Canon 50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.2L

<p>G Dan and Robin - it is interesting that you have 50 F1.4 lenses that are sharp (ish) wide open and only suffer from low contrast. My copy is actually quite soft at F1.4 and softish at F1.8. Looking at the Digital Picture crops their copy appears mainly to suffer from Low Contrast (Halation) wide open. In his text he mentions soft corners but mine is slightly soft in the center. It may be that I am expecting too much as my only other 50mm lens for Canon EF is a Contax 50 F1.7 which is a sharp lens. I also find my old film FD 50 F1.4 slightly sharper and the old FD 50 F3.5 Macro very sharp. Since my other 50mm lenses are rangefinders (Contax G 45 F2 and Leica) then it may just be what I am expecting. Among my cheaper primes I find that the 50 F1.4 is like my 35 F2 - it has the advantage of size and a faster maximum aperture than my 24-70 f2.8 but produces similar image quality. The 85 F1.8 however clearly delivers better image quality than the 24-70 or indeed my 70-200s.</p>

<p>Philip</p>

<p>There's sharp and sharp. I would not dream of using the lens wide open and at infinity where I am looking for maximum resolution - you need a Leica ASPH lens for that sort of thing (and even that is pushing it), but for bokeh-rich portraits and objects shot at a few feet or more it is quite satisfactory and about on a par or better than most similar 50s. Never had a problem with mine AF hunting as Brad has. Pic gives you an idea. Taken at f1.6. Certainly mine gives me no concerns.</p><div></div>

<p>I say go for the 50 1.8 MK I. I bought one and love it. I just shot our Christmas family reunion with this lens, and did very well with it. Here is a photo of my Nephew and his girlfriend. I shot this at f3.5/ 100 ISO/ 1/160 sec. The details are awesome. This is almost straight out of the camera, and no sharpening! I shoot with 5D MK I body.</p><div></div>

<p>Optically the Sigma is as good as the L, maybe even a touch better at wide apertures (see the TDP chart crops). The Sigma also has amazing bokeh, and produces some of the most diffused backgrounds I've seen in the normal/moderate telephoto range.</p>

<p>A good copy of the Sigma is no more difficult to AF then the Canon lenses. In fact, I found mine to be more reliable and consistent than the often recommended 50 f/1.8, so much so I could reliably demonstrate it in testing.</p>

<p>That said, if you are going to shoot at f/8 all the time, you might as well save the money and get the f/1.8 Canon.</p>

<p>If you're shooting at f8 most of the time then save even more money by getting the 50mm f1.8.</p>

<p>i dnt have the L, but have the ef 1.4 and LOVE it... i bought it for low available light work but it became my overall favorite lens... wide open the results are at least usable ( ie for web display) and at best very good to excellent.... it's light and small, honestly i wouldnt even consider the L here and maybe use the saved money for another focal length or accessory...</p>

<p>Philip, regarding shooting wide open with the 50mm f/1.4. There are a number of reasons that a lens might produce less than perfectly sharp (whatever that is) images at f/1.4:</p>

<ul>

<li>Wide open, virtually no lens will be as sharp as it is stopped down - this is the nature of the beast.</li>

<li>Wide open, DOF can be very small, making precise focus a difficult task, especially when shooting hand held and using AF.</li>

<li>Wide open, especially on shorter lenses, halation can indeed be an issue - and this can be mistaken for soft focus.</li>

<li>People tend to shoot hand held rather than from the tripod at these apertures, compounding the sharpness issues both due to focus itself (DOF especially) but also camera stability.</li>

</ul>

<p>It is hard to tease out the actual lens performance from some of the background "noise" with lenses like this. (I see a similar issue when people talk about corner performance in the 17-40, where their "corners" are often much closer than their main subject.)</p>

