Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM

[klickflip]

while I'm here a couple more.. obligitory to include a cat pic

 

[mackguyver]

while I'm here a couple more.. obligitory to include a cat pic

Nice shots, but f/1.8 on that first one??? How could you

 

[privatebydesign]

I do not know why so many people hate this lens... I love it! I don't care what Sigma or what ever present, that 1.2L Glas is so damn lovely! <3
Shot on a 5D Lr + Ps for Skin. (all at 1.2, except the last one at 1.4)

The problem with "examples" like that is they are post process driven, I could give an image shot taken with any 50mm lens at any aperture (at the same shoot) to a decent post processor and get them to look very similar.

Disagree completely, what plant are you living on?!!
These are a brilliant wee set, shot nicely and processed beautifully to compliment the 50L's creamy quality wide open and take these way beyond what 'any 50 at any aperture' would do.
If you have a personal dislike for processed shots then just say they're not to your taste. but to say any 50 at any aperture with processing would get similar results is nuts!
There's a lot more consideration and skill gone into these than you may think than just processing.
Location, time of day, quality of light, shooting/model position and styling, and then finally processing to complete the shot's mood and style.
If you're sick of too many style centric processed shots everywhere you see then thats a different story, as most of us prob dislike average or crap shots over processed just to look cool or cover up bad shooting technique. But these are made with certain style and subtlety that actually works for the shot. Well done Imaxmax!

Get off your high horse and read what I actually wrote. And, I don't live on a plant [sic].

I cast no judgement and expressed no opinion of the images other than to point out that with that much post processing any lens characteristics are heavily masked. That is not a contentious comment, it is a factual statement.

Hey PD, I'll get of my high horse then.. but would you like to discuss factually how ' an image shot taken with any 50mm lens at any aperture (at the same shoot) to a decent post processor and get them to look very similar.'

To me thats a really generalising statement and technically untrue I believe, and especially invalid in the 50L discussion thread. Maybe could be seen to be 'similar' by joe public for the general processing colour look. But should we not be discussing the 50Ls merits / qualities here and with a very keen eye?
What I see is the 50Ls lovely smooth rendering of the OOF areas and to my eyes that has been brilliantly retained within the processing. I can tell when too much contrast, highlights / shadows pulled in, clarity, sharpening begin to affect the natural look of a lens and the 50L especially. If you process harder sharper it pushes it more towards the 50 1.4 look and feel but at 1.2 and 1.4 you'd never achieve as beautiful lens rendering with any other lens maybe aside from the Otis.

There's a few other examples on this page that I however see some slight heavy handed sharpening on shots not taken as wide open that start to make it harder to me to discern as that '50L Look' This isn't go at anyone else but just technical observations.
Sparda79's fighfighters shots are nicely made ,but to me these don't show the natural 50L qualities that makes the 50L really shine compared to when shot wide openish of a closer portrait. There's a touch too much sharpening on these that hardens the bokeh rings much like the 501.4 does. To me these set of shots would be much harder to say that the 50L was used. And might have been a more valid discussion than Imaxmax's set.

All I'm saying here PD is we should be discussing the lens attributes and be doing it discerningly, and this page is chance to see some great work produced by the lens, and see the differences different subject matters, apertures, light and backgrounds are rendered by this len. For people who already use it and those who are thinking about owning it. It's a special lens and can be difficult to work with so when good results are made is great to see.
But there is a sweat spot it shines at, and that is wideish open but does also rely on the light in scene, the background, subject matter and of course... processing

Get off your high horse and read what I actually wrote. And, I don't live on a plant [sic].

I cast no judgement and expressed no opinion of the images other than to point out that with that much post processing any lens characteristics are heavily masked. That is not a contentious comment, it is a factual statement.

Post processing or not i think u can always see the character of a lens still. PP makes the shot better but not the feel. Something like that. Personally i think the more crappy a lens the more easy it is to notice the PP.

