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

[RuneL]

I regularly use the 50 1.2. And I love that thing, it isn't as sharp as the 70-200 for instance, but that creamy nice borkeh is just awesome. But as others have said, it requires that you get used to and tame it, and that's wonderful, I think.

I had the 50 1.8 a long time ago and was pretty satisfied with it (image quality and borkeeeh is fine too), the AF is terrible, the build quality is worse, manual focus is next to impossible because of the tiny and loose focus ring. I've never tried the sigma or the 1.4. But I'd say the gain you get from the 1.2 compared to the 1.4?? Well.. I'm not sure, but I can tell you I wouldn't trade mine in for a 1.4.

 

[RLPhoto]

The Canon 50L is my favorite 50mm design I've ever used. It has a unique rendering that looks similar to the Planar 80mm f/2.8 I've used on my MF hasselblad 501CM.

Just love it. 8)

 

[@!ex]

I just switched to canon and full frame a couple months ago and one of my first purchases was the 50mm 1.2L. I never realized why 50mm lenses were so commonplace in the age of 35mm film, but now I do. To me it is the perfect focal range to capture what the eye sees, and keeping it on my camera most of the time has really expanded my creative eye (even though it is a standard focal length, it somehow make me more unstandard in my captures). The extreme speed and the buttery melting bokeh give it a unique character only rivaled by some of the best lenses I've seen from the past. When you shoot with it wide open the color, bokeh, razor thin DOF and vignette make for a unique and beautiful combination that really can't be matched by the 1.4 (in fact it is so unique that I can now pick out shots in magazines and on the web that have been done with this lens). If you get things just right wide open you can even get this one of a kind 3D effect that I have only seen from the .95 noctilux before (and the 1.0f 50mm). To get its full benefit it would need to be used on a full frame IMO, but once you get used to the focus on this beast you won't be let down. Here are a couple shots I've taken over the month or two since I got it showcasing the versatility of the lens from a super fast portrait lens to a stopped down tack sharp landscape lens...


Bugging Out by @!ex, on Flickr


Into the Sun by @!ex, on Flickr


Available Light... by @!ex, on Flickr


My Hood by @!ex, on Flickr


The Edge of America by @!ex, on Flickr


Through the Cracks… by @!ex, on Flickr


A Night @ Red Rocks by @!ex, on Flickr


Japanese Bokeh Garden by @!ex, on Flickr


Spring in Boulder by @!ex, on Flickr


The Edge of the Rockies by @!ex, on Flickr


Spring by @!ex, on Flickr


Baby Soren by @!ex, on Flickr


Skitzo by @!ex, on Flickr


Canvas by @!ex, on Flickr

 

[Quasimodo]

@lex. Through the cracks is an awsome shot! I thought that was impossible without some serious time in photoshop. I have the Canon 1.4 myself, and I just got it back from the shop today, and I am posting a shot I took earlier today with it. I love it, but I would buy a 1.2 if I could afford. (shot with a 5D II, @ auto iso, and F2.0

Gerhard.

 

[Quasimodo]

here is the picture...

 

[@!ex]

@lex. Through the cracks is an awsome shot! I thought that was impossible without some serious time in photoshop. I have the Canon 1.4 myself, and I just got it back from the shop today, and I am posting a shot I took earlier today with it. I love it, but I would buy a 1.2 if I could afford. (shot with a 5D II, @ auto iso, and F2.0

Gerhard.

Very nice striking portrait. Looks Hemingwayesque.

 

[Quasimodo]

@lex. Through the cracks is an awsome shot! I thought that was impossible without some serious time in photoshop. I have the Canon 1.4 myself, and I just got it back from the shop today, and I am posting a shot I took earlier today with it. I love it, but I would buy a 1.2 if I could afford. (shot with a 5D II, @ auto iso, and F2.0

Gerhard.

Very nice striking portrait. Looks Hemingwayesque.

Thank you

how did you do the through the cracks shot? is it possible to get the sharp image in the water with the superthin dof of the 1.2????

 

[lopicma]

I am happy with my 50mm f/1.8 as well. I use it more for indoor shooting to compensate for the Rebel XS's low ISO range, and it serves me well.

I have a bunch of shots I took at a WWII re-inactor event with it.
https://picasaweb.google.com/118123760856646560072/TributeToTheFewAirborneAllTheWay

 

[bdunbar79]

@lex. Through the cracks is an awsome shot! I thought that was impossible without some serious time in photoshop. I have the Canon 1.4 myself, and I just got it back from the shop today, and I am posting a shot I took earlier today with it. I love it, but I would buy a 1.2 if I could afford. (shot with a 5D II, @ auto iso, and F2.0

Gerhard.

Very nice striking portrait. Looks Hemingwayesque.

Thank you

how did you do the through the cracks shot? is it possible to get the sharp image in the water with the superthin dof of the 1.2????

Um yeah, don't set the aperture to 1.2.

 

[mememe]

Yeah, 50 isnt really easy with canon...

the 1.8 feels cheap and has a lack of aperture blades
the 1.4 gets f*ck*d up if it gets pressure on its front when turned fully "in"
the 1.2 is often said to be soft (but its only an issue when u view the full image)

What i really hated at the 1.2 version was the focus shift (focus jumps away when stopping down). I didnt expect that from such an expensive lens...
The 1.4 also has that Problem.
The 1.8 doesnt have it (looks like for me).

I ended up with the 1.4. If you know about the shift u can work around. And leave the sunshade on it and the focus a bit out while in ur bag...


