Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?

[Cory]

Quick version:
The differences between the f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses are minimal in most shooting conditions, and they each have an equal number of advantages overall. At f/2.8 they're so similar you could never tell their results apart. If f/2.8 and smaller is all you care about, you may as well save money with the 1.4 lens. (In fact at f/2.8 it's slightly better anyway.) But you're most likely to be better served by the Sigma 50mm or Tamron 45mm.


Full version:
As someone who has owned multiple copies of both (as well as other 50mms from Canon and other manufacturers) over the last 10 years (I finally went digital just a few months after the 50mm f/1.2L was on store shelves), using them on a variety of bodies (everything from a 400D to a 1DX) and for a variety of subjects (everything from casual photos with friends you wouldn't spend 5 seconds thinking about to productions for Dubai royalty with budgets in the multiple millions), I'd say I have a pretty good handle on how they compare. I've no examples to share (I don't use either lens these days; more on that later) but for what it's worth, here's how I view each. For the sake of clarity, I'll simply call them by their widest f-stops, i.e. 1.2 and 1.4.
(Oh boy, that was a lot of parentheses)

Subjective differences, unmeasurable differences, or draws:

• The 1.4's colour rendition is ever so slightly warmer than neutral, while the 1.2's colour rendition is ever so slightly cooler than neutral; neither has enough of a colour cast to be unfixable, even if you shoot .jpg.
• At f/4-5.6 there is absolutely no discernible difference between the two. For that matter, there's no significant difference with the f/1.8 STM, either.
• Center sharpness and rendition at f/2.8 and f/8 is identical.
• At wide apertures, the 1.2 has more contrast overall, though the edges less so; at small apertures, the 1.4 has more contrast overall, though the edges less so.
• Flare control is more-or-less the same between the two models. I've seen more variation between individual units of the same model than I have between the two designs overall.
• Vignetting is the same at all apertures, with the unique wide open 1.2 aperture offering a slightly brighter center but a darker edge than the 1.4 wide open or the 1.2 stopped down to 1.4.
• Bokeh at the same aperture and framing is identical. (Remember, "bokeh" refers to the quality of out-of-focus rendering, not how far out-of-focus something is.)
• When the same aperture and framing is used, there's no difference in AF accuracy. The only difference in accuracy is when the 1.2 is used wide open, where its narrower depth of field obviously makes critical focus harder.
• The 1.4's actual focal length is around 48mm, while the 1.2's is around 51.3mm; both 'breathe' as they focus closer. This is completely standard for all lenses—it's incredibly rare that any lens is actually exactly the focal length it is marked as, let alone when focused closely—and the difference between 48mm and 51.3mm is essentially nothing. However, these things do bother some people, so there you go.
• This could be complete blind luck, but in terms of durability, the 1.4's outer shell and focus have broken more easily for me while the optics have been tougher, and vice-versa for the 1.2, where all of mine have had optics damaged or misaligned after slight knocks while the outer shell and other mechanics remain unscratched.

Areas where the 1.4 is certainly stronger:

• At f/2.8 and f/8, the 1.4 is slightly sharper in the corners and overall has a more uniform look to the image; comparatively, the 1.2 is a little softer around the edges and contrast varies between the center of the frame and the outside at these apertures.
• Most cases of colour fringing aberrations are better-controlled by the 1.4.
• The 1.4's AF is slightly faster, in most conditions.
• The 1.4's manual focus is more responsive. (Though still pretty loose.)
• The 1.4's transmission is slightly more accurate, as it is only 1/3rd of a stop behind the f-stop; the 1.2's transmission is nearly 2/3rds of a stop slower than the f-stop.
• Repair costs on the 1.4 are, unsurprisingly, a lot lower for similar work. (Let alone the difference in which parts seem most vulnerable in each lens, as noted above.)
• The lower weight and size really is very noticeable.
• Smaller filter size is always handy.

Areas where the 1.2 is certainly stronger:

• Wider than f/2.8, the 1.2's rendering is more uniform across the frame and it has less ghosting—but not no ghosting—in the corners.
• Despite the transmission being less accurate, the 1.2 does still let in about one quarter of a stop more light than the 1.4.
• In extremely low light and with the very best bodies, the 1.2's AF doesn't slow down quite as much as the 1.4. (Though it's not a huge difference and we are talking about only the most extreme scenarios with the most sensitive bodies.)
• When focusing closer than around 6 feet, the 1.2 shows slightly less barrel distortion. (Though there is still a noticeable amount.)
• AF is slightly quieter.

