Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?

[Cory]

Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

 

[BillB]

Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

There seem to be three things that people don't like about the f1.4: IQ wide open, autofocus, and iffy durability. Other people like its IQ stopped down to F2.8 or beyond. I don't use mine all that much, partly because I don't use 50 mm that often, but also because stopped down, I am happy with the IQ of my zoom in that range and like its flexibility.

 

[Larsskv]

Color, contrast and bokeh is better on the 50L. The difference in overall image quality shows best in apertures from f1.2 till f2.8. From f2.8 the 50 f1.4 is as least as sharp, probably sharper. Color and bokeh remains better on the 50L at smaller apertures.

I don’t like the 50f1.4 much, but I love my 50L. It isn’t the technically best lens, but it creates great looking images. If you have the money, and if you like to shoot at large apertures, I wholeheartedly recommend the 50L.

You should look up Dustin Abbots review of the 50L. He sums up the strengths and weaknesses of the 50L in a very good way.

 

[privatebydesign]

Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

No. And nobody can tell the difference unless they have same shot comparisons, they think they can but I have done this before, challenged people to blind comparisons of different images and nobody even gets close to reliable accuracy, indeed most fail to even get a random average so end up being wrong more than they are right.

 

[Larsskv]

Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

No. And nobody can tell the difference unless they have same shot comparisons, they think they can but I have done this before, challenged people to blind comparisons of different images and nobody even gets close to reliable accuracy, indeed most fail to even get a random average so end up being wrong more than they are right.

Yes. It is a difference, and it is noticeable when you have used the lenses and gotten to know them. Whether or not one reliably can pick out which lens took which picture in a blind comparison doesn’t prove anything. Compare them side by side, and the differences become obvious.

 

[privatebydesign]

Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

No. And nobody can tell the difference unless they have same shot comparisons, they think they can but I have done this before, challenged people to blind comparisons of different images and nobody even gets close to reliable accuracy, indeed most fail to even get a random average so end up being wrong more than they are right.

Yes. It is a difference, and it is noticeable when you have used the lenses and gotten to know them. Whether or not one reliably can pick out which lens took which picture in a blind comparison doesn’t prove anything. Compare them side by side, and the differences become obvious.

Yes that's what everybody says, then fails miserably to be able to actually identify images taken with their lens that has a 'special look'. My point is if it isn't identifiable, and repeated test have proven it isn't, then it isn't special, in which case there is no real difference, which was the OP's question.

I am not saying there aren't good reasons to buy the 1.2, or the 1.4, over the other, just that a 'distinctive look' when shot at f2.8 isn't one of them. Content and post processing will have a vastly greater impact on the image than any differences in the lenses.

 

[Larsskv]

Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

No. And nobody can tell the difference unless they have same shot comparisons, they think they can but I have done this before, challenged people to blind comparisons of different images and nobody even gets close to reliable accuracy, indeed most fail to even get a random average so end up being wrong more than they are right.

Yes. It is a difference, and it is noticeable when you have used the lenses and gotten to know them. Whether or not one reliably can pick out which lens took which picture in a blind comparison doesn’t prove anything. Compare them side by side, and the differences become obvious.

Yes that's what everybody says, then fails miserably to be able to actually identify images taken with their lens that has a 'special look'. My point is if it isn't identifiable, and repeated test have proven it isn't, then it isn't special, in which case there is no real difference, which was the OP's question.

I am not saying there aren't good reasons to buy the 1.2, or the 1.4, over the other, just that a 'distinctive look' when shot at f2.8 isn't one of them. Content and post processing will have a vastly greater impact on the image than any differences in the lenses.

When scrolling through pictures on flickr, I can sometimes believe a picture is taken with a 50mm lens, while it was taken with a 135mm lens, or the other way around. Sometimes I mistake a picture taken with a MFT system for full frame. Does that prove that I am mistaken all the time? Does it mean that my general observations are only subjective? Does it mean that every lens of the same focal lenght and aperture will look the same, and that gear doesn’t matter for the end result?

As an amateur that only takes pictures for personal use, I will often shoot the same people in similar settings, and I do recognize differences, and I become aware of the “personality” of my different lenses. I have no doubt that I can mistake the 50L for a 50f1.4 in some pictures, but if you let me use the two lenses for myself, for shooting what I often shoot, I will be able to identify the 50L pictures 4 out of 5 times.

