Buy 50mm f1.2L now or wait for the II?

[tron]

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15865.0

;D

 

[Random Orbits]

Now there are people suggesting to get the FF body first. Believe me I have considered that many many times but I still believe investing in a good lens first is the wiser options. My EF lens is only the 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8. My tammy 17-50 is an efs lens so it'll be not usable.
After browsing so many reviews on the net, I found this link and it made me think http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-ef-50mm-f12-l-defective-by-design/ , let's wait for the II version to come out! To spend a large amount of money only to be disappointed is not acceptable. I'm not going for other L lens yet at the moment as my lens roadmap is to go with the L primes only.
85mm f1.2 is next in line, and so is the 135mm f2. The L zoom lens that I may consider is 17-40 f4 for travel, landscape and 70-200 IS II for wedding candid in a large hall).
Perhaps this 50mm f1.2 can be put on hold much longer until the ver II comes out.

The L primes-only roadmap used to get you the best IQ, but that was before the 24-70 II. The 24-70 II isn't perfect but it is a match against the 24L II and is better than the 35L (and is as good as the Sigma 35) and is a much better 50mm than any EF 50mm prime. The colors and rendering are prime-like. It does have more vignetting at f/2.8 than the primes (especially at 24mm), but for most, it is a trade worth making. The primes will give you better low light performance, but is that worth spending 1k or more to upgrade the performance of your 50 and/or 85 or would it make sense to spend that money elsewhere?

I'm bringing this up not because I think you should go zoom over primes, but to give you food for thought. It is better to think about these trades now before you start committing youself to some pretty expensive gear.

 

[Viggo]

Now there are people suggesting to get the FF body first. Believe me I have considered that many many times but I still believe investing in a good lens first is the wiser options. My EF lens is only the 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8. My tammy 17-50 is an efs lens so it'll be not usable.
After browsing so many reviews on the net, I found this link and it made me think http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-ef-50mm-f12-l-defective-by-design/ , let's wait for the II version to come out! To spend a large amount of money only to be disappointed is not acceptable. I'm not going for other L lens yet at the moment as my lens roadmap is to go with the L primes only.
85mm f1.2 is next in line, and so is the 135mm f2. The L zoom lens that I may consider is 17-40 f4 for travel, landscape and 70-200 IS II for wedding candid in a large hall).
Perhaps this 50mm f1.2 can be put on hold much longer until the ver II comes out.

The L primes-only roadmap used to get you the best IQ, but that was before the 24-70 II. The 24-70 II isn't perfect but it is a match against the 24L II and is better than the 35L (and is as good as the Sigma 35) and is a much better 50mm than any EF 50mm prime. The colors and rendering are prime-like. It does have more vignetting at f/2.8 than the primes (especially at 24mm), but for most, it is a trade worth making. The primes will give you better low light performance, but is that worth spending 1k or more to upgrade the performance of your 50 and/or 85 or would it make sense to spend that money elsewhere?

I'm bringing this up not because I think you should go zoom over primes, but to give you food for thought. It is better to think about these trades now before you start committing youself to some pretty expensive gear.

I'll join with you on that one. Sold off my 24L II, 35 L and 50 L once I got the 24-70, and you don't get a much bigger prime-nerd than me. It's THAT awesome. And at 50mm you have almost no vignetting with the 2470 II. The color and contrast are better than the 50 L.

I currently own just the 24-70 and 70-200 and I gotta say, with the ISO performance of the 1d X and the AF speed and corner-sharpness of those two zooms, I'm getting much better images and MUCH higher keeper rate and in focus images in any situation. I haven't missed one of my primes once, not once...

 

[RLPhoto]

Thanks for the reply guys. Well noted on the points, so I guess I'll be heading to shop and get the lens quickly ;D

I have 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, and tamron 17-50 f2.8.

I'm about to buy the 5d mark iii body but I guess I'll go with the lens route first. With the price of the body I can get my hands on 2 L lens. I guess that will be the wiser options to go with.

OOT a bit, as I will be mostly doing portraiture thingy (outdoor), other than the 50 f1.2, which one should I choose between the 135f2 and 85 f1.2?

thx

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review

If you chose the 50L, It's very similiar to 85L. You might want a longer lens like the 135L to seperate your focal lengths more.

If you skip the 50mm, for lets say a Sigma 35mm 1.4... The 85L makes more sense.

