Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L

[stohmax]

i bought the 50 1,8 II for my 400d a few years ago. The IQ and BQ are good for the price. even after 4 years of use its still working. when i bought my 5d2 i realized that the lens is too short for portrait so i bought the ef 85 1.8 with is superb for the price. a half year ago i made pictures of my sisters children and the 85 1.8 was to long and the 50 1.8 ii focus was slow and wide open not really sharp. So i bought the ef 50 1.4, in my opinion its much better than the 1,8 ii because the af is faster, the image quality is better. i had good results even at 1,4 at 2,0 ist very sharp. i was also thinking about the 50 1.2 but i decided to save the money to replace the samyang 35 1.4 with the ef 35 1.4 L incause of the autofocus.

 

[Jamesy]

Re: Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.L

I had the Canon EF 50 f/1.4 and it was kind of OK, emergency use only at F/1.4, getting good at f/2 and quite acceptable from f/2.8 through to f/8. Never stellar.

Most likely I'll take a hit on this lens and try another Canon 50 f/1.4. Just give me a good copy this time!

I had a 50 1.4 and feel exactly the same way, I sold it after a month of so. I have had the 50 1.8 for years and only use it occasionally as the AF is so-so and it is a tad noisy too. After 2.0 my copy is pretty decent.

I have had my eye on the Sigmalux 50 1.4 for over a year but am leery based on the reasons cited by PWP - these are well documented online.

Perhaps the Canon 50 1.4 Mk.II will knock it out of the park

 

[willrobb]

I used to use 50mm F1.4 lenses with film bodies and then a 30D. It was a great lens, light weight, cheap, great for portraits, but with heavy use a lot of dust got inside an that affected image quality.

I sold my primes and went through a zoom phase for a while, was vey happy wig my 24-70mm f2.8L but soon realised I needed a 50mm prime for portraits again and after much debate I got the 50mm 1.2L and I am really happy with my buy. I find back focusing not to be a problem unless you are at the minimal focus distance, otherwise it's not been a fine.

For beautiful bokeh, the 1.2L is just what you want. The 1.4 is a good lens, but it's not as well built or weather proofed as the 1.2L. It's a good investment.

 

[alipaulphotography]

I use the sigma 50mm f/1.4. It is excellent and has better centre sharpness at wider apertures than the canon. As I use my prime lenses almost exclusively at their widest apertures (with exceptions) - this was particularly valuable to me. It also comes with a hood and is built better.

I have not felt the need for f/1.2 as the depth of field gets too shallow for my uses. I have also used the f/1.8 when I first got a dslr and it is an excellent lens and should be bought by anyone who only has the kit lens. I didn't like it's bokeh however at all. Too few aperture blades produced hexagons in the background.

 

[pwp]

I use the sigma 50mm f/1.4. It is excellent and has better centre sharpness at wider apertures than the canon. As I use my prime lenses almost exclusively at their widest apertures....

Yes I agree, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has great centre sharpness. When mine nails it it really is faultless, way better than anything my old EF 50mm f/1.4 could deliver. But the AF inconsistencies mean I just can't risk using it on fast moving commissioned work.

Does your copy deliver consistent results or does it suffer from the well documented "on again/off again" AF issues?

Paul Wright

 

[scottsdaleriots]

I the 1.2L is 10 years old, wouldn't that kinda warrant it for a mkII being in the works?
These current rebates are tempting me to buy one, but I still can't decide. Thanks for everyone's input/advice. Curse Canon's marketing team - I want another L lens!!

 

[candyman]

Does your copy deliver consistent results or does it suffer from the well documented "on again/off again" AF issues?

Paul Wright

I also use a Sigma 50mm f1.4. I don't have the on / off AF issues
Though especially in cloudy / dark environment it took me some time to handle this lens when using hand-held aperture 1.4. I now manage that very well.

 

[DJL329]

I the 1.2L is 10 years old, wouldn't that kinda warrant it for a mkII being in the works?
These current rebates are tempting me to buy one, but I still can't decide. Thanks for everyone's input/advice. Curse Canon's marketing team - I want another L lens!!

Actually, the 50mm f/1.2L is only 5 years old. It was released at the end of 2006, so I wouldn't worry about a "Mark II" coming out soon. Since there aren't any "perfect" lenses, each decision comes down to a trade-off. Decide which feature(s) you want most and go with that one.

 

[awinphoto]

I borrowed the 1.2L from canon and the 1.4 from canon before I made my purchase... I love the build and durability and USM of the 1.2L, but when it came down to practice, to me, even after MA, even after a lot of playing with it, it isn't that reliable.... On my cameras, my AF struggled with it for whatever reason... some photos would be spot on focus, and others (even after focus confirmation on) the photos were off... It kinda gave me a weird "warmup" period where if i let the camera sit for a few moments and pick it up and start firing... the first 5-10 shots, the AF would be horrid... but once the camera and lens got warmed up the focus would target on and nail shot after shot after shot... This was on my 7D. I would be swayed in ruling a problem with MA if it wasn't for the fact that once it warmed up and had shots fired, it would eventually nail focus and be consistent from that point on... I also experienced problems with live view and manual focus showing focus and then taking the picture, the focus would be off... The lens just had too many quirks... the 1.4 is a lot older, archaic, clunky, sometimes hit and miss even with the halation, but it is a lot more consistent shot to shot and I frankly cant afford such a temperamental lens if I'm going to be plunking down that much money... I just feel canon whiffed on this lens even though i really did truely want to love this lens.