 

[BillB]

Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

No. And nobody can tell the difference unless they have same shot comparisons, they think they can but I have done this before, challenged people to blind comparisons of different images and nobody even gets close to reliable accuracy, indeed most fail to even get a random average so end up being wrong more than they are right.

Can people tell the difference if they have same shot comparisons?

 

[Sporgon]

This kind of a question is a real hot potatoe because there's two sides to the coin really. If you the user can see a difference and gain more satisfaction and pleasure from it then it's real. Just don't expect others to be able to see the difference

 

[YuengLinger]

Wait for the new 50mmL. Patiently.

 

[Sporgon]

Wait for the new 50mmL. Patiently.

Well it'll probably be a 1.4 if a new 50 L does turn up, maybe an IS aka the 85 and not replace the current one. The current 50L isn't a lens meant for charts, it has an optical formula virtually identical to the original 8 element Takumar produced by Pentax in the 60's to get one over on Zeiss. Apparently they lost money on every one due to the expense of producing the things. It's a lens that's meant to have a softness and early graduation in the out of focus zone, and I think sometimes this does come through. Of course you have to be a connoisseur to appreciate it

 

[docsmith]

If you only are interested in f/2.8 and larger, I would get the 50 f/1.4. Any difference, if noticeable, will be in rendering and personal opinion. Greater than f/2.8, the f/1.4 lens is sharp across the frame, contrasty, and renders beautifully. I owned the 50 f/1.4 for years before upgrading to the Sigma 50A. At f/2, the center starts getting real good. From f/2.8 and greater, it is simply a phenomenal lens. The AF isn't bad, but is not fast. I have heard reports, like others, of 50 f/1.4's getting dropped and ruined. But mine functioned great for years under normal use.

I only upgraded after getting frustrated with using it from f/1.4 to f/2 over the entire frame and edges from f/2 to f/2.8. But if you are after greater than f/2.8, just get the f/1.4. It is truly a classic.

 

[YuengLinger]

If you only are interested in f/2.8 and larger, I would get the 50 f/1.4. Any difference, if noticeable, will be in rendering and personal opinion. Greater than f/2.8, the f/1.4 lens is sharp across the frame, contrasty, and renders beautifully. I owned the 50 f/1.4 for years before upgrading to the Sigma 50A. At f/2, the center starts getting real good. From f/2.8 and greater, it is simply a phenomenal lens. The AF isn't bad, but is not fast. I have heard reports, like others, of 50 f/1.4's getting dropped and ruined. But mine functioned great for years under normal use.

I only upgraded after getting frustrated with using it from f/1.4 to f/2 over the entire frame and edges from f/2 to f/2.8. But if you are after greater than f/2.8, just get the f/1.4. It is truly a classic.

But if working f/2.8 and tighter, why not just use a 24-70mm f/2.8?

 

[slclick]

220, 221

 

[sdsr]

But if working f/2.8 and tighter, why not just use a 24-70mm f/2.8?

Because it's a fraction of the size, weight and price? A better question might be why not just use a 50mm f/1.8, which is cheaper and smaller still and probably much the same at 2.8 (I've not used the latest one, though, so I can't comment first hand).

The reason to get the 50L is the sort of image it can create at f/1.2, not at f/2.8 (or if you sometimes want to focus manually: the f/1.4 is a pain because of its sloppy focus ring - unless mine was atypical).

 

[docsmith]

But if working f/2.8 and tighter, why not just use a 24-70mm f/2.8?

The OP asked about f/2.8 and to compare the two 50 mm lenses. Otherwise, I agree, which is why I went for the 50 Art. I am one of those that am having a great experience with it on both my 5DIII and 5DIV. But I use it primarily at f/1.4-f/2.2. Anything more narrow, I am using my 24-70 II.

But, at f/2.8 and more narrow, I really think the 50 f/1.4 is a classic wonderful lens.

Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

 

[Ah-Keong]

there is some magical "double gauss" render on the 50mm f/1,2L

 

[aceflibble]

Quick version:
The differences between the f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses are minimal in most shooting conditions, and they each have an equal number of advantages overall. At f/2.8 they're so similar you could never tell their results apart. If f/2.8 and smaller is all you care about, you may as well save money with the 1.4 lens. (In fact at f/2.8 it's slightly better anyway.) But you're most likely to be better served by the Sigma 50mm or Tamron 45mm.


