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

[wickidwombat]

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.

for what its worth i feel the siggy f1.4 new one is built better than the 50 f1.2L it does not extend for one thing
the 50 f1.2L is not as sealed as many more modern L glass

 

[Nostrada]

No question, the 50 f/1.4 gives you the best IQ for the money in their entire lineup. But it's finnicky and can be fragile. Learn it's little quirks and treat it gingerly, and you should be ok.

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.

Had both, used them on a 7D. Sigma wins hands down - better bokeh, better AF, better colors.

 

[verysimplejason]

You don't get the 1.2L because it's sharp. You get it because of the creamy bokeh at 1.2.

 

[kirillica]

Sigma 1.4 is an ugly piece of CA $hit. The only way it's better is a bokeh. In case it focuses at the right point

Exchanged mine Sigma 1.4 to Canon 1.4 and happy with that.

 

[Crapking]

50/1.2L examples


PineRichlandA-19 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Canon 5D3 1/1000, ISO 4000, f2 (50/1.2L)

Examples of 1.2 Bokeh/OOF Blur/focusing - had read concerns about this lens focusing fast enough, but not a problem with either the 5d3 or 1D-x


_DXR1373 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1250)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 50 mm
ISO Speed 2500

 

[rahkshi007]

i have the canon 50mm f1.4.. i must say that i regret of buying it.. it is not sharp from f1.4 to f1.8... from f1.8 or slower, the result is sharp...

 

[notapro]

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 own the 1.2 and have shot with the 1.4. For what I'm interested in doing (shooting in low light with very shallow depth of field), I wouldn't have anything other than the 1.2 at the 50mm focal length. For portraits, the 1.2 has been outstanding. If you have neither lens and are on a budget, getting the 1.4 would be fine. I held out and saved for the 1.2.

 

[Dylan777]

Im going to wait for 50L II. ;D

 

[PeterJ]

Im going to wait for 50L II. ;D

Same here, looking forward them going back to f/0.95 as recently announced also.

 

[bdunbar79]

It depends on what aperture you need. If you shoot f/2.8 and narrower a lot, then the 50 f/1.4 is actually sharper. If you shoot wider than that, the 50L is sharper. I never shoot wider than f/2.8 with a 50mm lens due to the razor thin DOF that my shots do not require, so I have the 50 f/1.4. However, the 24-70L II zoom lens at 50mm is at least just as sharp at corresponding apertures, as it with the 35L. But, the 24-70L II is way too expensive compared to a 50 f/1.4. Determine which apertures you need to shoot at, then make your decision.