Canon 50L - Love or Hate?

[Grumbaki]

1. The poll is missing "not caring" option, as in "35+85 only". Even though 50 is dominant, I still think I'm not alone around here

2. I'm very curious after reading those 50L/Sigma topics. Many of you are putting the 85L in the same bag as the 50L. But my 85 is very sharp and the various reviews also point out at quite some difference between the two...

 

[Hjalmarg1]

The poll also miss, not really interested in this focal lenght.
I have owned four (4) Canon 50mm lenses. I started with the nifty-fifty 1.8 in a Canon 60D and when mastered it I upgraded to 50mm 1.4 but found that with this lens to get sharp pictures in mid-frame and corners (for the rule of thirds), I had to stop down to f2.5-2.8 hence, I started to carry the 24-70mm f2.8 instead. I sold it and after a while I purchased the 50L (together with my 5D3), since it is considered the best Canon lens in this focal lenght, looking for better sharpness wider than f28, bokeh quality, better performance in low light and better construction. I have to admit I found all of that except better sharpness in borders, compared to the 50mm 1.4.
And to be honest, there many strong users of 50mm focal lenght but I found it very boring and dissapointed for the level of sharpness offered by current lenses at wide appertures and again my 50mm 1.4 is for sale now.
The two primes that spend most of the time on my 5D3 are the 35mm f2IS and the 100L because the fit my style of photography, are super sharp WIDE OPEN and have IS that really helps in low light situations when low shuter speeds are needed.
If Canon brings a new 50mm with IS and good sharpness corner-to-corner, as found in the 35mm f2IS and the 100L or after testing the Sigma 50A, then I will reconsider buying a new 50mm.
In the mean time, if I need a 50mm lens I will go back to a cheap nifty-fifty 1.8 that costs me almost nothing.

 

[sagittariansrock]

1. The poll is missing "not caring" option, as in "35+85 only".

The poll also miss, not really interested in this focal lenght.

I think this is the option where you don't take the poll, LOL!

Seriously, though- I agree with Grumbaki's second point. I have always heard the 85L is tack sharp wide open and as perfect as a lens can get without the single flaw of slow AF system. Never used it though (not keen on that FL, plus I don't think I am qualified for f/1.2@85mm yet).
Hjalmarg- from your post it did seem like you are interested in the 50mm FL, and are actually in the sort of same shoe I am in, aren't you? Using your nifty fifty when the occasional need arises (and it doesn't, truth be told, since I got an FF camera and the 24-70 II) and hoping for a better 50mm from Canon or good reviews for the 50A. Good luck to us, both!

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

Neither love, nor hate. I enjoyed the 50 1.4, sold it, wished I had kept it, rented a 50L, did NOT enjoy the rental, sent it back, bought the 85L ii, liked it for portraits, am just now learning the best way to use it in fluid environments, such as weddings, and now think the issues I had with the 50L came from more of a operator error than failure of the lens itself.

In summary--
Did I like the one I used: No
Would I buy another: Yes
How does this make sense: I have become a better photographer since working frequently with the limitations of the 85L.

Cheers,
-Tabor

 

[justaCanonuser]

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?

300 mm gives a special look, I personally love it (but I come from drawing people). Some years ago I shot this one with a 50D (crop sensor!) + 300/4:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6385346624/photos/2431866/

 

[justaCanonuser]

I love my 85 II L, its wonderful balance between decent sharpness and this supercreamy bokeh wide open. So really would like to get a 50L with the same characteristics and replace my old EF 50/1.4. But some very critical reviews like this one made me hesitate:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d

 

[sagittariansrock]

300 mm gives a special look, I personally love it (but I come from drawing people). Some years ago I shot this one with a 50D (crop sensor!) + 300/4:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6385346624/photos/2431866/

I am also more comfortable with a charcoal stick than a camera, but I always like my images to have a three dimensional perspective. These are different schools of thought, and art is very subjective.
Do share some of your drawings some time. Cheers!

 

[jdramirez]

I have the 100L, but saying something is sharp wide open at f/2.8 isn't really a fair comparison. There is a world of difference @ f/1.2 and f/1.4 than f/2.8.

