Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

[clartephoto]

This is a great lens and easily as sharp and well behaved as the 35L and 85LII, both of which I have.

I always get tack sharp results with this lens - the reason I think is because I am a pixel peeper and I blame my gear rather than my technique. Consequently I have this lens perfectly calibrated, and know its strengths and weaknesses.

This lens has 1 major flaw - which is that it is extremely soft <2m away or so. I think that's why it scores so badly in some tests than others.

I am an extreme pixel peeper, but honestly, a competently captured photograph using the 24II,35L,50L or 85LII are all virtually the same sharpness wide open.

Great lens.

I also disagree about f/1.2 being thin DOF - it's not that thin - I take group photos at f/1.2 as per below:

Examples all wide open at f/1.2:
1.

2.

3.

 

[Vossie]

Wow Clarte, does images are superb.

The first one just breaths seduction.

This is a great lens and easily as sharp and well behaved as the 35L and 85LII, both of which I have.

I always get tack sharp results with this lens - the reason I think is because I am a pixel peeper and I blame my gear rather than my technique. Consequently I have this lens perfectly calibrated, and know its strengths and weaknesses.

This lens has 1 major flaw - which is that it is extremely soft <2m away or so. I think that's why it scores so badly in some tests than others.

I am an extreme pixel peeper, but honestly, a competently captured photograph using the 24II,35L,50L or 85LII are all virtually the same sharpness wide open.

Great lens.

I also disagree about f/1.2 being thin DOF - it's not that thin - I take group photos at f/1.2 as per below:

Examples all wide open at f/1.2:
1.

2.

3.

 

[Click]

Beautiful images clartephoto. I love the first one.

...Welcome to CR

 

[leGreve]

This is a great lens and easily as sharp and well behaved as the 35L and 85LII, both of which I have.

I always get tack sharp results with this lens - the reason I think is because I am a pixel peeper and I blame my gear rather than my technique. Consequently I have this lens perfectly calibrated, and know its strengths and weaknesses.

This lens has 1 major flaw - which is that it is extremely soft <2m away or so. I think that's why it scores so badly in some tests than others.

I am an extreme pixel peeper, but honestly, a competently captured photograph using the 24II,35L,50L or 85LII are all virtually the same sharpness wide open.

Great lens.

I also disagree about f/1.2 being thin DOF - it's not that thin - I take group photos at f/1.2 as per below:

Examples all wide open at f/1.2:
1.

2.

3.

Considering you're a pixel peeper you should give zeiss otus a chance. It will most likely blow every lense you have out of the water...

 

[Click]

Well, Vossie and I have the same point of view, we love the first one ... But I respect your opinion.

Welcome to CR



ETA: The post from Kalle Anka is gone.

 

[silvestography]

Beautiful shots! Your editing style is similar to mine - I'm assuming you're cutting off the blackest of blacks with the tone curve to give your images that faded look. I love the look of it and I'm also a bit of a pixel peeper, but that technique does kill some microcontrast in the shadows, so you're losing out a little bit on whatever sharpness is there. I guess it's just a reality we have to live with. Cheers.

This is a great lens and easily as sharp and well behaved as the 35L and 85LII, both of which I have.

I always get tack sharp results with this lens - the reason I think is because I am a pixel peeper and I blame my gear rather than my technique. Consequently I have this lens perfectly calibrated, and know its strengths and weaknesses.

This lens has 1 major flaw - which is that it is extremely soft <2m away or so. I think that's why it scores so badly in some tests than others.

I am an extreme pixel peeper, but honestly, a competently captured photograph using the 24II,35L,50L or 85LII are all virtually the same sharpness wide open.

Great lens.

I also disagree about f/1.2 being thin DOF - it's not that thin - I take group photos at f/1.2 as per below:

Examples all wide open at f/1.2:
1.

2.

3.

 

[Ruined]

I got one of these recently also, new.

As discussed endlessly elsewhere and as I expected, using spyder lenscal I can confirm it does backfocus when you are within ~1.5m of the target and not wide open using center point focus. Canon could have avoided the whole backfocus controversy by increasing MFD, but it is nice to be able to shoot close & wide open. If they increased MFD, you would lose that option. So, I think it is better just to know the lens limitation and shoot accordingly. Sort of how you wouldn't bring an 85mm f/1.2L to a sporting event due to the slow focusing, if you are going to take close ups with the 50 make sure you are wide open (or sometimes using outside AF point works).

