Basically my Q is, 50mm 1.4 against 50mm 1.2 L at F1.4, will I notice a difference and does it justify the cost? Even if I use these lens at any aperture, would I notice the Â£ difference?
It's available on The Digital Picture. Here's the comparison at f/1.4. Contrast is better with the f/1.2L, but it's not much sharper. That's to be expected - the 'goal' of the 50mm f/1.2L is not razor sharpness, since Canon designed the lens with intentionally undercorrected spherical aberration to produce a superior bokeh. It's a portrait lens.Manxdip said:I would like to have a look at some full res files that would really give me a look.
If there is anyone that would like to set this website up..........
I highly doubt that Canon would ever publicize something like that, even it it's an intentional and important part of the optical design for the lens. "Undercorrected" just plain sounds bad, and no marketing executive would let that slip out (or if one did, a sacking would likely follow!).Edwin Herdman said:
I grappled with an analogous issue when considering the 85mm f/1.2L II - I had the 85mm f/1.8, which is a amazing lens. In the end, I bought the 85L, and even though it focuses more slowly the IQ of the L lens is fantastic - not just wide open sharpness, but also the color and contrast. After a little while of not even mounting the 85/1.8 on the camera, I sold it. I think if your shooting portraits, the 50L and 85L have a lot to offer over their non-L counterparts (worth the $1500 for some, not for others). OTOH, if you're using the 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 for general shooting, those lenses are great for that, and a great value!kubelik said:haven't shot with the 50 f/1.2 but I've had the 50 f/1.4 for a while now and shot plenty with it ... there may be some difference between it and the L version but personally the big question to me is, is there $1500 worth of difference between then? and to me that's a big no. the 50 f/1.2 only marginally lets in more light, is way heavier, doesn't focus closer, doesn't focus faster ... just to get slightly sweeter bokeh and a tiny bump in sharpness below f/2.8.
Well, I see your point, but I still think it's a personal decision. For me, photography is just a hobby. I am fortunate that the >$15K or so I've spent on photo gear represents disposable income for me, and I do understand that the same is not the case for everyone. But just to give one example, for me the portraits of my toddler that I've captured with the 85mm f/1.2L are worth far more than the cost of the lens. Even if you want to put a coldly financial perspective on that, I spent more than the cost of the 85L on professional portraits of her before she was 2 years old, so in that sense, the lens has paid for itself already.kubelik said:from what I've seen, there's not enough of a difference in the color, contrast, or bokeh for someone who doesn't earn hard money at 50mm to buy the f/1.2 L version