canon 50mm 1.4 vs 1.2

[alexturton]

I own the 1.4 and have been coveting the 1.2 for a while. I've just seen a mint condition 1.2 second hand for a decent price.


I mainly shoot street and family photos. pretty much exclusively @ widest aperture so I would be buying the 1.2 to shoot @ 1.2


does anyone have an opinion on whether the 1.2 is worth it if I already have the 1.4?

Is there much real world difference between the two? (ignoring the obvious like build quality, size, weight and weather sealing)

 

[jdramirez]

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

Maybe. I wouldn't buy the f/1.2. It is soft wide open and it doesn't outperform the f/1.4. It does have a better build quality, so that's a plus... and I know some people say it is really good if you own it...

I'm willing to spend crazy money on lenses, but I would stay away from that one.

 

[Dylan777]

One thing for sure that 50 f1.4 can't do is shoot at f1.2

The 50L will shine if you shoot at wide open. I like mine @ f1.2 to f1.6ish. As an owner of 50 f1.4 & 50L, the L has much better contrast, color and bokeh.

Sharpness is excellent @ f1.6ish - my copy of course.

 

[jdramirez]

One thing for sure that 50 f1.4 can't do is shoot at f1.2

The 50L will shine if you shoot at wide open. I like mine @ f1.2 to f1.6ish. As an owner of 50 f1.4 & 50L, the L has much better contrast, color and bokeh.

Sharpness is excellent @ f1.6ish - my copy of course.

Funny... I was thinking of you when I said that SOME PEOPLE say it is really good.

 

[jdramirez]

http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/canon-50mm-f1.2l

Around $50 to rent one (before shipping and tax). If you live close to a place, you might be able to test it out and really put it through its paces before you plunk down $1000+.

I know you are buying 2nd hand so time may be a factor. I would personally do this. Check ebay and Amazon and do the math.

I buy for X. The lens is presently selling @ Y on ebay/Amazon. The commission and shipping is Z.

Is Y-Z>X. If so... buy it. You won't LOSE money if you don't like it. Maybe you even make a few bucks just taking it for a prolonged test drive for a month... maybe 6.

 

[Dylan777]

One thing for sure that 50 f1.4 can't do is shoot at f1.2

The 50L will shine if you shoot at wide open. I like mine @ f1.2 to f1.6ish. As an owner of 50 f1.4 & 50L, the L has much better contrast, color and bokeh.

Sharpness is excellent @ f1.6ish - my copy of course.

Funny... I was thinking of you when I said that SOME PEOPLE say it is really good.

My rule is quite simple. I don't give comment or advice on camera lenses or bodies that I haven't touch. How often do you see that happen here on CR. Below are couple shots I took with 50L at f1.6(straight out from camera) at Pretend City, in Irvine, CA. For those been there would know the light condition is not that great.

Off topic: I think you should get 85L II for new born.

 

[BrettS]

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

Maybe. I wouldn't buy the f/1.2. It is soft wide open and it doesn't outperform the f/1.4. It does have a better build quality, so that's a plus... and I know some people say it is really good if you own it...

I'm willing to spend crazy money on lenses, but I would stay away from that one.

Sharpness was not a primary design goal with the Canon 50L.

To quote neuro:

Excellent bokeh was a priority for Canon with the 50L. They stated, "With the increasing popularity of digital SLR cameras, calls for large aperture single-focal length lenses with excellent image quality and pleasing bokeh (blur effects) for portraits have increased," (Tech Report, 11/2006). Spherical aberration results in a loss of sharpness, but completely correcting for spherical aberration results in a harsh, jittery bokeh. In the 50L design, the spherical aberration was left deliberately undercorrected to produce the creamy bokeh for which the lens is known.

This thread is quite interesting. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10798.0

 

[luciolepri]

I own the 1.4 and have been coveting the 1.2 for a while. I've just seen a mint condition 1.2 second hand for a decent price.


I mainly shoot street and family photos. pretty much exclusively @ widest aperture so I would be buying the 1.2 to shoot @ 1.2


does anyone have an opinion on whether the 1.2 is worth it if I already have the 1.4?

Is there much real world difference between the two? (ignoring the obvious like build quality, size, weight and weather sealing)

In my experience, the difference is huge. The "creamy" bokeh and the particular colours and shades rendition of the 1,2 are really something. If you're looking for sharpness (again: in my experience) that's not the right lens, the 1,4 (and even the 1,8) outperforms it, expecially from 2,8 to 5,6. The 1,2 is always quite soft at the borders. On the other hand, if you're planning to shoot WO, the 1,2 is definitely the best choice. Just be aware, for street photography, that the AF of the 1,2 is a bit slower than the one of the 1,4.

