Canon 50 F1.4 VS 50 F1.2L Lenses

[scotthillphoto]

I'm about actually to upgrade to the 50L I have the 1.4 and used to have the 1.8 each lens is better and what it comes down to are you a professional or a hobbyist. Being that I am a professional I need to have the best in order to get those shots at 1.2 if its near dark and can't use flash and still get that sharp picture. If you are a hobbyist and and just having fun I'd go with the Sigma 50 1.4 (For Full Frame) or the 30mm 1.4 (For cropped sensored)

I use the 30 1.4 on my 7D when I travel and love the lens, it comes back with some pretty amazing shots even at 1.4 but I don't count on that lens for the money shots. Especially the ones that you only get one picture of....

 

[bdunbar79]

I'm about actually to upgrade to the 50L I have the 1.4 and used to have the 1.8 each lens is better and what it comes down to are you a professional or a hobbyist. Being that I am a professional I need to have the best in order to get those shots at 1.2 if its near dark and can't use flash and still get that sharp picture. If you are a hobbyist and and just having fun I'd go with the Sigma 50 1.4 (For Full Frame) or the 30mm 1.4 (For cropped sensored)

I use the 30 1.4 on my 7D when I travel and love the lens, it comes back with some pretty amazing shots even at 1.4 but I don't count on that lens for the money shots. Especially the ones that you only get one picture of....

Going from the 50 f/1.4 to the 50 f/1.2L isn't what I'd call an upgrade. It's a downgrade in sharpness beyond f/4. Upgrade in sharpness f/1.2 to f/2.8 and build quality. It's 50/50 (YES I KNOW, I'M AWESOME! I'M HERE ALL NIGHT!).

 

[Ew]

It's 50/50 (YES I KNOW, I'M AWESOME! I'M HERE ALL NIGHT!).

Nice!

 

[Cannon Man]

Think about it this way:
Would anyone who has had the 50 1.2 for some time give it up and swap it to the 1.4.
I don't know of anyone would. The 50 1.2 spends the most time on my camera.

 

[Michael_pfh]

I haven't tried either but bought the Zeiss 50mm f2.0 Makro Planar which some people claim to be the best 50mm.
Since I do not care about AF and have other lenses that are faster than f2.0 I am sure that I got the 50mm that suits me best. Just love its sharpness and the special Zeiss bokeh...

 

[cliffwang]

If you are not comfortable with Canon 50mm F/1.4, go with Sigma 50mm F/1.4. It's much better than Canon 50mm F/1.4.

Build quality, maybe, but the difference in IQ is negligible from what I've seen. Plus, I'm reading a lot that the Sigma AF is inconsistent. Not that the Canon's AF is stellar, though. There's some give and taken no matter what you do.

Do you really own both? I have used both Canon 50mm F/1.4 and Sigma 50mm F/1.4. For me Sigma is better than Canon. I don't know how other Sigma 50mm lenses, but my AF is very consistent. I have even used FoCal to adjust AF. From the test numbers, I can tell the AF is very consistent as well. You should try it out by yourself.

Edit:
I just remember one thing. Sigma 50mm F/1.4 has reversion in year 2010. In many forums people report that the new version has improved its AF.

 

[jondave]

I'm about actually to upgrade to the 50L I have the 1.4 and used to have the 1.8 each lens is better and what it comes down to are you a professional or a hobbyist. Being that I am a professional I need to have the best in order to get those shots at 1.2 if its near dark and can't use flash and still get that sharp picture. If you are a hobbyist and and just having fun I'd go with the Sigma 50 1.4 (For Full Frame) or the 30mm 1.4 (For cropped sensored)

I use the 30 1.4 on my 7D when I travel and love the lens, it comes back with some pretty amazing shots even at 1.4 but I don't count on that lens for the money shots. Especially the ones that you only get one picture of....

Have you actually tried using the 50L at 1.2? I wouldn't exactly call it sharp, plus the DOF is razor thin. I wouldn't actually use a 50L at 1.2 to get 'money shots', especially when its near dark and I can't use flash on a 7D. On that kind of conditions using f/1.2 with the 7D's AF your keeper rate will be extremely low.