 

[photophreek]

I've been on the fence about the 50 1.2L for some time now. I come from the film world where 50mm was the standard lens and I thought I should have one. I read all the reviews, looked at lots of images and almost had myself convinced, but not quite there. Then I read awinphoto post about the 50 1.2L and all my concerns about this lens were detailed in this post and confirmed my fears that the 50 1.2L is not for me.

I recently purchased the famed 85 1.2L II and expected the 50 1.2L to be the same, but it's not. It's too bad Canon didn't stuff the 85mm f1.2L II into a 50mm focal length. I'd buy that lens, but not the 50mm f1.2L.

 

[awinphoto]

Please understand this was my experience with my copy i received of the lens and sometimes, it did produce incredibly sharp images, however to be fair, i would almost have to shoot a few duds to get the great focus shot... My 7D never has had problems with focus on any lens 17-40, 50mm macro, 50mm 1.4, 24-70 and 24-105, 70-200's, etc... but this one my camera gave me fits... I dont know if it's the AF focus motor that was weak or needs to be warmed up, but in the professional world, I need my gear to work when i need it to work and cant afford to miss that shot because my lens isn't warmed up.

 

[Cregg Annarino]

I own all three of these lenses. The 1.2 is hands down the winner. It's size, construction, focus and weather sealing kill the other 2. The 1.8 is built like a toy, it works and really isn't bad for the price but it doesn't come with the hood.

The 1.4 focuses well, is better construction than the 1.8 but the 1.2 kills it, both the other two are small in comparison to the 1.2. The 1.4 is a great lens though for the price.

They basically have a lens for all budgets. The 1.2 is a monster and is basically for if you are using it to make money, and your job is photography and use your equipment on a daily basis, and you want the lens that can keep up with that with high quality construction. Low light performance is spectacular and for things like low light wedding receptions or photos at night where you would want to use that 1.2 to bring in as much light as you can it's amazing.

If your just a lover of photography, do it for fun or a hobby then the 1.8 or 1.4 would be perfect for you, but if you have a large budget, like to buy the best and want it the 1.2 is totally worth every penny!

The L lenses and the 1/X series are basically for people who use their gear as their job and need something extremely well built that is going to handle rigorous daily use and various weather conditions.

The 1.2 is dead accurate and sharp as a tack, I can totally rely on it. You have to be right on though at 1.2 since the focus plane is very small. I usually shoot this lens wide open most of the time, usually going only to f2 or f4 the most at times if I want my bokeh areas a little less blurred.

I should also say that out of all my lenses the 50 1.2 is hands down my favorite to use, and my most used lens. I started with the 1.4 and used it for years, it really is a great lens. But when the focusing motor died and I had to have it replaced, I upgraded to the 1.2, both for the construction and the 1.2 which I love. I realized I loved 50mm and used it so much at weddings and portrait shoots that it was a no brainer to upgrade to the 1.2.

 

[CalBoy87]

I tried probably most of the options on 50 - I had Zuiko OM 50/1.4 with adapter, 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 plus the Sigma. Here are my $0.02. Sigma was very nice, well built, sharp. Problem was getting it to focus properly, many missed shots. Also I like the Canon's colors much better than Sigma. OM Zuiko was cute, small light and on FF MF was no problem especially with better focusing screen. But Olympus was less sharp than even 50/1.8 so it was gone. 50/1.8, you got what you paid for, about 80$ worth of plastic with glass in it. Good beginner lens on very stringent budget. 50/1.2 I got this lens and it is excellent lens. Very well built, feels solid, focusing ring is moving very nice. Bokeh to kill for, color and contrast also top notch. Is by far the best 50, but...Focusing is very hard, at 1.2 DOF is very shallow, so there are many OOF pictures. AF wasn't that good, maybe it was my camera, but 50/1.4 was much more consistent here. Than, confirmed here by neuroanatomist, 50/1.4 seems a bit sharper than 50L, which was the reason 50L is gone. I returned happily to 50/1.4 and now consider it the best for me. That said, if I have plenty of money to spend and all other lenses in my bag, I would like to get 50L again, bokeh, colors and contrast all really above the other 50 I tried

 

[scottsdaleriots]

I think I am leaning slightly more towards to 50mm 1.4, one of the main reasons (besides costing an arm) is from some of the review I've read the 1.2L isn't for the 'amatuer' photographer. That you really need to know about exposure and what to do with a razor thin DOF. I think the 1.4 will suffice for me. I don't need a 50mm for my purposes but I do want one. I also read that the 50mm (I can't remember which, it's either the 1.2L or 1.4 or maybe even both) is quite similar in image quality to the 50mm focal length on a 70-200mm lens.

