Canon 50L - Love or Hate?

[mackguyver]

Given all of the love and hate that's arisen on CR from the Sigma 50A's debut, I thought I'd set up a silly poll... Yes, I'm guilty of 50L love, but have no ill feelings towards the Sigma.

 

[Jim Saunders]

It appears the new Sigma has better IQ for less money than the 50L, so it seems the obvious choice to replace the current Sigma 50 f/1.4 I have now. Half a stop is something I'd trade off here just fine. My 0.02.

Jim

 

[mackguyver]

It appears the new Sigma has better IQ for less money than the 50L, so it seems the obvious choice to replace the current Sigma 50 f/1.4 I have now. Half a stop is something I'd trade off here just fine. My 0.02.

Jim

I think that's a very fair way to look at it, and I'm sure it will be a nice upgrade for you.

 

[Ruined]

This is one of my favorite Canon lenses, it is like a baby 85L II when mastered.

No, it is not the sharpest lens in the world wide open, and a look at the MTF chart confirms that (though it becomes very sharp when stopped down). But, I already have a slew of sharp lenses if that is my criteria. This lens has a very special output that is extremely flattering for taking pictures of people with. Bokeh reminds me of the Noctilux, as do the purposely uncorrected "flaws" of the lens.

It is also worth noting this lens takes more skill than the typical lens, so unless you dedicate time to it you are not going to get the results you are expecting. It also helps to have the Eg-S focus screen to nail that razor-thin f/1.2 DOF and rely less on autofocus at f/1.2-f/2.8.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2L is one of the best tools in my lens arsenal, and there is no other 50mm lens I would trade it for remotely near its pricerange. I do understand that some are more about clinical sharpness and want something that is a bit more forgiving. But, in my opinion, the effort you put into this lens produces results wonderfully different from most other lenses.

 

[drjlo]

This lens has a very special output that is extremely flattering for taking pictures of people

Exactly. I use my 50L and 85L for people shots mainly, and the corner softness if anything adds to creating a unique look to portraiture. If I am going to do stopped-down landscape or architectural shoot, I break out my 24-70 II or T-SE 24 mm II.

Nailing focus at f/1.2 is not going to happen for everybody, but I highly recommend installing ML and use focus peaking in live view 8)

 

[Ruined]

This lens has a very special output that is extremely flattering for taking pictures of people

Exactly. I use my 50L and 85L for people shots mainly, and the corner softness if anything adds to creating a unique look to portraiture. If I am going to do stopped-down landscape or architectural shoot, I break out my 24-70 II or T-SE 24 mm II.

Nailing focus at f/1.2 is not going to happen for everybody, but I highly recommend installing ML and use focus peaking in live view 8)

Bingo, my thoughts exactly.

I would like to see an 135mm f/2L IS, modern day update of the 135L. Then 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L II, and 135 f/2L IS and you would have the ultimate "people" kit. And throw in a 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro for portraits you want tack sharpness on.

 

[jdramirez]

I think the problem is that I read this article...

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

And the 50 usm beat or matched the 50 L in sharpness. This is when I owned and primarily used the 50mm f/1.8 as my main lens.

Quick story about the f/1.8. I bought it for $75ish and we went to Disney World... and I proceeded to shoot every image @ f/1.8. So when I finally looked at the pictures, the AF selected a subject that wasn't my subject (I was a novice then... so not forgivable... but I learned from my mistakes). Also the lens was soft... very soft @ f/1.8... center to corners. Eventually I learned the lens sharpens up at around f/2.8 give or take.

So when I bought the 50 usm because it was the best bang for the buck... I shot at around f/2.8 and I was bored with the images. They were good... I got many a complement... but I miss shooting REALLY wide open. So the 50 usm collected dust. And I had no interest in the 50L because the sharpness was on par... and while I completely acknowledge that the bokeh and the color rendition are better... I wasn't willing to shoot at f/2.8 again.

So I harbored these rather negative emotions about the 50L for the past 3ish years... and that bias is hard to give up.