 

[@!ex]

Ok, so my 2 cents. I've only been shooting Canon for about 4-5 months, and full frame about the same amount of time. I used to shoot Pentax (que boo's). I have a very prominent wedding photographer friend that shoots the 50 1.4 on a 5d mkii like 70% of the time and loves it, but the main difference beside sharpness below 2.8 and build quality is CA's (we recently di a direct comparison with in camera compensation off). for a wedding photographer high contrast outdoor shoots are a dime a dozen and the 50L kills the 1.4 in CA's, by a HUGE margin. Either way if you can afford the 1.2 go for it, you will love it (1.2 and huge glass is addictive). Here is my money in my mouth, just a couple snap shots I've gotten with it since I bought it a few months ago. It truly is my favorite walk around, by a mile (I'm too cool for zoom now


Cloud Bunker by @!ex, on Flickr


Spring by @!ex, on Flickr


The Edge of America by @!ex, on Flickr


My Hood by @!ex, on Flickr


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


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


Japanese Bokeh Garden by @!ex, on Flickr


Through the Cracks… by @!ex, on Flickr


Into the Sun by @!ex, on Flickr


Confederate Cloth. by @!ex, on Flickr


Out of the Mist by @!ex, on Flickr


Leaf it Be by @!ex, on Flickr


Bugging Out by @!ex, on Flickr

 

[bdunbar79]

Think about it this way:
Would anyone who has had the 50 1.2 for some time give it up and swap it to the 1.4.
I don't know of anyone would. The 50 1.2 spends the most time on my camera.

I did. And I'm happier with my 50 prime. Let me explain though. I never shoot wider than f/2.8 with it. That is my unique useage. If I needed it in low light and did that type of photography, absolutely wouldn't have sold my 50L. But the majority of my shots are f/4 and narrower, and quite frankly, this lens at those apertures is sharper than the 50L. I can certainly see uses for the 50L though, don't get me wrong, it is a great lens. I enjoyed it while I had it.

 

[scotthillphoto]

I'm about actually to upgrade to the 50L I have the 1.4 and used to have the 1.8 each lens is better and what it comes down to are you a professional or a hobbyist. Being that I am a professional I need to have the best in order to get those shots at 1.2 if its near dark and can't use flash and still get that sharp picture. If you are a hobbyist and and just having fun I'd go with the Sigma 50 1.4 (For Full Frame) or the 30mm 1.4 (For cropped sensored)

I use the 30 1.4 on my 7D when I travel and love the lens, it comes back with some pretty amazing shots even at 1.4 but I don't count on that lens for the money shots. Especially the ones that you only get one picture of....

Have you actually tried using the 50L at 1.2? I wouldn't exactly call it sharp, plus the DOF is razor thin. I wouldn't actually use a 50L at 1.2 to get 'money shots', especially when its near dark and I can't use flash on a 7D. On that kind of conditions using f/1.2 with the 7D's AF your keeper rate will be extremely low.

Yes I have, tho it was with a 1D3, but I would be using the lens on a 5D3 not the 7D. But I don't trust the 50 1.4 unless I use it above 2 and I shot 1.4 with the 50L and the images were just butter.... And I shoot a TON of low light or no light and there are times where I need that extra light of the 50L

 

[7enderbender]

Funny you should ask. I'm seriously considering upgrading to the 50L. And no, I don't expect 100% perfection. The thing however is that my 50 1.4 is one of my most used lenses. And I shoot it wide open a lot.

The L is supposed to be slightly sharper when shot wide and has better contrast. The price you pay for that seems to be a little more fringing, slightly less sharpness over f/8 (or so) and slower AF. Not sure if I would/will notice this.

The biggest factor for me is the build quality and the fact that I use 50mm so much. I'm intending to keep my 1.4 for now and see how it goes. I may also get rid of my 24-105 zoom then since I'm doing fine with just a 50 and the 135L most of the time now anyway.

Don't get me wrong: the 1.4 is a great lens optically - if only it was build better. On film I used my FD 50 1.4 90% of the time. It's the same exact lens design in a metal barrel and MF of course. If that one fit on my 5DII we probably wouldn't have this conversation...

 

[bdunbar79]

Funny you should ask. I'm seriously considering upgrading to the 50L. And no, I don't expect 100% perfection. The thing however is that my 50 1.4 is one of my most used lenses. And I shoot it wide open a lot.

The L is supposed to be slightly sharper when shot wide and has better contrast. The price you pay for that seems to be a little more fringing, slightly less sharpness over f/8 (or so) and slower AF. Not sure if I would/will notice this.

The biggest factor for me is the build quality and the fact that I use 50mm so much. I'm intending to keep my 1.4 for now and see how it goes. I may also get rid of my 24-105 zoom then since I'm doing fine with just a 50 and the 135L most of the time now anyway.

