Review: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L

[geekpower]

I lost my introductory dictionary... What is focus shift and does it affect zooms differently than primes?

focus shift is when stopping down the aperture changes the focus distance. since autofocus is done wide open, shooting not wide open can cause some front focusing. there comes a point where stopping down enough creates a depth of field wide enough to keep the subject in focus even when the actual focus is shifted.

in my experience with the 50L, there is some shift between 1.4 and 2.5, but it is really only visible when shooting close to the minimum focus distance, and even then the shift is minimal, a few mm. at normal portrait distances the dof is wide enough to mask the problem.

i don't own the 24-70 f/4 but there are reports it has focus shift as well, so it is not something that is specific to primes. look up "residual spherical aberrations" once you locate your dictionary.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

These days, there's a lot of technical photographers...who have a great handle on the technical aspects of camera and lens construction....but so far are artists...crafting art and narrative out of light and darkness.

I liked my 50mm f1.2L, it is more like a lecia noctulux than any other Canon lens. But there is it's problem. It's and art lens and not a sharp lens. I've had every 50mm that canon has made on the ef format. What I've learned is that I'm not a great 50mm user. Others find great art in this focal range...I don't. I've tried and tried...it's just not my mojo. I get far more joy out of my 35mm f1.4L and 85mm f1.2 IIL.

In my view, the 50L is a flawed masterpiece. It's frustrating and difficult to use in a professional context compared with other lens offerings. It's a lens which is both talented and troubling at the same time.

I still think that the Canon 50mm f1.2L lens is the finest 50mm lens currently available. Sure it's not a "sharp L" lens, but it's adequate. It's got accurate AF, it's built like a tank. It's flare resistance is excellent and it's contrast and colour rendition are amazing. But it's best feature is it's imbued imagery....some pay a lot of money for "that" look in lecia glass...it's ironic that us Canon users tend to gloss over it's talents and concentrate on it's shortcomings.

 

[roby17269]

I agree with the gist of the review. It is a great lens when used properly and it makes sense when used wide open or thereabouts...
A few comments:
* Mine become "better" as I went from a 5D mkII to a 1D X - I think the camera AF is to praise / blame
* While I do like the image quality it delivers, I do not used much as 50mm is a bit nor fish nor flesh on FF for me - I use the 85L much more
* Regardless, I still lust over the 55mm Otus or even a used 50mm f/1.0L ;D
* Still disagreeing with people praising the 50mm f/1.4: perhaps I had a bad copy, but mine was even softer and finickier at focussing than my 1.2L (with the caveat that I did not try it on my 1D X since it was sold before I got the camera)
* I like the images on the review

 

[meywd]

I have owned every Canon version of the 50mm lenses and have owned the 50L for a year and a half. I may have tried using it wide open but any error was usually on the operators side. I find that it has been on my 1Ds3 almost exclusively when shooting for clients and response when shooting tethered to an Apple 27" display has been nothing but positive. I haven't used the Sigma lens but I'm pretty happy with what I own.

I go live view... frame the shot... move the box to the eye... make sure both eyes are in the plane of focus, go to x10, and then I look at the catch light from the ambient light to get it right in focus... then I snap away... try at least.

Don't you wish while zooming in live view, only a small part of it zooms that way we can still see whole composition?

I also use face recognition from time to time, I believe face recognition also targets the eye.
I wish 6D mark ii got DPAF.

There is the Magic Zoom feature in MagicLantern, it does just that.

 

[Sporgon]

Around 50 mil is definitely my most used focal length and I enjoyed reading the review that isn't based around chart results.

The beautiful landscape shot of the island in the lake looked pretty good right to the very extreme corners to me, certainly a world apart from the dreadful edges we see on chart tests, even at smaller apertures. Am I not right in saying that field curvature at close and flat (chart) distances will make the corners look worse than they really are in practice ?