So for me... I can't respond to any of those options... I would say... because of the MEH factor of the other 50's in my life, I didn't want the 50L. I don't want to say I hate it... but for the money... I would so rather get other lenses in my bag.

Assuming $1300... I'd lean towards an 85 f/1.8 for portraiture, a 50usm for the focal length which is handy and throw on a 24-105... (which puts me over by around 50 bucks give or take).

I'm starting to ramble... I need one of yall to loan me your 50L for a week and I'll see if my opinion changes.

 

[Ruined]

I'm starting to ramble... I need one of yall to loan me your 50L for a week and I'll see if my opinion changes.

If you live in the NY/NJ USA area we could do a CR gear meet in Central Park and take some test shots, heh.

For those who have used the 85L II, if you think the 85L II is amazing it is hard to imagine how you would not love the 50L output just as much once you learn how to tame it.

 

[Loswr]

I think the problem is that I read this article...

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

And the 50 usm beat or matched the 50 L in sharpness.

I think the problem isn't reading those test results, it's reading too much into them. MTF50 in the center and averaged across the frame. Two numbers.

Here are three numbers: 103, 105, 68. Do they do a good job of meaningfully representing the qualities of this image?

You can't meaningfully summarize lens performance with a few numbers, any more than the average R/G/B values of a picture meaningfully summarize that image.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I think the choices are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I love the look of the 50L, but wouldn't spend that much on an FL I don't use so much.
For me, the nifty fifty is fine until a more general purpose 50mm comes out or 50A prices go down a bit.

 

[Sporgon]

The used market place gives a pretty good indication of how the 50L is being received. Other Canon lenses which take a beating in on line reviews such as the 70-300 DO, and 28/1.8 for instance sell for about 50% of their new retail price, whereas most other Canon lenses sell for close to their new price less tax. The 50L, despite many highly critical reviews still sells used for the 'nearly new' price.

I know that Canon's lack of descriptive info on the 50L at it's introduction led to a number of well known photographers playing merry hell with Canon over the mid frame performance in sharpness at around f4 - 5.6, but they had bought the lens assuming it would be superior to the 1.4 in resolution overthe f stop range and frame.

I think the lens is better understood now for what it is.

 

[Dylan777]

Great topic mackguyver

Sharpness or Bokeh : : :

My 2cent: for those who already have 85L II in their kit, choosing Sigma 50mm ART over 50L would make more sense(from pricing to IQ). If the shaprness is REALLY that good, then, can you imagine shooting 50mm ART on one 5D III + 135L on another? Save 85L II for all CREAMY-BOKEH tasks.

I'm speaking for myself of course.

 

[privatebydesign]

I neither love nor hate it, and yes I have used it, indeed I owned an FD 50 1.2L for a long time.

Having said that my vote went for the nifty 50 as you didn't have a Canon 1.4 option. My copy of the Canon 1.4 gives very little away to either, I am not interested in super sharp corners and I don't find the 50, or indeed the 85 f1.2, very good focal lengths to give the background separation I like for that "dreamy bokeh" style portrait. The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

 

[jdramirez]

I'm starting to ramble... I need one of yall to loan me your 50L for a week and I'll see if my opinion changes.

If you live in the NY/NJ USA area we could do a CR gear meet in Central Park and take some test shots, heh.

For those who have used the 85L II, if you think the 85L II is amazing it is hard to imagine how you would not love the 50L output just as much once you learn how to tame it.

I'm in Central PA... I think we are planning a NYC trip this summer and I plan on going to the B&H Superstore and see what they have available for me to demo. I have a few things on my to try list... 50 art (and I might as well add the 50L to the list), the 200-400 f/4 1.4x, a 24-70 mkii, and I'm not sure what else...

 

[Ruined]

The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

But, the distance required for 300mm kills a large amount of portrait situations; virtually unusable in most indoor scenarios.