Overall, I'd say it comes down to a pretty simple case of practicality vs desire.

• If you want to show off the fact you own an f/1.2 lens, an L lens, the biggest front optic you can get, or simply the overall cost of your gear, buy the 1.2.
• If you want to get the most out of shooting wide open (whether your work demands it, e.g. extreme low light, or it's just your style), buy the 1.2.
• If you shoot at medium or smaller apertures, are looking for a travel lens, want technical quality in a studio, or in other words don't actually care about using f/1.2, buy the 1.4.

... All that said, most people shouldn't bother with either of them. The fact is there are three other 50mm lenses available for Canon EF mount (not including specialist variations or luxury models), all of which offer more than both the Canon 1.2 and 1.4.

• Canon's own 1.8 STM offers technically better (i.e. overall frame resolution, neutral contrast, and neutral colour) image quality at f/4 and smaller, and is subjectively equal at f/2.8 where it is a fraction sharper than the others but has lower contrast. The fact it does so at such a low price point means it's hard for non-pros to justify buying much else and even studio pros may actually be better off with it, if it wasn't for...
• ... the Sigma 50mm beating everything else for technical quality. If contrast and resolving power across the frame is what you want, and you've got the kind of budget where you're looking at the 50mm f/1.2L anyway, the Sigma 50mm is the lens you'll be best off with. The only drawback of the Sigma is the AF accuracy, which can be inconsistent.
• For everyone in the middle, as well as some people looking for something higher-end but without the need for the fastest apertures, there's the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC. It's nearly as optically clean as the Sigma, and better than any of the Canons. (Subjective taste, such as colour rendition, notwithstanding; the Tamron's is about the same as the Canon 1.4's, by the way.) Most importantly it is weather-sealed and has vibration compensation (IS), which makes it by far the most useful for travel, as well as for anyone using a higher-resolution body. If you use a 5DS, 5D4, or any 24mp+ APS-C body, or if you plan to get any of those bodies, the Tamron is the only 50mm (okay, 45mm) lens you should even consider. If you need your lenses to be durable, get the Tamron. If you simply want great optical quality, the Tamron is second only to the Sigma, and at a lower price, lower weight, perfectly accurate AF, and with stabilisation. The only downfall of the Tamron 45mm is that its light transmission is even worse than the Canon 1.2's, being t/2.5. That said, t/2.5 is still fast enough for all modern AF systems to work to their full capabilities, and 4 stops of stabilisation more than makes up for three quarters of a stop of light loss. Tamron even provide a far more extensive warranty than any other company, not that you should need it 'cause their 45mm is also the toughest-built of any of these lenses.

So, though the Canon 1.2 and 1.4 have their strengths and weaknesses and certain people will be better off with one than the other, really everyone is better off with one of these other three lenses. People who demand the highest resolution at all apertures should get the Sigma; people who mostly shoot at f/4-8, or simply wish to save money, should get the Canon 1.8 STM; everybody else should get the Tamron.


For what it's worth, I said at the start that I no longer use the Canon 1.2 and 1.4, after years of using both. That's partly due to the nature of my work changing (everything now needs either wider or longer focal lengths, and everything in the middle isn't really useful) and partly due to the presence of the Sigma and Tamron. I still have one Canon 1.2 sat here just in case I do need a 50mm, but it's gathering dust. I've rented the Tamron and Sigma instead and the only reason I don't sell the Canon is because the arrangement I have with them means it's technically a (very) long-term loan rather than a lens I own outright. If I ever need to buy a 'standard' prime that is truly my own, it'll be the Tamron, unless Sigma fixes their AF consistency in which case I'd go for that.

And for the sake of completion, I'd also add that the Canon 40mm is a great 'standard' prime, if all you want is f/2.8 and smaller. At comparative apertures it's got the same image quality overall as the Canon 50s, but with less distortion. (Despite being wider.) The EF-S 24mm is the same deal for APS-C cameras.

That was absolutely incredible. Thanks and maybe my 40mm lens is all I need, really.

 

[ahsanford]

Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
Thanks.

There seem to be three things that people don't like about the f1.4: IQ wide open, autofocus, and iffy durability. Other people like its IQ stopped down to F2.8 or beyond. I don't use mine all that much, partly because I don't use 50 mm that often, but also because stopped down, I am happy with the IQ of my zoom in that range and like its flexibility.

