Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

[mrmarks]

I sold the f1.4 some time after getting the f1.2.

 

[Zlatko]

Just treat it like a price-smart version of Noctilux.

Yes! You've got the right idea. A price-smart version of the Noctilux ... and with autofocus!

Thanks for the photo samples!

well that makes things not better.
In the middle at F-1.0 you can achieve something who looks like little bit of sharpness but other parts of the picture is not at all sharp.

The lens provides the images a particular character, and it does very well in the display cabinet.

I don't know about the display cabinet, but the Canon 50/1.2 does very well in the hands of Sebastião Salgado, David Burnett, Paolo Pellegrin, Mario Sorrenti, Denis Reggie and Pete Souza, among others.

 

[erwinwang]

Just treat it like a price-smart version of Noctilux.

Yes! You've got the right idea. A price-smart version of the Noctilux ... and with autofocus!

Thanks for the photo samples!

of course Jeff Ascough,I love his works
well that makes things not better.
In the middle at F-1.0 you can achieve something who looks like little bit of sharpness but other parts of the picture is not at all sharp.

The lens provides the images a particular character, and it does very well in the display cabinet.

I don't know about the display cabinet, but the Canon 50/1.2 does very well in the hands of Sebastião Salgado, David Burnett, Paolo Pellegrin, Mario Sorrenti, Denis Reggie and Pete Souza, among others.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Anyone else notice the focal jump between the 50L and 50 1.4?
The 50mm f1.4 is longer than the 50L. By my eyes, the 50L is pretty spot on to 50mm, but the 50 1.4 is closer to 60mm....maybe 58mm?

 

[BrettS]

You can obviously not interpret lenstip measurement , lenstip figures first and then photozone . Read Imagin-Resource test where they thought the lens was faulty. se Turners report.

Let's summarize. You say 50/1.4 has better resolution. DigiAngel's bicycle photos above (thank you!) show us the reality.

You say 50/1.4 is sharper overall and you cite the Lenstip tests. The Lenstip tests show that it depends on the aperture. For example, if you look at the centers (red), the 50/1.4 is better at f/1.4, and the 50/1.2 is better at f/2, and both lenses are equal at f/2.8, and the 50/1.4 is better at f/4. This back and forth lead is similar to what was found by LensRentals. It seems you took most of the blue (edge) dots out of the 50/1.2 chart from Lenstip, but I presume the blue dots mean the same edge point on both charts. There again, which is better depends on the aperture.

You asked me to look at Imaging Resource but your link is to SLRGear (?), so I clipped SLRGear's blur charts which show the 50/1.2 as distinctly better at f/1.4. The lower, darker and flatter the blur chart, the better the resolution, and the 50/1.2 lens definitely shows a better blur chart at f/1.4 and f/2; by f/2.8 they are comparable. SLRGear was disappointed with the 50/1.2 lens based on its price, but they did say (in their "Tanner Report") that "It's blur profile is somewhat better than that of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide open". Looking at the blur charts, there is no question about that.

You link to The Digital Picture (TDP), but their charts show that which is better depends on where you look and which aperture. For example, at f/1.8, the 50/1.2 shows a better center and mid-frame, but a worse corner. At f/1.8, I would rather shoot the 50/1.2 lens than the 50/1.4 lens. TDP's results supports this.

You dismissed the LensRentals test results as "wrong". Well, just dismissing test results doesn't help your argument about the "myth", especially when their results are similar to those on Lenstip, TDP and SLRGear.

I'll grant you that Photozone's test shows the 50/1.4 as much better than the 50/1.2; that stands out as the anomaly among all of these sources. Of all the sources you cited, this one supports your point.

you are falling for the myth , like some others
if you can read the different test shows that 50/1,4 has better over all sharpness than 50/1,2
how difficult can it be??????
what is you do not understand????

I've addressed all of the test results, especially in my previous reply to you. I won't keep repeating myself. I've tried to keep this discussion factual, discussing the various tests. You seem intent on condescension and I won't reply to that.