 

[Berowne]

...
But it's best feature is it's imbued imagery....some pay a lot of money for "that" look in lecia glass...it's ironic that us Canon users tend to gloss over it's talents and concentrate on it's shortcomings.

This is correct and remember that each of the three Noctilux are realy expensive. People who use it consistently report, that they are difficult to handle, wich is also true for the Leica-R 1.4/80. But you must not necessarily spend a lot of money. There are also some fast Nikon and Minolta-Lenses wich may be more affordable and produce nice Bokeh. In every case the photographer has to be much more careful to get good results.

Greetings Andy

 

[Berowne]

...
The beautiful landscape shot of the island in the lake looked pretty good right to the very extreme corners to me, certainly a world apart from the dreadful edges we see on chart tests, even at smaller apertures. Am I not right in saying that field curvature at close and flat (chart) distances will make the corners look worse than they really are in practice ?

This may be the reason for the bad Chart-Test-Results. Usually every well centered 50mm-Prime will be equally sharp at infinity and f 5.6. This relies on the "Doppel-Gauss"-Construction. Difference only come at wide apertures and closer distances.

 

[wockawocka]

First thing I thought when I saw this was 'Why is a review of an 8 year old lens on the homepage of Canon Rumors'?

Cynical I know, sorry.

 

[meywd]

Thanks for the review Dustin, I really like the 50mm lenses, and I plan on upgrading from the nifty fifty when the budget allows, the Otus is the dream, and you confirmed it more with this review, as I want more bokeh as well as more sharpness, and currently the Sigma Art is the top choice, unless I win the lottery ;D, however you say that the rokinon is close to the 50L, though ofc its manual, and at its current price its tempting to get it as a practice for when I get the Otus, and I want a sharp lens, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is a really amazing lens in that regard, though I have very shaky hands, still I get super sharp images from it, however the real issue is, I am leaning toward the 85L, since you used it, which do you think is the better portrait lens, the 85L vs (50L, 50 Art, Rokinon 50, Otus 55)?, from what I have read, many consider the 85L as the top priority, but isn't the 70-200 enough?

I love my 85L mkii, but but the dof is so razor thin, so when I shoot at f/1.2, I'll occasionally get one eye in focus... and the other eye is just outside of the dof... it's fine when looking at small images... but larger prints...

Yeah I heard of that, and I know it will make some photos look soft, if not positioned well, and you get that even with the 70-200 @ f2.8, actually the dof with the 200 is less, but of course the framing is a lot different.

 

[YuengLinger]

Hi,

I'm a long-time reader but for the first time I've decided it's worth to write something because this is about my favourite lens. Actually I sold any other lenses I had after I bought this one. There is no reason to have more than one lens, right?

I really liked the review and can agree with most things Dustin pointed out but I got two comments. First of all, I also use it on Canon 6D so it's easy to compare my experience with AF to Dustin's. So basically my copy is excellent when used with central AF point. The accuracy is very high and the consistency is also quite high. The situation changes dramatically with outer points: I don't trust them while I shoot at f/1.2 or close to this value. At f/2.8 they're alright but wider it seems to be hit or miss, especially in f/1.2 - f/2.0 range. Dustin mentioned he didn't observe the infamous focus shift quite often reported for this lens. Well, it is there but in most circumstances you won't notice it. I shoot in conditions when it's becoming visible (for instance portraits from very close distances) especially around f/2.8 but I quickly learned how to live with it. BTW, it's still more manageable than AF inconsistency of Sigma 50mm Art

The second comment is about the image quality. I think the sharpness is good enough. For me the lens is quite sharp at f/1.2, very sharp around f/2.2 and extremely sharp at f/2.8 and beyond. The overall contrast isn't very high but that's a good start for post processing. I got quite a few portraits taken with this lens (often at f/1.2) and I believe they're extremely sharp, just take a look: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ishootcandid/ There is a lot of complaining about sharpness and image quality of this lens but if this images aren't sharp just tell me what is!