This is just about right -- the micro USM AF can hunt but it's still quicker/better for stills than STM for me. I rarely use mine wider than f/2 as the output is cloudy (if that makes any sense).

As for durability, it's that damn external focusing design, which protrudes an inner barrel beyond the outer barrel of the lens during focusing. Sticking out, it can take incidental pushes/bumps (especially in your bag, in transit, bouncing around on your hip, etc.) which can damage the internals. I try to remember to manually set the focusing ring to infinity when I'm done shooting with it.

But it's not without its virtues. The 50 f/1.4 is generally a sharper lens than the 50 f/1.2L (other than in the center) and it is delightfully compact. It remains my #1 choice as I need first party AF and it remains Canon's sharpest AF 50 prime at the apertures I shoot.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If you only are interested in f/2.8 and larger, I would get the 50 f/1.4. Any difference, if noticeable, will be in rendering and personal opinion. Greater than f/2.8, the f/1.4 lens is sharp across the frame, contrasty, and renders beautifully. I owned the 50 f/1.4 for years before upgrading to the Sigma 50A. At f/2, the center starts getting real good. From f/2.8 and greater, it is simply a phenomenal lens. The AF isn't bad, but is not fast. I have heard reports, like others, of 50 f/1.4's getting dropped and ruined. But mine functioned great for years under normal use.

I only upgraded after getting frustrated with using it from f/1.4 to f/2 over the entire frame and edges from f/2 to f/2.8. But if you are after greater than f/2.8, just get the f/1.4. It is truly a classic.

This is my experience as well. If you don't need f/1.4 output (which is admittedly iffy at best) and can live narrower than f/2, the 50 f/1.4 USM is the lens for you.

If you are a sharpness junkie and don't mind chimping/pixel-peeping for missed focus, the Sigma 50 Art is a razor blade when the AF delivers. It's a fundamentally better instrument. But I'd rather not shoot with a huge pickle jar prime and I haaaaaaaate AF that swings and misses. So I've been patiently waiting for (preferably) a 50mm non-L with IS to arrive, but I'd honestly consider a new 50L if it rectified the current 50L's cotton ball corners and didn't 'get huge' like the Art/Otus lenses.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

But if working f/2.8 and tighter, why not just use a 24-70mm f/2.8?

Smaller
Lighter
Less conspicuous / more discreet for candids/street/travel
Slightly sharper at f/2.8 (Photozone doesn't quite have apples-apples there, they report the zoom at 40mm)
Dramatically less expensive

- A

 

[ahsanford]

But if working f/2.8 and tighter, why not just use a 24-70mm f/2.8?

Because it's a fraction of the size, weight and price? A better question might be why not just use a 50mm f/1.8, which is cheaper and smaller still and probably much the same at 2.8 (I've not used the latest one, though, so I can't comment first hand).

The 50 f/1.8 STM has some painful drawbacks in my mind: it's effectively a non-featured lens (other than the AF switch) -- it lacks a distance scale, it's a focus by wire design, ring USM > STM all day for me (for stills), has an odd/uncommon filter size, etc.

It's okay, I guess, no knocking it or its wonderful value. I just want something like the 35 f/2 IS to be offered in a 50mm FL: 90% as sharp and only a hair slower than the L, but at 60% the size and price.

- A

 

[docsmith]

That was absolutely incredible. Thanks and maybe my 40mm lens is all I need, really.

I really enjoyed Ace's write up as well.

The 40 mm f/2.8 pancake is a great lens. You already own it, so you know. What you would be gaining with a 50 mm prime is a slightly different perspective (46 degrees versus 57.3 degrees is different) and vignetting.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=810&LensComp=115&Units=E

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=810&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

But, depending on what you are trying to shoot, I can see going with the 40 mm pancake. It is a very nice lens.

 

[ahsanford]

That was absolutely incredible. Thanks and maybe my 40mm lens is all I need, really.

It's a wonderful little gem, but my 40 pancake sits in the cabinet at home while my 35 f/2 IS USM and/or 50 f/1.4 USM comes along all the time.

USM > STM for stills, and apparently that really matters to me as I am frustrated by slower focusing / focus by wire lenses.

- A

 

[Loswr]

That was absolutely incredible. Thanks and maybe my 40mm lens is all I need, really.

It's a wonderful little gem, but my 40 pancake sits in the cabinet at home while my 35 f/2 IS USM and/or 50 f/1.4 USM comes along all the time.

