Something with 50mm L lens that make it different

[eninja]

i was comparing image taken by 50mm 1.2 L vs 1.4 version.
There something about the image produce by 1.2 L that makes it Wow factor for me.

Like it has something to do with the color and amount of sharpness and gradient balance of depth of field.

Can someone give me insight what the hell is it im liking with the 50mm 1.2 L?

 

[candyman]

i was comparing image taken by 50mm 1.2 L vs 1.4 version.
There something about the image produce by 1.2 L that makes it Wow factor for me.

Like it has something to do with the color and amount of sharpness and gradient balance of depth of field.

Can someone give me insight what the hell is it im liking with the 50mm 1.2 L?

Did you not just mentioned it yourself....."the color"....."gradient balance of depth of field" (bokeh)
And...sharpness...I assume that is center sharpness since corner and extreme corner are softer due to 1.2

 

[YuengLinger]

Asked and answered!

 

[mackguyver]

Can someone give me insight what the hell is it im liking with the 50mm 1.2 L?

Those of us that own and love the 50L can, but the naysayers will be here soon enough... For me, it's the color, contrast, and shallow DOF. It doesn't really show up on test charts, but there is something about the photos it produces - which is all that really matters.

 

[BLFPhoto]

The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a great documentary and photojournalist lens. It works great starting at about f/2.0 and really shines at f/4-f-8, especially in black and white. It will do passable work at f/1.4-f/1.8 and is very cost effective for that work.

But for those looking for images that rely more on artistic expression, the EF 50mm f/1.2 is the far better lens. Wedding photographer? Environmental portraitist? Those photographers will find the color, contrast, bokeh, etc. all add up to a better image for their purposes much, if not most of the time.

I have owned both, and still currently have the 1.4 version. It was one of the first EF lenses I bought way back in the early 90's. I still have my original copy of that lens and it is still going strong, contrary to all the reports of how fragile it can be. Treat it nicely and it will work for a long, LONG time.

If the 50mm played more in my wedding and portrait shooting, I would have the L version for sure. As the OP asks, I can confirm there is just something "more" about the images I got out of the one I had for a while, when compared to images from my 1.4 version. In my estimation, it is the combination of all performance aspects that create that look. It's almost like that's what the Canon engineers were trying to do! ;-)

 

[bereninga]

The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a great documentary and photojournalist lens. It works great starting at about f/2.0 and really shines at f/4-f-8, especially in black and white. It will do passable work at f/1.4-f/1.8 and is very cost effective for that work.

But for those looking for images that rely more on artistic expression, the EF 50mm f/1.2 is the far better lens. Wedding photographer? Environmental portraitist? Those photographers will find the color, contrast, bokeh, etc. all add up to a better image for their purposes much, if not most of the time.

Wow, this is pretty much on point. I was never able to really put my finger on the difference until this!

 

[GammyKnee]

50mm is becoming a really important focal length for me. Right now I've got the 1.4 (good to hear it can last if treated carefully!) but spend most of my time shooting at the bigger apertures, so obviously I keep thinking about either the 50L or possibly the new Sigma. I've looked through lots of shots taken with the 1.4, the 50L and the Sigma, and to my eyes (and in the right hands) the 50L can produce a look that the others can't quite match. It may be as much to do with its weaknesses as its strengths.

Think I going to have to try renting it before splashing the cash though; seems to be a bit of a "marmite" lens!

 

[alexturton]

For me it's color and skintone rendition.

It's the same feeling I get with my 24 1.4 ii and 24 70 ii.

 

[Ruined]

Yes, the 50L is my favorite lens. It has a timeless rendition to it that you cannot explain with an MTF chart or sharpness test.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

It has a timeless rendition to it that you cannot explain with an MTF chart or sharpness test.

I love that phrase! Mind if I use it in the Sigma 50 classic cult?

Join the cult here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21328.0

 

[Ruined]

It has a timeless rendition to it that you cannot explain with an MTF chart or sharpness test.

I love that phrase! Mind if I use it in the Sigma 50 classic cult?

Join the cult here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21328.0

Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only

 

[privatebydesign]

It has a timeless rendition to it that you cannot explain with an MTF chart or sharpness test.

I love that phrase! Mind if I use it in the Sigma 50 classic cult?

Join the cult here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21328.0

Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only

Sorry, mythbuster alert.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=647.msg412040#msg412040

 

[Ruined]

Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only

Sorry, mythbuster alert.

Since when was the Sigma 50 being incapable of f/1.2 a myth?

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only

Sorry, mythbuster alert.

Since when was the Sigma 50 being incapable of f/1.2 a myth?

He was making the point (successfully, I might add) that most can't tell the difference between the Canon 1.2 and most other 50mm lenses in just about all real-world and practical situations. All that "wow it's just so different" bla bla is usually post-hoc judgement once a person knows what lens created the image.

 

[bdunbar79]

Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only

Sorry, mythbuster alert.

Since when was the Sigma 50 being incapable of f/1.2 a myth?

He was making the point (successfully, I might add) that most can't tell the difference between the Canon 1.2 and most other 50mm lenses in just about all real-world and practical situations. All that "wow it's just so different" bla bla is usually post-hoc judgement once a person knows what lens created the image.

Yes, this.

