Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?

[YuengLinger]

I've spent time carefully looking through online sample images of the two Canon f/1.2's, the 50mm and the 85mm. Consistently, the shots from the 85mm significantly outshine those from the 50mm in terms of sharpness and contrast. In many cases, colors seem better rendered by the 85mm also.

I own and love the 85mm 1.2, and I feel I'm just starting to hit my stride and understand its wide-open capabilities.

But, even before the latest Sigma anticipation, I've been craving something with a bit more room that allows me to step physically closer to subjects. I've heard negative and positive things about the 50mm 1.2, but that is true about most lenses.

So, I found as many 50mm 1.2 online images as I could, and what I'm seeing is a consistent lack of sharp center focus.

What is really going on? Is it a problem with the lens or the photographers? Are the 85mm 1.2 images on, say, pixel-peeper, being taken by better photographers (because the lens costs more, and, with its several quirks, appeals to more experienced photographers)?

Is the 85mm 1.2 really that much better than the 50mm 1.2? Because, from what I'm seeing in an overwhelming number of samples, the 50mm seems quite soft even dead center. With portraits, I want the option of having sharp eyes without having to apply too much sharpening in post, and I can do this with my 85mm even at 1.2.

Thanks in advance for any insights.

 

[Sporgon]

If you have been looking at images taken at f1.2 then I guess it is because the 85 is significantly sharper than the 50 at this aperture:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Clearly the 85 is a much more expensive lens, but the 50 is hardly cheap. I presume on the 85 focal length it was possible to achieve excellent bokeh with more chromatic aberration correction than on a 50 focal length.

 

[Menace]

I have both - if I had to choose between them, I'll take the 85L every time

 

[YuengLinger]

Thanks, Sporgon, for the link. This is a resource I've overlooked many times--now I see how useful the comparisons are.

The focus charts do line up with what I've been finding. I can see many instances of post sharpening being applied heavily to the 50mm 1.2 images, resulting in some crispy artifacts.

This 100% puts me back in waiting mode for more Sigma reviews and sample images.

 

[TheAshleyJones]

I have both. Utterly love the 85, but the 50 goes almost unused. I am going to look at the new Sigma when it's available.

I had and loved the Canon 50 F/1.4 and had great hopes for the F/1.2 but it is so much less everything than the 85.

 

[Sporgon]

I have both. Utterly love the 85, but the 50 goes almost unused. I am going to look at the new Sigma when it's available.

I had and loved the Canon 50 F/1.4 and had great hopes for the F/1.2 but it is so much less everything than the 85.

I think the 85/1.2 can be regarded as a (££ substantial ) upgrade to the 85/1.8. However the 50/1.2 isn't intended to be an 'upgrade' to the 50/1.4, at least not in a general use sense. I know a few photographers who purchased them in '06 and ended up howling. It's a specific lens for a specific type of image. If it wasnt I'd have purchased one years ago as 50mm is my staple diet lens.

 

[YuengLinger]

One thing telling, an excellent portrait/wedding photographer in our area, can easily afford any gear. She uses the ef 50mm 1.4 for some fill-in shots of guests and details at weddings. I asked her why she didn't go with the L version as she did with every other lens (including the 85mm), and she said she had tried it and decided it just wasn't reliable enough for what she was doing with a 50mm.

She mainly uses the 24-70mm f/2.8 II, the 85mm f/1.2,II and the 70-200mm /f2.8 IS II. And you should see how she holds a lens between her knees when swapping out! Changes lenses faster than anybody I've ever seen.

 

[Dylan777]

I have both - if I had to choose between them, I'll take the 85L every time

+1

 

[sdsr]

But, even before the latest Sigma anticipation, I've been craving something with a bit more room that allows me to step physically closer to subjects. I've heard negative and positive things about the 50mm 1.2, but that is true about most lenses.

This doesn't answer your question, but: What sort of subjects are you trying to get closer to, and what sort of effect are you after? Depending on the answer, you might want to consider a 100L (macro) or 135L. Even when not using it as a macro lens, the former allows a remarkable combination of proximity, sharpness and out-of-focus blurring, for instance.

 

[kaihp]

she said she had tried it and decided it just wasn't reliable enough for what she was doing with a 50mm.

It should be noted that the f/1.2L has a focus-shift when shooting in f/1.4 to f/4 range. This is a deliberate design choice, but it can really catch people out.

See this excellent explanation by Neuro.

 

[mackguyver]

They are similar but different beasts. The 85L is quite a bit sharper wide open, but it's big & heavy, focuses slowly, and is sometimes too tight for indoor use. The 50L is small, relatively light, focuses faster (not 2.8 zoom fast, but pretty quick) and allows you to include more of the background. Both lenses have great contrast, color, and bokeh, and both give a unique look.

