Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

[RS2021]

"you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results.

It's like everything, f.e. like a sportscar: you can pay 20000$ in extra for the 10 Horsepower S-Edition...

+1

I said the same thing about the comment that those who have issues with this lens do so because they "can't afford it".

Though my 50L made some great shots, it was not something that hit the mark reliably...when I needed certainty, I was falling back on the simple f1.4... I eventually bit the bullet and sold it. I will not say it has no merit at all...it does. But, it is like dating a beautiful, but rather tempremental girl who has PMS at random times. If it works for you, awesome.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

If you are desperate for this look on a budget, take a flier on a SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (or, if you are shooting full frame, try the SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8). Manual everything, of course, but the adapters are available for $10 and these lenses produce a lot of that unique character on a budget.

For example:


Saturday Morning (In Honor of the Children) [Explored December 16th, 2012] by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

In interest of full disclosure, however, while I have owned both the EF 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4, I have not owned the 50L. I suspect that it superior to the Takumars in every way (other than size and build quality - those Takumars are close to bulletproof and beautifully manufactured). Difference being that you can get one of the Takumars + an adapter for typically less than $100 USD.

 

[RS2021]

Saturday Morning (In Honor of the Children) [Explored December 16th, 2012] by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

Awesome.

 

[Caps18]

I want to see if Canon comes out with an updated 50L in the next year, but it is the last lens that I really 'want'.

 

[wickidwombat]

"you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results.

It's like everything, f.e. like a sportscar: you can pay 20000$ in extra for the 10 Horsepower S-Edition...

+1

I said the same thing about the comment that those who have issues with this lens do so because they "can't afford it".

Though my 50L made some great shots, it was not something that hit the mark reliably...when I needed certainty, I was falling back on the simple f1.4... I eventually bit the bullet and sold it. I will not say it has no merit at all...it does. But, it is like dating a beautiful, but rather tempremental girl who has PMS at random times. If it works for you, awesome.

I disagree I can afford the 50 f1.2 and the 85 f1.2 however i chose the sigma 85 f1.4 because on 5D bodies there is a significant AF speed difference and its a stunning lens
I chose the the canon 50f1.4 and also have the sigma 50f1.4 the canon is very compact and better to carry around when travelling, the sigma is bigger but IMO better than the 50 f1.2
however with the image quality coming out of canons latest generation lenses i am very keen to see what they do when they finally update the 50 f1.2L

 

[RS2021]

"you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results.

It's like everything, f.e. like a sportscar: you can pay 20000$ in extra for the 10 Horsepower S-Edition...

+1

I said the same thing about the comment that those who have issues with this lens do so because they "can't afford it".

Though my 50L made some great shots, it was not something that hit the mark reliably...when I needed certainty, I was falling back on the simple f1.4... I eventually bit the bullet and sold it. I will not say it has no merit at all...it does. But, it is like dating a beautiful, but rather tempremental girl who has PMS at random times. If it works for you, awesome.

I disagree I can afford the 50 f1.2 and the 85 f1.2 however i chose the sigma 85 f1.4 because on 5D bodies there is a significant AF speed difference and its a stunning lens

You are misreading what I said...partly because of my phrasing...we agree (I think) that it is not the price that is the deciding factor. My point was that it is childish to claim that the critics of 50L are the ones that can't afford it (an earlier poster's comment, not mine). Price does not always dictate quality and it is lame to link them.

 

[wickidwombat]

"you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results.

It's like everything, f.e. like a sportscar: you can pay 20000$ in extra for the 10 Horsepower S-Edition...

+1

I said the same thing about the comment that those who have issues with this lens do so because they "can't afford it".

Though my 50L made some great shots, it was not something that hit the mark reliably...when I needed certainty, I was falling back on the simple f1.4... I eventually bit the bullet and sold it. I will not say it has no merit at all...it does. But, it is like dating a beautiful, but rather tempremental girl who has PMS at random times. If it works for you, awesome.

