Canon 50mm f1.2 lens - Your opinions???
- Thread starter Dylan777
- Start date
- Status
Hi,
I had a Sigma 50 f/1.4 (wich in my opinion is a way better lens than the canon 1.4 in terms of sharpness and bokeh, IF you get a good one! And I had a good one
)
But the thing is, that it was a Sigma, so no Canon L build quality, no CPS, no weather sealing.
The Canon 1.4 feels reeeeeeeally plasticy, but its a really good lens for the money and really not that heavy.
The reasons why I went for the 1.2 are:
1.) It has a red ring (and in the pro world that means a lot, because other pros just don't take you seriously if you run around with a 1Ds without an L lens, its stupid but its reality....)
2.) It has 1.2 (wich is just 1/3 of a stop more (canon only calculates in 1/3rd stops not in half stops, that is why there is a 50 1.8 and no 50 1.7, so the 1.2 is just 1/3 stop faster not half a stop!))
3.) It has weather sealing! And THAT was the most important point for me. If I have to shoot at weddings or other stuff in bad weather (which happens a lot) I need 2 things: A fast lens, because with bad weather there comes bad lightin aaaaaaand I need a weather sealed lens. I also got the 35 1.4 and the 85 1.2 II but there are both not weather sealed!
4.) BOOOOOOKEH! The 50 1.2 has the best bokeh i've ever seen on a 50mm prime lens for canon! Thas a fact!
The big issue with the lens is the sharpness: Its just not as sharp as other L primes! Thats a fact! But what do you expect at 1.2?? And it costs around 4-5 times more thant the 1.4...
If money is not an issue and you don't need to buy more important things than a new prime, then go for the 1.2, if you need a fast, sharp 50 for less, then I'd consider the Sigma since it is a reaaaally good lens for that price!
Hope this will help you a little
I had a Sigma 50 f/1.4 (wich in my opinion is a way better lens than the canon 1.4 in terms of sharpness and bokeh, IF you get a good one! And I had a good one
) But the thing is, that it was a Sigma, so no Canon L build quality, no CPS, no weather sealing.
The Canon 1.4 feels reeeeeeeally plasticy, but its a really good lens for the money and really not that heavy.
The reasons why I went for the 1.2 are:
1.) It has a red ring (and in the pro world that means a lot, because other pros just don't take you seriously if you run around with a 1Ds without an L lens, its stupid but its reality....)
2.) It has 1.2 (wich is just 1/3 of a stop more (canon only calculates in 1/3rd stops not in half stops, that is why there is a 50 1.8 and no 50 1.7, so the 1.2 is just 1/3 stop faster not half a stop!))
3.) It has weather sealing! And THAT was the most important point for me. If I have to shoot at weddings or other stuff in bad weather (which happens a lot) I need 2 things: A fast lens, because with bad weather there comes bad lightin aaaaaaand I need a weather sealed lens. I also got the 35 1.4 and the 85 1.2 II but there are both not weather sealed!
4.) BOOOOOOKEH! The 50 1.2 has the best bokeh i've ever seen on a 50mm prime lens for canon! Thas a fact!
The big issue with the lens is the sharpness: Its just not as sharp as other L primes! Thats a fact! But what do you expect at 1.2?? And it costs around 4-5 times more thant the 1.4...
If money is not an issue and you don't need to buy more important things than a new prime, then go for the 1.2, if you need a fast, sharp 50 for less, then I'd consider the Sigma since it is a reaaaally good lens for that price!
Hope this will help you a little
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:
It's a lot, lot cheaper than the f/1.2 and I accept its weaknesses i.e. slower autofocus, inferior build quality, poorer quality of bokeh (subjective) and no weathersealing. I have other lenses to fulfil these requirements.
By most accounts however, the 1.4 is a sharper lens than the 1.2 and I do appreciate that. It's also the least attention-grabbing lens that I own.
Upvote
0
Z said:
Wich other lenses forfill that requirements fo you?? The only thing I can image is the 24-70 2.8, an that is not a really sharp lens and is 2,3 stops slower! Or are there other weather sealed lenses in the range betweend 35mm and 85mm I don't know of? You could either got with the 24 1.4 II or the 100 2.8L but they are not nearly in the range of the 50...
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Dylan777 said:
I've neither been there, nor done that - in fact, I chose to dodge the choice by getting both the 35mm f/1.4L and the 85mm f/1.2L II.
But, if I were going to get a 50mm lens, it would be the 50mm f/1.2L. I would pick it for the better build quality, and most importantly, the better bokeh which is the hallmark of that lens.