I own both and will choose the 85L every time for headshots and head & shoulders shots. If I'm in a studio or larger area, I'll use the 85 for 3/4 and full-length shots as well.

I take the 50L when I want to shoot more than one person, or when I'm going someplace that may or may not have enough room for the 85. I also like to use it when I plan to include the background (i.e. at night with defocused lights in the background or if the model is in an interesting setting like architecture or trees). It's also better when time is of the essence or the subjects are moving (kids & pets) because of the AF speed. I also like to take it with me as a general lens as I can shoot wide open or stopped down, and the 50mm focal length is more versatile than the 85 when it comes to other subjects. When I travel but don't want to bring the 24-70, the 50L is usually the lens I choose.

 

[kbmelb]

The 85 1.2 is sharper than 50 1.2 but I find the 50 to sharp enough to consider sharp. Way sharper than my 24-702.8 I.

I have always had great results with with the 50L. My copy was manufactured in 2010 which is after the debatable possible production change. I also AFMA to outer points, not the center, as I NEVER use the center point.

I have noticed slightly better results on my PRO bodies (1DsII and 1DsIII) than on my 5DmkII. The 5DIII might be on par with the 1DsIII

 

[gary samples]

I have the 85 1.2 and love love it
and I also have the 24/70 II 2.8 With those two you will have it going on LOL

 

[East Wind Photography]

I have the 85 1.2 and love love it
and I also have the 24/70 II 2.8 With those two you will have it going on LOL

I was not very happy with several copies of the 24/70 II 2.8. I found it very soft at 70mm and the AFMA was not linear across the focus distance which made it extremely difficult to get consistent focus with. I've seen this issue with some fixed lenses like the 24 F1.4 II but it's a bigger problem on a zoom.

I returned them all and kept my 24/70 I 2.8...which has it's own issues but so far so good.

I've never used the 50 1.2 but the 85 1.2L II gets the most use out of all of my lenses. 600 F4 is #2.

 

[gary samples]

I have the 85 1.2 and love love it
and I also have the 24/70 II 2.8 With those two you will have it going on LOL

I was not very happy with several copies of the 24/70 II 2.8. I found it very soft at 70mm and the AFMA was not linear across the focus distance which made it extremely difficult to get consistent focus with. I've seen this issue with some fixed lenses like the 24 F1.4 II but it's a bigger problem on a zoom.

I returned them all and kept my 24/70 I 2.8...which has it's own issues but so far so good.

I've never used the 50 1.2 but the 85 1.2L II gets the most use out of all of my lenses. 600 F4 is #2.

I seen a small number say that but mine is so sharp it will cut your eyes it looks almost 3D THE 85 1.2 & THE 24/70 II Will never be sold l I Die with them they are that good !

 

[CarlTN]

One thing telling, an excellent portrait/wedding photographer in our area, can easily afford any gear. She uses the ef 50mm 1.4 for some fill-in shots of guests and details at weddings. I asked her why she didn't go with the L version as she did with every other lens (including the 85mm), and she said she had tried it and decided it just wasn't reliable enough for what she was doing with a 50mm.

She mainly uses the 24-70mm f/2.8 II, the 85mm f/1.2,II and the 70-200mm /f2.8 IS II. And you should see how she holds a lens between her knees when swapping out! Changes lenses faster than anybody I've ever seen.

I wonder how often she has her sensor cleaned. Admittedly wide aperture images (shot indoors with darker backgrounds) don't show dust spots very easily, which is probably why she's not very cautious about changing lenses so much. But I wouldn't want to buy anything she sells used, after she's done with it. You can't change lenses "fast" without putting excessive wear on the mounts. It's far better to just use more than one camera body, so you can leave lenses in place and switch between them. She should do this, especially since you say she can afford to purchase whatever she needs.

 

[mackguyver]

One thing telling, an excellent portrait/wedding photographer in our area, can easily afford any gear. She uses the ef 50mm 1.4 for some fill-in shots of guests and details at weddings. I asked her why she didn't go with the L version as she did with every other lens (including the 85mm), and she said she had tried it and decided it just wasn't reliable enough for what she was doing with a 50mm.

She mainly uses the 24-70mm f/2.8 II, the 85mm f/1.2,II and the 70-200mm /f2.8 IS II. And you should see how she holds a lens between her knees when swapping out! Changes lenses faster than anybody I've ever seen.

I wonder how often she has her sensor cleaned. Admittedly wide aperture images (shot indoors with darker backgrounds) don't show dust spots very easily, which is probably why she's not very cautious about changing lenses so much. But I wouldn't want to buy anything she sells used, after she's done with it. You can't change lenses "fast" without putting excessive wear on the mounts. It's far better to just use more than one camera body, so you can leave lenses in place and switch between them. She should do this, especially since you say she can afford to purchase whatever she needs.

