Review: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L

[YuengLinger]

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 leTns' 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.

Fortunately controlling the 85L at 1.2 or any aperture takes little effort.

 

[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.

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.

Wow, you sound SOUPER SECURE in your purchase!


I love the 50mm focal length. It's my FAVORITE focal length.


However, I'll never buy this lens. It's so soft. The 50mm focal length deserves much better than this. I wish it were more like my 85/1.2 II. Maybe when/if they update it, it will be.


Canon can, and has, done better than this. Shame on folks for not holding them to a higher standard and letting them phone it in with a lens like this.


And of course it can take great pictures, any lens/camera can in the right hands. This thread isn't about taking great pictures though, this is about a REVIEW of a lens.

 

[gmon750]

Wow, you sound SOUPER SECURE in your purchase!

I love the 50mm focal length. It's my FAVORITE focal length.

However, I'll never buy this lens. It's so soft. The 50mm focal length deserves much better than this. I wish it were more like my 85/1.2 II. Maybe when/if they update it, it will be.

Canon can, and has, done better than this. Shame on folks for not holding them to a higher standard and letting them phone it in with a lens like this.

And of course it can take great pictures, any lens/camera can in the right hands. This thread isn't about taking great pictures though, this is about a REVIEW of a lens.

I am super-secure with the lens. So what? I've taken thousands of photos with it and the quality is great. I can't comment on the issues with the earlier ones, but mine is 5-months old and exhibits none of the problems that have hampered earlier ones. I may have gotten lucky, or perhaps Canon did resolve it, but didn't advertise it. I honestly don't know. If the 50mm II leak hasn't come out, I would be more than happy to recommend it.

My taking great pictures of it and commenting on its performance is a review in my book. Why do you feel it okay to criticize a lens you haven't used, but my hands-on, personal use of it is not relevant? It's obvious other folks that have used it had issues with it. I have not. I suspect more recent buyers of this lens will be in the same arena as I am in.

I considered the 85mm version, but the 50mm is better for me in a crowded setting. The 85mm requires I stand farther away from the subject and given my particular situation(s), it doesn't work for me.

 

[YuengLinger]

Why would Canon resolve an issue and not reveal it? Such thinking obliterates your credibility.

 

[LOALTD]

Wow, you sound SOUPER SECURE in your purchase!

I love the 50mm focal length. It's my FAVORITE focal length.

However, I'll never buy this lens. It's so soft. The 50mm focal length deserves much better than this. I wish it were more like my 85/1.2 II. Maybe when/if they update it, it will be.

Canon can, and has, done better than this. Shame on folks for not holding them to a higher standard and letting them phone it in with a lens like this.

And of course it can take great pictures, any lens/camera can in the right hands. This thread isn't about taking great pictures though, this is about a REVIEW of a lens.

I am super-secure with the lens. So what? I've taken thousands of photos with it and the quality is great. I can't comment on the issues with the earlier ones, but mine is 5-months old and exhibits none of the problems that have hampered earlier ones. I may have gotten lucky, or perhaps Canon did resolve it, but didn't advertise it. I honestly don't know. If the 50mm II leak hasn't come out, I would be more than happy to recommend it.

My taking great pictures of it and commenting on its performance is a review in my book. Why do you feel it okay to criticize a lens you haven't used, but my hands-on, personal use of it is not relevant? It's obvious other folks that have used it had issues with it. I have not. I suspect more recent buyers of this lens will be in the same arena as I am in.

I considered the 85mm version, but the 50mm is better for me in a crowded setting. The 85mm requires I stand farther away from the subject and given my particular situation(s), it doesn't work for me.

Of Course I've shot with the lens! I've shot with the Sigma 50/1.4, the Canon 50/1.2, the Canon 50/1.4, Canon 50/1.8 II, and even the Zeiss (NOT Otus) 50/1.4. Did you miss the part where 50mm is my favorite focal length?


Wide open, it wasn't anywhere near as good as the 85/1.2 II, and stopped down, it was less sharp than the Canon 50/1.4. I just didn't see a point in buying it.


I've since really gotten into video, so I'm really holding out hope Canon will update the f/1.4 with IS...