I've done a lot of research for UV filters and the right lens hood (for the 1.4, as it look lioke I'll probably buy that). Has anyone had experience with B+W/Tiffin filters? I read that B+W were hands down the best (with a Hellipan(?) coming a close second). I have very limited experience with filters, I've only got one (hoya) which is on my 70-200mm.
http://www.amazon.com/58mm-Clear-Haze-Multi-Resistant-Coating/dp/B0000BZL68/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1322979104&sr=1-3 - B+W 58mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (010M)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/574271-REG/Hoya_XHD58UV_58mm_Ultraviolet_UV_Haze.html/mode/edu - Hoya 58mm Ultraviolet UV Haze HD (High Density) Digital Glass Filter
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/622099-REG/B_W_65_013861_65_013861_58mm_Digital_Pro.html/mode/edu - B+W 58mm Digital Pro Ultraviolet (UVa) 010 Filter
http://www.amazon.com/Hoya-58mm-HD-UV-Filter/dp/B001G7PMM2/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1322979541&sr=1-1 - Hoya 58mm HD UV Filter
http://www.amazon.com/58mm-Clear-Haze-Multi-Resistant-Coating/dp/B0000BZL68/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1322980925&sr=1-1 - B+W 58mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (010M)

Here are the lens hood options as the 50mm 1.4 doesnt come with one. Canon have the famous black felt lined on the inside of the hood which 3rd party lens hoods don't have. Does the felt make such a big difference? Generic lens hoods are great because of the price, and Canon products are (generally) quality.
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Dedicated-Bayonet-Canon-ES-71II/dp/B002K42W4Q/ref=pd_sim_e_2 - Fotodiox Dedicated (Bayonet) Lens Hood, for Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens as Canon ES-71II, ES-71 II
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-ES71II-Lens-Hood-50mm/dp/B00013MSUQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top - Canon ES71II Lens Hood for EF 50mm f/1.4 SLR Lens
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-ES-71II-Lens-Hood-Canon/dp/B002MY4VDO/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1322995526&sr=1-1 - Opteka ES-71II Lens Hood for Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM SLR Lens

I was going to ask about the 50mm f2.5 macro lens but a review I read said it isn't as good as the other three 50's.

 

[Loswr]

For the filter, there's essentially no difference between the B+W MRC UV, B+W MRC Clear, and Hoya HD UV - just get the cheapest of those. The B+W without MRC isn't as good, nor are lower end Hoya (SHMC is harder to clean).

As for hoods, I've only bought Canon brand. Others will do the job, some lack the flocking on the inside to reduce reflections, etc.

 

[Apple Tree Studios]

I love my Canon 50 1.4. I would like the 1.2L, but after six years of faithful service at a ton of weddings I will hang onto it for a while to come. Shot this wide open and loved that I could loose the background.
www.appletreeweddings.com

 

[briansquibb]

The real question, for street shooter like me, is how do they compare at f/2.8?

 

[shermanstank]

I absolutely love my 50 1.2L--- King of low light

 

[kirispupis]

Personally from my experience Canon really stinks it up with their 50mm line.

The Canon 50/1.8 is a good buy for the money, but from what I have heard the Nikon 50/1.8 is far better and costs only a bit more.

I have the 50/1.4. The focus ring on it majorly sucks. I have had it for several years because it is small and inexpensive, but I plan to put it up for sale soon.

I have never used the 50/1.2, but I know several who have. It seems to be a love or hate lens. Everyone I know who has this lens either absolutely loves it or returned it for a refund (for the record I know 4 people who have or had it)

Personally I plan to eventually replace my 50/1.4 with the Zeiss 50/2 macro. Zeiss also makes a 50/1.4 that I know little about but for me the macro capabilities of the 50/2 outweigh the 1.4 vs 2 aperture.

 

[archangelrichard]

1. No lens is any good unless it is used-- unless you really want a paper weight

2. The F 1.8 is light for a reason - it means you are much more likely to carry it around as a secondary lens; than the much heavier 1.4 or 1.2

3. ignore the f-stop. Any good photographer wil tell you that lenses are designed to be used primarily at the middle f-stops (f 8 - 11) - in fact there is a professional organization called the F 8's for this reason

4. The f 1.4 has a much heavier feel because of the build materials / build quality; the f 1.2 even more so - none of which makes a difference if you take care of your equipment (there are F 1.8's that have been around for 20+ years)

You didn't think of the 50mm F 2.5 Macro (some use it for their 50mm lens as well)

For that matter, I use a M42 / canon adapter and both a Mamiya/Sekor or a Asahi Pentax 50mm F 1.4 (you must shoot manual but the optically superior mamiya / adapter combo was less than $100 and very smooth, sharp, the pentax very close) whenever I am going to be on a tripod - these lenses date back to the late 60's and have never been surpassed in optical quality and I do take care of my equipment; I have used all the 4 Canon 50mm's and find I could not cost-justify the 1.4 or 1.2 - just not enough use for the price once I had the 2.5 Macro and the 1.8

So that's the deal; buy what you intend to USE, not a name or price point or ..... like many people do; if you are not going to use it, it becomes just another fake-status device