50 f1.2 better than 50 f1.4? and 20-35L better than 24-35L?

<p>Hi, recently I've been looking to to buying a nice 50 prime for my a1 and I've spotted a nice 50 f1.2 (non L) and a f1.4 for sale. I've heard many great things about the f1.4 so called 'standard len', I used to own one of these and it was brilliant. I also heard alot about the f1.2(L) as an awesomely sharp lens, but i haven't seen anyone review or comment on the non L version. Does anyone know if its is a decent lens or just a very unsharp version of the 1.2L and I'm better off investing in another 1.4?<br>

The 24-35L I've heard isn't very sharp and has a lot of vignetting, ca and isn't the sharpest of lens. However an obscure rare lens of almost same focal 20-35L was also made. Can anyone comment on this? In term of comparison with the 24-35L and if the information I've gathered of the 24-45L beening unsharp accurate. </p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Abz~</p>

<p>If you can get past sample variation now 30+ years aftetr they were made the F1.4 is generally considered to be the best of the non L 50mm's<br>

But with 30+ years travel on all these lenses you could buy one that is crap while the next one could be stunning<br>

with the exceptions of the 28-85 and 35-105 f3.5 and the 80-200 L the primes are better then the zooms to the point of making them only a convenance.</p>

<p>I have a couple of 20-35mm f/3.5L zooms and have used them quite a lot mainly for landscapes with Provia 100F. I routinely scan at 6300 dpi with an Imacon 646 so any lens aberrations will show up pretty well at 100%. Vingnetting has never been an issue, unless of course you're careless with filters, hoods etc. There is a little CA visible at the edges if you look at a 6300 dpi scan at 100%, but overall it's well controlled in this lens. Unless you're making 30" prints I doubt if it would be visible in a print. In any case the small amount of edge CA is easily corrected in Photoshop. As far as sharpness is concerned, it's a little softer than my 35-105mm f/3.5s (only just) but again not something you'd notice unless you're comparing hi res scans at 100% on your screen.</p>

<p>Having said all that, I shoot mostly with the lens stopped well down.</p>

<p>I think you should collect some more hearsay and rumours before you blow your money - the only advice I can give you is that whatever you read on the internet is always true. </p>

<p>When I see lines like "I hear this lens does this" and "apparently this lens suffers from that" I chuckle a bit to myself... Who says? Under what conditions? What do you want out of your lens? Do you need that .2 of an f stop? If so, invest in the L lens, don't bother with the non-L version. Not because its "unsharp", but because if you need it, then you need it. Hint - if you don't know, you would probably be fine with (wait for it!) a 50mm f1.8... and definitely more than well served with the f1.4. </p>

<p>People often confuse the specialty lenses with being better - not necessarily true. Often their exorbitant prices are direct results of being able to do that one tiny thing that another lens will not, often at the cost of performance in other, more common areas. Have a look at Ken Rockwell's test of the Nocto-Nikkor for an example. </p>

<p>And of course go back to Mark's post, which (as usual) is filled with words of wisdom that you would be very smart to follow. </p>

<p>I usual shoot at night and i need all the stops i can get from a lens so a f1.2 would be better in theory, its just investing nealy 400 dollars in a lens i know nothing about is a bit worrying, does anyone have a copy of this lens and can comment on it.<br>

Also mark you are legend thanks, I've spotted a nice near copy of a 1.4 locally might pick it up. =)</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Abz~</p>

<p>I used a 50mm f/1.8 a lot in the past and it produced nice sharp images. I also have an f/1.4 and an f/1.2L. In my experience the image quality from the faster lenses is no better than from the f/1.8, but you do have the extra stop or so.</p>