 

[ecka]

I don't love it
I don't hate it
I don't own it and I don't plan to
I like primes. IMHO, 50L is meant to be used at f/1.2 and it has its look and specific bokeh, which isn't that good at longer focus distances. Personally, I prefer Sigmalux bokeh . The problem is that modern L zooms do better at f/2.8+ than this prime and that makes it a specialized lens (meaning, if I need more dof, I'd rather use the pancake).
I just think that price is too high for its flaws. In other words, it's not perfect just because it has a red ring. The old Sigma 50/1.4 and the 50L both have very similar AF problems, but people rant a lot more about the Sigma, despite that it is just as good or even better optically (less CA or glowing edges), maybe because there are more Sigma owners than 50L (which costs almost 3 times more). Cheaper products tend to sell better, that's a fact. People are expecting "more" or special or perfect when they pay extra for it, but the 50L is not "more" or special, it's "different". Now the 50Art looks very attractive and it may become THE fast 50 to get, if Canon won't wake up from his "let's go video" dreaming marathon. New sharp EF 50mm f/1.4 STM with 9 rounded blades bokeh cream factory for less than $600 could do the trick, leaving 50/1.4 a consumer grade lens, because $950 Sigmalux-Art is expensive.

 

[RLPhoto]

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

+1 The 200 f/2 is a far better choice.

I like my 50L but I'd rather to see a version II.

 

[J.R.]

I purchased a used 50L a few months back for a pretty decent price. The seller was a hobbyist and a member of the local photo club. He was struggling with the lens and wanted to get rid of it quick. I bought it in mint condition for the equivalent of approximately $ 700.

Now how can I not love this lens??? ;D

 

[mackguyver]

Lots of interesting response and most of them aren't what I expected, which is a good thing. I would have added more choices, but the poll limits you to 5.

I get the people who don't care for the 50mm focal length. It's a lot harder to get interesting shots with it vs. a 35 or 85mm lens, and just as I prefer 24 to 35mm, I realize the 50mm length doesn't match a lot of people's creative vision.

I also understand the overlap between the 50 and 85mm focal lengths and thought I wouldn't miss the 50L when I sold it, given that I had the 85. Out of the 4 or 5 lenses I sold to fund my 300, it was the only one I missed. For me, there's something about having a wider, yet still normal focal length that I can also use with very shallow DOF. I think that's the appeal of the 50 1.4 as well and if it's a focal length that isn't used a lot or shallow DOF or low light work isn't something you shoot much, then the 50 1.4 is plenty.

I have the 85 II and 300 2.8 IS II lenses as well and find the 85 to be exactly as described - the ultimate portrait lens. I really does excel at all things when it comes to shooting people, other than group shots. The 300 on a full frame is actually more practical than I expected and I've taken some awesome headshots with it. I plan to do more of that in the future.

I realize the Sigma's coming out and so far is looking to be a much sharper lens outside of the center, but for my uses, sharpness isn't critical and the color, contrast, flare resistance, and smooth bokeh are what I love about this lens. I've found that AFMA is critical from my experience and really helps to reduce CA at the focal point. It definitely takes patience and practice to master this lens (at f/1.2), but I love the results.

I'm headed out of town in a couple of weeks and I'm planning to take my 5DIII, 24 1.4 II, and 50 1.2. I've found that to be my perfect travel kit and can't wait to use it.

Finally, J.R. - you got one for $700 - wow!

 

[Dylan777]

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.

No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2

Edit: I'm removing this photo - since I haven't ask him for permission yet

 

[privatebydesign]

No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2

To which I refer you back to my earlier link. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Just because a picture was taken with a $7,300 lens doesn't make it worth a cent.

 

[Dylan777]

No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2

To which I refer you back to my earlier link. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Just because a picture was taken with a $7,300 lens doesn't make it worth a cent.

That photo taken at Santa Ana Zoo.

I emailed the zoo office of Ted's photos, the train captain. He personally offered my family a VIP ticket(FREE) to the zoo for one month. We went back there couple times with our VIP ticket. My kids got free ride there as well.