 

[bperrey]

All but one of my lenses are L-type, except for my 50mm f1.4, which produces super images that I have taken up to 13x19" with great sharpness and color, easily the equal in most respects to L lenses in nearby focal lengths, and in most normal exposures, the equal of the 50mm f1.2L.

 

[Ruined]

Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only

Sorry, mythbuster alert.

Since when was the Sigma 50 being incapable of f/1.2 a myth?

He was making the point (successfully, I might add) that most can't tell the difference between the Canon 1.2 and most other 50mm lenses in just about all real-world and practical situations. All that "wow it's just so different" bla bla is usually post-hoc judgement once a person knows what lens created the image.

Then, those "most" aren't looking very closely.

If you are trying to argue there are diminishing returns the more expensive the glass gets, then yes, this is true. Even the $99 50mm f/1.8 can put out some fantastic images.

But, the statement that the Sigma 50 1.4 / Canon 50L look the same is blatantly false. When put side-by-side, there are several areas that are immediately noticeable. First, the obvious, the Sigma has less depth of field control as f/1.4 can't render DOF as thin as f/1.2; this is very basic physics that no amount of downplaying can counter. Second, the Sigma has a strong red push; some may like this, personally I think they make the pictures look less realistic and oversaturated. Third, the Canon 50 intentionally has more uncorrected spherical aberration, as lens designers have found this leads to more pleasing bokeh; the Sigma 50 instead corrects these aberrations as this looks better on a test chart. Fourth, the Canon 50 can allow in 50% more light for better ISO performance in low light than the Sigma 50 (again physics). Then there are of course intangibles, but there is no point in going there in terms of this debate.

If you want the best bang per buck, the Canon lenses under $400 are hard to beat. But, some think it is worth it for the rendition the more expensive L lenses offer. What stop you get off on the "good enough" train is purely a personal or professional choice.

 

[privatebydesign]

Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only

Sorry, mythbuster alert.

Since when was the Sigma 50 being incapable of f/1.2 a myth?

He was making the point (successfully, I might add) that most can't tell the difference between the Canon 1.2 and most other 50mm lenses in just about all real-world and practical situations. All that "wow it's just so different" bla bla is usually post-hoc judgement once a person knows what lens created the image.

Then, those "most" aren't looking very closely.

If you are trying to argue there are diminishing returns the more expensive the glass gets, then yes, this is true. Even the $99 50mm f/1.8 can put out some fantastic images.

But, the statement that the Sigma 50 1.4 / Canon 50L look the same is blatantly false. When put side-by-side, there are several areas that are immediately noticeable. First, the obvious, the Sigma has less depth of field control as f/1.4 can't render DOF as thin as f/1.2; this is very basic physics that no amount of downplaying can counter. Second, the Sigma has a strong red push; some may like this, personally I think they make the pictures look less realistic and oversaturated. Third, the Canon 50 intentionally has more uncorrected spherical aberration, as lens designers have found this leads to more pleasing bokeh; the Sigma 50 instead corrects these aberrations as this looks better on a test chart. Fourth, the Canon 50 can allow in 50% more light for better ISO performance in low light than the Sigma 50 (again physics). Then there are of course intangibles, but there is no point in going there in terms of this debate.

If you want the best bang per buck, the Canon lenses under $400 are hard to beat. But, some think it is worth it for the rendition the more expensive L lenses offer. What stop you get off on the "good enough" train is purely a personal or professional choice.

Ruined,

Take as long as you like, download the 2500px images, look as closely as you can with your critical and experienced eye and tell me which of the examples I posted were shot with the 50 f1.2. You won't be able to, nobody can, unless they cheat. One person had the guts to rise to the challenge and got one right, guessing would be more accurate. The differences between 1.2 and 1.4 are so small that in individual shots it is impossible to say which is which, besides, even a minor crop to an f1.4 shot gives you an f1.2 shot anyway.

There are small differences between the lenses, and there are good reasons for buying one over the other, even the f1.2, but the constantly shouted "unique look" clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[bdunbar79]

PBD,

I agree with your point in the other thread. What is truly interesting, and there are tons of people claiming it has a unique look vs. the other lenses and yet NO ONE has risen to the challenge and identified which lens for which photo. In the other thread one person claimed that there was "clearly a unique look of color and contrast that sets it apart from the other 50mm lenses" yet that person had no attempt or answer of identifying which photo was taken with which lens.

Very interesting.

I think it's the internal sense of justification of purchasing something. When I buy something for $1699 or whatever I need to internally validate the purchase and I need to hear from others that yes, it was worth it, especially if I'm insecure about the purchase. It's the same as recommending gear. People tend to think that the gear they bought is best for everyone else, because it was best for them. I did buy the 50L and used it for over a year and was trying to pry at my photos to justify it. I admitted that I couldn't, sold it, and kept the 50 f/1.4.

 

[Ruined]

No one took the challenge because it is meaningless. It is like trying to compare two sets of speakers using entirely different songs. You could mix in the Otus, Noctilux, and nifty fifty and get great pictures all around as like I said earlier diminishing returns are there. Without the same scene and lighting comparing lenses is pointless as you don't know how much more appealing it could have looked.

side by side the differences are there as outlined in my previous post; whether you appreciate them or not is a different story.