USM > STM for stills, and apparently that really matters to me as I am frustrated by slower focusing / focus by wire lenses.

Although I don't have the 35/2 or 50/1.4, my 40/2.8 comes along quite frequently (and even if I had one of the other two lenses, I'd bring the 40/2.8 over them). The reason is the small size of the pancake. I frequently go out to shoot events with the 70-200/2.8L IS II, on nature hikes with the kids with the 70-300L, or birding with the 600/4L IS II, and in those cases, I can just tuck the 40/2.8 in a pocket of the bag or my clothes and bring it along for a normal FoV if needed. Anything bigger would be left at home.

 

[aceflibble]

STM doesn't have to be universally worse than USM. Stepping/focus-by-wire lenses have been made which are extremely fast and accurate... just not ones made by Canon, yet. And of course different bodies drive each lens differently; some USM lenses can be quite slow on some bodies but very fast on others, and the exact same can be said for STM motors. For example, the very fastest AF drive currently available for Canon is the old 100mm f/2 USM on a 1DXmkII or 7DmkII (it's actually disgusting how fast that lens is on those bodies and makes you wonder why they've not reused that motor in any other lens), but on any 5D it's nothing special and on the 80D it's actually slower than the 18-135 STM.

If anything, the 40mm's slower AF can be more logically attributed to the small size (less leverage to shift elements) rather than the stepping design itself. Doesn't change the results, but basically, it's bad form to blanket say that USM is better than STM; they can both be good and both can be bad, just depends on the specific lens, the specific body, and the specific shooting conditions combined.

The 40 mm f/2.8 pancake is a great lens. You already own it, so you know. What you would be gaining with a 50 mm prime is a slightly different perspective (46 degrees versus 57.3 degrees is different)

Heads up on this: as I touched upon briefly before, very few lenses are exactly the focal length they're marked as, and these 50mms and the Canon 40mm are no exception. For example, the 50mm 1.4 is very slightly wider than 50mm (48mm) and the 40mm is very slightly longer. (42mm by my calculations, but I'm not a total expert and I could be +/-0.5mm off.) This means your angle of view measurements are very slightly inaccurate, though the basic idea is sound.
Also I think it's worth pointing out that in this case, specifically, the Canon 40mm has less barrel distortion than any of the Canon 50mm lenses. Combined with the perspective not being quite as different as it first appears, You can easily move in closer to get the same framing and you won't really be able to tell you used a wider-angle lens, other than the depth of field possibilities of course.

That 40mm isn't a perfect lens by any means, but I do believe it keeps up with the Canon 50mm lenses (none of which are perfect, either) at comparable apertures and it's a lens I happily keep around despite being made 'redundant' by the presence of other similar-length lenses. 90% of the results in 50% of the size should not be underestimated. I wouldn't suggest every professional immediately sells their 50mm f/1.2L to swap to the 40mm STM... but they should buy the 40mm STM anyway and keep it to hand. At worst it's a very capable back-up.

 

[Sporgon]

For example, the very fastest AF drive currently available for Canon is the old 100mm f/2 USM on a 1DXmkII or 7DmkII (it's actually disgusting how fast that lens is on those bodies and makes you wonder why they've not reused that motor in any other lens), but on any 5D it's nothing special and on the 80D it's actually slower than the 18-135 STM.

Interesting about the 100/2 having a unique USM motor. I didn't know this, but have always found that the 100/2 is basically 100% reliable in it's focus at f/2 whereas the mechanics of the 85/1.8 just don't seem to be able to reliably stop the lens in precisely the right place for 1.8 shooting, and I've had at least five copies of that lens over the years. I've always said here on CR, anyone looking at the 85/1.8 should seriously consider the 100/2. It's one of my favourite lenses.

If anything, the 40mm's slower AF can be more logically attributed to the small size (less leverage to shift elements) rather than the stepping design itself. Doesn't change the results, but basically, it's bad form to blanket say that USM is better than STM; they can both be good and both can be bad, just depends on the specific lens, the specific body, and the specific shooting conditions combined.

