What is it about the 50 1.2L people don't like?

[Ozarker]

I see a lot of people bemoaning the fact that Canon has not issued a new 50L in quite some time.

It makes one wonder (I don't have a 50mm prime) what it is about the 50mm f/1.2L that people are dissatisfied with. Is it a poor lens, or is it just that people want something new to hit the market?

With the 35mm f/1.4L II already on the market and then the soon to be announced 85mm f/1.4... I am wondering what people are looking for in a new 50mm that the current model doesn't offer.

I've sold my prized Martin guitar to add a good fast prime to my collection for infant portraits. The only prime I have now is the EF 135mm f/2L and it is too long a focal length for close quarters.

Thanks guys.

 

[Larsskv]

There are some problems with the 50L. It is soft wide open, softer on the edges then the f1.4 and f1.8 at comparable apertures, up to maybe f8. It has lots of chromatic aberration at large apertures. It has a bit of focus shift at f2.8-f4. It has a curved field of focus, which makes the focus and recompose technique unusable. It isn't very fast at focusing, and it is expensive.

Still, in my experience it is a very nice lens. I haven't experienced particular focusing issues when using cameras with several focusing points (avoiding focus and recompose) Further, I have found it to produce very nice images at apertures smaller than f2. It has that quality that the 85LII has, which has created a lot of heat in another thread lately.

To sum it up, it is a much better lens than the mtf charts and other test criterias would indicate.

 

[Hector1970]

I'm always surprised at the negativity on the 50 1.2L.
My version is sharp (so I don't know if their is variability - or tolerance issues).
I think it makes for a very good photograph (I like the out of focus effect).
I find it a very good portrait lens.
It may be for the money it should be even better but I haven't tried a 50mm supposedly better than it.
I find it easy to focus (at least compared to the 85mm 1.2).

The 50mm 1.8 is a great value lens
The 50mm 1.4 I guess is not a great lens for the money but I've always loved it. My copy is not sharp at 1.4 but I love the look of the photographs.

I wouldn't be overly concerned by the lack of a new 50mm.
I'm sure it will come in time (probably a new 50mm 1.4)

 

[pwp]

I've had a couple of 50 f/1.2 primes and never really warmed to them. Each time I bought them to suit the brief for a particular project, and hoped it would find a permanent place in my lens repertoire. But they sat unused and unloved. It's the same story for a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (pre-Art) and a fairly ordinary EF 50 f/1.4.

The 50 f/1.2 lenses were just too soft and dreamy wide open for my liking, yet these are qualities that some photographers seek. If I was shooting at f/2.8+ the 24-70 f/2.8II was always a better bet.

I keep wanting to like a good 50mm, but it's just not happening. The last 50 f/1.2 from last year was probably the best of them and if it had IS it could have been a keeper. The Sigma f/1.4 was just fabulous on the rare occasions it nailed AF. But it was so erratic it didn't get past testing and was never used on a commercial project. The EF 50 f/1.4 was the one I kept for the longest time, but inconsistency meant it couldn't be trusted on commercial projects. Just for fun I just got a Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 knock-off of the Nifty 50. At the price it could be well described as the Thrifty 50. At $60 I was very lucky to get a great copy. Frankly, I'm astounded at what it is capable of delivering. It may well be my 50mm keeper.

But at the end of the day guess I'm a zooms guy (16-35 f/4is, 24-70 f/2.8II & 70-200 f/2.8isII)

-pw

 

[Larsskv]

I've had a couple of 50 f/1.2 primes and never really warmed to them. Each time I bought them to suit the brief for a particular project, and hoped it would find a permanent place in my lens repertoire. But they sat unused and unloved. It's the same story for a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (pre-Art) and a fairly ordinary EF 50 f/1.4.

The 50 f/1.2 lenses were just too soft and dreamy wide open for my liking, yet these are qualities that some photographers seek. If I was shooting at f/2.8+ the 24-70 f/2.8II was always a better bet.

