Battle of the 50mm's (1.2L , ZE 1.4, ZE 2.0)
- Thread starter samueljay
- Start date
- Status
I went thru this myself. I didn't buy any of these lenses. (Now I do own a Zeiss 21mm 2.8..so I am not totally opposed to manual glass...love this lens!)..but for a 50mm which is a workhorse, everyday-use lens, I needed and wanted "fast" AF. I ended up buying and loving the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. I researched the 3 lenses you are looking at and also the Canon f/1.4. In the end ( I NEVER thought I would own a Sigma lens, trust me) I bought it for a number of reasons. The fast auto focus, the fast f/stop and the "quality" of the bokeh when the lens is wide open. All my other lenses are Canon L lenses (except for the Canon 15mm fisheye). I own the 16-35mm II, the 85mm f/1.2, the 100mm f/2.8 Macro IS, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II and 1.4x III converter. I sold my 24-105mm in anticipation of the release of the new 24-70 f/2.8 II...and got caught holding the (empty) bag when Canon changed the ship date...but I will own that lens upon its arrival.
That being said...I do not think that the Sigma is a compromise in any way. I just got a 5DMkIII (but have not used it much yet)...so my references are from the MkII. I have found the Sigma to have good autofocus, great bokeh wide open (a little soft but all of these large aperture lenses are not their sharpest wide open)..and with the aperture closed down a little the lens is AMAZINGLY sharp. Really. Also...I found the Sigma to be less expensive and not as much of a beast to tote around like the Canon 50mm f/1.2, an yet the Sigma "approaches" that lense's bokeh. (I think that the Canon f/1.2 lens may auto-focus more slowly, too, than the Sigma..but I could be wrong on the point..not sure) The Sigma has the best balance of all of these lenses for me. I know that everyone's shooting style and needs are different...so this may not be the prime normal lens for everyone, but I have been very happy with my choice in this area.
That being said...I do not think that the Sigma is a compromise in any way. I just got a 5DMkIII (but have not used it much yet)...so my references are from the MkII. I have found the Sigma to have good autofocus, great bokeh wide open (a little soft but all of these large aperture lenses are not their sharpest wide open)..and with the aperture closed down a little the lens is AMAZINGLY sharp. Really. Also...I found the Sigma to be less expensive and not as much of a beast to tote around like the Canon 50mm f/1.2, an yet the Sigma "approaches" that lense's bokeh. (I think that the Canon f/1.2 lens may auto-focus more slowly, too, than the Sigma..but I could be wrong on the point..not sure) The Sigma has the best balance of all of these lenses for me. I know that everyone's shooting style and needs are different...so this may not be the prime normal lens for everyone, but I have been very happy with my choice in this area.
Upvote
0
samueljay said:
I would leave the 50 f/1.4 out. It's priced very low for a Zeiss lens, and there's a reason for it.
Your doubt may be summarized in a very simple question: do you need f/1.2 or AF?
If yes, buy the Canon L.
If not, buy the Zeiss Makro.
Also note that the Zeiss + Canon f/1.4 would cost more or less the same as the 50 f/1.2 alone. If you really love this focal lenght you can get both and use the Canon when AF or wider aperture is fundamental.
Upvote
0
Yeah, that way you can try and guess what lens you might want to use and swap lenses all the time, or find out that you brought the wrong one. If you like playing guessing games, changing lenses, and carrying two lenses around buying two 50mm lenses sound like a great idea.
While I don't disagree with any of the details from neuro's posts, i have a 5d with optional super screen and I find my mk3 with standard screen easier to MF with. go figure.
While I don't disagree with any of the details from neuro's posts, i have a 5d with optional super screen and I find my mk3 with standard screen easier to MF with. go figure.
Upvote
0
infared said:
I gotta agree.. I picked up the sigma 50 as well... Love it.
It had a slight front focusing issue that I was able to fix with MFA.. I took it in to sigma along with the body, and had them calibrate it.. It reduced the front focus a bit.
I also like the fact that it's a 77mm filter size.
Upvote
0
Hey Guys!
Got my 50mm last night! Haven't had a chance to play with it too much yet, but absolutely loving what I've seen it so far, had no trouble manual focusing wide open yet, and the results are astounding! Thanks to everyone who helped me with my decision
Got my 50mm last night! Haven't had a chance to play with it too much yet, but absolutely loving what I've seen it so far, had no trouble manual focusing wide open yet, and the results are astounding! Thanks to everyone who helped me with my decision
Upvote
0
samueljay said:Hi All,
I've recently got my 5D Mark III, and got it with the kit lens, and in a months time I really want to pick up a good 50mm prime (I've come from film, and a good 50mm prime was the lens that stuck to my camera body the most), so I've narrowed it down to these three choices. I'm liking the 1.2L, as I was really quite impressed with the build quality of the 24-105 (I thought I'd hate it coming from all metal film lenses), and the fact that it has a bit of a larger aperture, and let's admit, it looks really nice too.