I disagree I can afford the 50 f1.2 and the 85 f1.2 however i chose the sigma 85 f1.4 because on 5D bodies there is a significant AF speed difference and its a stunning lens

You are misreading what I said...partly because of my phrasing...we agree (I think) that it is not the price that is the deciding factor. My point was that it is childish to claim that the critics of 50L are the ones that can't afford it (an earlier poster's comment, not mine). Price does not always dictate quality and it is lame to link them.

oh yeah, totally agree with that

 

[Zlatko]

Nikon has gone the opposite route: Both their f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm's are absolutely killer.

I haven't tried the Nikon 50/1.8, but the Nikon 50/1.4 is certainly not killer. It's ok, but the Canon 50/1.2 draws better. People look at the resolution numbers and seem to ignore the actual photographs. To judge a lens properly, you have to look at the photographs it makes. Resolution numbers can only tell you so much. The Canon 50/1.2 has a very beautiful way of drawing pictures, especially in the f/1.6 to f/2.5 range. I've gotten wonderful results from it that go beyond what the resolution numbers would tell me. In that aperture range, there is no issue with focus shift. And with the 5D3, focus is more reliable than with past camera bodies. It seems to me that the lens designers had a certain artistic look in mind, and they succeeded brilliantly. Sure, we all wish for a sharper 50, as good as the $4K Leica 50/1.4, but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities. And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.

well then they are wrong or yours interpretation is wrong

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1000/cat/10

The LensRentals "Shootout" provides a direct numerical comparison across brands. Photozone and SLRgear do not. So those links are not as helpful. Photozone states very explicitly "tests results are not comparable across the different systems!" and they emphasize that with an exclamation point. On SLRgear you have to compare the colors of the blur index charts (I didn't find their resolution numbers), but the blur charts seem consistent with LensRentals results: the Canon 50/1.2 looks a bit sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss 50/1.4 lenses.

 

[Shane1.4]

I too sold my 50L and went back to the 1.4. The CA on my copy was the deal breaker. I sent it in to Canon and they didnt do anything. I hope they update the whole 50mm line very soon.

 

[infared]

Justin...for all of the hits you are taking here, about this review, I just want to say to you how GREAT and REFRESHING your reviews are!
You give us "real-world" reviews off the cuff AND you back up your take on whatever you are reviewing with SOLID photography...(many reviewers do not have that ability!).
The thing is...when you give us your input, I listen to what you have to say because your images give you credibility...so I listen when you talk. If people want a super-analytical, technical review from some dweeb who can't shoot...let them go elsewhere. Your discussions are relaxed, intelligent and informative.
Just keep doing what you are doing...You have brought new life to this website and I for one am enjoying your presentations here.

 

[raiveeson]

All the photos except the bokeh photo are taken with the 50L. A little bias? But after owning the 1.8 Mrk 1, 1.4, and the 1.2L, I know the bias for the 1.2.

The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.

\\

ACTUALLY, I think you are correct..PEOPLE DO THE SAME WITH 85mmL and 100L Macro... The images are sharp in both versions..But it is more about the coating and and color reproduction..

JAY RAIVEESON

 

[christianronnel]

@JVLphoto: I always enjoy your lens reviews. You've convinced me to spend the extra money to get the 24-70II. This review for the 50L is another great review. Definitely made me not want to get one.

I'm sorry but, the only reason the 50 1.2 is so highly regarded is because Canon intentionally leaves the 50 1.4 as such a piece of crap. It is a classic "entice to upgrade" tactic.

I think you've raised a good point. Why has Canon left the 50mm f1.4 alone for such a long time. It's been one of their most popular lens, one would think it would receive an upgrade sooner than any other lens. Unless they really think it's still good enough.

The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.

I think this comment is a little juvenile, no?

...My only comment on the review itself is your bokeh comparison - why at f/7.1? I guess it's to show they are similar, but at f/2-4, they are very different...