So, I love the lens, I love shooting with 50mm and this is all need to go out and create the images I like.

Wonderful photos, and a testament to the ability to use the lens properly and get excellent results. Great lighting in almost all the shots, and a knowing touch with the processing.

To those who fear losing the "magic" of the lens, some of the signature "drawing," should a new version with a floating element and no focus-shift boogeyman, I simply ask, Why? Why couldn't Canon keep the best features and correct the ones that have caused so much doubt over performance during crunch time?

Instead of berating photographers who mention focus charts (even in ignorance), listen to the ones who need a consistent keeper rate. Apparently Canon has, if they are actually preparing a version II.

But Dustin's article has prompted me to take another look at images available on the Web, and I admit I see the allure of the lens which might prompt owners to scorn those who have trouble with various aspects. The past six months, since I last looked, there are many better images on flickr (instead of the cats, streetlamps, and bad landscapes I've seen so often). And the article did prompt many owners to sing its praises.

I say if the faulty : version is so interesting, bring on the corrected one, the Holy Grail of 50mm lens lovers!

 

[bp]

I've owned the 50L and also own the 85L II. I ended up selling the 50. Infuriating focus shift aside, to me, it's a great thumbnail lens: most shots taken with the lens look fantastic as thumbnails, but on closer inspection are not even close to sharp enough to justify its price tag. Any pixel peeping reveals a halo of fuzz around everything, even in the area that is "in focus".

The 85L II on the other hand is worth every penny. IMHO

 

[HighLowISO]

I always wanted the 50mm f/1.2 mainly because I like the 50mm focal length for photographing smaller objects and some details. I got caught in the trap of waiting for an update, but recently found the Sigma at a nice discount and I'm happy so far (I've only had it for a couple weeks). I suspect now I may never own the Canon lens, unless Canon updates the lens and the resale value of the current one drops such that I can find one at a great price. My first Sigma lens, and I think they deserve support for their recent efforts.

 

[zlatko]

in my experience with the 50L, there is some shift between 1.4 and 2.5, but it is really only visible when shooting close to the minimum focus distance, and even then the shift is minimal, a few mm. at normal portrait distances the dof is wide enough to mask the problem.

I'm pretty sure the focus shift is most visible in the f/2.5 to f/4 range (approximately), not in that f1.4 to f/2.5 range. And only when shooting near minimum focus distance, as you note.

 

[YuengLinger]

I've owned the 50L and also own the 85L II. I ended up selling the 50. Infuriating focus shift aside, to me, it's a great thumbnail lens: most shots taken with the lens look fantastic as thumbnails, but on closer inspection are not even close to sharp enough to justify its price tag. Any pixel peeping reveals a halo of fuzz around everything, even in the area that is "in focus".

The 85L II on the other hand is worth every penny. IMHO

+1

Images support your point of view. Test charts not necessary.

For me, 50mm works in many situations, so having one 50mm lens that produces the hazy look but no sharpness, and another that allows sharpness but minimal "magic" is not worth the trouble. That's why I dream of the replacement that does both.

I've seen too many shots where photographers "force" the eyes to be sharp in post-processing, and mostly such efforts look unpleasant.

 

[cayenne]

I've rented the 50L for some shoots, that were on a pub crawl in VERY dark bars.<P>
The 50L at f/1.2 turned nighttime into daylight.

I've been saving to buy one of these babes and when I heard a new version was coming out...I've held off.

But I do want to buy one.

The last scenes in this video were shot in Sinners and Saints in the French Quarter, the last ones..they turn almost ALL lights off in the bar except some red ones. I corrected the red out to try to get closer to real skin tones...and got a bit of a surreal color look that I actually ended up liking.

But you can see the girls dancing just fine, the ISO wasn't nearly as high as you might think (I forgot the actual number)...and it was just shy of pitch black with a red glow in there when the last shots were filmed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irURYjGS_oA

If you don't want to see the whole thing...it is 50L f/1.2 starting around: 7:56.

