50mm 1.2
- Thread starter MonteGraham
- Start date
- Status
on crop: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/158-canon-ef-50mm-f12-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1
on full frame: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1
Answer is f/2.8 is sharpest in the intervall mentioned.
on full frame: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1
Answer is f/2.8 is sharpest in the intervall mentioned.
Upvote
0
+1 for f/2.8 - in my experience, it's pretty sharp to f/2.0 but it noticably falls away 'wider' than f/2.0.
Upvote
0
MonteGraham said:
I don't know, if this is really the correct answer. Then again your question in itself may be a bit misleading.
If you want the most creamy bokeh, you should shoot wide open at f1.2. Otherwise you will miss some of that bokeh goodness.
With your 5D Mark III even at f1.2 you will be able to achieve sharp focus reliably.
That at f1.2 not much will actually be sharp is just an effect of shooting at this aperture. What you really need to ask yourself is how much beyond the focal plane you actually want to be sharp? For me it often depends on circumstances such as distance from subjects and so on.
Upvote
0
I was interested in finding out from users whether the 50mm 1.2L is worth it.
I have the 50mm 1.4 and I like it.
It's not the sharpest lens in the world at 1.4 but it does give pleasent images.
I also have the 85mm 1.2L and find it a difficult lens to use at 1.2.
I usually stop it down to F2 to ensure focus.
At 1.2 the Depth of Field is Razor thin.
At that rate it would have been alot cheaper to buy the 85mm 1.8 and it would weigh a fraction of the 1.2L.
The 85mm 1.2L is a pretty special lens when you do manage focus.
It's bokeh is great. I question though it's value for money.
I am wondering would I see great advantages in the 50mm 1.2L over the 50mm 1.4
I have the 50mm 1.4 and I like it.
It's not the sharpest lens in the world at 1.4 but it does give pleasent images.
I also have the 85mm 1.2L and find it a difficult lens to use at 1.2.
I usually stop it down to F2 to ensure focus.
At 1.2 the Depth of Field is Razor thin.
At that rate it would have been alot cheaper to buy the 85mm 1.8 and it would weigh a fraction of the 1.2L.
The 85mm 1.2L is a pretty special lens when you do manage focus.
It's bokeh is great. I question though it's value for money.
I am wondering would I see great advantages in the 50mm 1.2L over the 50mm 1.4
Upvote
0
Hector1970 said:
I am asking myself the same thing. So I asked.
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00c0Ji
Not too many answers though.
Upvote
0
The Bad Duck said:
Those answers are fairly representative for those that have kept the 50L. It is true that the 50L does not outresolve the other EF 50mm AF options by a large/significant margin (see 50mm shootout article by LensRentals). The reviews use MF/LV focusing, which does not take into account AF performance, which was a big negative of the Canon 50 f/1.4 I used. The 50 f/1.4 AF was inconsistent wide open to about f/2.8. It was accurate at f/2.8 but if I was using it stopped down so much, I'd opt for a 2.8 zoom. The 50L is much more consistent, which is why people that shoot wide open a lot tend to drift toward the 50L. It also does better on better AF Canon bodies (i.e. 5D III). Are images softer at 100% than the 35L and 85L wide open? Yes, but no 50mm EF optic is going to do better wide open (f/1.2 or f/1.4). Are the colors and bokeh better? Yes, the images look like L images and the bokeh is a bit smoother.
Is it worth it? For most people, then answer is no. It should not be a user's first fast L prime, and definitely not a user's first L lens. The 24L II, 35L and 85L II are all more forgiving than the 50L. It is not a good landscape lens (there are plenty of cheaper and sharper options). It is not a good detail lens (not a good performer at MFD if it has been AFMA'ed at typical portrait distances). However, it is a good portrait lens.
Upvote
0
+1 for 2.8 (for sharpness). But I don't think most people buy this lens for it's slight increase in sharpness at that aperture as there are plenty of other much more affordable options that will give you similar results at 2.8 (like others have mentioned). What you get from the 50L is a good, accurate tool to produce the "look" of a large aperture lens while remaining sufficiently sharp near the wide open end (not to mention the color rendition, contrast, etc etc).
Similar to Dylan777, I shoot slightly stopped down usually lingering around 1.4-2.0. This yields about a 90% hit rate for me and provides the desired meeting between sharpness and bokeh.
If one insists on scrutinizing images at 100%, reading MTFs, etc, finding slight differences in sharpness will be a given. Even then, you may have to look pretty hard to see it. For most of the shots I get from the 50L (at said apertures), the level of sharpness from 1.4-2.0 does not vary a whole lot when viewing at typical screen/print sizes.
Similar to Dylan777, I shoot slightly stopped down usually lingering around 1.4-2.0. This yields about a 90% hit rate for me and provides the desired meeting between sharpness and bokeh.
If one insists on scrutinizing images at 100%, reading MTFs, etc, finding slight differences in sharpness will be a given. Even then, you may have to look pretty hard to see it. For most of the shots I get from the 50L (at said apertures), the level of sharpness from 1.4-2.0 does not vary a whole lot when viewing at typical screen/print sizes.
Upvote
0
For Hector 1970 - I've had all of the Canon 50s and, on reflection, would not recommend moving onto the 50 1.2L from the 1.4. However, it really does depend on how you use it (my 1.4 broke and that's unlikely with the L) and what you will used it for. The 50L is no sharper below f2.8 (in my view) than the 50 1.4 and is some way short of the Sigma 35 1.4 (Art) and Canon 85L when opened beyond f2. My advice would be stick to the 1.4 unless you need the better build quality and the other things that John talks about - it's simply not worth the price difference in my view. I've ended up using my 35 and 85 combination when working with 2 bodies and only getting the 50L out when limited to one body/lens. A bit of a waste really and while I'll probably end up selling it.
Upvote
0
To all of those having difficulties focusing either the 50mm f1.2 or 85mm f1.2:
The prime reason for your issues with focusing is likely your camera body.
Use a 5D Mark III or 1-series body and you will be focusing just fine.
Using something like a 7D will make focusing at f1.2 somewhat of a challenge, even though its autofocus is generally quite good. I've been in that situation and after upgrading to my 1D-X + 5D Mark III combo focusing a wide open f1.2 lens is not an issue to me any longer. If you can focus reliably on f1.2 or f1.4 those prime lenses really do come into their own.
The prime reason for your issues with focusing is likely your camera body.
Use a 5D Mark III or 1-series body and you will be focusing just fine.
Using something like a 7D will make focusing at f1.2 somewhat of a challenge, even though its autofocus is generally quite good. I've been in that situation and after upgrading to my 1D-X + 5D Mark III combo focusing a wide open f1.2 lens is not an issue to me any longer. If you can focus reliably on f1.2 or f1.4 those prime lenses really do come into their own.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