If you're happy with it, that's good, there should be no need to defend your purchase to strangers on the internet.

 

[zlatko]

Dustin, in your review, you write:
"Center sharpness wide open is actually quite good at distances from 6-15 feet, which further benefits the lens as a premium portrait lens. I found that the lenses optical shortcomings at wide apertures were more evident towards the extremes of the focus range."

The reason you didn't experience a problem with focus shifting is because you avoided the distances (from 3-6 feet) where it has the most impact on a portrait.

The assertion that 6-15 feet with a 50mm lens is somehow proper (while closer is not proper) for a portrait is a canard that pops up again and again in reviews of this lens when it comes time to apologize for the focus problems. Just look at the many, many great portraits taken from 3-6 feet with 50mm and longer. In fact, even 6 feet is pretty far for 50mm on a FF, as you can see in the attached shot taken for this reply.

My 85mm II has negligible focus shift at any working distance, is easy to focus accurately wide open, and, despite the echo chamber, has barely more CA than my 2.8 lenses. It has lovely, "creamy" bokeh and other desirable characteristics of an excellent portrait lens.

Yes, people take lovely photos with the ef 50mm 1.2 L. Some have learned how to AF a little short to get sharp eyes, which would be cool on a $200 lens, but on one that costs $1500?

Why wouldn't working photographers and enthusiasts want all the good in the 50mm L, plus simple, reliable AF at actual portrait and detail-shot distances?

Yes, we do want that. But in the absence of that, there is an easy work-around to still get the benefit of this lens. Namely, if shooting at near distance, avoid the aperture range where the focus shift is a problem.

 

[eninja]

Maybe its not sharp enough, but sharp enough for me.
I used 6D, at F1.2, use peripheral focus point.
And Focus enough for me.

 

[YuengLinger]

Zlatko, eninja, you both are dodging the issue. Focus shift does not occur at the widest aperture of f/1.2, but we don't want to be restricted to f/1.2. Sometimes the right depth of field, for instance, needs to be a little deeper. But then you both suggest working around the apertures that do cause focus problems, which makes the lens useful at what, only f/1.2 and f/4.5 and above? Just toss out all the creative potential in between those apertures with an L series lens?

That is a mind boggling defense of a product that is clearly flawed.

Hopefully Canon understands this and actually has a better version on the way, one that can focus at least as accurately as the amazing 85mm 1.2 II.

As for the Sigma, it was frustrating, and I returned it due to flakey AF at any aperture. And no, I'm not a Sigma basher; you can see in many of my posts how I rave about the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art (after selling my underperforming Canon 35mm 1.4).

Mark Twain wrote several times about a quirk of human nature. We buy tickets to an awful play, but tell others how good it was because we don't want to seem foolish for having spent the money. When other complain about feeling duped, we just tell them they didn't get it, that they weren't perceptive enough to understand the subtle beauty of the performance.

 

[zlatko]

Zlatko, eninja, you both are dodging the issue. Focus shift does not occur at the widest aperture of f/1.2, but we don't want to be restricted to f/1.2. Sometimes the right depth of field, for instance, needs to be a little deeper. But then you both suggest working around the apertures that do cause focus problems, which makes the lens useful at what, only f/1.2 and f/4.5 and above? Just toss out all the creative potential in between those apertures with an L series lens?

That is a mind boggling defense of a product that is clearly flawed.

Hopefully Canon understands this and actually has a better version on the way, one that can focus at least as accurately as the amazing 85mm 1.2 II.

As for the Sigma, it was frustrating, and I returned it due to flakey AF at any aperture. And no, I'm not a Sigma basher; you can see in many of my posts how I rave about the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art (after selling my underperforming Canon 35mm 1.4).

Mark Twain wrote several times about a quirk of human nature. We buy tickets to an awful play, but tell others how good it was because we don't want to seem foolish for having spent the money. When other complain about feeling duped, we just tell them they didn't get it, that they weren't perceptive enough to understand the subtle beauty of the performance.