The other first Bridal Crawl I shot..has a shot in a bar that had normal light color, but again, was almost pitch black in there to normal human eyes.

See scene at 3:04 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOIlThG5ww0


But while the colors are a bit surreal on the first link, it shows how well the 50L does for low, low light video on a canon 5D3.

I wish there was some way I could show how dark that it was in reality to give a better idea on what it shot.

cayenne

 

[gmon750]

I purchased the 50mm f/1.2 lens back in January. I absolutely love it.

One has to wonder if Canon silently did something to resolve the focus-shift issues that folks are complaining about as I have experienced none of that. Focusing is always spot-on, AF speed is decent considering the size of the ring. I have very little to rant about it. Perhaps I got lucky with my purchase?

The only "issue" I have is not even the lens' fault. The f/1.2 DOF is so razor thin that it takes a lot of practice to focus exactly on what you want to attention area to be. It's a beast of a lens to control. It's both fun and frustrating, which I can definitely deal with.

I'm looking forward to seeing the next-gen of this lens, but it would really have to be something better for me to give up this lens.

 

[LOALTD]

So predictable:


Expensive lens is worth buying!


Less-expensive lens is released.


Expensive lens is objectively demonstrated to be inferior to Less-expensive lens in almost every way measurable.


Expensive lens is now great because it has a hard-to-define, impossible-to-measure quality that Less-expensive lens will never have. Bonus points for the following terms: 3D-look, dreamy, micro-contrast, creamy bokeh, magical.

 

[sdsr]

Since Dustin's engaging review mentions manual focus, including MF-only rivals, I feel inclined to mention that you can buy copies of the FD 50L in excellent condition (mine looks new) for less than half the price of the EF variant; they're a joy to handle (as are so many older MF lenses), smaller and lighter than the EF, and I suspect the image quality is similar (though I don't know first-hand). That said, I would also note that some of my favorite 50mm-ish MF lenses cost a tenth as much as the FD 50L and have "flaws" that are at least as interesting.... Of course, I get the appeal of AF and optically "flawless" lenses, but perhaps it's because I have a few that more-or-less fall into that category that I've come to appreciate the virtues of "flaws" and, at least for now, to prefer "flawed" lenses.

 

[gmon750]

So predictable:


Expensive lens is worth buying!


Less-expensive lens is released.


Expensive lens is objectively demonstrated to be inferior to Less-expensive lens in almost every way measurable.


Expensive lens is now great because it has a hard-to-define, impossible-to-measure quality that Less-expensive lens will never have. Bonus points for the following terms: 3D-look, dreamy, micro-contrast, creamy bokeh, magical.

Wutever... as a very happy owner of the f/1.2 with zero buyer's remorse, I can say for fact that it is a phenomenal lens and it gets the most use with my camera. Not only are the pictures beautiful in the right hands, the build-quality is L-worthy.

Continue your jealousy-hate elsewhere.

 

[eninja]

So predictable:


Expensive lens is worth buying!


Less-expensive lens is released.


Expensive lens is objectively demonstrated to be inferior to Less-expensive lens in almost every way measurable.


Expensive lens is now great because it has a hard-to-define, impossible-to-measure quality that Less-expensive lens will never have. Bonus points for the following terms: 3D-look, dreamy, micro-contrast, creamy bokeh, magical.

Wutever... as a very happy owner of the f/1.2 with zero buyer's remorse, I can say for fact that it is a phenomenal lens and it gets the most use with my camera. Not only are the pictures beautiful in the right hands, the build-quality is L-worthy.

Continue your jealousy-hate elsewhere.

hi gmon750,
can share a bit of your work? would like to learn how you use 50mm.
My opinion is, you must have something interesting in the photo, to make use of the 50 focal lenght.
otherwise the photo does not look elegant in the eyes.

If you don't mind only.

Thanks.