The 40 mm f/2.8 pancake is a great lens. You already own it, so you know. What you would be gaining with a 50 mm prime is a slightly different perspective (46 degrees versus 57.3 degrees is different)

Heads up on this: as I touched upon briefly before, very few lenses are exactly the focal length they're marked as, and these 50mms and the Canon 40mm are no exception. For example, the 50mm 1.4 is very slightly wider than 50mm (48mm) and the 40mm is very slightly longer. (42mm by my calculations, but I'm not a total expert and I could be +/-0.5mm off.) This means your angle of view measurements are very slightly inaccurate, though the basic idea is sound.
Also I think it's worth pointing out that in this case, specifically, the Canon 40mm has less barrel distortion than any of the Canon 50mm lenses. Combined with the perspective not being quite as different as it first appears, You can easily move in closer to get the same framing and you won't really be able to tell you used a wider-angle lens, other than the depth of field possibilities of course.

That 40mm isn't a perfect lens by any means, but I do believe it keeps up with the Canon 50mm lenses (none of which are perfect, either) at comparable apertures and it's a lens I happily keep around despite being made 'redundant' by the presence of other similar-length lenses. 90% of the results in 50% of the size should not be underestimated. I wouldn't suggest every professional immediately sells their 50mm f/1.2L to swap to the 40mm STM... but they should buy the 40mm STM anyway and keep it to hand. At worst it's a very capable back-up.

I do like the 40mm pancake, but people should be aware that it has pretty acute field curvature which I find especially noticeable at infinity focus. You've really got to be at least f/8 on FF to get a straight line of focus across the frame. Funnily enough in reviews on the net I have only come across one that mentioned this strong FC.

 

[sulla]

I, too, believe that there will be hardly any noticeable IQ differences between the 1.2 and the 1.4 lenses. The main difference is certainly build quality. I never used the 1.2, but I never liked the build quality of my 1.4, which was frankly awful. I liked the images, however. They are a bit soft wider open than f/2, but still, I liked the look of the images a lot.

Cory, if you intend to shoot at narrower than 2.8 only, then why not use the 50 1.8 ? IQ at 2.8 should be very nice and again costs only a fracion of the 50 1.4 and is again much smaller. Build quality should also be better than on the 1.4.

If you can cope with the significantly narrower framing of the pancake 40 2.8, you will know yourself that it is a wonderful lens with perfect IQ, even wide open, and its cheap and small. But it will frame noticeably wider and thus be less suited to typical portrait photography. 40 is not 50 by a large amount.

 

[privatebydesign]

For example, the very fastest AF drive currently available for Canon is the old 100mm f/2 USM on a 1DXmkII or 7DmkII (it's actually disgusting how fast that lens is on those bodies and makes you wonder why they've not reused that motor in any other lens), but on any 5D it's nothing special and on the 80D it's actually slower than the 18-135 STM.

Says who? Canon have made various claims through the years on their fastest focusing lens, normally the latest 300 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8, I've never seen them mention the 100 f2.

I know when I got my 300 f2.8 IS new they claimed it was their fastest focusing lens ever.

 

[ahsanford]

For example, the very fastest AF drive currently available for Canon is the old 100mm f/2 USM on a 1DXmkII or 7DmkII (it's actually disgusting how fast that lens is on those bodies and makes you wonder why they've not reused that motor in any other lens), but on any 5D it's nothing special and on the 80D it's actually slower than the 18-135 STM.

Says who? Canon have made various claims through the years on their fastest focusing lens, normally the latest 300 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8, I've never seen them mention the 100 f2.

I know when I got my 300 f2.8 IS new they claimed it was their fastest focusing lens ever.

We need a damn AF speed & AF hit rate / consistency website, for crying out loud.

No claim short of the general YAPODFC is more common here than 'the AF on ______ stinks' and we cannot seem to actually document that for some reason.

- A

 

[wsmith96]

I, too, believe that there will be hardly any noticeable IQ differences between the 1.2 and the 1.4 lenses. The main difference is certainly build quality. I never used the 1.2, but I never liked the build quality of my 1.4, which was frankly awful. I liked the images, however. They are a bit soft wider open than f/2, but still, I liked the look of the images a lot.

Cory, if you intend to shoot at narrower than 2.8 only, then why not use the 50 1.8 ? IQ at 2.8 should be very nice and again costs only a fracion of the 50 1.4 and is again much smaller. Build quality should also be better than on the 1.4.

If you can cope with the significantly narrower framing of the pancake 40 2.8, you will know yourself that it is a wonderful lens with perfect IQ, even wide open, and its cheap and small. But it will frame noticeably wider and thus be less suited to typical portrait photography. 40 is not 50 by a large amount.

I found this comparison on SLR lounge: https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-50mm-prime/

It has examples for side by side comparisons.