You don't have to use the lens at f/1.2 or f/4.5 and above. The lens is beautiful at f/1.6 and excellent at f/2 and around f/2. The focus shift is strongest around f/2.8 to f/4. So that's a narrow range, and only for near subjects. But I still use f/2.8 and f/4 and compensate with a little overshooting. Most subjects are not perfectly flat, so a little back focus is not a big deal. But knowing this aspect of the lens, it is just something you consider as you work. You work around it in order to get the benefits of the lens. It has plenty of creative potential and I won't "toss out" any of it.

Of course I would prefer that the lens were more perfect. Of course Canon can make a better 50. However, be prepared to pay plenty more $$$$$ for more perfection. Leica makes an $11,000 50mm lens and it's still not perfect. Actually Leica makes an $8,000 50mm lens that is pretty close to perfect, but it's manual focus only and f/2 at widest. Zeiss makes a $4,000 near perfect 55mm but it's manual focus and beastly large. Sigma's AF is flaky as you mentioned. So this Canon 50 has a certain charm amongst those other choices. It's not surprising that it's a favorite of many photographers, including some very creative photographers.

 

[YuengLinger]

Good points, zlatko, but I'd be shocked if a new 1.2 is significantly higher in price than other recent L revisions.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Dustin, in your review, you write:
"Center sharpness wide open is actually quite good at distances from 6-15 feet, which further benefits the lens as a premium portrait lens. I found that the lenses optical shortcomings at wide apertures were more evident towards the extremes of the focus range."

The reason you didn't experience a problem with focus shifting is because you avoided the distances (from 3-6 feet) where it has the most impact on a portrait.

The assertion that 6-15 feet with a 50mm lens is somehow proper (while closer is not proper) for a portrait is a canard that pops up again and again in reviews of this lens when it comes time to apologize for the focus problems. Just look at the many, many great portraits taken from 3-6 feet with 50mm and longer. In fact, even 6 feet is pretty far for 50mm on a FF, as you can see in the attached shot taken for this reply.

My 85mm II has negligible focus shift at any working distance, is easy to focus accurately wide open, and, despite the echo chamber, has barely more CA than my 2.8 lenses. It has lovely, "creamy" bokeh and other desirable characteristics of an excellent portrait lens.

Yes, people take lovely photos with the ef 50mm 1.2 L. Some have learned how to AF a little short to get sharp eyes, which would be cool on a $200 lens, but on one that costs $1500?

Why wouldn't working photographers and enthusiasts want all the good in the 50mm L, plus simple, reliable AF at actual portrait and detail-shot distances?

I think you are taking a quote from my article and using it to make a point that it was never intended to support. I used the lens at a variety of apertures and at a variety of focus distances. I didn't intentionally avoid any aperture values or working distances; I used the lens just as I would any other. I simply did not experience the focus shift issue. I'm not saying that others don't or won't; I am simply saying that I did not.

I might also add that I have a wealth of experience with wide aperture lenses. I get to use or own a lot of them, and I also use a lot of manual focus only lenses. I know HOW to focus, even at wide apertures, and that is something that not everyone is good at. Not everyone's eyes are as good, hands are as steady, etc... That's not a criticism, it's just a statement of reality. Some internet reported issues are legitimate defects in the product, but I suspect a lot of them are user error. It is up to the companies to determine which is the case. But as a reviewer, it isn't my job to spend a lot of time speculating on what others have reported; I focus on sharing what I myself have experienced.

 

[YuengLinger]

Intended or not, your article dodged what seems to be the key complaint by users of this lens--focus shift. By going out to 6 feet as a STARTING point for your shots and tests, you avoid where focus shift is at its worst, and you also avoid problems with eyes out of focus, because at 6 feet out and more with a 50mm, facial features do not dominate a portrait.

Knowing as much as you do about lenses, and the old bugaboo about this lens in particular, and NOT giving it a thorough workout at 3-6 feet seems odd.

Summing up, the article seems to 1) put down people who aren't satisfied with the lens, and 2) conclude that the lens is fine for taking 3/4 to full body portraits or group shots, but you didn't bother to try getting in closer.

I am going on about this because with rumors of a new version coming out, maybe by year's end, it would be a shame if Canon didn't get it right. On the other hand, with the new one coming out, getting sucked into a time-warp replay of the same issues with this lens is a bit silly.

