50mm.. Upgrade or not?

[iSy]

Hi guys

Probably done this subject to death, although I am considering getting the 50 1.2 (currently have the 1.4).

I am a semi pro wedding photographer mainly as well as portraits and have two 5D3's, 24-70 II & 70-200 II with a 50 1.4 for low light and bokeh shots as and when needed.

I guess I am a bit of a snob and do love my L gear which is why I am considering the 50 1.2 as an upgrade. There appear to be loads of good and bad reviews and its not like I have money to waste although I can afford this lens but obviously dont wanna waste money.

I am not really interested in the 85 1.2 as I feel the 70-200 covers this range well enough, I can live with the 2.8 and love the IQ and use of this lens so much I wouldnt want to take it off in place of a prime hence the 50.

I did have the 35L last year which was nice but I tend to find its a bit wide for portraits/make up shots and you really do need to get up in people's faces.

So, who would recommend the 1.2 over my current 1.4 to complete my 24-70II & 70-200II combo?

Cheers

Sy

 

[Dylan777]

Sold my f1.4 and replaced with 50L - no regret

50L is NOT a sharpest lens in the L line. 50L will provide very creamy bokeh & decent sharpness. AFMA is almost required for this lens. Buy this lens if you plan to shoot wide open apertures.

1. Price tag @ $1600, does 50L worth 4-5 times(better) than f1.4 in term of IQ? quick answer is no. However, with 50L you can shoot @ f1.2 where f1.4 needs to step down to f2 to f2.8 or so.

2. Am I going to buy this lens over f1.4 again? YESSSSSSSSSS

 

[AE-1Burnham]

(1st time poster here on Canonrumors)

I purchased the 50/1.2L mainly because of build quality/weather sealing.

I have gone through 3 copies of the decent performing 50/1.4 (2 of which the AF just stopped working,-I think the hood &/ extending element are two big build weaknesses -- the 3rd copy due to light rain and stupidity though replaced on warranty), this over 10ish years of quality images. I still have my #4 50/1.4 but rarely use it since upgrading... by the way, the innards of the 50/1.4 make a nice loop and someday will be built into a bellows system or something.

What does the 4x£ give you? Reassurance and also a little "L" confidence. :-D

Goodluck with the decision!

 

[Zv]

If you need the bokeh then yeah get it otherwise your 24-70II should cover any need for primes in that focal range, a 50L seems superfulous to me.

Also you will want at least sone of the persons face in focus for wedding and make up so going down to f/1.2 isn't really ideal. I think f/2.8 is shallow enough on a FF camera for portraits.

If you want to do other artistic stuff then thats a different story.

 

[iSy]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the feedback.

I agree that 2.8 on the 24-70 II is more then enough for most things and sub 2.8 you do lose details. The reason I want f2 and under is for beauty shots whereby having everything in focus isn't the goal, so its really about getting the sharpest focal point with the best bokeh for everything else in the frame.

I love the shots I am getting from my 50 1.4 so naturally curious to know if the L is going to improve on that, and I understand its not going to jump out with differences I would just like to make sure its better, not worse as some reviews seem to be mixed.

I also agree the build quality/focus ring on the 1.4 isn't the best although I am rather cautious with all my gear so its not a massive concern although I do like knowing its built proper which is one thing that everyone says about the L.

 

[Zv]

I think it's mostly the price that people grudge about it. They feel that for the extra amount you pay the lens isn't "that much sharper".

There's not really much of an alternative, is there? I mean there's a Sigma 50mm but some say the AF is unreliable. No lens is perfect.

If fifty is your bread an butter then you will benefit from the upgrade as it will be more reliable and less likely to break while on a paid job. That in itself is prob worth the upgrade.

 

[sandymandy]

Rent it for a while and then make ur choice. I think every Canon shooters dream is a complete collection of L lenses

 

[Random Orbits]

iSy, for your purposes the 50L would work well. Try borrowing/renting it before committing the funds. It's not the sharpest, but it wasn't designed to be. It has much better focus accuracy than the 50 f/1.4, and you'd be playing to its strength for beauty shots. Bokeh and color rendition are also better, but is does have some serious quirks.

Your 24-70 II will destroy any 50mm prime that is AF capable on a Canon body sharpness wise, including the 50L. If everyone had enough money, everyone would own the 50L and 24-70 II for best performance at any aperture.

 

[vscd]

@iSy.

The Canon 50mm f1.2 would leave you with mixed feelings. Of course it's a L-Lense, which gives you great colours and a fantastic bokeh. Otherwise it's sharpness is below (!) the 50mm 1.4 and will start to kick in at f2.5 and more . So, you should ask yourself the question why to spend a grand or more over the existing one, if you can't use the open aperture. From 1.4 to 1.2 you win around 30% of light, but the image will be blurry. Really blurry.

So if you need the extra light, which mostly can be done with a 1/3 of higher ISO stop, too... you should get the 50 1.2. This will work for analog photos nicely. Otherwise you should lend the lense for a day and you'll love or hate it.

Hint: The lense is weathersealed, but just if you do a filter in front of the lense. The rest is well done.

 

[CANONisOK]

For me, the build quality and weather sealing were the dominant factors in adding the 50L (plus I got it during one of Canon's 15% off refurb lens sales). I am really a big fan of the 50 1.4, but jumped at the chance for a "budget" upgrade. After using the 1.2 for a while, I can confidently say the 1.4 will be going bye-bye soon. No regrets.

 

[V_Raptor]

Man

There is a lot of rubbish about this glass on the web. I love mine, never ever had any dramas with autofocus this or tha, mind you I use it on 1Ds mk3 ( two diff bodies) and both are perfect and tack sharp whereever you point the selected focus point...