I keep wanting to like a good 50mm, but it's just not happening. The last 50 f/1.2 from last year was probably the best of them and if it had IS it could have been a keeper. The Sigma f/1.4 was just fabulous on the rare occasions it nailed AF. But it was so erratic it didn't get past testing and was never used on a commercial project. The EF 50 f/1.4 was the one I kept for the longest time, but inconsistency meant it couldn't be trusted on commercial projects. Just for fun I just got a Yongnuo 50mm f/1.8 knock-off of the Nifty 50. At the price it could be well described as the Thrifty 50. At $60 I was very lucky to get a great copy. Frankly, I'm astounded at what it is capable of delivering. It may well be my 50mm keeper.

But at the end of the day guess I'm a zooms guy (16-35 f/4is, 24-70 f/2.8II & 70-200 f/2.8isII)

-pw

I've had some great shots from a Sigma 50 f1.4 (non art) as well, but AF was anything but reliable. The best 50 I've had is probably the Zeiss 50mm f2 macro planar, but not having AF is bothering. In my opinion the Tamron 45 f1.8 might be the best option of AF lenses at approximately 50mm, especially considering the price. The 50 f1.8 STM is very good for the price. I don't appreciate the bokeh on the Canon 50f1.4, and it's build quality is poor. The 50L is often too soft at larger apertures than f2, but it is great from f2 and smaller,I think.

I haven't decided which I like better, the Tamron or the 50L. I have discarded the Sigma 50 ART, because I didn't like how it's pictures looked.

I understand why many pick the 24-70 f2,8LII over the 50L. The AF is faster, and it might also be sharper at f2.8. I think the 50L pictures generally looks better, though.

 

[YuengLinger]

Four things kept me from buying it.

First, the reported focusing issues are at the worst right in the distance and f/stops I most like to shoot at.

Second, one of our state's high end wedding photographers shared her thoughts about it, used to own it, found she was missing way too many shots, so relied for years on an ef 50mm 1.4 instead (and now has gone onto Nikon, which I won't do). Note that her go to lenses were the 85mm f/1.2 II, ef 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, and the ef 24-70mm f/2.8.

Third, test shots show it is quite soft wide open and even up to f/2.8; not especially sharp even stopped down.

Finally, the many sample shots online fail to impress me. That was never the case with the 85mm 1.2 II or other fast lenses.

We have to base buying decisions on what info we can gather. I'm not bashing a lens by explaining why I'm waiting for an update.

 

[sanj]

Infant portraits? This is THE lens to have. For the 'smoothness'.

 

[Viggo]

I had 4 copies because I wanted to like it.

Top reasons I didn't like it at all. And for the record it does not even deserve to be compared to either the 85 L or the 35 L II. Not even the 85 f1.8.

Extremely soft just outside the center spot, and very soft in the middle. It's so soft in the corners that you can't actually tell where focus hit

Barrel distortion (I hate distortion).

Corner points front focus always, guess because of the field curvature.

Contrast and extreme amounts of CA.

Shift focus.

Closer than 2 meters and it gets so soft it can't be used.

If you always center compose, I would use it, but I like something a bit more versatile. And for the price it really should be much better.

I would buy the 85 f1.8 every time over the 50 L.

 

[Monchomac]

It is a very temperamental lens, but I love the results I get! In my case I can only use the center focus point, or live view. In low light Iget shots I would never get other wise.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

50 1.2 vs. 24-70 2.8: At 50mm 2.8 I found the 24-70 to not only be noticeably sharper, but also more contrasty (punchy) as well. Unfortunately the 50 is just not quite on the performance level of either its 35mm or 85mm counterparts. Back focus issues beyond f2 throw another complication into the mix.

My main use for it is mainly low-light, non-flash situations.

 

[Good24]

It is a very temperamental lens, but I love the results I get!

This mostly captures my thoughts on the matter. I love the 50L. When all my gear got stolen, including my 50L, it was the lens I replaced first and turned out to be the only lens I didn't swap out for some upgrade or different lens. Yes, it doesn't have the best keeper rate in terms of AF. But just go on Flickr and see the group for the 50L, some great examples there. As with any lens I guess it depends on how you use it. Barrel distortion is not that bad and easily fixed in Lightroom. CA is there wide open but you can shoot around it/correct it. Basically if you know its quirks and shoot around them you can get really nice shots.