 

[Random Orbits]

Intended or not, your article dodged what seems to be the key complaint by users of this lens--focus shift. By going out to 6 feet as a STARTING point for your shots and tests, you avoid where focus shift is at its worst, and you also avoid problems with eyes out of focus, because at 6 feet out and more with a 50mm, facial features do not dominate a portrait.

Knowing as much as you do about lenses, and the old bugaboo about this lens in particular, and NOT giving it a thorough workout at 3-6 feet seems odd.

Summing up, the article seems to 1) put down people who aren't satisfied with the lens, and 2) conclude that the lens is fine for taking 3/4 to full body portraits or group shots, but you didn't bother to try getting in closer.

I am going on about this because with rumors of a new version coming out, maybe by year's end, it would be a shame if Canon didn't get it right. On the other hand, with the new one coming out, getting sucked into a time-warp replay of the same issues with this lens is a bit silly.

Still harping on this? Close to 20% of posts of this thread -- what else needs to be covered?

Which lens is flawless over all operating conditions? What sane photographer will a tool where its performance is poorest?

This is what Dustin writes:
Who is the 50L for? I think that it will best serve portrait photographers that want to deliver uniquely beautiful/dreamy results to their clients or wedding photographers that want something a little more special than what a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens can offer. The 50L delivers images that just seem to process really well and lend themselves to creating very artful portrait and fine art shots. It is hard to quantify, and you can’t really point to any part of the image and say, “here’s why”, but those that have used the lens know what I’m talking about. I had no issues with the autofocus on the lens (other than it being a bit slow), and was particularly surprised with how well it worked in AF Servo mode. I think this lens would be a great tool for wedding photographers for both of these reasons. General purpose photographers who don’t do a lot of shooting between f/1.2 and f/2 would probably be served with a more inexpensive lens. This is a specialist tool, and thus not for everyone, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM ends up being one of your favorite lenses in your kit.

It's a specialized lens that delivers good results when used for its strengths. It is not for everyone. The 135L and 35L are good generalist lenses that also have fast apertures. The 85L II has a fast aperture, but it's AF is slow and is prone to fringing if you don't get the shot exactly right. The 50L is another specialist lens.

I've used the 50L near MFD wide open (or near wide open), and I never liked the results. Call it focus shift or whatever, I always found it soft. Take a step back and the results are much better but then I set the AFMA to a more normal distance, not near MFD. Use a tool for its strengths, not its weaknesses.

What other EF-compatible 50mm prime has superior color rendition, contrast, sharpness AND AF? None. The Sigma Art is a step in the right direction, and I hope Canon's 50L replacement will surpass the 50A (because it's cost certainly will). Focusing on a low contrast target in low light levels is hard even with the 50L. There is no way that I'd try that with the 50A under similar conditions.

 

[eninja]

"Commercial Break":

Coincidentally, took this shot yesterday.
This was shot on 6D, at F1.8,
Cropped.
Focus is at just behind the banana, about 2 feet away from lens.

I don't see any focus shift.

Will post raw file link when I get home.

 

[YuengLinger]

"Commercial Break":

Coincidentally, took this shot yesterday.
This was shot on 6D, at F1.8,
Cropped.
Focus is at just behind the banana, about 2 feet away from lens.

I don't see any focus shift.

Will post raw file link when I get home.

No way to see this as anything other than a beautiful image. Very, very nice.

A picture is truly worth a thousand gripes words!

 

[eninja]

"Commercial Break":

Coincidentally, took this shot yesterday.
This was shot on 6D, at F1.8,
Cropped.
Focus is at just behind the banana, about 2 feet away from lens.

I don't see any focus shift.

Will post raw file link when I get home.

No way to see this as anything other than a beautiful image. Very, very nice.

A picture is truly worth a thousand gripes words!

Here is the raw file of photo above:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cnhkk1ifcds2uhs/IMG_4361.CR2?dl=0

Thanks YuengLinger.

That photo is only one side of the story.

Photo below is the other side. (How do you insert image between lines?)

These photos is as a result from this thread which I started.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26339.0

 

[bdunbar79]

On the first photo you're at f/1.8. Why would you expect to see focus shift at f/1.8?