I think my photo worth more than a cent : http://www.santaanazoo.org/visinfoa.htm

 

[privatebydesign]

No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2

To which I refer you back to my earlier link. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Just because a picture was taken with a $7,300 lens doesn't make it worth a cent.

That photo taken at Santa Ana Zoo.

I emailed the zoo office of Ted's photos, the train captain. He personally offered my family a VIP ticket(FREE) to the zoo for one month. We went back there couple times with our VIP ticket. My kids got free ride there as well.

I think my photo worth more than a cent : http://www.santaanazoo.org/visinfoa.htm

You might, and the subject, who presumably isn't a photo enthusiast, might, but that isn't and wasn't my point. My point was if you want blown out backgrounds in your portraits there are vastly better lenses for doing that than the overly hyped 50 and 85 f1.2's. Using a 300 for compelling portraits is far more difficult than using either of the other two and, in my opinion, gives a much "nicer" image, but even if you don't agree with my opinion, you cannot argue the fact that the 300 destroys backgrounds far more effectively than the two much shorter lenses.

 

[mackguyver]

Dylan, that's pretty cool that you were able to get a free pass just by emailing the photo. I agree that the 300 2.8 (and 200 f/2) is probably the best lens if you want to obliterate the background, but for anything beyond headshots it is a bit tough to use in terms of communicating with the model. The results speak for themselves when they are carefully done, however. I'm (very) fortunate to own the 24, 50, 85, and 300 (yes, I love fast lenses) and really enjoy using each one for their own strengths. It's really just a matter of how much background (context) you want to include in the photos, but I think the 85 is probably the most versatile of these. I find that I can use it for 80% or more of the portraits I shoot.

The 50L is the lens I reach for when I want something smaller, lighter, and less conspicuous than a zoom, faster focusing and wider than the 85, and with less perspective distortion than the 24.

 

[Dylan777]

Dylan, that's pretty cool that you were able to get a free pass just by emailing the photo. I agree that the 300 2.8 (and 200 f/2) is probably the best lens if you want to obliterate the background, but for anything beyond headshots it is a bit tough to use in terms of communicating with the model. The results speak for themselves when they are carefully done, however. I'm (very) fortunate to own the 24, 50, 85, and 300 (yes, I love fast lenses) and really enjoy using each one for their own strengths. It's really just a matter of how much background (context) you want to include in the photos, but I think the 85 is probably the most versatile of these. I find that I can use it for 80% or more of the portraits I shoot.

The 50L is the lens I reach for when I want something smaller, lighter, and less conspicuous than a zoom, faster focusing and wider than the 85, and with less perspective distortion than the 24.

I didn't know I'm gonna get free pass and didn't expect any return from Ted. I just want to send Ted some photos. I forgot to mention, we got a chance to meet his wife too - who also works in the same zoo, farm area. Just a wonderful couple

 

[Dylan777]

No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2

To which I refer you back to my earlier link. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Just because a picture was taken with a $7,300 lens doesn't make it worth a cent.

That photo taken at Santa Ana Zoo.

I emailed the zoo office of Ted's photos, the train captain. He personally offered my family a VIP ticket(FREE) to the zoo for one month. We went back there couple times with our VIP ticket. My kids got free ride there as well.

I think my photo worth more than a cent : http://www.santaanazoo.org/visinfoa.htm

You might, and the subject, who presumably isn't a photo enthusiast, might, but that isn't and wasn't my point. My point was if you want blown out backgrounds in your portraits there are vastly better lenses for doing that than the overly hyped 50 and 85 f1.2's. Using a 300 for compelling portraits is far more difficult than using either of the other two and, in my opinion, gives a much "nicer" image, but even if you don't agree with my opinion, you cannot argue the fact that the 300 destroys backgrounds far more effectively than the two much shorter lenses.

I understand & agree. I wasn't born with photography skills or have enough times to practice getting the right shots like the pros. However, I believe taking photo in the right moment could still be able to tell story - without thinking too much about rule of 3rd, back and front ground etc...

 

[skullyspice]

love