Canon 50mm f1.2 lens - Your opinions???

[Seamus]

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.

That's what really matters. Your own satisfaction with own gear. Test 'em all and keep what you like...

 

[Wedding Shooter1]

If photography is your job, and you make money doing it and shoot in low light situations where 1.2 totally comes in handy and helps you to create better photographs then the 1.2 version is a no brainer.

If you don't make money with photography and just like to buy great lenses and have the budget get the 1.2.

In pretty much any other situation the 1.4 will do fine.

I had the 1.4, used it for many weddings until the focusing motor died. Had it fixed and sold it to a friend and I bought the 1.2.....it is a way better made lens and 1.2 is amazing and sharp.

The average hobbyist doesn't need the build quality of most L lenses...Or a "1" series body....These are made for people who use them daily for their job as photographers, that is why they cost so much more so they can keep up with the rigors of daily use. They are specialized and offer things like 1.2 apertures for people who need them to perform in low light, give a separation with extreme depth of field and be sharp wide open.

 

[dadohead]

I can't speak to the 1.4, but I love my 1.2. But, it is also a heart-breaker. On a 5DII focus is hit and miss. I have much better luck when it's on single point Servo on a 1DIV. There are a few caveats: wide open and up close tends to be a tad soft under the best circumstances. It's very flattering for portraits in that way. The depth of field is so shallow at 1.2 that your breathing can move the focus in and out; technique is paramount. It has field curvature, so recomposing after focus is haphazard. If you think you're going to be blazing away with it doing street work, you will be disappointed. It's a somewhat "contemplative" lens. CA can be wicked, especially in backlit situations. Finally, there is a back focusing issue when stopped down.

I would urge anyone to read this before buying:

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

Roger pretty much nails the pros and cons of the lens, and if you do buy the lens it's a good primer to help you skip a lot of the frustration that quickly sours people on the lens. The 1.2 is a cruel mistress, but when it works there is no other lens like it.

 

[rj79in]

For those who been there, done that…I would like to have your opinions on Canon 50mm f1.2 lens.

1. What make you choose f1.2 over f1.4?

OR

2. What make you choose f1.4 over f1.2?

I’m thinking upgrade my f1.4 to f1.2…..its worth it???

Thanks guys,
Dylan

Considering it is an upgrade may I suggest trying out the 35mmL or the 85mmL? The 50mm 1.4 is not too different from the 1.2, except for build and bokeh, of course

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

AF should be fine. Also on the 5DIII the AF may be a tad faster than expected.

"L" glass is highly addictive and rightly said ... all lenses will have to be upgraded

 

[tonyp]

It's an amazing lens. Period. Focusing at 1.2 is a bitch... but when you nail it, it rewards you with diamonds.