Well if you two guys want to demonstrate your observational skills you will have no problems telling us which of these images was shot with the 50 f1.2. Of course if you can't get them all right I might just have made a valid point.

P.S. For some bonus points tell us which other lenses were used.

 

[Sporgon]

I do not know why so many people hate this lens... I love it! I don't care what Sigma or what ever present, that 1.2L Glas is so damn lovely! <3
Shot on a 5D Lr + Ps for Skin. (all at 1.2, except the last one at 1.4)

The problem with "examples" like that is they are post process driven, I could give an image shot taken with any 50mm lens at any aperture (at the same shoot) to a decent post processor and get them to look very similar.

Disagree completely, what plant are you living on?!!
These are a brilliant wee set, shot nicely and processed beautifully to compliment the 50L's creamy quality wide open and take these way beyond what 'any 50 at any aperture' would do.
If you have a personal dislike for processed shots then just say they're not to your taste. but to say any 50 at any aperture with processing would get similar results is nuts!
There's a lot more consideration and skill gone into these than you may think than just processing.
Location, time of day, quality of light, shooting/model position and styling, and then finally processing to complete the shot's mood and style.
If you're sick of too many style centric processed shots everywhere you see then thats a different story, as most of us prob dislike average or crap shots over processed just to look cool or cover up bad shooting technique. But these are made with certain style and subtlety that actually works for the shot. Well done Imaxmax!

Get off your high horse and read what I actually wrote. And, I don't live on a plant [sic].

I cast no judgement and expressed no opinion of the images other than to point out that with that much post processing any lens characteristics are heavily masked. That is not a contentious comment, it is a factual statement.

Hey PD, I'll get of my high horse then.. but would you like to discuss factually how ' an image shot taken with any 50mm lens at any aperture (at the same shoot) to a decent post processor and get them to look very similar.'

To me thats a really generalising statement and technically untrue I believe, and especially invalid in the 50L discussion thread. Maybe could be seen to be 'similar' by joe public for the general processing colour look. But should we not be discussing the 50Ls merits / qualities here and with a very keen eye?
What I see is the 50Ls lovely smooth rendering of the OOF areas and to my eyes that has been brilliantly retained within the processing. I can tell when too much contrast, highlights / shadows pulled in, clarity, sharpening begin to affect the natural look of a lens and the 50L especially. If you process harder sharper it pushes it more towards the 50 1.4 look and feel but at 1.2 and 1.4 you'd never achieve as beautiful lens rendering with any other lens maybe aside from the Otis.

There's a few other examples on this page that I however see some slight heavy handed sharpening on shots not taken as wide open that start to make it harder to me to discern as that '50L Look' This isn't go at anyone else but just technical observations.
Sparda79's fighfighters shots are nicely made ,but to me these don't show the natural 50L qualities that makes the 50L really shine compared to when shot wide openish of a closer portrait. There's a touch too much sharpening on these that hardens the bokeh rings much like the 501.4 does. To me these set of shots would be much harder to say that the 50L was used. And might have been a more valid discussion than Imaxmax's set.

All I'm saying here PD is we should be discussing the lens attributes and be doing it discerningly, and this page is chance to see some great work produced by the lens, and see the differences different subject matters, apertures, light and backgrounds are rendered by this len. For people who already use it and those who are thinking about owning it. It's a special lens and can be difficult to work with so when good results are made is great to see.
But there is a sweat spot it shines at, and that is wideish open but does also rely on the light in scene, the background, subject matter and of course... processing

Get off your high horse and read what I actually wrote. And, I don't live on a plant [sic].

I cast no judgement and expressed no opinion of the images other than to point out that with that much post processing any lens characteristics are heavily masked. That is not a contentious comment, it is a factual statement.

Post processing or not i think u can always see the character of a lens still. PP makes the shot better but not the feel. Something like that. Personally i think the more crappy a lens the more easy it is to notice the PP.