 

[Random Orbits]

Never had much luck with the f/1.4. AF from f/1.4-f/2 was hit or miss and it got significantly better at f/2.8. 50L is a lot more consistent and a lot better wide open. Like others have said, the 50L renders better and is more suited for portraiture. If you want a more general use lens at 50mm, then the 24-70 II will be better than any EF 50 prime at f/2.8 and smaller.

 

[alexturton]

thanks everyone for your comments.

I guess I'm interested in the 1.2 strictly to use at 1.2. One thing that annoys me about the 1.4 is that I've always found the AF accuracy to be particularly poor. My copy needs +20AFMA which doesn't help.

Also servo AF on the 1.4 is completely crap.

How is the AF accuracy and AI servo performance on the 1.2?

 

[Pi]

I found AF on two different copies, to be quite good, with "normal" MA required. I only used AI Servo with static subjects (and the back AF button), and it worked perfectly.

Most problems with focus shift, etc., arise when you focus "too close". I never do that, but if you do - you may see it.

 

[Random Orbits]

thanks everyone for your comments.

I guess I'm interested in the 1.2 strictly to use at 1.2. One thing that annoys me about the 1.4 is that I've always found the AF accuracy to be particularly poor. My copy needs +20AFMA which doesn't help.

Also servo AF on the 1.4 is completely crap.

How is the AF accuracy and AI servo performance on the 1.2?

AF accuracy is good, but gets poorer with lower contrast targets in dimmer conditions like all lenses/bodes. The only difference is that f/1.2 allows you to shoot at much lower light levels. Accuracy also degrades at MFD (more like a bias), so I avoid being near MFD because I've AFMA'ed the lens at longer distances.

The 50L is OK in servo, but it is no match for the 24-70L II or the 70-200L II.

 

[Dylan777]

How is the AF accuracy and AI servo performance on the 1.2?

I use 4pts expansion, center, in AI servo on 5D III. Keeper is high. Even in low light(6,7 out of 10 keeper)

 

[RLPhoto]

The 50L is great if you shoot wide open most of the time. It also weather-sealed, and built to last you for years. If you like the 50mm focal length and understand its flaws, I haven't found a better 50mm on canon.

 

[Pi]

To quote neuro:

Excellent bokeh was a priority for Canon with the 50L. They stated, "With the increasing popularity of digital SLR cameras, calls for large aperture single-focal length lenses with excellent image quality and pleasing bokeh (blur effects) for portraits have increased," (Tech Report, 11/2006). Spherical aberration results in a loss of sharpness, but completely correcting for spherical aberration results in a harsh, jittery bokeh. In the 50L design, the spherical aberration was left deliberately undercorrected to produce the creamy bokeh for which the lens is known.

This thread is quite interesting. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10798.0

Couldn't agree more with that. I would hate to see Canon going the Sigma route with the next 50mm lens. The 50L, the 85L, and the 135L are "old school" lenses, that some day may become extinct due to increased pixelpeeper's demands.

 

[Jay Khaos]

I think where others are impressed with the 1.2's picture over the 1.4, you will be left underwhelmed since you already own the 85 1.2.

 

[Etienne]

I own the 1.4 and have been coveting the 1.2 for a while. I've just seen a mint condition 1.2 second hand for a decent price.


I mainly shoot street and family photos. pretty much exclusively @ widest aperture so I would be buying the 1.2 to shoot @ 1.2


does anyone have an opinion on whether the 1.2 is worth it if I already have the 1.4?

Is there much real world difference between the two? (ignoring the obvious like build quality, size, weight and weather sealing)

I like my 50 1.4. It's light, unobtrusive, and versatile. It does a good enough job in the dark. pretty good at f/2, and biting sharp by 5.6

Your money is better spent on a different focal length for variety. Maybe 35 f/2 or 1.4, or my next lens: 24L f/1.4

 

[drjlo]

If you like the 50mm focal length and understand its flaws, I haven't found a better 50mm on canon.

That's basically my conclusion. No other 50 on Canon gives you the gentle background with subject "pop" due to color and contrast wider than say f/2.0. Below shot is at f/1.6. ISO 100 meant long 1/16th shutter speed, but the 50L's relative lighter weight and shape lets me avoid blur.


EOSD4323 by drjlo1, on Flickr

 

[EOBeav]

For IQ, there is very little difference between the two after about f/2. Wide open, though is where the 50L really outshines the f/1.4 Build quality is also another consideration. The f/1.4 tends to be fragile and finicky.

 

[skullyspice]

when my wife bought me my 50 1.2 the salesman referred to it as "god's eye". I think that sums it up pretty well.