'look' to them (though that is nothing to do with the soul of the model), this becomes cyclical, people who like the look buy the lenses and shoot similar styled images because it displays that look...

I have said for years here on the forum sharpness is overrated as a lens metric, I still have the MkI 70-200 f2.8IS because I think it renders the type of images I like 'nicer' than the faster focusing and sharper MkII, same with the f1.2's.

 

[stevelee]

I needed a recent photo of myself. I set the 6D2 on a tripod, and lacking an 85mm lens, I put the 100mm (non-L) macro on it, and used a remote and a two-second delay to let me pose. That worked well, except the lens is way too sharp. I probably would have been better using the T3i and the 50mm f/1.4 (or the same lens on the 6D2 and crop a lot, to use the optimum subject distance).

 

[pixel8foto]

They don't. They do render a scene with aberrations that more modern lenses don't have so the resultant images have a 'look' to them (though that is nothing to do with the soul of the model), this becomes cyclical, people who like the look buy the lenses and shoot similar styled images because it displays that look...

I have said for years here on the forum sharpness is overrated as a lens metric, I still have the MkI 70-200 f2.8IS because I think it renders the type of images I like 'nicer' than the faster focusing and sharper MkII, same with the f1.2's.

Agreed. Nothing wrong with liking the 50 1.2 - I like mine - but I'm well aware that the rendering I like is a consequence of its relative technical imperfections and distortions, coupled to its fat aperture.

 

[ethanz]

coupled to its fat aperture.

Are you fat shaming it?

 

[pixel8foto]

Are you fat shaming it?

If I like their fatness, how can it be shaming?