I agree that two (or more bodies is the way to go if you can afford it. Also, changing lenses quickly like that is just an accident waiting to happen. Her luck will run out eventually and that will be a costly mistake. Also, as you say, dust on the sensor at wide apertures isn't much of an issue, but dust on the lens will spoil the bokeh pretty quickly if there's enough of it and it's big enough. Not that most people would notice...

 

[CarlTN]

One thing telling, an excellent portrait/wedding photographer in our area, can easily afford any gear. She uses the ef 50mm 1.4 for some fill-in shots of guests and details at weddings. I asked her why she didn't go with the L version as she did with every other lens (including the 85mm), and she said she had tried it and decided it just wasn't reliable enough for what she was doing with a 50mm.

She mainly uses the 24-70mm f/2.8 II, the 85mm f/1.2,II and the 70-200mm /f2.8 IS II. And you should see how she holds a lens between her knees when swapping out! Changes lenses faster than anybody I've ever seen.

I wonder how often she has her sensor cleaned. Admittedly wide aperture images (shot indoors with darker backgrounds) don't show dust spots very easily, which is probably why she's not very cautious about changing lenses so much. But I wouldn't want to buy anything she sells used, after she's done with it. You can't change lenses "fast" without putting excessive wear on the mounts. It's far better to just use more than one camera body, so you can leave lenses in place and switch between them. She should do this, especially since you say she can afford to purchase whatever she needs.

I agree that two (or more bodies is the way to go if you can afford it. Also, changing lenses quickly like that is just an accident waiting to happen. Her luck will run out eventually and that will be a costly mistake. Also, as you say, dust on the sensor at wide apertures isn't much of an issue, but dust on the lens will spoil the bokeh pretty quickly if there's enough of it and it's big enough. Not that most people would notice...

Glad we can agree on something... !! Joking...Yes and worst of all, is lens internal dust (you can't clean it). But as far as mount wear goes...I was especially troubled with the 1D4 body I rented back in 2012. It had scratches around the mount edges, where other people who had rented it, were in a hurry to change lenses, and apparently they think "1 series bodies are indestructible, lenses are pretty stout too". I cringe when people abuse gear...And again, I have no desire to ever buy a used camera or lens, from a rental facility!! I try to buy used gear (which is rare) that is either basically almost brand new, or from other people like me.

 

[RunAndGun]

I don't have the EF 50 f/1.2 L, I have the CN-E 50 T1.3, which is based on the 50L. It is not a spectacular lens close up. It seems fine a working distances of at least several feet, but once you get into the MOD area, it gets soft/milky with the aperture wide open. I've also heard billions of complaints(ok, maybe I'm exaggerating a little) about Zeiss' 50mm(the still lens and cine version-CP.2) being a junker, too.

The 85 f/1.2 L II and CN-E 85 T1.3 are both awesome. I love the 85 L on my 5DIII.

I have yet to understand the almost obsession and reverence that people have with a 50mm lens. I do not own one for my still cams, and of the set of CN-E lenses that I own(14, 24, 50, 85 & 135), the 50 is the LEAST used focal length.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I've spent time carefully looking through online sample images of the two Canon f/1.2's, the 50mm and the 85mm. Consistently, the shots from the 85mm significantly outshine those from the 50mm in terms of sharpness and contrast. In many cases, colors seem better rendered by the 85mm also.

I own and love the 85mm 1.2, and I feel I'm just starting to hit my stride and understand its wide-open capabilities.

But, even before the latest Sigma anticipation, I've been craving something with a bit more room that allows me to step physically closer to subjects. I've heard negative and positive things about the 50mm 1.2, but that is true about most lenses.

So, I found as many 50mm 1.2 online images as I could, and what I'm seeing is a consistent lack of sharp center focus.

What is really going on? Is it a problem with the lens or the photographers? Are the 85mm 1.2 images on, say, pixel-peeper, being taken by better photographers (because the lens costs more, and, with its several quirks, appeals to more experienced photographers)?

Is the 85mm 1.2 really that much better than the 50mm 1.2? Because, from what I'm seeing in an overwhelming number of samples, the 50mm seems quite soft even dead center. With portraits, I want the option of having sharp eyes without having to apply too much sharpening in post, and I can do this with my 85mm even at 1.2.

Thanks in advance for any insights.

If sharpness is your thing then yes the 85IIL is a lot better. My copy is one of the sharpest lenses (wide open) I own...and a I own a few...I've yet to see a 50 f1.2 L which is as sharp as my other primes. But I've always like the images I've got from it...but it's not what I'd call really sharp.