Full version:
As someone who has owned multiple copies of both (as well as other 50mms from Canon and other manufacturers) over the last 10 years (I finally went digital just a few months after the 50mm f/1.2L was on store shelves), using them on a variety of bodies (everything from a 400D to a 1DX) and for a variety of subjects (everything from casual photos with friends you wouldn't spend 5 seconds thinking about to productions for Dubai royalty with budgets in the multiple millions), I'd say I have a pretty good handle on how they compare. I've no examples to share (I don't use either lens these days; more on that later) but for what it's worth, here's how I view each. For the sake of clarity, I'll simply call them by their widest f-stops, i.e. 1.2 and 1.4.
(Oh boy, that was a lot of parentheses)

Subjective differences, unmeasurable differences, or draws:

• The 1.4's colour rendition is ever so slightly warmer than neutral, while the 1.2's colour rendition is ever so slightly cooler than neutral; neither has enough of a colour cast to be unfixable, even if you shoot .jpg.
• At f/4-5.6 there is absolutely no discernible difference between the two. For that matter, there's no significant difference with the f/1.8 STM, either.
• Center sharpness and rendition at f/2.8 and f/8 is identical.
• At wide apertures, the 1.2 has more contrast overall, though the edges less so; at small apertures, the 1.4 has more contrast overall, though the edges less so.
• Flare control is more-or-less the same between the two models. I've seen more variation between individual units of the same model than I have between the two designs overall.
• Vignetting is the same at all apertures, with the unique wide open 1.2 aperture offering a slightly brighter center but a darker edge than the 1.4 wide open or the 1.2 stopped down to 1.4.
• Bokeh at the same aperture and framing is identical. (Remember, "bokeh" refers to the quality of out-of-focus rendering, not how far out-of-focus something is.)
• When the same aperture and framing is used, there's no difference in AF accuracy. The only difference in accuracy is when the 1.2 is used wide open, where its narrower depth of field obviously makes critical focus harder.
• The 1.4's actual focal length is around 48mm, while the 1.2's is around 51.3mm; both 'breathe' as they focus closer. This is completely standard for all lenses—it's incredibly rare that any lens is actually exactly the focal length it is marked as, let alone when focused closely—and the difference between 48mm and 51.3mm is essentially nothing. However, these things do bother some people, so there you go.
• This could be complete blind luck, but in terms of durability, the 1.4's outer shell and focus have broken more easily for me while the optics have been tougher, and vice-versa for the 1.2, where all of mine have had optics damaged or misaligned after slight knocks while the outer shell and other mechanics remain unscratched.

Areas where the 1.4 is certainly stronger:

• At f/2.8 and f/8, the 1.4 is slightly sharper in the corners and overall has a more uniform look to the image; comparatively, the 1.2 is a little softer around the edges and contrast varies between the center of the frame and the outside at these apertures.
• Most cases of colour fringing aberrations are better-controlled by the 1.4.
• The 1.4's AF is slightly faster, in most conditions.
• The 1.4's manual focus is more responsive. (Though still pretty loose.)
• The 1.4's transmission is slightly more accurate, as it is only 1/3rd of a stop behind the f-stop; the 1.2's transmission is nearly 2/3rds of a stop slower than the f-stop.
• Repair costs on the 1.4 are, unsurprisingly, a lot lower for similar work. (Let alone the difference in which parts seem most vulnerable in each lens, as noted above.)
• The lower weight and size really is very noticeable.
• Smaller filter size is always handy.

Areas where the 1.2 is certainly stronger:

• Wider than f/2.8, the 1.2's rendering is more uniform across the frame and it has less ghosting—but not no ghosting—in the corners.
• Despite the transmission being less accurate, the 1.2 does still let in about one quarter of a stop more light than the 1.4.
• In extremely low light and with the very best bodies, the 1.2's AF doesn't slow down quite as much as the 1.4. (Though it's not a huge difference and we are talking about only the most extreme scenarios with the most sensitive bodies.)
• When focusing closer than around 6 feet, the 1.2 shows slightly less barrel distortion. (Though there is still a noticeable amount.)
• AF is slightly quieter.