I'm no pro so I don't have the considerations others do. I shoot casual portraits of kids/family. I use it on both a 5D3 and 7D2 (80mm equivalent - two focal lengths in one!). And it's not the proverbial pickle jar, fairly compact for L glass. It's also dropped in price over the past few years.

In short, you asked why people don't like it and I'm telling you the opposite, lol, but there ya have it....

 

[Larsskv]

It is a very temperamental lens, but I love the results I get!

This mostly captures my thoughts on the matter. I love the 50L. When all my gear got stolen, including my 50L, it was the lens I replaced first and turned out to be the only lens I didn't swap out for some upgrade or different lens. Yes, it doesn't have the best keeper rate in terms of AF. But just go on Flickr and see the group for the 50L, some great examples there. As with any lens I guess it depends on how you use it. Barrel distortion is not that bad and easily fixed in Lightroom. CA is there wide open but you can shoot around it/correct it. Basically if you know its quirks and shoot around them you can get really nice shots.

I'm no pro so I don't have the considerations others do. I shoot casual portraits of kids/family. I use it on both a 5D3 and 7D2 (80mm equivalent - two focal lengths in one!). And it's not the proverbial pickle jar, fairly compact for L glass. It's also dropped in price over the past few years.

In short, you asked why people don't like it and I'm telling you the opposite, lol, but there ya have it....

My impression after having the 50L, selling it and then get a new one, is that many give up on it (me included the first time) because it is too soft wide open, and they may have some focusing issues as well. It is easy to understand why people are disappointed at first, they bought a f1.2 lens to shoot at f1.2, and it isn't very good at f1.2 (unlike the 85LII and 35LII which are very usable wide open).

Personally, I've learned to really like it. I think it focuses good without much issues on both my 5Ds and 1DXII, even on the non center focusing points. It is sharp enough from f2 and smaller apertures and the pictures have a great life like (3D) look to them, that the cheaper Canon 50mm offerings don't have. Further strong points are the build quality, the size is small for an L lens, vignetting is quite low, and it has very good flare resistance.

 

[Maiaibing]

I see a lot of people bemoaning the fact that Canon has not issued a new 50L in quite some time.

It makes one wonder (I don't have a 50mm prime) what it is about the 50mm f/1.2L that people are dissatisfied with. Is it a poor lens, or is it just that people want something new to hit the market?

Its biggest issue is the focus shift. Its especially bad, because it hits you the worst at the exact distance where you would take most of your close portraits (half-body/closer).

35L and 85L correct for focus shift - the 50L does not.

If you shoot wide open - there's no focus shift. However, wide open you run into the fact that the 50L is not very sharp. With the 5DS/R this is painfully obvious.

I use it sometimes when I need the f/1.2 @50mm. But I never bought it for the reasons above. To marginal. Too many situations it does not work that well.

Some can live with the softness - or always shoot wide open - or do not shoot at fairly close ranges. For them it may be a good choice.

 

[Hector1970]

I have the 50 1.2L for a few years but I didn't even know it had a focus shift issue until I started reading it on this site a while back. I don't know what sort of photographs people take with the lens but I don't experience any real life issues with it. I'm a little obsessed with sharpness at times and I'd agree with the people who say it's overrated in photography (even though I haven't completely lost my obsession). I have no issues with the sharpness of this lens at all. I find it gives a very detailed image.
In the end I look at a lens on balance - does it give me good photographs when I use it. The 50mm 1.2L is a definite yes.
I like my 85mm 1.2L as well and it can help make wonderful photographs but its a much more difficult lens to use because of its slow focusing.
I know here people are quite interested in the technical specs of lens. I guess it's like petrolheads saying this car has more BHP or Torque than another car but them both being fast cars.
I find out of focus can ruin a picture but sharp and ultra sharp often don't make a huge difference. The light and composition and technique are more important factors. The best photographer I know uses a 7D and a kit lens and he amazes me with his photographs because he is so precise in his technique and can plan and execute a photograph really well.
If you are lucky enough to be able to afford a 50 1.2L it is a great lens (but you might be able to achieve more or less the same thing with a 50 1.8).