 

[mrjgx]

Now there are people suggesting to get the FF body first. Believe me I have considered that many many times but I still believe investing in a good lens first is the wiser options. My EF lens is only the 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8. My tammy 17-50 is an efs lens so it'll be not usable.
After browsing so many reviews on the net, I found this link and it made me think http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-ef-50mm-f12-l-defective-by-design/ , let's wait for the II version to come out! To spend a large amount of money only to be disappointed is not acceptable. I'm not going for other L lens yet at the moment as my lens roadmap is to go with the L primes only.
85mm f1.2 is next in line, and so is the 135mm f2. The L zoom lens that I may consider is 17-40 f4 for travel, landscape and 70-200 IS II for wedding candid in a large hall).
Perhaps this 50mm f1.2 can be put on hold much longer until the ver II comes out.

The L primes-only roadmap used to get you the best IQ, but that was before the 24-70 II. The 24-70 II isn't perfect but it is a match against the 24L II and is better than the 35L (and is as good as the Sigma 35) and is a much better 50mm than any EF 50mm prime. The colors and rendering are prime-like. It does have more vignetting at f/2.8 than the primes (especially at 24mm), but for most, it is a trade worth making. The primes will give you better low light performance, but is that worth spending 1k or more to upgrade the performance of your 50 and/or 85 or would it make sense to spend that money elsewhere?

I'm bringing this up not because I think you should go zoom over primes, but to give you food for thought. It is better to think about these trades now before you start committing youself to some pretty expensive gear.

I'll join with you on that one. Sold off my 24L II, 35 L and 50 L once I got the 24-70, and you don't get a much bigger prime-nerd than me. It's THAT awesome. And at 50mm you have almost no vignetting with the 2470 II. The color and contrast are better than the 50 L.

I currently own just the 24-70 and 70-200 and I gotta say, with the ISO performance of the 1d X and the AF speed and corner-sharpness of those two zooms, I'm getting much better images and MUCH higher keeper rate and in focus images in any situation. I haven't missed one of my primes once, not once...

Hey man, that's a surprised that the zoom lens can replace all your 3 precious primes. I am a much comfortable shooter with just my 50mm at the moment but definitely will take the new 24-70 II into consideration once I'm active back in shooting weddings.

At the moment my priority is more towards bokeh quality for portraiture and IMO good L primes is the way to go!

 

[7enderbender]

Hi guys,

I'm new here and since this thing is bothering me for 2 weeks already I guess I have to post it up here and seek feedbacks from the members here.

I'm planning to buy the 50mm f1.2L but I found out that there's a rumor saying the new II version is being tested. So anyone can predict when will it be released?

I'm in the middle of upgrading from APSC to FF camera, and I was thinking to better invest in a good lens first and the body upgrades can come much later. I'm planning to complete the Holy Trinity primes. The thing is, I don't want to spend a large amount of money only to regret having not to wait for a few more weeks when the new improved version is to be released.

Thx guys!

I would always buy what you need and not what may or may not come out at some point in the future. And I also know that "need" is often a stretch anyway. I personally have not regretted for one day buying my 50L. Other people had other experiences. It's what you prefer and what compromises you are willing to make. And I think that won't change with a MKII version of that lens - if such a thing ever materialized.

And if it does there is no guarantee that it is really "better". It may have different trade-offs which are - as far as I understand it- part of physics and unavoidable. And (that's just me now) I'd be concerned that given the latest "upgrades" that Canon put out a MKII may end up being something with even more plastic or IS or both.

The only disadvantage would otherwise be that Canon may yet again say that the current 50L becomes an "old and obsolete" lens that is not being serviced any longer in a few years in case something happens.

 

[Standard]

I would always buy what you need and not what may or may not come out at some point in the future. And I also know that "need" is often a stretch anyway. I personally have not regretted for one day buying my 50L. Other people had other experiences. It's what you prefer and what compromises you are willing to make. And I think that won't change with a MKII version of that lens - if such a thing ever materialized.

And if it does there is no guarantee that it is really "better". It may have different trade-offs which are - as far as I understand it- part of physics and unavoidable. And (that's just me now) I'd be concerned that given the latest "upgrades" that Canon put out a MKII may end up being something with even more plastic or IS or both.

The only disadvantage would otherwise be that Canon may yet again say that the current 50L becomes an "old and obsolete" lens that is not being serviced any longer in a few years in case something happens.

+1

I love my 50L. It's already paid for itself many times over. Also the newer 50L II will cost much more given the current Canon pricing trend.