Or get the shorty fourty

 

[RLPhoto]

Yeah, 50 isnt really easy with canon...

the 1.8 feels cheap and has a lack of aperture blades
the 1.4 gets f*ck*d up if it gets pressure on its front when turned fully "in"
the 1.2 is often said to be soft (but its only an issue when u view the full image)

What i really hated at the 1.2 version was the focus shift (focus jumps away when stopping down). I didnt expect that from such an expensive lens...
The 1.4 also has that Problem.
The 1.8 doesnt have it (looks like for me).

I ended up with the 1.4. If you know about the shift u can work around. And leave the sunshade on it and the focus a bit out while in ur bag...


Or get the shorty fourty

Never experienced the famous 50L shift. Dated Stamped 2010. 8)

 

[mememe]

Interesting.... Try focus on something 0.5m away. Set to mf. Make picture on 1.2/1.4 and so on. I cant believe

 

[Andy_Hodapp]

I just have a Canon 50mm 1.8 II which is very good and has helped capture some of my favorite photos, I am thinking about selling it and getting a Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX DG HSM because I would like to be able to stop down my lens, stopping down on the Canon just makes the bokeh look terrible, the Sigma has 9 rounded blades vs 5 non rounded, it also has an aspherical element, something that the Canon 1.4 does not have.
Here are some shots that it took on either my T1i or my old XSI with the Canon 50mm 1.8 II.

The last photo shows the CA that sometime happens with the 1.8 and shows how you can't shoot at anything other then 1.8 if there is anything out of focus in the background.

 

[RLPhoto]

Interesting.... Try focus on something 0.5m away. Set to mf. Make picture on 1.2/1.4 and so on. I cant believe

Believe. 8)

 

[@!ex]

@lex. Through the cracks is an awsome shot! I thought that was impossible without some serious time in photoshop. I have the Canon 1.4 myself, and I just got it back from the shop today, and I am posting a shot I took earlier today with it. I love it, but I would buy a 1.2 if I could afford. (shot with a 5D II, @ auto iso, and F2.0

Gerhard.

Very nice striking portrait. Looks Hemingwayesque.

Thank you

how did you do the through the cracks shot? is it possible to get the sharp image in the water with the superthin dof of the 1.2????

Um yeah, don't set the aperture to 1.2.

Um no, it was definitely at 1.2 (I leave this lens there most of the time). The exif is: ISO 50, f1.2, 1/800. I just used careful focus on the reflection in the water which was very still at the time, in fact the first time I did it on accident, then realized what a genius idea it was Here is a version taken just after with focus on the rocks (still at 1.2).

 

[bdunbar79]

Good god nobody said it WASN'T at 1.2. The poster expressed concerns about thin DOF and so the easiest and most obvious answer is stop it down, if that is a problem in a particular shot. For you to nail that shot that you did requires a great amount of skill.

By the way that is some great work on your website, I really like the HDR work.

 

[@!ex]

Good god nobody said it WASN'T at 1.2. The poster expressed concerns about thin DOF and so the easiest and most obvious answer is stop it down, if that is a problem in a particular shot. For you to nail that shot that you did requires a great amount of skill.

By the way that is some great work on your website, I really like the HDR work.

Fair enough, but if you read what he wrote and what you wrote again you will see where the confusion came from. He was asking if it was possible to take the shot at f1.2 and you answered, ya stop it down. I see the joke you were making but the context was a bit off, as it is most definitely possible.

 

[bdunbar79]

Good god nobody said it WASN'T at 1.2. The poster expressed concerns about thin DOF and so the easiest and most obvious answer is stop it down, if that is a problem in a particular shot. For you to nail that shot that you did requires a great amount of skill.

By the way that is some great work on your website, I really like the HDR work.

Fair enough, but if you read what he wrote and what you wrote again you will see where the confusion came from. He was asking if it was possible to take the shot at f1.2 and you answered, ya stop it down. I see the joke you were making but the context was a bit off, as it is most definitely possible.

You're right, I didn't read the whole thing and I see the confusion now. My apologies.

 

[mememe]

Believe. 8)

But this is at 1.2 isnt it? It can be good there but when stopping down the focus moves. (you can see this in the photozone tests where he focusses on the milimeter-chart and stops down. Focus moves away and at some point its even possible that the point that was sharp at wide open isnt in the DOF when stopped down)

And thats i guess why so many 1.4 (and even 1.2) canons are a bit "soft" (not 100% in focus) at 1.4. Cause they have to make a compromise for focus accuracy stopped down and wiede open. If wide open hits it 100% even in close distance, stopping down will go bad.

I once made the mistake of making a microadjust for near conditions on my 1.4 canon wide open and then taking (important) Pictures of people 2m away stopped down to f4... Focus started most times somewhere a little bit behind the ears...

I sold that microadjustment camera cause it makes me crazy trying to get the perfect result and there are so many things to keep in mind for not making it perfectly wrong

 

[Quasimodo]

Good god nobody said it WASN'T at 1.2. The poster expressed concerns about thin DOF and so the easiest and most obvious answer is stop it down, if that is a problem in a particular shot. For you to nail that shot that you did requires a great amount of skill.

By the way that is some great work on your website, I really like the HDR work.

Fair enough, but if you read what he wrote and what you wrote again you will see where the confusion came from. He was asking if it was possible to take the shot at f1.2 and you answered, ya stop it down. I see the joke you were making but the context was a bit off, as it is most definitely possible.

@lex. Thanks for letting me know. I will borrow the 1.2 lens again, and try to duplicate your shot (not to steal it, but rather to learn). Your pictures are inspirational