Well if you two guys want to demonstrate your observational skills you will have no problems telling us which of these images was shot with the 50 f1.2. Of course if you can't get them all right I might just have made a valid point.

P.S. For some bonus points tell us which other lenses were used.

That's not fair ! There's no reference point, such as 'EF 50L gallery" or 'anything shot on a mki 50 1.8'. How are we supposed to appreciate the subtleties of a favourite lens if we don't know which one we are looking at ?

 

[Eldar]

With all due respect, this discussion is rubbish. Looking at (over)processed, low resolution images, no exif and no objective comparative information ... It´s like sitting in the next room trying to guess what amplifier your neighbor is using in his hifi setup.

The only reasonable way to compare lenses is to have them side by side, shooting the same subjects, in the same lighting conditions, with the same settings, camera and post processing. I have seen what experts can do in post processing and they are certainly able to fool me.

 

[privatebydesign]

That's not fair ! There's no reference point, such as 'EF 50L gallery" or 'anything shot on a mki 50 1.8'. How are we supposed to appreciate the subtleties of a favourite lens if we don't know which one we are looking at ?

 

[privatebydesign]

With all due respect, this discussion is rubbish. Looking at (over)processed, low resolution images, no exif and no objective comparative information ... It´s like sitting in the next room trying to guess what amplifier your neighbor is using in his hifi setup.

The only reasonable way to compare lenses is to have them side by side, shooting the same subjects, in the same lighting conditions, with the same settings, camera and post processing. I have seen what experts can do in post processing and they are certainly able to fool me.

Eldar, that was my point.

 

[Eldar]

Eldar, that was my point.

I got that

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

I do not know why so many people hate this lens... I love it! I don't care what Sigma or what ever present, that 1.2L Glas is so damn lovely! <3
Shot on a 5D Lr + Ps for Skin. (all at 1.2, except the last one at 1.4)

The problem with "examples" like that is they are post process driven, I could give an image shot taken with any 50mm lens at any aperture (at the same shoot) to a decent post processor and get them to look very similar.

Disagree completely, what plant are you living on?!!
These are a brilliant wee set, shot nicely and processed beautifully to compliment the 50L's creamy quality wide open and take these way beyond what 'any 50 at any aperture' would do.
If you have a personal dislike for processed shots then just say they're not to your taste. but to say any 50 at any aperture with processing would get similar results is nuts!
There's a lot more consideration and skill gone into these than you may think than just processing.
Location, time of day, quality of light, shooting/model position and styling, and then finally processing to complete the shot's mood and style.
If you're sick of too many style centric processed shots everywhere you see then thats a different story, as most of us prob dislike average or crap shots over processed just to look cool or cover up bad shooting technique. But these are made with certain style and subtlety that actually works for the shot. Well done Imaxmax!

Get off your high horse and read what I actually wrote. And, I don't live on a plant [sic].

I cast no judgement and expressed no opinion of the images other than to point out that with that much post processing any lens characteristics are heavily masked. That is not a contentious comment, it is a factual statement.

Hey PD, I'll get of my high horse then.. but would you like to discuss factually how ' an image shot taken with any 50mm lens at any aperture (at the same shoot) to a decent post processor and get them to look very similar.'

To me thats a really generalising statement and technically untrue I believe, and especially invalid in the 50L discussion thread. Maybe could be seen to be 'similar' by joe public for the general processing colour look. But should we not be discussing the 50Ls merits / qualities here and with a very keen eye?
What I see is the 50Ls lovely smooth rendering of the OOF areas and to my eyes that has been brilliantly retained within the processing. I can tell when too much contrast, highlights / shadows pulled in, clarity, sharpening begin to affect the natural look of a lens and the 50L especially. If you process harder sharper it pushes it more towards the 50 1.4 look and feel but at 1.2 and 1.4 you'd never achieve as beautiful lens rendering with any other lens maybe aside from the Otis.