Don't get me wrong: the 1.4 is a great lens optically - if only it was build better. On film I used my FD 50 1.4 90% of the time. It's the same exact lens design in a metal barrel and MF of course. If that one fit on my 5DII we probably wouldn't have this conversation...

If you're going to shoot wide open a lot, get the L. It is sharper than the 1.4 at wide apertures, and noticeably so. Is that worth the money to you? If so, go ahead, I shot with it since April.

 

[Bosman]

Three reasons why the L version is the way to go, Legendary Bokeh, Legendary low light performance, Excellent build. The 50L is the 85L mini. The bokeh is stellar and the colors pop! I had the 501.4 and didn't enjoy working with it. While shallow dof can be a pain and oof shots are more often I have learned ot just shoot more and when you hit it, you hit it. Since the 50 is the lens most people will find themselves using most in their kit why not go pro quality. I am sure the siggy's are good, i've heard lots of good reports. If i were tempted the Siggy 85 1.4 would be a route i would take. In that case you give up build quality to the 85L. No Siggy build will handle the punishment an L lens will. I've never felt quality craftsmanship in my hands cept the nikon and Canon Pro lenses. This isnt bias talking either.

 

[bdunbar79]

Three reasons why the L version is the way to go, Legendary Bokeh, Legendary low light performance, Excellent build. The 50L is the 85L mini. The bokeh is stellar and the colors pop! I had the 501.4 and didn't enjoy working with it. While shallow dof can be a pain and oof shots are more often I have learned ot just shoot more and when you hit it, you hit it. Since the 50 is the lens most people will find themselves using most in their kit why not go pro quality. I am sure the siggy's are good, i've heard lots of good reports. If i were tempted the Siggy 85 1.4 would be a route i would take. In that case you give up build quality to the 85L. No Siggy build will handle the punishment an L lens will. I've never felt quality craftsmanship in my hands cept the nikon and Canon Pro lenses. This isnt bias talking either.

I think you are missing my point. Who cares about pro build quality when you have the option of two lenses at f/8, one that is sharper than the other? That was my point. f/1.2 to f/2.8 the 50L the way to go, though. Narrower, it would be a very poor choice considering the cost.

 

[picturesbyme]

+1 for the Sigma 1.4. It is awesome!
However when I get the bug to buy another lens I look at what people can do with a lens what I already have or the cheaper version of what I am looking at.....
Usually I realize that it's not the lens that holds me back

This lady, Alisa - who shot someone I know - uses 5d2 and 50 1.4 (and 35 1.4). Worth a look what a 50 1.4 can do in the right hands, pointing in the right direction
N S W !
http://alisaverner.com/gallery/portfolio/

 

[jdramirez]

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

I like this article. It may be redundant because I didn't read every post, but it makes me feel pretty good about my 50mm f/1.4.

 

[2n10]

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

I like this article. It may be redundant because I didn't read every post, but it makes me feel pretty good about my 50mm f/1.4.

After reading the article I feel the same. Thanks for sharing.

 

[drjlo]

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

I like this article. It may be redundant because I didn't read every post, but it makes me feel pretty good about my 50mm f/1.4.

After reading the article I feel the same. Thanks for sharing.

It's a good article, especially informative for objectively comparing Canon vs. likes of Zeiss, which are often "thought of" as far superior but perhaps not so much. I sold my Canon 50 f/1.4 and kept the 50L because when it comes down to it, the 50L is still the sharpest 50mm for EOS at f/1.2 8)

 

[EOBeav]

Who cares about pro build quality when you have the option of two lenses at f/8, one that is sharper than the other?

Actually, I'm just now having a 50mm f/1.4 returned to me from the repair shop. Build quality was the culprit. That, and my inability to fix my own stuff, but that's a topic for a different thread. Build quality will now become a factor when I'm choosing my next lens.

 

[jdramirez]

Who cares about pro build quality when you have the option of two lenses at f/8, one that is sharper than the other?

Actually, I'm just now having a 50mm f/1.4 returned to me from the repair shop. Build quality was the culprit. That, and my inability to fix my own stuff, but that's a topic for a different thread. Build quality will now become a factor when I'm choosing my next lens.

Agreed. I have a 50mm f/1.4 and I NEVER take off the hood for fear of it suffering damage and affecting the AF. I naturally baby my equipment, but I want equipment built like a baby... so if it is dropped, it is practically made of rubber and will bounce back without issue.