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

Thanks for the reply guys. Well noted on the points, so I guess I'll be heading to shop and get the lens quickly ;D

I have 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, and tamron 17-50 f2.8.

I'm about to buy the 5d mark iii body but I guess I'll go with the lens route first. With the price of the body I can get my hands on 2 L lens. I guess that will be the wiser options to go with.

OOT a bit, as I will be mostly doing portraiture thingy (outdoor), other than the 50 f1.2, which one should I choose between the 135f2 and 85 f1.2?

thx

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review

If you chose the 50L, It's very similiar to 85L. You might want a longer lens like the 135L to seperate your focal lengths more.

If you skip the 50mm, for lets say a Sigma 35mm 1.4... The 85L makes more sense.

I'll leave Ramon's full post in quotes because I think he's a pretty cool fellow, but he brought up the point of the 35/85 combo or 50/135 combo, I went with the 35/85 shooting both a crop and ff and absolutely LOVE it. I rented the 50 to try it out for a wedding last May, and though I was convinced I would buy it, I soon realized that what I needed was a portrait lens with a more shallow depth of field and went with the 85L ii for $1,650 used at Adorama. If it is at all possible, I would look into renting the 50L before buying it. I don't want to dog on the lens since others have had wonderful experiences and there's always the chance that I either had a bad copy or it just truly did not fit my needs. If you want it, great, and I wouldn't wait for the version ii, but I would continue to look at all of your options.

I hope this helps,
-Tabor

 

[mrjgx]

thx for all the replies guys..somehow rather my decision keeps on changing everytime someone replied on this topic

If I want to really skimp on budget, I'd just get the sigma lens.. the 35 1.4, 85 1.4, and 50 1.4. and a 6d. I'm not a pro anyway but there's something in me saying that, just go and collect the L. Life is short anyway :

 

[pj1974]

Now there are people suggesting to get the FF body first. Believe me I have considered that many many times but I still believe investing in a good lens first is the wiser options. My EF lens is only the 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8. My tammy 17-50 is an efs lens so it'll be not usable.
After browsing so many reviews on the net, I found this link and it made me think http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-ef-50mm-f12-l-defective-by-design/ , let's wait for the II version to come out! To spend a large amount of money only to be disappointed is not acceptable. I'm not going for other L lens yet at the moment as my lens roadmap is to go with the L primes only.
85mm f1.2 is next in line, and so is the 135mm f2. The L zoom lens that I may consider is 17-40 f4 for travel, landscape and 70-200 IS II for wedding candid in a large hall).
Perhaps this 50mm f1.2 can be put on hold much longer until the ver II comes out.

The L primes-only roadmap used to get you the best IQ, but that was before the 24-70 II. The 24-70 II isn't perfect but it is a match against the 24L II and is better than the 35L (and is as good as the Sigma 35) and is a much better 50mm than any EF 50mm prime. The colors and rendering are prime-like. It does have more vignetting at f/2.8 than the primes (especially at 24mm), but for most, it is a trade worth making. The primes will give you better low light performance, but is that worth spending 1k or more to upgrade the performance of your 50 and/or 85 or would it make sense to spend that money elsewhere?

I'm bringing this up not because I think you should go zoom over primes, but to give you food for thought. It is better to think about these trades now before you start committing youself to some pretty expensive gear.

I'll join with you on that one. Sold off my 24L II, 35 L and 50 L once I got the 24-70, and you don't get a much bigger prime-nerd than me. It's THAT awesome. And at 50mm you have almost no vignetting with the 2470 II. The color and contrast are better than the 50 L.

I currently own just the 24-70 and 70-200 and I gotta say, with the ISO performance of the 1d X and the AF speed and corner-sharpness of those two zooms, I'm getting much better images and MUCH higher keeper rate and in focus images in any situation. I haven't missed one of my primes once, not once...

Hey man, that's a surprised that the zoom lens can replace all your 3 precious primes. I am a much comfortable shooter with just my 50mm at the moment but definitely will take the new 24-70 II into consideration once I'm active back in shooting weddings.

At the moment my priority is more towards bokeh quality for portraiture and IMO good L primes is the way to go!

I'm glad there's been some good, open discussion about options for the OP.

As has been written above, certainly the 24-70mm II is a great lens - with high IQ, good bokeh and generally good ratings for other properties. In some cases it can do away with the need for a prime (or a few primes).