There's a few other examples on this page that I however see some slight heavy handed sharpening on shots not taken as wide open that start to make it harder to me to discern as that '50L Look' This isn't go at anyone else but just technical observations.
Sparda79's fighfighters shots are nicely made ,but to me these don't show the natural 50L qualities that makes the 50L really shine compared to when shot wide openish of a closer portrait. There's a touch too much sharpening on these that hardens the bokeh rings much like the 501.4 does. To me these set of shots would be much harder to say that the 50L was used. And might have been a more valid discussion than Imaxmax's set.

All I'm saying here PD is we should be discussing the lens attributes and be doing it discerningly, and this page is chance to see some great work produced by the lens, and see the differences different subject matters, apertures, light and backgrounds are rendered by this len. For people who already use it and those who are thinking about owning it. It's a special lens and can be difficult to work with so when good results are made is great to see.
But there is a sweat spot it shines at, and that is wideish open but does also rely on the light in scene, the background, subject matter and of course... processing

Get off your high horse and read what I actually wrote. And, I don't live on a plant [sic].

I cast no judgement and expressed no opinion of the images other than to point out that with that much post processing any lens characteristics are heavily masked. That is not a contentious comment, it is a factual statement.

Post processing or not i think u can always see the character of a lens still. PP makes the shot better but not the feel. Something like that. Personally i think the more crappy a lens the more easy it is to notice the PP.

Well if you two guys want to demonstrate your observational skills you will have no problems telling us which of these images was shot with the 50 f1.2. Of course if you can't get them all right I might just have made a valid point.

P.S. For some bonus points tell us which other lenses were used.

Looking at those images as they are ALL of them could have been taken with the 50 1.2 at different apertures and processed differently.

In its unaltered state and wide open a shot with the 50 1.2 would be more recognizable but like that they could be anything.

I used to own the 50 1.2L and sold it mainly down to not liking the perspective , i use a 35 and 85 now and find those suit my style much better and they can produce as good bokeh as the 50 1.2. I hardly ever shoot at anything under F2 for my work mind as it just gets to shallow for the subject otherwise.

www.andrew-davies.com

 

[privatebydesign]

Interesting, but not surprising, over 600 views of 24 example images and not one person even ventures to make a guess on one single one of them, even though we had people saying stuff like "Post processing or not i think u can always see the character of a lens still." and "shot nicely and processed beautifully to compliment the 50L's creamy quality wide open and take these way beyond what 'any 50 at any aperture' would do."

Kinda funny really..........

 

[Andrew Davies Photography]

Interesting, but not surprising, over 600 views of 24 example images and not one person even ventures to make a guess on one single one of them, even though we had people saying stuff like "Post processing or not i think u can always see the character of a lens still." and "shot nicely and processed beautifully to compliment the 50L's creamy quality wide open and take these way beyond what 'any 50 at any aperture' would do."

Kinda funny really..........

Your right of course telling a lens from a photo is nigh on impossible. However the fact a wide aperture prime has been used wide open is sometimes a lot more obvious and can be told apart from a zoom. The posting of those photos though was not something anyone could make a good judgement from just not enough size or resolution and too much processing, it does not suprise me noone has answered.

 

[klickflip]

Interesting, but not surprising, over 600 views of 24 example images and not one person even ventures to make a guess on one single one of them, even though we had people saying stuff like "Post processing or not i think u can always see the character of a lens still." and "shot nicely and processed beautifully to compliment the 50L's creamy quality wide open and take these way beyond what 'any 50 at any aperture' would do."

Kinda funny really..........

I'll have a shot at this , probably will be totally wrong but will be be fun :0

Can I ask, are all the shots your own ? or have you grabbed them form various sources for this exercise ?

 

[privatebydesign]

I'll have a shot at this , probably will be totally wrong but will be be fun :0

Can I ask, are all the shots your own ? or have you grabbed them form various sources for this exercise ?