<p>So, yes, the lens is not as sharp at f/1.4 as it is at f/2. (At f/2 it is very good.) But neither is it exactly fuzzy. The IQ at f/1.4 will change in some noticeable ways - halation (sometimes called "glow"), more obvious vignetting, etc. </p>

<p>So, basically, if you want to control these issues you will not shoot wide open unless you have not choice, either for creative or light reasons. And this would be true, pretty much, of any large aperture lens. Even with the f/1.2 you would mostly not shoot at f/1.2.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

 

<p>I'll add another plus to the f/1.8. It's not that noisy and as for the "cheap" feel, it's a cheap lens. The only issue I ever had with mine for the past 4 years is the low light AF. But for $80 it was a great lens and I've used it for quite a few portraits. I love mine. I use it on an old 5D and a 30D.</p>

<p>The trouble with responding to a thread with this many responses already, you should be diligent, read through them all, verify you're not covering old ground..., or not. Anyway, just a fresh response to the OP, blind to what else has been said:</p>

<p>The Canon 50mm f1.2 is the softest of Canon's 3 50mm offerings, which doesn't do much for the "sharper crisper" motivation.</p>

<p>I guess it's main plus, at least for me: it's the only decent-build 50mm they're offering. And then of course it's the fastest, but that speed comes with a massive dimension/weight penalty. And the 1.4's bokeh is not so bad.</p>

<p>I went with the f1.4, and just grit my teeth a bit regarding it's build quality. An L series f1.4 (or f1.8) would be really nice. Canon?</p>

<p>Re the EF 50mm f/1.8 (especially the mk 2)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>very easily damaged by minor impacts; even the lens mount is plastic!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This seems very logical, but the EF 50mm f/1.4 is more likely to be damaged than the f/1.8 and does not seem to be anywhere near as durable as the f/1.8 in use. With supersonic aircraft made out of it, "plastic" does not mean cruddy and cheap anymore.</p>

<p>The 'bokeh' effects are the main reason for preferring an f/1.4 over an f/1.8, not durability.</p>

<p>As for the f/1.2 lens, if you needed this lens, you wouldn't have to ask. That you do ask is almost prima facie evidence that you'd do better with another 50mm lens. The f/1.2 is when you need every photon and want that great OOF effect. <br />(oh, and if you are wealthy and like to have photographic 'bling')</p>

Mendel

 

Canon make four 50's.

 

The 1.4 is sharper than the 100 macros at f5.6 and f8. It is a very sharp lens. Mine is very fast and accurate to focus, I

wouldn't be without it. When I got mine in '95 I thought I'll use it till it breaks ( as almost all reviews said it would) and

hopefully Canon will have come out with something better by then. Well I am hard on gear and it is still going happily,

indeed it is the only lens I own that hasn't needed servicing in the last three years ( actually my only other non L, the 15

mm hasn't either but it gets comparatively little use).

<p>My 50L has given me a lot of joy since I bought it 5 years ago. I see me getting a lot more years use out of it. No lens I've ever had compares with the distinctive look it gives to shots.<br>

I love this lens!</p>

<p>Can you post some shots that show the "distinctive look." Thanks.</p>

<p>Can't quite make up my mind if Jeff is being sarcastic ;)</p>

<p>There might be something intrinsically distinctive about the 1.2. I'm sure wide-open comparison shots with the 1.4 would reveal it's main benefit, but for stopped down shots I think the differences are pretty subtle.</p>

<p>I'm not being sarcastic at all. If someone makes a claim that a lens gives their photos a "disctinctive look," they should be able to show it. Otherwise, it's must internet chatter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If someone makes a claim that a lens gives their photos a "disctinctive look," they should be able to show it. Otherwise, it's must internet chatter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What about people like me who have no interest in posting many of their photos, distinctive or otherwise, on the internet? For example, all of my photos that show the "distinctiveness" of my EF 85/1.2 L II are of my children, and I don't want pictures of my children to be out in cyberspace.</p>

<p>Personally I find Jeff's pics-or-it-didn't-happen approach refreshing. And appropriate for a photo board.</p>

>>> Personally I find Jeff's pics-or-it-didn't-happen approach refreshing. And appropriate for a photo board.