Which again is the beauty of the 50 1.2L, it requires the least working distance of any "bokeh oriented portrait imagery" lens if you want to put it that way

 

[privatebydesign]

The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

But, the distance required for 300mm kills a large amount of portrait situations.

True, nothing comes without effort.

But however difficult manipulating the situation is, if you want the results that 50 and 85 lenses are incapable of delivering, whatever their speed, then do what it takes. If super bokeh and shallow dof are the primary characteristics wanted of a session then you have to go where you can use a vastly superior lens.

 

[sagittariansrock]

The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

But, the distance required for 300mm kills a large amount of portrait situations.

True, nothing comes without effort.

But however difficult manipulating the situation is, if you want the results that 50 and 85 lenses are incapable of delivering, whatever their speed, then do what it takes. If super bokeh and shallow dof are the primary characteristics wanted of a session then you have to go where you can use a vastly superior lens.

I did notice, by the way that around 85mm (on a FF, not talking of equivalent FoV here) gives a nice balance of providing a 3D perspective and reducing distortion and separating the background. I love my new 135L, but I like portraits at 80-90mm with my 70-200 II better. I believe 300mm will make the subject look even flatter, won't it?

 

[privatebydesign]

I did notice, by the way that around 85mm (on a FF, not talking of equivalent FoV here) gives a nice balance of providing a 3D perspective and reducing distortion and separating the background. I love my new 135L, but I like portraits at 80-90mm with my 70-200 II better. I believe 300mm will make the subject look even flatter, won't it?

Sure it will, and obviously perspective is a taste issue. Personally I like the look of 300mm portraits, I like the bokeh from 300 f2.8's even better, they really do embarrass the short 1.2's. For years Canon's sample image for the 300 f2.8 was a head and 3/4 portrait, I just checked and it still is, just a different one.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

 

[Loswr]

The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

But, the distance required for 300mm kills a large amount of portrait situations.

True, nothing comes without effort.

But however difficult manipulating the situation is, if you want the results that 50 and 85 lenses are incapable of delivering, whatever their speed, then do what it takes. If super bokeh and shallow dof are the primary characteristics wanted of a session then you have to go where you can use a vastly superior lens.

"...super bokeh and shallow DoF..."

Let's consider the latter. If you frame the subject the same, e.g. a full-body portrait at 2 m with the 50/1.2 or 12 m with the 300/2.8, the subject magnification is the same. So, the f/1.2 aperture of the 50L will give a thinner DoF. If the subject-to-background distance is less than ~9 m, the 50L will deliver a stronger background blur.

Obviously, that's OOF blur amount, which is distinct from bokeh.

 

[privatebydesign]

The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.

But, the distance required for 300mm kills a large amount of portrait situations.

True, nothing comes without effort.

But however difficult manipulating the situation is, if you want the results that 50 and 85 lenses are incapable of delivering, whatever their speed, then do what it takes. If super bokeh and shallow dof are the primary characteristics wanted of a session then you have to go where you can use a vastly superior lens.

"...super bokeh and shallow DoF..."

Let's consider the latter. If you frame the subject the same, e.g. a full-body portrait at 2 m with the 50/1.2 or 12 m with the 300/2.8, the subject magnification is the same. So, the f/1.2 aperture of the 50L will give a thinner DoF. If the subject-to-background distance is less than ~9 m, the 50L will deliver a stronger background blur.

Obviously, that's OOF blur amount, which is distinct from bokeh.

I wondered how long it would be before somebody pointed that out. It would be interesting to know what the actual true focal length and aperture is with a 12mm tube on the 300mm f2.8.

But I digress, I, personally, prefer the combination of destroyed background, slightly deeper dof, and perspective you get from the 300, rather than the far busier background slightly shallower dof, and perspective from the short 1.2's. Though I fully understand it is all personal preference and in many cases limited by practicalities, I only ever used the 300 at one wedding but used the 50 f1.2 at lots!

P.S. The OOF blur might be more with the wider aperture, but we both know the elements of the background will be vastly bigger, and hence to the eye appear more blurred, with the 300.