Of course you can ask, not one of them is mine and they are all easily findable on the net, I wasn't sneaky or devious, I deliberately put in images from several lenses but I will say they are all the same focal length. I didn't use any of my images for several reasons, not least of which is I don't post process like many of them and I wanted to include a range of styles, subject matter, selective dof etc and as I have posted hundreds of images here I didn't want my test subjects, location, or post style to give anybody clues.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm sure the obvious answer is that none of them were shot with the 50L ;D

Once upon a time this was a photo gallery, so I'll try to start it down that path again, even if it's not the greatest photo:

 

[klickflip]

I'll have a shot at this , probably will be totally wrong but will be be fun :0

Can I ask, are all the shots your own ? or have you grabbed them form various sources for this exercise ?

Of course you can ask, not one of them is mine and they are all easily findable on the net, I wasn't sneaky or devious, I deliberately put in images from several lenses but I will say they are all the same focal length. I didn't use any of my images for several reasons, not least of which is I don't post process like many of them and I wanted to include a range of styles, subject matter, selective dof etc and as I have posted hundreds of images here I didn't want my test subjects, location, or post style to give anybody clues.

Well you have picked some good examples to make it difficult Really is everything a 50mm, a few look 100mm macro to my eyes.

Since we are in canon forum , are we looking at canon 1.4, 1.8. 1.2L and sigma 1.4 & 1.4 art... any nikons in there ? have you compiled the exif date from each of the shots? we can look at afterwards

 

[privatebydesign]

Well you have picked some good examples to make it difficult Really is everything a 50mm, a few look 100mm macro to my eyes.

Since we are in canon forum , are we looking at canon 1.4, 1.8. 1.2L and sigma 1.4 & 1.4 art... any nikons in there ? have you compiled the exif date from each of the shots? we can look at afterwards

No more clues, just 50mm. The only additional info I have is which lens it was, I had each open in a browser window but closed them when nobody rose to the challenge, I might be able to find a few more details for some of them.

Obviously you are being trusted not to cheat

P.S. Mackguyver, sorry for the diversion. For a little perspective I owned and used an FD 50 f1.2L for many years and simply loved it, when I moved to EOS I eagerly anticipated the arrival of the 1.2L and used the 1.4 in the mean time. When the 1.2 did eventually arrive I was not impressed, I tried to like it but didn't.

I am not a fast prime hater by any stretch of the imagination, the 85 f1.2 is peerless, but I feel too often wild claims are made that just can't be backed up. I have said many times that if you shoot more because your lens has a red ring then that alone is a good enough reason to buy it. But to claim some of the stuff in this thread from in line images really is gilding the lily, and truthfully doesn't help informed purchasing decisions.

 

[mackguyver]

P.S. Mackguyver, sorry for the diversion. For a little perspective I owned and used an FD 50 f1.2L for many years and simply loved it, when I moved to EOS I eagerly anticipated the arrival of the 1.2L and used the 1.4 in the mean time. When the 1.2 did eventually arrive I was not impressed, I tried to like it but didn't.

I am not a fast prime hater by any stretch of the imagination, the 85 f1.2 is peerless, but I feel too often wild claims are made that just can't be backed up. I have said many times that if you shoot more because your lens has a red ring then that alone is a good enough reason to buy it. But to claim some of the stuff in this thread from in line images really is gilding the lily, and truthfully doesn't help informed purchasing decisions.

No apologies needed - you were actually the last person to post photos! Besides, I like your examples and the point you're making. I'm of the opposite perspective on this lens - I tried not to like it and even sold it, but there is something about this lens that I see in the final photos that I love. In side-by-side shots with the 50 f/1.4, it's not there, and there's nothing magical going on, but the lens does produce great photos for me. I don't post most of those photos here as they are of family, but I'm really happy with them. No wild claims, just great results for me, that's why I like this lens.