I have the 50 1.4 and find it to be quite sharp from f2.0 on. I've only compared it to the 1.8 and I found them to be very similar. As others have stated, the 1.8 is a bargain for quality if you normally shooting from 2.8 on.

 

[Random Orbits]

Hmm... now knowing that the 85L IS made several compromises to get the IS into the design, I wonder how feasible it is to have a non-L 50mm with IS. Would Canon go with two IS options at 50mm?

• Option 1: a modification to the existing 50 f/1.4 to add IS but leave most of the optical characteristics the same.
  
• Option 2: a 50 f/1.4L IS that is largely based on the work done for the 85L IS

I would have loved to see Canon keeping it's max aperture advantage, but it seems like more corrected versions are getting slower and slower (200 f/1.8 -> 200 f/2, 50 f/1 -> 50 f/1.2 -> 50 f/1.4IS?, 85 f/1.2 -> 85 f/1.4 IS).

 

[ahsanford]

Hmm... now knowing that the 85L IS made several compromises to get the IS into the design, I wonder how feasible it is to have a non-L 50mm with IS.

...because they've pulled it off in a 35 f/2 lens, and few are complaining of the compromises that lens had to accept.

The non-L lenses are not built around atom-splitting sharpness. They are built around very good sharpness in a not so huge package. I could see a 50 f/1.4 IS USM fitting in a package in-between the size/weight of the 50 f/1.2L and 50 f/1.4 Canon currently sells today, and I think it would work just fine.

Now whether Canon wants to offer such a lens is something we could debate (and have debated quite a bit before). Canon very well may 'pull an 85' and offer this as an f/1.4L IS to be sold alongside the f/1.2L and not update the non-L.

- A

 

[Random Orbits]

Hmm... now knowing that the 85L IS made several compromises to get the IS into the design, I wonder how feasible it is to have a non-L 50mm with IS.

...because they've pulled it off in a 35 f/2 lens, and few are complaining of the compromises that lens had to accept.

The non-L lenses are not built around atom-splitting sharpness. They are built around very good sharpness in a not so huge package. I could see a 50 f/1.4 IS USM fitting in a package in-between the size/weight of the 50 f/1.2L and 50 f/1.4 Canon currently sells today, and I think it would work just fine.

Now whether Canon wants to offer such a lens is something we could debate (and have debated quite a bit before). Canon very well may 'pull an 85' and offer this as an f/1.4L IS to be sold alongside the f/1.2L and not update the non-L.

- A

The 50 f/1.2 rear element is closer in size to the 85 f/1.2 II than the 35 f/2 IS, which was why I was positing that if a non-L 50 f/1.4 with IS came out, it might use similar optics to the existing 50 f/1.4, which is small. I thought that the 50L and 85L II share similar designs, and I'm wondering if Canon is taking a similar tact this time too.

I would like to see an IS version of the existing 50 f/1.4, but that may be too close to the rumored 50L f/1.4 IS. With the 85 f/1.4 IS, Canon has shown that it doesn't value absolute sharpness above all other factors (unlike Otus and 85A). The 50L is used primarily as a portrait lens (like the 85), so bokeh and other factors become significant factors in addition to edge-to-edge sharpness.

 

[BillB]

We need a damn AF speed & AF hit rate / consistency website, for crying out loud.

No claim short of the general YAPODFC is more common here than 'the AF on ______ stinks' and we cannot seem to actually document that for some reason.

- A

Your best hope might be to be to get Roger Cicala interested in setting a database up, or at least in offering an opinion on whether there are significant AF accuracy differences among lenses.

In 2012 he did some work on AF and discovered to his surprise that newer Canon lenses (e.g. EF 28mm IS and 40 mm pancake) when paired with a newer Canon camera (e.g. 5DIII) were much more accurate than older lenses, because of an iterative focussing design that Canon had introduced. Presumably the feature has been included in lenses and higher end cameras that Canon has released since then, but I don't think Roger has written anything about it since his 2012 work, and Canon has never said anything about it so far as I know.

His 2012 work is in the Lensrental blog archives, and you can find it by googling Lensrental AF accuracy. Autofocus Reality Part 3B: Canon cameras dated Aug 1, 2012 has links to Parts 1,2, and 3A.

 

[aceflibble]

edit: Okay, didn't mean to type so much... again. I've made the font smaller, should cut down space. I don't expect everyone/anyone to read all this. If you do want to read all this, hit the 'quote' button or copy & paste it into word and up the font yourself. Short version: some lenses you wouldn't think are great, and Canon don't advertise as being great, actually are really great at something. Whether that's actually any use to you or not is another matter.