Overall, I'd say it comes down to a pretty simple case of practicality vs desire.

• If you want to show off the fact you own an f/1.2 lens, an L lens, the biggest front optic you can get, or simply the overall cost of your gear, buy the 1.2.
• If you want to get the most out of shooting wide open (whether your work demands it, e.g. extreme low light, or it's just your style), buy the 1.2.
• If you shoot at medium or smaller apertures, are looking for a travel lens, want technical quality in a studio, or in other words don't actually care about using f/1.2, buy the 1.4.

... All that said, most people shouldn't bother with either of them. The fact is there are three other 50mm lenses available for Canon EF mount (not including specialist variations or luxury models), all of which offer more than both the Canon 1.2 and 1.4.

• Canon's own 1.8 STM offers technically better (i.e. overall frame resolution, neutral contrast, and neutral colour) image quality at f/4 and smaller, and is subjectively equal at f/2.8 where it is a fraction sharper than the others but has lower contrast. The fact it does so at such a low price point means it's hard for non-pros to justify buying much else and even studio pros may actually be better off with it, if it wasn't for...
• ... the Sigma 50mm beating everything else for technical quality. If contrast and resolving power across the frame is what you want, and you've got the kind of budget where you're looking at the 50mm f/1.2L anyway, the Sigma 50mm is the lens you'll be best off with. The only drawback of the Sigma is the AF accuracy, which can be inconsistent.
• For everyone in the middle, as well as some people looking for something higher-end but without the need for the fastest apertures, there's the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC. It's nearly as optically clean as the Sigma, and better than any of the Canons. (Subjective taste, such as colour rendition, notwithstanding; the Tamron's is about the same as the Canon 1.4's, by the way.) Most importantly it is weather-sealed and has vibration compensation (IS), which makes it by far the most useful for travel, as well as for anyone using a higher-resolution body. If you use a 5DS, 5D4, or any 24mp+ APS-C body, or if you plan to get any of those bodies, the Tamron is the only 50mm (okay, 45mm) lens you should even consider. If you need your lenses to be durable, get the Tamron. If you simply want great optical quality, the Tamron is second only to the Sigma, and at a lower price, lower weight, perfectly accurate AF, and with stabilisation. The only downfall of the Tamron 45mm is that its light transmission is even worse than the Canon 1.2's, being t/2.5. That said, t/2.5 is still fast enough for all modern AF systems to work to their full capabilities, and 4 stops of stabilisation more than makes up for three quarters of a stop of light loss. Tamron even provide a far more extensive warranty than any other company, not that you should need it 'cause their 45mm is also the toughest-built of any of these lenses.

So, though the Canon 1.2 and 1.4 have their strengths and weaknesses and certain people will be better off with one than the other, really everyone is better off with one of these other three lenses. People who demand the highest resolution at all apertures should get the Sigma; people who mostly shoot at f/4-8, or simply wish to save money, should get the Canon 1.8 STM; everybody else should get the Tamron.


For what it's worth, I said at the start that I no longer use the Canon 1.2 and 1.4, after years of using both. That's partly due to the nature of my work changing (everything now needs either wider or longer focal lengths, and everything in the middle isn't really useful) and partly due to the presence of the Sigma and Tamron. I still have one Canon 1.2 sat here just in case I do need a 50mm, but it's gathering dust. I've rented the Tamron and Sigma instead and the only reason I don't sell the Canon is because the arrangement I have with them means it's technically a (very) long-term loan rather than a lens I own outright. If I ever need to buy a 'standard' prime that is truly my own, it'll be the Tamron, unless Sigma fixes their AF consistency in which case I'd go for that.

And for the sake of completion, I'd also add that the Canon 40mm is a great 'standard' prime, if all you want is f/2.8 and smaller. At comparative apertures it's got the same image quality overall as the Canon 50s, but with less distortion. (Despite being wider.) The EF-S 24mm is the same deal for APS-C cameras.

 

[privatebydesign]

there is some magical "double gauss" render on the 50mm f/1,2L

As opposed to the ""double gauss" render" of the 1.4 and 1.8, oh and the f1.0? They are all double gauss designs.

 

[slclick]

Tell me, what needs to be done to avoid a sticker effect in a retrofocal if Canon goes that direction? Coatings? Shape of elements?