I also agree that the 85 f/1.2 II is truly amazing (and better than the 50L), and I actually think that lens really does seem to have some magic

 

[Menace]

P.S. Mackguyver, sorry for the diversion. For a little perspective I owned and used an FD 50 f1.2L for many years and simply loved it, when I moved to EOS I eagerly anticipated the arrival of the 1.2L and used the 1.4 in the mean time. When the 1.2 did eventually arrive I was not impressed, I tried to like it but didn't.

I am not a fast prime hater by any stretch of the imagination, the 85 f1.2 is peerless, but I feel too often wild claims are made that just can't be backed up. I have said many times that if you shoot more because your lens has a red ring then that alone is a good enough reason to buy it. But to claim some of the stuff in this thread from in line images really is gilding the lily, and truthfully doesn't help informed purchasing decisions.

No apologies needed - you were actually the last person to post photos! Besides, I like your examples and the point you're making. I'm of the opposite perspective on this lens - I tried not to like it and even sold it, but there is something about this lens that I see in the final photos that I love. In side-by-side shots with the 50 f/1.4, it's not there, and there's nothing magical going on, but the lens does produce great photos for me. I don't post most of those photos here as they are of family, but I'm really happy with them. No wild claims, just great results for me, that's why I like this lens.

I also agree that the 85 f/1.2 II is truly amazing (and better than the 50L), and I actually think that lens really does seem to have some magic

I loved having both the 50L and the 85L but you are absolutely correct - 85L is magical.

 

[talicoa]

I'll make a couple of guesses based on my experience with these lenses.
The little girl looking up is with the 50 1.2L, as is the woman looking up the roof, I think the Little Figurine, and maybe the rose too. The horse nose and the girl coming up the escalator look like the 1.4 version.

Here is my take on these lenses.
50L The contrast and color is superior to any other 50MM I have seen.
50 f1.4 Canon. This lens is dreamy there is a lot of halation wide open lower contrast, wicked sharp at f5.6
85 1.8 Canon Fast AF. Wicked Sharp at f5.6 too. My go-to studio Portrait lens. Nails the shot 95% of the time. Best keeper rate of all lenses I have tried.
85 1.2L Turn off the studio lights, go out into the garden open the aperture up and amaze yourself. If you don't have a weather sealed body then don't chimp, or you might ruin your camera with the drool.
135L When you need a little more range. Color and contrast are amazing. Bokeh is one of the best for a lens many people can afford. It has some magic in it. Great for theater and music.
70-200 2,8LII This lens does a lot of what all the others do, except for the 50MM 1.2. It is gigantic and heavy though. The bokeh is impressive if you shoot tight at 200mm. Very sharp.

There is a lot of hype right now about the Sigma and how sharp it is. I am not sure the sharpness is what I love about the 50L. It is more than that. Does the Sigma have the same feel? Time will tell.
I have rented the 50L a few times and I own the 1.4. I have rented the 85 1.2L multiple times and it is incredible. The next lens on my wishlist is the 50mm 1.2L. Even with the Sigma out there, the Canon is what I want. Maybe I will rent the Sigma and see how much I like it. The price is better.

I will see if I can dig up some interesting photos that I can post.

 

[surapon]

Dear Teachers and Friends.
After read this Great Post, Make me sick with G.A.S. Illness again, But I must ask your opinion/ Great Opinion first :
I already have Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 MK I, Canon EF 85 mm F/ 1.2 L MK II And EF 40 MM. Pancake + So many Lenses start from 8 MM Fish eye to 600 mm. ------Do you think Smart IDEA to Spend another $ 1500 US Dollars for EF 50 mm F/ 1.2 L ??? and What For ??---Or Just Save Money to buy EF 1200 MM. L. ( 1800 MM. If Canon Make it) before I die.

Yes, For $ 1500 US Dollars, I can buy many Good Sigma Lenses.
Thank you, Sir/ Madam
Have a great weekend
Surapon