However I don't consider f/2.8 'fast glass'. For me f/1.4-f/2 = 'fast glass' and anything below f/1.4 = 'very fast glass'. I consider f/2.8 = 'medium speed glass'. f/3.5-f4 = ' medium slow glass' and anything slower than f/4 is 'slow glass'.

While others may define 'fast glass' differently eg some photographers might even say f/2.8 is 'awesomely, blazingly fast - incredible DOF control, etc' - that's fine, it's individual - and some people's shooting style doesn't require 'fast glass' (but f/2.8 = 'fast' enough for them).

However the fact remains that a photo taken at f/1.4 when you really need it (especially for low light situations and/or ultra fine DOF control) is not going to be achieved by a f/2.8 lens, even the sharpest f/2.8 out there. And the resulting image is going to be VASTLY different in many cases. As neuro outlined in his post, Canon's 50mm f/1.2 L is suitable for some, but not for others.

So in that respect, having f/1.4 primes is very different than a f/2.8 zoom. Even with modern DSLRs (especially FF) being spectacular at managing high ISO, there is a huge difference between many photos taken at ISO12,800 at f/2.8 and a photo taken at ISO3200 at f/1.4 Having high ISO on tap can help in many respects, eg freezing action - but it can't decrease dof or impact bokeh positively.

That's why I'm particularly interested in Sigma's new 18-35mm f/1.8 zoom even though I'm very aware it's for APS-C only, and thus some of the benefits (dof control) are more limited compared to being a FF lens. But if more manufacturing of fast zooms can be produced (even with limited zoom ranges, eg a 24-35mm f/1.8 for FF, with great IQ) - that would be very welcome (a lens like this might be some time away, though). But full kudos to Sigma for their new 18-35mm f/1.8 lens - I've seen some good reviews and user reports of it already!

In addition, I'm also waiting for a new 50mm prime. Something between f/1.2 and f/2 is important for me, and AF needs to be spot on (preferably true USM) - 100% consistent AF (Sigma's 50mm isn't)- and great IQ wide open. IS highly preferred. None of the current 50mms from any manufacturer meet my criteria. In the meantime I keep waiting... and taking photos with my other lenses. I'm happy - and enjoying photography & life.

Regards

Paul

 

[Grumbaki]

+1 to Ramon and Tabor.

With your budget, your considerations and my tastes in focals, I'd go 6d+Sig35+85L

But taste for specific focals is personnal, we have quite a few 50 fans on the forum too...

 

[mrjgx]

I think I know now what primes I will be getting in the next few months / years.

35L + Sig 50 1.4 + 85L + 70200 IS II

I skipped the 50L after countless bad reviews I found on the net, the other L doesn't seems to have many negative reviews though so my money is hopefully worth to spend on

 

[MLfan3]

the 50L is a great lens but it is not the best performer at a lab test like DXO or photozone.de.
but who cares as it performs really well in real world.
so if you get a great deal on it , then go for it but other wise wait mk2 version.

 

[rs]

I think I know now what primes I will be getting in the next few months / years.

35L + Sig 50 1.4 + 85L + 70200 IS II

I skipped the 50L after countless bad reviews I found on the net, the other L doesn't seems to have many negative reviews though so my money is hopefully worth to spend on

I have the 70-200 II and the Sigma 50/1.4. Both great lenses, but be prepared for a little bit of hassle when it comes to getting a good copy of the Sigma.

Many people have had to return theirs two or three times to get a good copy. I was lucky, and it took just one swap out (the first one had major AF issues). Sharpness of this lens is very good - better in my opinion than the Canon 50's, and no focus shift when stopped down. Out of all my lenses (including three L lenses), the Sigma's bokeh quality is in a whole different league. I've used the Canon 50/1.4 quite a bit, and that Canon doesn't get even remotely close to the Sigma.

 

[discojuggernaut]

I think I know now what primes I will be getting in the next few months / years.

35L + Sig 50 1.4 + 85L + 70200 IS II

I skipped the 50L after countless bad reviews I found on the net, the other L doesn't seems to have many negative reviews though so my money is hopefully worth to spend on

I think this is a good combo. The 70-200 is great for fast focus and versatility. The 85L is sexier than the 50L. The 50 Sigma is great bang for the buck. Any 50mm does well as a single-lens walkaround solution. The 35 (i'd go with Sigma at this moment) makes a great combo with an 85mm or a 70-200.