+1

 

[RLPhoto]

Zlatko

You have rejected four recognized test sites results concerning 50/1.2 and resolution compared to 50/1,4.
Then you have have mixed up the results from
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

As you can se, 50/1,2 are less sharp than 50/1.4 at F-1,4

The center is better on the 50L and there is less haze in shots i've taken from the 50L vs the 1.4.

 

[Marsu42]

As you can se, 50/1,2 are less sharp than 50/1.4 at F-1,4

You have to select the 2nd 50L sample, the first one is a "bad copy":

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

The center is better on the 50L and there is less haze in shots i've taken from the 50L vs the 1.4.

Somehow the intra-Canon dogfight between the 50L and the old and rather crappy 50/1.4 seems a little strange to me, if there is a cheaper alternative it'd be the Sigma:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=473&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[RLPhoto]

Zlatko

You have rejected four recognized test sites results concerning 50/1.2 and resolution compared to 50/1,4.
Then you have have mixed up the results from
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

As you can se, 50/1,2 are less sharp than 50/1.4 at F-1,4

The center is better on the 50L and there is less haze in shots i've taken from the 50L vs the 1.4.

over all better resolution with 50/1,4 at 1,4 and 2,0 than with 50/1,2

Nah, Look at the diagonal lines mid-frame on the 50L @ F/2, It has better contrast. Its the same story up to F/2.8.

 

[RLPhoto]

Did you even look at the lines? ??? Its pretty obvious.

 

[RLPhoto]

Did you even look at the lines? ??? Its pretty obvious.

That the 50/1,4 is better yes, and you can se that also in photo zone measurement figures at 2.0 , 2,8 etc etc

I guess you didn't get the memo. :-X

 

[wayno]

Agree with the above. Mine's decently sharp at 1.4 too.

 

[Zlatko]

As you can se, 50/1,2 are less sharp than 50/1.4 at F-1,4

You have to select the 2nd 50L sample, the first one is a "bad copy":

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Thanks for that link. Yes, the second copy is better than the first. TDP shows that at f/1.4 and at f/2, the 50/1.2 lens is better at center and worse at corners. In that aperture range, I would rather shoot the 50/1.2 lens than the 50/1.4 lens as the center is more important than the corners. Strangely, the SLRGear blur charts show the 50/1.4 to be much worse in the corners at f/1.4.

 

[Zlatko]

Zlatko

You have rejected four recognized test sites results concerning 50/1.2 and resolution compared to 50/1,4.

I haven't rejected any of the test sites. I discussed all of them (several times). Photozone is the only one that supports your view that the 50/1.4 offers better resolution overall. The others show the the better resolution depends on the aperture and the part of the frame. As someone mentioned above, perhaps Photozone is testing at a closer distance than the other sites (?).

 

[mrmarks]

FWIW, here's a comparison done in 2006 with a 5D body between the f1.2 and f1.4 http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm

 

[JVLphoto]

One day one of you guys will actually take some photos

"...... and the old and rather crappy 50/1.4......."

That might be your experience with your copy of the lens, it isn't mine as I keep saying. I bought this lens in 2004 and it has never been to Canon, or anywhere else, for service work, unlike nearly every L lens I own, it also needs zero micro AF adjustment. It has been round the world several times, it has flown on planes and in balloons, it has sailed half the oceans and seas, it has rattled around carelessly in camera bags and rollers the entire time it hasn't been a rest stop for my 1Ds MkIII, and 1Vhs's before that, it has been thoughtlessly ignored and under appreciated its entire life, it is mine and it just works.

1/ 50 f1.4 @ 1.8 full FF image
2/ 100% crop from above image, I have printed this to 16"x24", IQ is perfect
3/ 50 f1.4 @ f1.8 full FF image with red crop box on it
4/ 100% crop of above image, frome edge of frame

Now I don't know what results you guys are getting, or indeed if half of you shoot at all, but if a lens consistently returns images like this I really don't feel the need to "upgrade" it for >$1,000

Well put!

 

[Marsu42]

One day one of you guys will actually take some photos
"...... and the old and rather crappy 50/1.4......."