The other two options are both Zeiss, and I'm considering these due to their build quality (closer to what I was used to) and the fact they're manual focus only is a non issue for me, I'm quite used to it from when I shot film, and the 5D III's focusing screen is super bright, and very easy to MF in (even with the f/4 lens)
So basically, I'm just wondering what people who've maybe tried any of these lenses have thought and which you would reccomend
Thanks in advance all!
I would recommend getting a brand new Nikon 50mm 1.2 and using a Nikon to Canon AF confirm adapter.
http://www.adorama.com/NK5012.html
The Nikon 50mm 1.2 is the best 50mm lens ever made for image quality stopped down.
It's as sharp as the 50mm 1.4D is at f/2.8 at f/2.0. meaning it's "a stop sharper".
Here's a comparison between the 1.4D at f/2.8 (simulating the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 as it's not been tested by that website) and the Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro which is the sharpest 50mm lens you've posted:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=637&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=727&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Simply put the Nikon 50mm 1.2 is equivalent to the following lenses at f/2.0:
Zeiss 50mm f/2.0: Would have to be at f/2.8 to be equally sharp
Zeiss 50mm f/1.4: Would have to be at f/4.0 to be equally sharp
Canon 50mm 1.2: Would have to be at f/4.0 to be equally sharp
It has substantially better image quality than any other 50mm lens out there stopped down.
With that said the Nikon 50mm 1.2 is average at f/1.2 and average at f/1.4 (there are better 1.2 and 1.4 lenses but it's not bad), it's just the best 50mm lens AT or BELOW 50mm f/2.0 and it's nice to have the abbility to go to f/1.2 even if it's second or third best at that.
On top of that the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is built like a tank, it has better build quality than any of the lenses you listed by a huge margin, yes even the Zeiss lenses which most people can't fanthom being improved upon. It's build quality can be described as how a tank would be built if it were made by a swiss watch maker.
Anyways hope that helps.
Upvote
0
I own the Canon 50 1.4, and the zeiss 50mm macro f/2 (got it as a gift) used on my t2i.
The zeiss gives a unique type of 3d'sh shot. Its super sharp even wide open. I use the focus confirm (which actually works!) or LV.
You need a patient subject (model) to sit still for a MF portrait. The macro also close focuses insanely close and is fun for all kinds of still life photos.
I tried the 50L - and even though its nice, I could not see it offer more the $1k more then the 1.4
zeiss macro planar f/2 + t2i
The zeiss gives a unique type of 3d'sh shot. Its super sharp even wide open. I use the focus confirm (which actually works!) or LV.
You need a patient subject (model) to sit still for a MF portrait. The macro also close focuses insanely close and is fun for all kinds of still life photos.
I tried the 50L - and even though its nice, I could not see it offer more the $1k more then the 1.4
zeiss macro planar f/2 + t2i
Attachments
Upvote
0
RLPhoto
Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
Radiating said:samueljay said:Hi All,
I've recently got my 5D Mark III, and got it with the kit lens, and in a months time I really want to pick up a good 50mm prime (I've come from film, and a good 50mm prime was the lens that stuck to my camera body the most), so I've narrowed it down to these three choices. I'm liking the 1.2L, as I was really quite impressed with the build quality of the 24-105 (I thought I'd hate it coming from all metal film lenses), and the fact that it has a bit of a larger aperture, and let's admit, it looks really nice too.
The other two options are both Zeiss, and I'm considering these due to their build quality (closer to what I was used to) and the fact they're manual focus only is a non issue for me, I'm quite used to it from when I shot film, and the 5D III's focusing screen is super bright, and very easy to MF in (even with the f/4 lens)
So basically, I'm just wondering what people who've maybe tried any of these lenses have thought and which you would reccomend
Thanks in advance all!
I would recommend getting a brand new Nikon 50mm 1.2 and using a Nikon to Canon AF confirm adapter.
http://www.adorama.com/NK5012.html
The Nikon 50mm 1.2 is the best 50mm lens ever made for image quality stopped down.
It's as sharp as the 50mm 1.4D is at f/2.8 at f/2.0. meaning it's "a stop sharper".
Here's a comparison between the 1.4D at f/2.8 (simulating the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 as it's not been tested by that website) and the Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro which is the sharpest 50mm lens you've posted:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=637&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=727&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Simply put the Nikon 50mm 1.2 is equivalent to the following lenses at f/2.0:
Zeiss 50mm f/2.0: Would have to be at f/2.8 to be equally sharp
Zeiss 50mm f/1.4: Would have to be at f/4.0 to be equally sharp
Canon 50mm 1.2: Would have to be at f/4.0 to be equally sharp
It has substantially better image quality than any other 50mm lens out there stopped down.