Says who? Canon have made various claims through the years on their fastest focusing lens, normally the latest 300 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8, I've never seen them mention the 100 f2.

I know when I got my 300 f2.8 IS new they claimed it was their fastest focusing lens ever.

Manufactures make all sorts of claims. Fuji claimed their X-T2 was the fastest-focusing camera on the market, until Sony made the same claim, then Pentax did, and then Nikon did. Canon say the 80D's got the best dynamic range of all their cameras, yet the truth is it only does so because it lies about the ISO ratings and even then only manages to uphold that range for the ISO 100 setting (which is actually closer to ISO 50). Fuji claim their lenses are the highest-resolving lenses money can buy, but you'd sure never know it 'cause their camera's processors bake in so many adjustments even with raw files that there's no way for the lenses to be tested properly.

Canon pretty much shift their claims depending on what they want to sell at any given time. They make a helluva lot of money on the 300mm f/2.8 IS, so they go out of their way to say it's the fastest and most optically-perfect lens they make. The 400mm f/2.8 IS is actually optically better, but they don't make as much money on that so they'd rather the claim went to the 300mm instead. The 50mm f/1.8 STM at f/4 is sharper than the 50mm f/1.2L at f/4, but do you think Canon would ever advertise that their most-expensive 'pro' 50mm can ever be beaten in any way by their cheapest? (Which also already sells bucketloads and so doesn't need and wouldn't benefit from the marketing.)

The Canon 100mm f/2 USM is kind of an awkward stepchild for Canon and you won't see them advertising it much unless you specifically ask them about it. It's a holdover from the 80s where people still hadn't fully settled into 85mm as 'the' portrait focal length, and having both an 85 and a 100mm was deemed important by manufacturers who didn't know which would 'win'. As it is the 85mm ended up gaining in popularity so the 100mm focal length died off a bit (same with 28mm, as 24mm grew) and became relegated to macro duty and special effects. The 100mm f/2 continues to be made basically only because the 85mm f/1.8 is so popular and they share components (see also: 28mm f/1.8 to the 50mm f/1.4, the 24mm IS and 28mm IS, and Tamron's 45mm and 35mm), so the 100mm became a kind of "eh, we've got nothing to lose" deal for Canon. They don't make much money off of it but it also doesn't cost them much to keep producing, resulting in a very small but very low-risk profit. Hence it stays in production but they don't promote it.
Because of how the late 80s went and the 85mm becoming more popular, it's often assumed that the 85mm f/1.8 was the first lens designed and the 100mm f/2 was born as a variation of the 85mm, but it was actually the other way around. (People foten forget the 100mm was actually released about 6 months before the 85mm.) This is why the 85mm doesn't focus as quickly or confidently as the 100mm and its optics are a tiny fraction worse. It was all made for the 100mm first and the 85mm had to kind of 'make do'. But since 85mm simply became a much more popular length shortly after, Canon and everyone else just kind of forgot about the 100mm.

When they were first released, the bodies available didn't vary much in terms of AF drive speed, which meant expectations of the 'fastest' AF were pretty low. The 100mm was marketed as a fast-focusing lens at first, but with it being a matter of tiny fractions of a second at the time and not anything earth-shattering, it's not something which ever really caught on. With the 85mm shortly overshadowing it, that aspect of the 100mm lens was quickly forgotten. In 1999 the 300mm f/2.8 IS was released, updating the '87 300mm, and that became Canon's golden child; they'd found a way to charge nearly twice the price for a lens without the manufacturing costs increasing much at all. Suddenly, Canon made every claim imaginable about the 300mm f/2.8 IS. It was the most optically perfect, fastest-focusing, toughest lens in the world, and the lightest of its type. Of course it wasn't actually as optically perfect as many macro lenses, it wasn't as fast to focus as many smaller lenses, it wasn't really as tough as some more balanced primes, and it was only the second-lightest big aperture telephoto lens... but none of that stopped Canon from promoting its new cashcow as such. (For the record, do not get me wrong, the 300mm f/2.8 IS and its mk II revision are gorgeous lenses.)

And yes, they recycle these claims for every new or revised big lens. Don't forget they also started to claim they were painting their biggest lenses white for the sake of durability. (And totally not just as a really easy way to the lenses to stand out and advertise the brand.) And the old lenses get forgotten more and more.