 

[GMCPhotographics]

For me (and I've had 2 copies so far) it's an odd lens. It's build is exceptional, it's got great contrast right across the aperture range unlike the other Canon 50mm lenses that have hopeless contrast wide open. It's flare control is top notch and it's colours are really vibrant and punchy, even wide open. It's quite light and small for an L prime lens. At f1.2 it can shoot at quite high shutter speeds in low light. BUT...it IS soft wide open when compared to every other L prime Canon makes. It sharpens up a little, but not a lot when stopped down. There's an acute AF shift related to aperture when close to MFD around the f2.8-f4 zone. It's AF is inaccurate and ponderous. It seems to lock and then wander quite easily. The AF isn't actually very fast and in low light (which is where this lens should shine) it's AF is really hopeless. A 24-70L focuses more consistently at 50mm than this 50mm lens can in low light...and that's got 4 times less light to work with.
It's tricky to manually focus due to the soft viewfinder image...which is extraordinary considering how DOF limited modern bright viewfinders are. Live view with it is pretty hopeless too. In low light 75% of the time my 5DIII's can't AF lock using live view.
So we are all waiting patiently for Canon to invent a worthy 50mm L lens that inspires confidence and turns in the images that we expect from an expensive L prime lens. Canon dropped the ball with this lens.

 

[Larsskv]

For me (and I've had 2 copies so far) it's an odd lens. It's build is exceptional, it's got great contrast right across the aperture range unlike the other Canon 50mm lenses that have hopeless contrast wide open. It's flare control is top notch and it's colours are really vibrant and punchy, even wide open. It's quite light and small for an L prime lens. At f1.2 it can shoot at quite high shutter speeds in low light. BUT...it IS soft wide open when compared to every other L prime Canon makes. It sharpens up a little, but not a lot when stopped down. There's an acute AF shift related to aperture when close to MFD around the f2.8-f4 zone. It's AF is inaccurate and ponderous. It seems to lock and then wander quite easily. The AF isn't actually very fast and in low light (which is where this lens should shine) it's AF is really hopeless. A 24-70L focuses more consistently at 50mm than this 50mm lens can in low light...and that's got 4 times less light to work with.
It's tricky to manually focus due to the soft viewfinder image...which is extraordinary considering how DOF limited modern bright viewfinders are. Live view with it is pretty hopeless too. In low light 75% of the time my 5DIII's can't AF lock using live view.
So we are all waiting patiently for Canon to invent a worthy 50mm L lens that inspires confidence and turns in the images that we expect from an expensive L prime lens. Canon dropped the ball with this lens.

I am not questioning your observations regarding the AF issues, but my experience, with two copies, is that I haven't noticed any AF issues with it on either my 5Ds or 1DXII.

I also find it to be plenty sharp, and noticeably sharper than the 24-70 f2.8LII when stopped down to f5.6 and f8, on the 5Ds.

 

[drmikeinpdx]

I bought a used copy a couple of years ago and testing showed a strong focus shift when using AF points on the right side of the viewfinder. I had to send it to Canon 3 times, but it finally got to a tech who realized that it had a decentered element. After that got fixed, it's been a great niche lens for me. I suspect that due to the older design, you may find a lot of copy to copy variation. I've heard old pros say that they used to send their L lenses in to Canon for regular tune ups.

I use it for available light full body nude portraits. In that genre, you really don't want extreme sharpness, otherwise you spend way too much time in post smoothing the skin and hiding flaws. In fact, I use the extremely blurry zones at F/1.2-1.8 to hide body areas for various reasons. When I don't need to do that, I prefer to use it around F/2-2.8 for a little more DOF and of course sharpness improves as well.

I don't normally use it in the studio with my strobes, because I have to stop down to at least F/4 and then I might as well use a zoom.

My copy needs 0 AFMA on my 5D3, same as all of my other L lenses, but you really need to understand and use AFMA if you are going to own this lens.

Sorry I don't do baby photography, so I can't comment specifically on the OP's question. I do worry that you might be in that close-in zone where there is supposed to be a slight focus shift.

Thinking creatively, do you want baby photos to be tack sharp? Most of the examples I see are fairly soft, but of course it depends on your own style.

 

[YuengLinger]

It's the controversy. That's what we don't like about it.