Lots of people go for the 35/85/135 prime trinity. I had the 24/50/135 trinity for a while and liked it (wide/normal/tele). I still have the 24mm, but all these glowing reports of the 24-70 II are making me consider selling it

And i doubt that a 50L II will be out in the foreseeable future, although a 50mm f/1.4 IS seems likely.

 

[BrettS]

PLEASE DON'T BUY THE 50MM 1.2!!
I bought 2 of them for my company and i sold them because sharpness is bad and it has a strange glow at all apertures.

Maybe it's just the copies i had but i doubt it.
I also have two 85mm 1.2 II's to compare to and the 50's ate serious dirt every time.

I'm thinking they will come up with a new model of the 50 1.2 since it is so bad at sharpness and it won't survive when +30MP cameras come around.

I'm waiting for a new version but even more for the new TS-E45mm that is hopefully coming soon!

Ugh. </facepalm>

If I could be so bold as to quote neuro:

Excellent bokeh was a priority for Canon with the 50L. They stated, "With the increasing popularity of digital SLR cameras, calls for large aperture single-focal length lenses with excellent image quality and pleasing bokeh (blur effects) for portraits have increased," (Tech Report, 11/2006). Spherical aberration results in a loss of sharpness, but completely correcting for spherical aberration results in a harsh, jittery bokeh. In the 50L design, the spherical aberration was left deliberately undercorrected to produce the creamy bokeh for which the lens is known.

Also, this thread is quite interesting. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10798.0

Now repeat after me: Sharpness was not a primary design goal with the Canon 50L.

And please stop disseminating poorly researched opinions.

 

[mrjgx]

I need some clarifications..im not quite sure about this focus shift issues, so it means it only happen at small aperture?

At 1.2-1.8 is there any problem with focus shift? Because im buying the lens just to use for the bokehness and at large aperture.

Thx

 

[rs]

The 50L suffers from focus shift, which is where stopping down the lens changes where it focuses. AF is performed wide open, so it should nail the focus at f1.2 - but stop it down, and it will be slightly off. If you stop down as far as say f5.6 or f8, the increased DoF should be enough to keep your subject in focus. But apertures between wide open and large DoF settings will be affected by varying amounts. Someone with plenty of hands on experience should be able to provide more accurate info than me, but I believe the 50L suffers from focus shift the most at about f2

 

[GMCPhotographics]

PLEASE DON'T BUY THE 50MM 1.2!!
I bought 2 of them for my company and i sold them because sharpness is bad and it has a strange glow at all apertures.

Maybe it's just the copies i had but i doubt it.
I also have two 85mm 1.2 II's to compare to and the 50's ate serious dirt every time.

I'm thinking they will come up with a new model of the 50 1.2 since it is so bad at sharpness and it won't survive when +30MP cameras come around.

I'm waiting for a new version but even more for the new TS-E45mm that is hopefully coming soon!

Ugh. </facepalm>

If I could be so bold as to quote neuro:

Excellent bokeh was a priority for Canon with the 50L. They stated, "With the increasing popularity of digital SLR cameras, calls for large aperture single-focal length lenses with excellent image quality and pleasing bokeh (blur effects) for portraits have increased," (Tech Report, 11/2006). Spherical aberration results in a loss of sharpness, but completely correcting for spherical aberration results in a harsh, jittery bokeh. In the 50L design, the spherical aberration was left deliberately undercorrected to produce the creamy bokeh for which the lens is known.

Also, this thread is quite interesting. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10798.0

Now repeat after me: Sharpness was not a primary design goal with the Canon 50L.

And please stop disseminating poorly researched opinions.

Yarp...use, repeat.....oooo nice photos....there's far too many gear twitchers out there who take the view that only the ultimate lens is worthy of their lens bag. Or are looking for an excuse not to buy one. If you need the best 50mm which is currently available for the Canon mount, the 50 f1.2 L is it...regardless of it's faults.
Yes there's a focus shift at MFD when stopped down to f2.8. This lens isn't a macro lens and shouldn't be treated as such. But use live view and stop down and you can see the shift and compensate manually. To be fair, if you are that close and need to stop down then this should be on a tripod and you should be using live view to focus anyhow. Wide open and there's no issues with AF accuracy or shift. I've never understood the need for stopping down a fast prime...why not use a 24-70IIL instead? If you need a fast prime, shoot it wide open.

 

[verysimplejason]

Sigma/Canon 50mm F1.4. For 50mm focal length I'd skip Canon F1.2L. I'd rather have the 85mm F1.2L or the 135mm F2L for portraits.