<p>Hi.<br />I have both the 2O/35 and the 24/35.<br />Since 20mm makes a huge difference over 24mm, it's obvious you should get the 20/35.<br />The 20/35 is ectremely sharp and contrasty. It's way better than the 20mm f/2.8 prime, which suffers a lot from ghosts at night.<br />I bought my 24/35 for 20 Euro's (included 72mm wide sunshade), but I haven't used it yet.<br />I also haven't used the 20/35 since I bought a 17mm prime. And I haven't used the 17mm prime since I bought a 14mm L. Yes, I'm a wide angle freak. Many consider going over 20mm as way over the top.<br />The biggest disadvantage of the 20/35 is that it only focuses down to 60 cm's (two feet) and you can't make close focused wide angles with it, which is the whole purpose of shooting superwide. The 17mm and 14mm go up to 10 inches (25cm), which, hyperfocally, at f/22, lets you have everything in focus from 4 inches (10cm) from the front of the lens to infinity in sharp focus.</p>

<p>Dirk.</p>

<p>I have the FD 50/1.4, 50/1.2 L and 50/1.2 non-L. In my experience, the 50/1.2 is a little softer than the 50/1.2 L, which is sharp even wide open.</p>

<p>But I'm with Mark and Peter on this one. Unless you need f/0.2 more speed, or are planning on doing alot of shooting wide open, you can't go wrong with the 50/1.4. As is the case with most other 50/1.4's, its basic Tessar optical design dates back to the 1930's, and is still very much in use today (with, for example, the current EF 50/1.4). That's why the Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta, and Zeiss/Contax 50/1.4's are so similar with respect to image quality: they share the same optical formula.</p>

<p>My experience of the FD 20-35/3.5 L concurs with Dirk's: it has excellent resolution and contrast. I've never used the earlier 24-35.</p>

<p>A very useful three-lens walkabout/travel kit would be the 20-35/3.5 L, 35-105/3.5 (or 28-85/4), and 80-200/4 L.</p>

<p>For a series of photos using an original FD 24-35mm f3.5 SSC Aspherical, search for my thread in this forum titled "Here Today, Gone Tomorrow: I Madonnari".<br>

I think it fabulously rendered the finer details of the artists' "canvas", and with excellent color balance too. The original Fujichromes are stunning!</p>

I have not used the 24-35 zoom (and have not really used the 20-35 in FD but did use the EF version quite a lot) so I

do not feel qualified to comment on this zoom. On the primes I currently own the 50F1.4 and the 50F1.8 and did once

buy the 50 F1.2. Of the three I prefer the F1.4 lens as it has better Bokah than the F1.8 lens and is slightly sharper at

F1.8 and F2 (I also think the contrast and colours are slightly better). I sold the F1.2 as i found it was very poor wide

open and was outperformed by the F1.4 lens at all other apertures. So from my perspective the non L made no sense

as I would not use it at F1.2 and above that my F1.4 lens was better. I am not sure if this was a sample issue but it is

my experience. Collect other's views to see if a pattern emerges.

<p>As already mentioned, time and use (or abuse) will negate any fact or opinion of a particular lens. While I've always done my research prior to purchase, I've discovered that only through use can the function and result of lens be determined. </p>

<p>I have some very cheap 'gems', along with utter crud when others have posted or declared the opposite. Case in point, I have a 35-105 f3.5 that has erratic results due to age, and 50 f1.4 that remains true, whose results are comparable to a new EF50 1.4.</p>

<p>6 months ago I bought the FD 1,2/50mm (non-L) and before I sold my now obsolete 1,4/50 I made a test on Fuji Provia 100 with some crucial motives.<br>

The difference between the two lenses was marginal. The 1,2 is sharper at f/4 and f/5,6. From f/8 onwards there is no difference any more. Vignetting was no big issue, neither flare, though I had expected it to be prone to flare issues, but both lenses performed well with and without the lens hood when exposed to extreme sunlight coming from an angle of approx. 45° at f/1,2 resp. f/1,4.</p>

There were some interesting viewpoints on the 1.2 non L lens here:

 

http://www.photo.net/canon-fd-camera-forum/00Y5R5?start=10

 

By the way, that photo of my pooch was shot at 1.2 in the gloom that proceeds an evening snowstorm. Don't know if my 1.4

could have captured it exactly that way. Ted