I'm attaching couple examples

First shot was focused on the "OU" of the last word, note that on this trip to this nice place on the mountains it was pissing down all day, did I care ??? Not at all since the lens is weather sealed.

Second was shot whilst walking next to my wife, focused on my daughter's eyes, any sharper it would cut my screen in half

Buy it RIGHT NOW !!!

I can send you the RAW files if you want to have a look at them, however I can guarantee you, for what you want, this piece of gorgeous glass is unbeatable.

Cheers

AL

 

[V_Raptor]

First pict didn't upload,

Fear not

There we go

 

[iSy]

Cheers guys, its a really tough choice to make I must admit.

Just had a play with the 50 1.4 at 1.4 to 2.0 and its pretty dam good, eye lashes are nice and crisp even at 1.4 but when stopped to f2 they are razor clear. Guess I am hoping the 1.2 can produce the same level of sharpness (and I know this isn't the only factor) but if it didn't equal the 1.4 lens I would feel a little unhappy.

I know someone with a 1.2 thankfully so I have just asked if I can give it a go for the day and compare. I'm not a lens collector, I like to keep my choices down to 3-4 lenses and feel the 24-70II & 70-200II compliment each other I am just looking for that magic prime, so far the 1.4 is doing well so I guess I am just wondering if it can be beat and normally an upgrade to an L is obvious but it would appear that the 50 is the one lens that is different.. Spending cash has never been so hard lol

 

[vscd]

@V_Raptor
Please submit something with f1.2, anything else dosn't make too much sense, I guess. The problem of the 50L 1.2 is the aperture, wide open. I'm not someone who only reads specs, but this lense is far away from the 85L 1.2. The weathersealing is a nice *pro*, definately, so the bokeh is. But my cam isn't weatersealed, so mostly I don't care toooo much about the lenses. My only weatherproofed cam is my EOS 1n, so far The colors of the L are far superiour in my opinion and if you make portraits the lense-unsharpness in the borders are more or less no problem. But if you use it as the normal 50mm alroundlense (as we all did back in the 70s/80s), you should know that the USM 1.4mm is overall the *better* choice.

50mm 1.4 (left) againt 50mm 1.2L (right)

 

[RLPhoto]

The 50L is really for 50mm nuts like myself. It just has character.

 

[V_Raptor]

VSCD

My 50 already paid itself many times, I shoot for living (hence only 2 posts) and I couldn't care less for what charts say, or people that shoot brick walls and pixel pep over it. I remember the 70s & 80s very well since my dad gave me my first camera in 1974!!! Back there there was the 35, the 50 and maybe the 80ish and there was it...And lots of people still made lots of money with them.

It amazes me how many people bitch about the 50L without have never ever used one (not saying or implying it is your case) just because someone said somewhere that it was rubbish. The only reason I've decided to post about it, was to try to help iSY

Like yourself I also have the 85 1.2 II, in fact I only have 4 lenses (50, 85, 24 and the only zoom is the magnificent 70~200 2.8 mk II) and they are very different lenses, 85 vs 50. I had the 50 1.4 before and I didn't like it at all. I can say my situation is different since as I've said I use it for living, therefore I cannot afford to having to stop shooting because its raining

I use mine 50 as walk around (whenever I have some spare time) and it is nothing short of amazing, case in point is the two pictures I've posted to elucidate what I mean by how sharp it is, both pictures were taken on holidays with my pregnant wife, daughter and my trusted 1Ds mk3, 50L and 580 II combo...

There are lots of pictures out there shot in 1.2, those I've posted were shot in f2.0 if I remember correctly, I wanted a bit more in focus and a bit less melted to oblivion background.

Cheers from Australia

AL 8)

 

[bdunbar79]

Hmm. That's a tough question. I don't think the 50L can do anything the 1.4 can't do, in wedding situations. And if you already have the 24-70L II, no way it's worth it. I have used and owned the 50L and at the apertures I shot, f/2.8 and narrower, the 1.4 was sharper. It's a specialty lens (and very good one at that) from f/1.2 to f/2.

 

[bdunbar79]

I think it's mostly the price that people grudge about it. They feel that for the extra amount you pay the lens isn't "that much sharper".

There's not really much of an alternative, is there? I mean there's a Sigma 50mm but some say the AF is unreliable. No lens is perfect.

If fifty is your bread an butter then you will benefit from the upgrade as it will be more reliable and less likely to break while on a paid job. That in itself is prob worth the upgrade.

Not only that, it's less sharp at f/2.8 and narrower. Only the OP can decide if that much money is worth the use from f/1.2 to f/2. It is strictly a specialty use and an individual matter.

This is the one prime lens of Canon's that I don't understand the price tag. I realize that 50mm at f/1.2 is going to require a lot of glass, but I also expect better overall performance than it delivers. That's just me.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

The 50L is really for 50mm nuts like myself. It just has character.

I really like your reply here, no comparisons between us as photographers since I'm just a hacker (in golf terms). It doesn't always have to come down to what's 'best' all the time, it's what feels right what makes you happy with using it and the results you get.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

My two cents is that if I had your existing lens kit, I would wait. I have a feeling that the next year is going to bring some interesting lenses in the 50mm department, including an ART remake from Sigma and a nice 50mm (probably with IS) from Canon. There's a lot of good about Sigma's current 50, but the AF isn't one of them. The enhanced build quality and AF from the 35mm f1/4 in a new 50mm from Sigma could be very interesting, and most of Canon's new primes (while expensive), have been significant optical upgrades from their predecessors.

In the meantime, I think you are pretty well covered between the 24-70II and 1.4, particularly if you are pretty satisfied with your 1.4.