Fact is, the 100mm f/2 is the fastest-focusing lens Canon has. They used to tell you that themselves proudly, and they still will if you directly ask Canon reps about it. It's an easy focal length to produce, and it's a relatively compact lens with most of the construction actually being taken up by the AF motor. There's not a lot of glass to push and it doesn't have to be pushed far. Not all bodies deliver full power to the AF motors of all lenses—for example, the original 7D gives full power to the IS 'big whites' but less power to anything smaller—but on the bodies which do give every lens the full whack (e.g. 1DX2), that 100mm is the single-best autofocusing lens Canon makes. It's only gotten faster as newer bodies have been able to give it more and more power.
Every other lens they've made since has either had a better motor but hampered by having more glass/further to push (i.e. every telephoto lens, every macro lens, and every zoom), or they've had less glass to move but worse motors. (i.e. The really low-budget EF-S lenses and the first generation of STM lenses.) Of course, some lenses suffer from both lots of glass and weaker motors. (The 85mm f/1.2 is never going to win any speed awards.) The 100mm is somewhat lucky, and remains moderately unique (the 85mm f/1.8 borrowing some parts and not using them as well notwithstanding), because that focal length and aperture at that size is basically the perfect balance as far as focusing motors go. While the 100mm f/2.8L Macro has to cope with a longer focus throw and higher gear ratio, the 135mm f/2 has to push slightly more glass, and shorter lenses aren't granted the same amount of space for their motors to have enough leverage to focus ultra-quickly, the 100mm gets the balance as close to perfect as physically possible.

However, you can look at it is a series of negatives, too. Having a small focus range to shift through can also be interpreted as having a poor minimum focus distance. Having gearing built for speed can be interpreted as having loose, inaccurate manual focus control. f/2's balance of light-vs-size isn't such a great trade if what you really want is f/1.4, let alone f/1.2 as a lot of people want in a medium-telephoto prime. For a lot of people the whole lens is useless because 100mm is such an oddball focal length now, and no focus motor in the world would make them pick it up over an 85+135 combo or a 70-200.


Which, to bring us back to the main topic at hand, can (mostly) be applied to the 50mm f/1.4, too. In fact the 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 100mm f/2 were first designed and marketed as 'the' prime kit for Canon, with Canon going as far as to make sure they all share filter threads so all three could be bought and used as a matching set... until 24mm became more popular than 28mm and 85mm slaughtered 100mm and Canon started pretending those two lenses didn't exist. The 50mm f/1.4 is a flawed lens in many ways but actually is still better than more expensive options in others (at least in certain scenarios; see my previous post about the 50mms for details on when and where the 1.4 really shines), much like the 100mm f/2. Whether the positives outweigh the negatives is something each individual user will have to judge for themselves. Lenses like the 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2 don't have the unique talking points of f/1.2 or IS or macro capabilities to make them easily-bought, must-haves, but for 'medium' shooting, let's say f/4 in standard daylight on a mid-priced 6D body... they can actually wind up beating more expensive, specialist lenses.


If you believe Canon's marketing, every lens is perfect for everything and you're a fool if you don't give them a direct line to your bank account. Reality is, every lens they make is good for something and not so great for other things. Some of their best-performing lenses get very little time in the spotlight while some of their more average lenses are always front-and-center. Canon's marketing and claims are driven by what will make them the most money, and don't really reflect the reality of using any of these lenses.

So whether you're doubting if the 50mm f/1.2 is really that much better than the others or you're not sure the 100mm f/2 is really that fast or if you're looking at the 24-105 mk II and wondering why Canon even bothered, just know that the answer is never as simple as "whatever Canon says, goes". As I said here, the 100mm f/2 is the fastest-focusing Canon lens, at least one the bodies which allow it to be, but whether or not that's of any use to you is another matter entirely. As I said in my previous post, the 50mm f/1.4 can beat the 1.2 in many ways but whether those conditions will apply to your own shooting is something only you can judge. (I have no answer for why Canon bothered to remake the 24-105 when all they did was make it heavier.)

 

[privatebydesign]

So you don't have anything to back up your claim?

The screenshots below are from the Canon book Lens Work, I forget which version.

I understand marketing make a fine distinction between misdirection and lying but they state, unequivocally, that the 300mm f2.8 IS has "The world’s fastest*1 autofocusing", not even Canon's, the fastest in the world when used on the NiCad driven higher end bodies.