Disappointed with 50 f/1.2 sharpness @ f/1.2

[V_Raptor]

What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses. "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!" And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot. Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot! If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings? The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site.

However,

I don't think there is really any reason for 50 f/1.2L owners to defend and justify their purchase/ownership. If it is working for you and you love it, do you really care what anybody else thinks? I know I wouldn't.

Hey bdunbar79 how is it going ??

Yeah I agree with the comparing apples with apples

On this particular tread tho' the member asked specifically about the 1.2 and opinion from 1.2 owners to check if his copy was faulty or not. I can't say for other people, but I was just trying to help the original poster with his question.

If we go back and read the thread, it seams that owners of 1.4 lenses jumped on the wagon and tried to justify ( scientifically and otherwise ) why the 1.4 would do the same job for 1000 less or something like that...I think this time is the other way around you see

Cheers

V_R

 

[vscd]

Maybe I had a bad copy or I'm still upset and so my answers are coloured with my historical feelings. My pictures at @f1.2 weren't as sharp as yours, but the "problem" was more that the 50mm 1.4 outchallenged the 1.2 lense by far. Maybe there are some good ones out there, but I heard the same problem from other people.

From f2.5 on, the lense was a beast, and the colors and buildquality were outstanding... and if you need the red ring or simply the 1.2 you can't get any better from Canon at the moment. But the price and the open apertures weren't even at the niveau of thr 50mm 1.4. So it was sold. This is pixelpeeping. Of course it is, but for a $1500 lense against a $350 lense it's something which is appropriate, I think. Otherwise we all could use a 350D and a 50f1.8.

The 85mm 1.2 II was the opposite, it was a great update to the 85mm 1.8 in all ranges, except weight. The 85mm 1.2 has some other bad points (no weathersealing at any point), but that's ok for portraits in rooms.

I think everyone should use any lense he want's to, but there were people disappointed of the sharpness (topic) and I just gave my 50 cents because I had one. A red ring doesn't always justify anything. My old Zeiss f2 was sharper, and it was from 1958. At the moment I've no 50mm for the Canon anymmore, I sticked more to the fabulous 35mm range.

Here is a picture from the 85 1.2 with a part as crop. The Crop is from the jpg out of cam, no sharpening applied. This was handhold, I think there is more possible with mirrorlockup and tripod ;D

Sorry for maybe some harsh words, I love you all

 

[bdunbar79]

What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses. "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!" And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot. Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot! If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings? The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site.

However,

I don't think there is really any reason for 50 f/1.2L owners to defend and justify their purchase/ownership. If it is working for you and you love it, do you really care what anybody else thinks? I know I wouldn't.

Hey bdunbar79 how is it going ??

Yeah I agree with the comparing apples with apples

On this particular tread tho' the member asked specifically about the 1.2 and opinion from 1.2 owners to check if his copy was faulty or not. I can't say for other people, but I was just trying to help the original poster with his question.

If we go back and read the thread, it seams that owners of 1.4 lenses jumped on the wagon and tried to justify ( scientifically and otherwise ) why the 1.4 would do the same job for 1000 less or something like that...I think this time is the other way around you see

Cheers

V_R

What led you to believe that my post was directed towards you?

 

[RMC33]

What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses. "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!" And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot. Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot! If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings? The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site.

However,

I don't think there is really any reason for 50 f/1.2L owners to defend and justify their purchase/ownership. If it is working for you and you love it, do you really care what anybody else thinks? I know I wouldn't.

I compared both a while back, and a zeiss 50 1.4. I think a few other people have too (just the canons). I stuck with my 50 1.4 mainly because I love the lens and could not see any reason to spend $1400-1600 on a minor upgrade at best. The copy I had also suffered major focus shift (was a CPS rental) to the point were f/1.2 was -2 AFMA and f/1.4 was -9. Until I got to about f/2.8 the focus shift was still very evident.

 

[bdunbar79]

What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses. "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!" And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot. Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot! If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings? The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site.

However,

I don't think there is really any reason for 50 f/1.2L owners to defend and justify their purchase/ownership. If it is working for you and you love it, do you really care what anybody else thinks? I know I wouldn't.

I compared both a while back, and a zeiss 50 1.4. I think a few other people have too (just the canons). I stuck with my 50 1.4 mainly because I love the lens and could not see any reason to spend $1400-1600 on a minor upgrade at best. The copy I had also suffered major focus shift (was a CPS rental) to the point were f/1.2 was -2 AFMA and f/1.4 was -9. Until I got to about f/2.8 the focus shift was still very evident.

That's all I was saying too, and admitted it was just my opinion. I don't think the 1.4 is better than the 1.2 by any means. I do not, however, believe that the 1.2 is worth that much in price over the 1.4. It does not take away from the quality of the 1.2, it's just to me, there isn't nearly enough extra quality to spend that much more money. And yes, just my opinion.

 

[RMC33]

What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses. "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!" And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot. Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot! If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings? The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site.

However,

I don't think there is really any reason for 50 f/1.2L owners to defend and justify their purchase/ownership. If it is working for you and you love it, do you really care what anybody else thinks? I know I wouldn't.

I compared both a while back, and a zeiss 50 1.4. I think a few other people have too (just the canons). I stuck with my 50 1.4 mainly because I love the lens and could not see any reason to spend $1400-1600 on a minor upgrade at best. The copy I had also suffered major focus shift (was a CPS rental) to the point were f/1.2 was -2 AFMA and f/1.4 was -9. Until I got to about f/2.8 the focus shift was still very evident.

That's all I was saying too, and admitted it was just my opinion. I don't think the 1.4 is better than the 1.2 by any means. I do not, however, believe that the 1.2 is worth that much in price over the 1.4. It does not take away from the quality of the 1.2, it's just to me, there isn't nearly enough extra quality to spend that much more money. And yes, just my opinion.

Yup, just wanted to add a few things to your already solid opinion. Don't get me wrong though, I would love to see an updated 50 1.4 or Sigma 50 1.4 that is as good as the 35.

 

[bdunbar79]

If they came out with a 50 f/1.4 II lens, you better believe I'd buy it!

 

[Birger.Niss]

Dear All,
Again a heap of thanks to you all for taking time to answer my initial question - is my copy of the 1.2 faulty or not. It certainly seems to perform precisely as everybody else's and as pointed out in various reviews. Thanks for the sample pics you've posted.
I think it is a valid discussion whether or not the 1.2 is worth the extra buck over the 1.4. You get the extra aperture, a thinner DOF, probably a better build quality (I haven't seen the 1.4 in real life, but I take your word for it), you get the red ring (but that can be remedied as pointed out by vscd ), but will that give you better pics? Well get as much information as possible and then decide for yourself. This great forum is precisely used for such information sampling.
Speaking for myself, I will go out now into the real world and enjoy my 1.2.
Please be nice to your fellow man and remember - we may be alone in the universe ;D