But, otherwise I have really enjoyed this lens. It has a special look to it, and the 50mm focal length is huge for indoor events in particular, as in my opinion for indoor events 35 a bit too wide, 85 a bit too narrow.

So, while I can see this lens does have a learning curve and is not for someone who just wants to point-and-shoot without worrying, I think it does bring something special to the table.

 

[clartephoto]

Thanks for the welcome guys and thanks for the kind words

silvestography: Yeah I desaturate the image slightly, kinda like this:
http://www.meetup.com/Photo-Workshops-Melbourne/pages/Photo_Tip_of_the_Month_%28August_2013%29
I agree there is a loss of microcontrast, though I find that also helps slightly soften any harshness in the lighting on the faces

I do not agree. These images could just as well be taken with any 50mm lens, nothing magic at all with them except the color handling, there are a blue cast in the group image which can be seen in the costume and hair.
Sorry, not impressed at all

Hi Kalle, any colour casts are entirely my fault, not the fault of the lens - the colour is mostly affected by WB choices in Post Production - not the lens.

RE: lack of magic, unfortunately I'm not good enough with Photoshop to produce any "magical" images - my compositing skills are quite limited, all my images are edited for colour and gentle retouch only.

 

[mackguyver]

clartephoto, those are great shots, and beware the trolls If all of our photos looked the same, it would be pretty boring.

After shooting with my new 50, I am so glad to have the lens again! I knew it was a mistake to sell it, and I'm so happy to have it back in my stable.

 

[weko]

Beautiful images clartephoto. I love the first one.

...Welcome to CR

+1

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

Beautiful images clartephoto. I love the first one.

...Welcome to CR

+1

+2 however you wanted to interpret the colors is of artistic value, something most of these pixel peepers don't have. Keep on shooting.

 

[telemaq76]

the first picture i post on this forum, i just registered, i own a 50L, true it is expensive, true it s not the sharpness but models don t like sharpness . it s good to have a lens not that sharp than the others to create differents pictures.


lina par telemaq76, sur Flickr

 

[Vossie]

the first picture i post on this forum, i just registered, i own a 50L, true it is expensive, true it s not the sharpness but models don t like sharpness . it s good to have a lens not that sharp than the others to create differents pictures.


lina par telemaq76, sur Flickr

Great shot! Welcome to CR.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

the first picture i post on this forum, i just registered, i own a 50L, true it is expensive, true it s not the sharpness but models don t like sharpness . it s good to have a lens not that sharp than the others to create differents pictures.


lina par telemaq76, sur Flickr

Your point is valid, although I would personally rather have the latitude of reducing sharpness rather than trying to add it. The 50L clear has beautiful "drawing" that gives images a very pleasing (and professional) look. Add to that the great delineation (separation of your subject) from the image that gives a fabulous 3 dimensional effect and that equals a very special image. It is the latter that makes images from the 135L so special.

 

[jeffa4444]

This lens demonstrate that Canon could fit a 50mm 1.4L lens inbetween the 50mm f1.2L and the 50mm f1.4 trouble is it would likely kill the f1.2L lens.

 

[willchao]

This is a great lens and easily as sharp and well behaved as the 35L and 85LII, both of which I have.

I always get tack sharp results with this lens - the reason I think is because I am a pixel peeper and I blame my gear rather than my technique. Consequently I have this lens perfectly calibrated, and know its strengths and weaknesses.

This lens has 1 major flaw - which is that it is extremely soft <2m away or so. I think that's why it scores so badly in some tests than others.

I am an extreme pixel peeper, but honestly, a competently captured photograph using the 24II,35L,50L or 85LII are all virtually the same sharpness wide open.

Great lens.

I also disagree about f/1.2 being thin DOF - it's not that thin - I take group photos at f/1.2 as per below:

Examples all wide open at f/1.2:
1.

2.

3.

Awesome images clarte! I still find it a bit soft for my own uses, I'll wait for Sigma 50 1.4!

 

[flanderscamera]

The review made me drag out my lens again, and give it another shot for a while.

After 3K of shots over the last few weeks, the result is still the same - it's an overpriced POS.
It's faster than the 1.8, looks imprsessive, but the IQ still sux. Focus is still iffy, and don't take it out during a hurricane.

If I was a Canon board member, this lens's existance would embarrass me.

Justin: Start with the best image quality you can produce - then modify in Post. When you start with an inferior image it's just going to wind up different - not better.

BTW: There is no such thing as "drawing". Canon doesn't manufacture crayons.