I was wondering the same thing. It would be nice to see the bokeh differences between each lenses before f2.8.

but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities. And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.

The 50 1.4 from canon looks better there actually.

I agree. 50 1.4 look better from this shoot-out.

It's a stellar lens for me. Nothing bad to say about it. As for the review, I don't think much of it – neither accurate nor complete.

The Ice Skater by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr

Flocons de Neige by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr

Mercier by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr

Wow. You make a good counter argument. My experience with the 50 f1.4 is that it's unusable until stopped down passed f2, it's not sharp and the purple fringing is really annoying. The only reason I'm keeping it is to train myself for composition. I would like to get a better lens but with lots of negative reviews with what's out there, I chose to wait and see if Canon would update this dinosaur. Both the 1.2 and the 1.4.

But with images like yours, maybe I should try it out for myself.

 

[Zlatko]

but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities. And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.

The 50 1.4 from canon looks better there actually.

That's true, but just a tiny bit. The point is that the Canon 50/1.2 is sharper than the 50/1.4 lenses from Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss (unless you stop down to f/4), so it's not an unsharp lens and not the dog that some people make it out to be.

While the Canon 50/1.4 may deliver on sharpness, it doesn't quite deliver the look of the 50/1.2 at wide apertures, and the AF is not as reliable.

 

[AudioGlenn]

well... i want one....and currently cannot afford it! haha

the comment regarding those who cannot "afford" it was....well... not nice

that said, I sold my EF 50mm f/1.4 after I got my 24-70 2.8 II. I really liked the (50mm) lens at 2.8 and smaller apertures but it didn't look that great at wider apertures so I figured, if I was gonna stop down to use that focal length, it was defeating the purposes of having a fast prime. I'll save up for the 50 1.2L and use the 24-70 in the meantime.

 

[JVLphoto]

Justin...for all of the hits you are taking here, about this review, I just want to say to you how GREAT and REFRESHING your reviews are!
You give us "real-world" reviews off the cuff AND you back up your take on whatever you are reviewing with SOLID photography...(many reviewers do not have that ability!).
The thing is...when you give us your input, I listen to what you have to say because your images give you credibility...so I listen when you talk. If people want a super-analytical, technical review from some dweeb who can't shoot...let them go elsewhere. Your discussions are relaxed, intelligent and informative.
Just keep doing what you are doing...You have brought new life to this website and I for one am enjoying your presentations here.

Thank you! You just made my morning

 

[JVLphoto]

@JVLphoto: I always enjoy your lens reviews. You've convinced me to spend the extra money to get the 24-70II. This review for the 50L is another great review. Definitely made me not want to get one...

My experience with the 50 f1.4 is that it's unusable until stopped down passed f2, it's not sharp and the purple fringing is really annoying. The only reason I'm keeping it is to train myself for composition. I would like to get a better lens but with lots of negative reviews with what's out there, I chose to wait and see if Canon would update this dinosaur. Both the 1.2 and the 1.4.

But with images like yours, maybe I should try it out for myself.

Interesting thing was I found using the 50 1.2 a bit more pleasurable in feel and use, but it gave me a newfound appreciation for my 1.4 as well. I use it at f/2.0 and find that a perfect sweet spot for me. It's one of Canon's oldest lenses now, and I can see it updated (maybe with IS like a lot of others in the line?), but with that comes a significant price bump.

 

[infared]

Justin...for all of the hits you are taking here, about this review, I just want to say to you how GREAT and REFRESHING your reviews are!
You give us "real-world" reviews off the cuff AND you back up your take on whatever you are reviewing with SOLID photography...(many reviewers do not have that ability!).
The thing is...when you give us your input, I listen to what you have to say because your images give you credibility...so I listen when you talk. If people want a super-analytical, technical review from some dweeb who can't shoot...let them go elsewhere. Your discussions are relaxed, intelligent and informative.
Just keep doing what you are doing...You have brought new life to this website and I for one am enjoying your presentations here.