With that said the Nikon 50mm 1.2 is average at f/1.2 and average at f/1.4 (there are better 1.2 and 1.4 lenses but it's not bad), it's just the best 50mm lens AT or BELOW 50mm f/2.0 and it's nice to have the abbility to go to f/1.2 even if it's second or third best at that.
On top of that the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is built like a tank, it has better build quality than any of the lenses you listed by a huge margin, yes even the Zeiss lenses which most people can't fanthom being improved upon. It's build quality can be described as how a tank would be built if it were made by a swiss watch maker.
Anyways hope that helps.
You forgot to mention the Nikon 50mm 1.2 has the worst coma and veil haze to ever cross a 50mm design still being mass produced from f/1.2 to f/2. The canon 50L does not have those abberations from its aspherical Element. Stopped down performance at f/4 is moot, as we're using fast 50mm for low-light and wide open performance is required.
The 50L is king from 1.2-2.8 w/o abberations like the coma and veil hazing on non aspherical designs.
Upvote
0
I can't help wondering where those mtf plots came from - wide open the ZE 2/50 has 92% contrast at 10 lp/mm, 88% at 20 lp/mm and 75% at 40 lp/mm. This means that it runs rings around every one of the lenses that have been quoted at all resolutions. Note that this is a tested mtf, not a theoretical one.
Secondly - I have done a fair bit of testing of fast lenses. It's clear that light from the perifery of fast lenses does not make it down to the active part of a pixel. At f/1.2, less that 20% of the light from the f/1.2-f/1.4 ring actually gets to the sensor (the rest presumably bounces around or is absorbed elsewhere.) The f/1.4-f/2 ring looses about 50% of the light that should be detected. I've posted plots of this information elsewhere.
It seems pretty clear that if light doesn't get to the active part of the pixel, it cannot be detected. If it cannot be detected, it cannot contribute to lens speed or bokeh. If it cannot contribute to lens speed or bokeh, why spend money on them? Before spending kilodollars on ultra-fast glass, you might want to read this. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
Secondly - I have done a fair bit of testing of fast lenses. It's clear that light from the perifery of fast lenses does not make it down to the active part of a pixel. At f/1.2, less that 20% of the light from the f/1.2-f/1.4 ring actually gets to the sensor (the rest presumably bounces around or is absorbed elsewhere.) The f/1.4-f/2 ring looses about 50% of the light that should be detected. I've posted plots of this information elsewhere.
It seems pretty clear that if light doesn't get to the active part of the pixel, it cannot be detected. If it cannot be detected, it cannot contribute to lens speed or bokeh. If it cannot contribute to lens speed or bokeh, why spend money on them? Before spending kilodollars on ultra-fast glass, you might want to read this. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml
Upvote
0
Bosman said:
I just tried a 50L (actually only to compare it to a Tamron 24-70), but I noticed something that I want to be clear about: At f1.2 all shots were as I'd expect them to be from reading reviews, but stopped down to f1.4 the lens showed *massive* CAs resulting in very "colorful" shots. Was this a bad sample, or is this normal behavior and usually corrected in post, so it doesn't show in gallery shots?
Upvote
0
I've not had any troubles with my 50L. If I remember, I took this at f2
GS0C3326.jpg by Evan's Pix, on Flickr
GS0C3326.jpg by Evan's Pix, on Flickr
Upvote
0
arcanej said:
Ah, well, I should have added that the CAs occurred on high contrast black-white borders on f1.4 (but not on f1.2). With contrasts like in your picture, not even a kit lens should produce color edges.
Upvote
0
I am a Zeiss lens user and so lack of a user-upgradeable screen is strange. But found that brightscreens offers modified 5D Mark III
http://brightscreenstore.com/estore/?page_id=15#ecwid:category=1747387&mode=product&product=10130077
http://brightscreenstore.com/estore/?page_id=15#ecwid:category=1747387&mode=product&product=10130077
Upvote
0
Luke said:
+1
Despite all of the internet chatter about how many problems the Sigma has with AF, mine (recent smooth finish) nails focus with the outer focus points on my 5D2 in moderate light. My 100L misses every single time on the outer points in moderate to good light.
If the Sigma was branded as a Canon and came out as the replacement for the existing Canon 1.4 at this price point, everyone would be high-fiving Canon IMO. Just goes to show a long history of mediocrity on the part of Sigma is very tough to overcome in the marketplace. Especially in the case of this lens where apparently the early ones with the rough finish had some issues. But for me, taking a chance on them worked out nicely.
Upvote
0
- Status