Upvote
0
pz-photography said:
Correct, it is the 24-70 that fulfils the 'rainy day 50mm requirement' for me. I've just never needed an aperture wider than f/2.8 outdoors (where it tends to rain). Each to their own though, I appreciate some people need a weather sealed, f/1.2 50mm.
EDIT: I should mention that if money were taken out of the equation I would certainly pick the f/1.2.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
That was in fact my problem: 35mm f/1.4L and the 85mm f/1.2L II and they are both not capable of shooting in bad weather, so that was the only point to me for buying the 50 1.2. If there comes out the new 35 1.4 with weather sealing I think I could live with that only. I don't like the 24 1.4 II, because it's not as sharp as the 35 (in my opinion) and to wide for general purpose....so I had no choice..
Upvote
0
I had both the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.2 for awhile and although I do believe the 1.2 delivered better IQ, I felt it was only slightly superior to the 1.4. For me, aperture is everything - if the 1.2 was a full stop faster, I'd be willing to pay the premium. But it's only a single click. For those reasons, I couldn't justify the cost and returned the 1.2. (gotta love B&H's 30-day unconditional return policy).
Regarding build quality and weather sealing, I've already destroyed one 1.4 - but even after buying a second copy of that lens, I'm still 50% ahead... if I'm going into harm's way, the 1.4 is my lens of choice...
If you already have the 35/1.4, 85/1.8 (or 1.2), 135/2, then make your decision on build quality and ability to share filters. If you don't have these lenses, then the additional $1,100 would be far better spent on an additional lens.
Regarding build quality and weather sealing, I've already destroyed one 1.4 - but even after buying a second copy of that lens, I'm still 50% ahead... if I'm going into harm's way, the 1.4 is my lens of choice...
If you already have the 35/1.4, 85/1.8 (or 1.2), 135/2, then make your decision on build quality and ability to share filters. If you don't have these lenses, then the additional $1,100 would be far better spent on an additional lens.
Upvote
0
I have used both the Canon f/1.2 and f/1.4 before, and I would like the f/1.2 for a few reasons. I have to save up for it, and it might be later this year before I can buy it (Christmas rebates?). It would be the final lens for a while.
The thin depth of field is impressive, but I might only use that 10% of the time.
If you do step it down, the f/1.2 is sharper at f/1.4, f/1.8 and f/2 than the f/1.4 lens.
And the f/1.2 has internal focusing/weather stuff.
The thin depth of field is impressive, but I might only use that 10% of the time.
If you do step it down, the f/1.2 is sharper at f/1.4, f/1.8 and f/2 than the f/1.4 lens.
And the f/1.2 has internal focusing/weather stuff.
Upvote
0
I've had both of them, and I think the 50mm f/1.4 is awesome for the money, a really great value. The 50mm 1.2 is a great lens, but if you don't shoot at 50mm a lot I'm not sure it's worth the upgrade. The 1.4 is close in sharpness, and I think the AF may be a little better. The 50 1.2 has a buttery smooth bokeh and can produce some stunning images, but it seems like people either love or hate it. It has some focus shift issues if you are shooting from certain angles, but overall I love it.
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:
I chose the 1.4 over the 1.2 for the following reasons
1.2 4 times the price! of the 1.4 (which is 4 times the price of the 1.8!)
the 1.4 is really a nice compact light size the 1.2 is a small watermelon but it does look so awesome nothing except the 85 1.2 can beat it there
I thought the 1.4 would be closer to the nikon 50 f1.4G unfortunately the nikon kills the canon
its the same size too(canon please make a 50 f1.4L built like the 100f2.8L macro)
If you have a 1.4 already I am not sure you will get a good return on investment with the 1.2 maybe see if a new 1.4 comes out with the next round of new lens announcements
Upvote
0
rj79in said:
Low Light & Great Bokeh are what I'm looking for. The reason I like 50mm is most of the pictures I took are close up shots, so 35mm on 5D III might be little wide for me.
I was little worry about AF speed on f1.2 due to heavy glass. However....we have some good feedbacks about the AF speed. I think I'm going to upgrade all my lenses to "L".
These are lenses I use most with my 5D II
50mm f1.4 ==> more likely upgrade to f1.2
24-105
70-200mm f2.8 IS II
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Really? I haven't shot with the f/1.2 before, but all of the comparison images I've seen on the internet show hardly any difference in bokeh quality over the f/1.4. Please feel free to prove me wrong, though.
Upvote
0
I've owned the 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 II and I must have had a bad copy of the 1.2 as I wasn't impressed and returned it within the first 30 days. I thought it would be super sharp, but I didn't see the value of that much of a jump. The real funny thing is I feel like the 1.8 II provided some of the best pictures of the three....and the value..you can't go wrong with $100.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