 

I do too. Not trying to be flip, but it's also the "pictures being worth a thousand words" thing. They communicate best. Otherwise

it's like characterizing fine wines.

 

With respect to lens distinctiveness, I've always felt that the strength of a photo and what makes an

image compelling and stirring an evocative pull, has far more to do with composition decisions and other

factors (nice light being just one, post-processing another) than distinctiveness/signature/pedigree of the lens.

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I find Jeff's pics-or-it-didn't-happen approach refreshing. And appropriate for a photo board.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hang on, I didn't say Jeff's posting was inappropriate, LOL. That's the trouble with keyboards, it's hard to convey your intent. I was <em>just</em> unsure as to how he meant it, but it was ok either way.</p>

<p>I doubt anyone could conclusively and consistantly sort images for the 1.2 and 1.4. Or the 1.8 for that matter. The latter would be a bit easier: doesn't it have a pentagon shaped aperture?</p>

<p>For me build quality trumps any of the other pros/cons. I really wish an L-series 1.4 was available. Drifting ever further off-topic: a 1-series 5D would be nice too, ie: a 1 series camera without the integrated battery grip and portrait shutter release.</p>

<p>In short, high quality <em>and</em> compact.</p>

<p><em>"For me build quality trumps any of the other pros/cons."</em></p>

<p>Interesting, I put required image quality and then AF performance as the top two most important aspects of a lens, that is what the 50 f1.4 gives me, great to stunning IQ and excellent AF. After that, additional features may sway me, for instance I wasn't interested in the original 100mm Macro, I had good enough 100mm performance from the 70-200, but when the weather sealed and Hybrid IS version of the 100 macro came out I bought one.</p>

No need to be knobby about this Jeff. I don't have a web site as I'm a lowly enthusiast.

 

I can personally send you a few shots of the kids and around the house taken at 1.2-1.8 for you to dissect and dismiss, if the internet chatter thing is something you would like me to counter. I didn’t really think what I posted about the 50L was anything new.

 

Maybe I should re-phrase for the picky pro’s amongst you.

 

I can tell instantly when I scroll through my shot library, which shots are taken with the 50L. That makes it distinct to me.

 

I posted my viewpoint as I thought that was what this forum was about. I don’t think I’m alone in being able to see the particular, nay distinctive, bokeh that the 50L exhibits.

 

Merry Christmas to you all.

<p>The test would be if someone else could tell, not you. That's not a reasonable blind test. </p>

<p>You don't need a website, you can upload for free here, so that's not a free pass.</p>

<p>Unsurprisingly I am not in full agreement with Jeff here. I don't have a gallery on PNet and don't link to my websites from here, I do often post in threads to illustrate a point though. However many people have very good reasons to not post, Mark gave an excellent reason, but posting is not the be all and end all of owners opinions.</p>

<p>I have noticed a Leicaphile gene (for want of a better expression) in many people, a lens or body or whatever piece of equipment might not be particularly superior from a technical point of view but using it elevates the owners output to a higher level of satisfaction and accomplishment, if it fits wear it. If it makes your pictures better because you are more comfortable with it, don't have to think about its operation, don't feel self conscious using it etc then those are just as valid points for a forum thread as lppmm and arbitrary corner sharpness.</p>

<p>Having said that, Chris made a very mild and <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">easily substantiated comment</a>. There is no doubt that in many images the OOF highlights from the 50 f1.2 are quite distinct from the 50 f1.4. How useful that is to John at f8 is moot.</p>

 

<p>Here is a sample image taken with my Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM purchased new and mated to a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II.<br /><br /> AI Servo AF, ISO 50, 1/6400 s and f/1.4.<br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>Here is the same image at approximately 100% crop.</p><div></div>