Actually I was refering to the micro usm on the lens which I found annoying when I tried it (as a potential replacement for my 50/1.8). Btw I am not a big fan of the "get out and shoot" reasoning to prove a point - all discussed gear is ok to good and of course good shots can be taken with it, that doesn't prevent me from looking at the rather minor differences anyway when deciding what to buy.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It seems to me that there are two distinct camps here and this is only my interpretation of the previous three pages. There's the group who have bought a very expensive lens (50L) and are justifying it's merits (there are many but not with sharpness) with viggor and there are those who have the 50mm f1.4, a vastly cheaper model and they are generally more aggressive in their arguments and think that most 50L owners are crazy fools who buy kit because they like the red ring.
I have to say that I have owned two 50mm f1.4 lenses. One broke after a few years, it literally fell apart and the other I sold when i bought my 50L. The 50L is a vastly superior product. It feels a lot nicer to use, the AF ring feels quality and it's more usable and refined. The sharpness for an L lens is very disappointing and I nearly sent my copy back to the shop because I was shocked at how weak it was compared to my other primes. But it does have more contrast, wide open the files need minimal post processing. The flare is a lot less too. But it's so much more robust in it's construction. I've had mine for 5 years and it's never missed a beat...but it's not a lens I'd call "sharp". It's a reliable workhorse, but not Canon's finest.
I would never criticize a photographer for their choice in kit, it's a personal decision based around cost and features. No two people need the same kit. But I wonder if there is a bit of gear envy which goes on with this lens choice.
I just wish Canon would hurry up and make a better 50L, one which we can all be proud of. I think a 50mm f1.8 IS would be a great idea too.

 

[bdunbar79]

It seems to me that there are two distinct camps here and this is only my interpretation of the previous three pages. There's the group who have bought a very expensive lens (50L) and are justifying it's merits (there are many but not with sharpness) with viggor and there are those who have the 50mm f1.4, a vastly cheaper model and they are generally more aggressive in their arguments and think that most 50L owners are crazy fools who buy kit because they like the red ring.
I have to say that I have owned two 50mm f1.4 lenses. One broke after a few years, it literally fell apart and the other I sold when i bought my 50L. The 50L is a vastly superior product. It feels a lot nicer to use, the AF ring feels quality and it's more usable and refined. The sharpness for an L lens is very disappointing and I nearly sent my copy back to the shop because I was shocked at how weak it was compared to my other primes. But it does have more contrast, wide open the files need minimal post processing. The flare is a lot less too. But it's so much more robust in it's construction. I've had mine for 5 years and it's never missed a beat...but it's not a lens I'd call "sharp". It's a reliable workhorse, but not Canon's finest.
I would never criticize a photographer for their choice in kit, it's a personal decision based around cost and features. No two people need the same kit. But I wonder if there is a bit of gear envy which goes on with this lens choice.
I just wish Canon would hurry up and make a better 50L, one which we can all be proud of. I think a 50mm f1.8 IS would be a great idea too.

I don't think it's gear envy for me. I could afford and purchased the 50L. I also tried a copy of the 50 f/1.4 at the same time. I shot many photos and sold the 50L and kep the 1.4. At the apertures I shoot, it is sharper. Period. I don't care much about build quality, I care about IQ of the photos. Plus, I can break 2 of them, buying a total of 3 50 f/1.4's for what the price of a single 50L cost back then. The 50L is hands down Canon's weakest L lens and the reason I dispute it so heavily is not to persuade others, but I guess because deep down I am so disappointed with Canon regarding this lens. Consider the 135L. It's much cheaper, but much, much better. I don't think anyone is a crazy fool for purchasing the lens at all. I do think, however, that some buy it just because it's an L lens, but you know what, that's their personal decision and none of my business.

 

[MartinAchatzi]

well, it is a very special lens. And it should be used with a tripod. Don`t laugh....but the field of depth at 1.2 is soooooo small.....Just a little move by model or photographer...and your point of focus has gone...
Sorry for my bad old school english

 

[RLPhoto]

well, it is a very special lens. And it should be used with a tripod. Don`t laugh....but the field of depth at 1.2 is soooooo small.....Just a little move by model or photographer...and your point of focus has gone...
Sorry for my bad old school english

the field of depth is small an the resolution are not convincing for the price, a highly over rated lens who may impress
on some people

Test charts don't impress everyone.