Thank you! You just made my morning

That being said...I use the Sigma f/1.4. LOL! Great for my needs. I have mostly L Glass...but I just didn't see the benefit for my shooting needs to spend more than twice as much for the L (I put the Sigma ahead of the Canon f/1.4 for "image look and feel" and bokeh...also build quality...so the Sigma is priced right) ...I have the Canon 85mm f.1.2L when I need the ultimate in sharpness and bokeh...so I think I have it covered.
Great review for the Canon f/1.2, though! Great lens....but your review also reaffirms my 50mm prime choice.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Justin, keep the reviews coming. When you put yourself out there, you always open yourself up for criticism. But by doing so, you also make your opinion matter. I too enjoy the strong photographs that accompany your reviews; many reviewers take pictures of the same boring things every time. I can understanding the need for consistency as a baseline between lens, but in my opinion you don't use all lenses the same. A lens like this is going to be shot in a more creative, artistic fashion - demonstrating that capability is more important than shooting a chart. Thanks for the taking the time!

 

[Zlatko]

Nikon has gone the opposite route: Both their f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm's are absolutely killer.

I haven't tried the Nikon 50/1.8, but the Nikon 50/1.4 is certainly not killer. It's ok, but the Canon 50/1.2 draws better. People look at the resolution numbers and seem to ignore the actual photographs. To judge a lens properly, you have to look at the photographs it makes. Resolution numbers can only tell you so much. The Canon 50/1.2 has a very beautiful way of drawing pictures, especially in the f/1.6 to f/2.5 range. I've gotten wonderful results from it that go beyond what the resolution numbers would tell me. In that aperture range, there is no issue with focus shift. And with the 5D3, focus is more reliable than with past camera bodies. It seems to me that the lens designers had a certain artistic look in mind, and they succeeded brilliantly. Sure, we all wish for a sharper 50, as good as the $4K Leica 50/1.4, but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities. And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.

well then they are wrong or yours interpretation is wrong

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1000/cat/10

The LensRentals "Shootout" provides a direct numerical comparison across brands. Photozone and SLRgear do not. So those links are not as helpful. Photozone states very explicitly "tests results are not comparable across the different systems!" and they emphasize that with an exclamation point. On SLRgear you have to compare the colors of the blur index charts (I didn't find their resolution numbers), but the blur charts seem consistent with LensRentals results: the Canon 50/1.2 looks a bit sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss 50/1.4 lenses.

the tests shows the difference between the middle and out against sides and corners
these links is more helpful than Lens Renthal, they also (Photozone) shows CA, Bokeh etc compared to other lenses
here is a third test http://www.lenstip.com/257.11-Lens_review-Canon_EF_50_mm_f_1.2L_USM_Summary.html

To tell others that 50/1,2 is a very sharp lens is based on a myth compared to other 50mm and mounted on a 24x36mm sensor.
50/1, 2 may have other strengths but not resolution

You've provided 3 links so far, and none of your links provides a direct comparison of the Canon 50/1.2 lens to any other lens. Not one. The LensRentals Shootout does. It's easy to maintain that something is a "myth" without any direct comparison. Sharpness is not the selling point of this lens, but its sharpness tests very well when there is a direct comparison to other fast lenses. LensRentals shows this. The blur charts on SLRGear also show this if you bring them up side by side:

 

[LukieLauXD]

I'm sorry but, the only reason the 50 1.2 is so highly regarded is because Canon intentionally leaves the 50 1.4 as such a piece of crap. It is a classic "entice to upgrade" tactic.

I loved my 50 1.4 :[ I'm a 12th grader, so when I started photography, my dad gave me the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 (both of which were amazing taking pictures at the school play I went to last night) and I thought that for the price, the 50 1.4 is a really great lens.

I think the assumption that the 50 1.2 is highly regarded reflects over the entire L-prime lines and not only the 50. Ignoring the fact that it costs a kidney. T_T