Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?

[Don Haines]

I would like to see a Focal comparison of the 50 F1.4 and 1.2 for focus constancy.

My Bad..... auto-correct got me and I did not notice.....

I would like to see a Focal comparison of the 50 F1.4 and 1.2 for focus consistency.

I have seen the results from several people's F1.8's, and they do not focus consistently, It would be nice to see how the 1.4 and 1.2 fare.....

 

[Cory]

Now as scatter-brained as I may seem, this discussion totally cleared it all up.
I added the 70-200 to my Shopping Cart, but just couldn't do it. My 135 just really is that good.
I then remembered how much I like everything about 50mm on a crop-sensor so fingers started pointing to 85mm on my new ff.
Not that I need IS, but just put the new 85 1.4 on my Wish List (it's the only thing on the Wish List right now) and might pull that trigger tomorrow.
And then there's the 40mm lens when just a quick and easy package is in order.

8)

 

[stevelee]

You see different variations of the "Holy Trinity" of prime lenses, but for generalists, it is usually either 35/85/135 or 24/50/135. For whatever reason, I tend to really like the 24/50/135 mm focal lengths. I own primes in two of those and will likely be adding 135 mm soon (although I really like my 70-200 II).

Back in my film days, all I had were primes. Zoom lenses were big, heavy, and not very good. I wound up with a nice selection over time, and would go out with what I thought would be the best tools for the situation. For traveling, I found that a 28, an 85, and a 200mm lens covered about everything I wanted to shoot. I never had a 24mm lens back then, but did eventually buy a used 19mm lens I found amazing at the time.

This fall I bought a 6D2 and got the STM kit lens (no L, so maybe that was my Christmas present to myself). I've been pleased with both, and have been even more pleasantly surprised by the lens. The zoom range is very close to that of my G7X II that I use for travel, so that is probably why I feel so comfortable with it. I did already have some EF lenses, and I'll over time be trying to decide what primes I will want to add, as well as a zoom on the wide end, and maybe a telephoto zoom instead of a prime. We'll see. I found the 50 f/1.4 very useful on the T3i, but don't think I'll have a lot of use for it on the 6D2.

 

[Sporgon]

The best comparison of the Canon 50mm lenses that I've seen on the web is from slr lounge. They compare in a real live shooting situation and are able to show the very subtle smoothness / softness in the focus transition zone that the 1.2 lens gives due the radiusing of its elements. Incidentally you can get exactly the same effect from a 1960s Takumar 55/1.8 because that was also designed to give this effect, and it's at the expense of outright sharpness at infinity. Try Googling slrlounge 50mm shootout.

Interestingly the cheap Sony 50 mm 1.8 for the a series has this more expensive curvature of the bonded elements too....

But the difference is very slight, so much so that you'd never pick it out from randomly sampled shots from different lenses.

 

[BillB]

Now as scatter-brained as I may seem, this discussion totally cleared it all up.
I added the 70-200 to my Shopping Cart, but just couldn't do it. My 135 just really is that good.
I then remembered how much I like everything about 50mm on a crop-sensor so fingers started pointing to 85mm on my new ff.
Not that I need IS, but just put the new 85 1.4 on my Wish List (it's the only thing on the Wish List right now) and might pull that trigger tomorrow.
And then there's the 40mm lens when just a quick and easy package is in order.

8)

In addition to having IS, the f1.4 is sharper edge to the edge than the f1.2 and has faster AF as well.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I would like to see a Focal comparison of the 50 F1.4 and 1.2 for focus constancy.

My Bad..... auto-correct got me and I did not notice.....

I would like to see a Focal comparison of the 50 F1.4 and 1.2 for focus consistency.

I have seen the results from several people's F1.8's, and they do not focus consistently, It would be nice to see how the 1.4 and 1.2 fare.....

Well...I've owned and used all of the Canon 50mm lenses in a professional capacity. Portraiture, landscapes and weddings. If you want a sharp, contrasty 50mm lens with great AF (fast and accurate) then i would suggest a 24-70mm f2.8 II L and avoid the three Canon prime offerings.
The 50L f1.2 is an amazing lens, but it models old leicia 50's of yesteryear and as a result it's slightly softer than all other Canon primes. I liked it's rendering but I found it's AF to be a little hesitant and inconsistent, especially in low light. In fact in low light it rarely works properly at all. If you do close up work and need to stop down to f2 -f4 then good luck with the inherent focus shift.

The 50mm f1.4 is a weird little lens, it's out of focus rendering is very agitated. Contrast is painfully weak and it has a bloom to it's images that I don't like. It's AF is slightly erratic and the build is awfully cheap. I've destroyed several copies at weddings and I've concluded that this lens isn't up for the riggors of pro work.

I have a metal mount 50mm f1.8 back from the 80's. It's AF is loud and grindy...but it seems to work better than all the others mentioned above. It's smaller and lighter and has put up with more abuse than all the other lenses and still seems to go on working well. Wide open it's sharper than the 50L ever was wide open (ok 1/2 a stop difference), but the bokeh is quite nice wide open and it;s out of focus rendering is nice. Stop down and the bokeh gets quite polygonal...and shaped. But the rest of it's rendering is quite nice and it sharpens up nicely if that's your bag.
So I've broken 2 50mm f1.4's and sold several copies too. I've bought and sold several 50mm f1.2L's and I've only ever had one copy of the metal mount 50mm f1.8 and I still have it in my bag. But in my opinion, the better 50mm is found in the 24-70IIL.

 

[Sporgon]

It's not "he". [size=6pt]

Ooops, sorry I was using the word generically rather than genderly ( if that word exists)

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon said their 300 f2.8 from ages ago is faster to focus than the 100 f2, why would they lie? Subsequently they have made better bodies with better algorithms and better lenses that also focus faster. There is no way on this earth that the 100 f2 focuses faster than those more modern lens on bodies designed for them.

WAIT A MINUTE!

Are you saying that a high end 2010 lens focuses faster than a 1991 lens! Who would have thought so!

In this case, he might be right though.... a 100F2 has considerably smaller lenses than a 300F2.8. Since the AF motors have about a quarter as much mass to move, despite older tech and poorer algoritms, it is a possibility. Even so, it is comparing apples to oranges and not a very valid comparison.....

"He" is not a 'he', of course in this new non binary world that doesn't mean, given the statement "It's not "he"", we should assume they are a she...

Just because the primary optic is very different in size doesn't mean the focusing elements are, don't forget they are both internal focusing designs and as such that focusing group is designed to be in the optimal area of the light path to maximize efficiency both in size and weight. Focus speed certainly isn't a simple function of lens size, if it were the 400 f2.8 and 600mm f4 would be amongst the slowest to focus, and clearly they are not.