Should I skip EF 50/1.2L, forget it and look at mirrorless?

Time after time I look for one lens - one body sealed option for portrait and street/product work. Having examined the latest uploads on Flickr, and especially review on lenstip, I am not sure if I should get that mirror-era lens with a DSRL body (like 5D Mk IV or at least EOS 6D Mk II). Too soft borders, bad corners. Magic? It was so hyped especially by wedding crowd. I see no magic (Flickr examples), every time the portraits made with modern Sony 85/1.8 (and Batis) are better, more appealing to me. Though new Canon RF 50 1.2 L seems stellar (but huge). The newer cameras are also able to focus on eyes. They need no focus microadjustment.... etc, etc...

 

Should I forget that mirror-era lens?

Elena Shumilova, this girl shooting portraits, she started with Canon, tried Sony and seems to get back to Canon. I personally more like her shots taken with with Canon glass.

You can see her work on Flickr.

Elena Shumilova, this girl shooting portraits, she started with Canon, tried Sony and seems to get back to Canon. I personally more like her shots taken with with Canon glass.

You can see her work on Flickr.

She does not use 50/1.2L.

You like her Canon stuff more because of:

1) They are warmer and toned stronger.

2) They are more with 85/1.2L used while Sony shots are often wide angle shots which are less flattering for people. Sony's glass more contrasty and colder.

She may not have included Sony RAW files into her workflow successfully.

As she is Russin I am gonna ask her why, if she really got back.

I have seen astonishing portraits with a regular Sony 85/1.8.

And don't forget that I can attach almost every lens ever produced to Sony (Leica, Canon, Voightlander, Zeiss, Pentax screw drive ones, Soviet ones, etc.)

 

you can see the battle of heavyweights. Canon has more interesting bokeh, but Zeiss (Sony) is impossible to beat in 3D pop rednering.

 

But those 2 lenses are in upper league than what I am asling about (2006 tech and glass designed for 12 Mp sensors at best).

Edited October 30, 2019 by ruslan

As for Elena, she is definitely talented photographer but her toning and overretouching is not my cup of tea...She creates a dream or fairy tale. Alexander Vinogradov and Emin Kuliev are using Sony and happy. :)

Yes, it is mostly about glass. I have 2 Sony cameras and 2 Nikons, I still like optical viewfinder more. And it is really hard to beat Canon color rendering, it is still my favorite.

Soft edges...hmmmm. This at f/1.4 with a Sigma 85mm Art

 

I think the point of f/1.2 is lots of light and soft bokeh with a narrow depth of field. I have a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art which on a full frame, I personally prefer the 85mm, but the 50mm can be fun and can slim peoples faces, it has uses. Wide open fast lenses with lot of boken has it moments and purposes, the magic boken look, sperical light bokeh in the background, It is a specialty use, I sure don't use it all the time. I find a f/2.8 70-200mm very useful and used more often for events.

 

Any of these lenses can be used on the 5D MK IV, 6D MK II or A7RIII. Lenses are lenses, camera bodies and sensors are another matter entirely.

 

I've shot with both and still do and can anytime I want switch, both manufacturers make great cameras and in the hands of someone who knows how to use them, both will give great images. Both systems are just tools.

 

I posted a thread a while back with portraits shot with both camera and same lenses and lighting conditions, you can't tell which camera shot which photo looking at images on the web at a resolution of 3000 pixels wide, at least not much with portraits, perhaps creating large posters you may may notice a little softness in the camera with less resolution. Now if you are pixel peeping and heavy cropping, higher resolution is a big deal if you are a landscape person and large printer and pixel peeper, yes yes go with the higher res camera. The A7RIII and A7RIV is going to give you better resolution for larger images. Oh yes and eye focus is cool too. I tried finding that thread but I can not figure out the right combo of words to get PNs search to find it and only can see the last 14 instances I wrote the word A7RIII. (There are times I miss Photo.net 1.0 but Pros and Cons there too.)

 

Having mentioned all the cool things an A7RIII can do, I think to get full advantage would be to go all Sony lenses. Costly commitment for a guy having shot Canon for 40 years, and very vested in EOS lenses.

 

But even if that were not an obstacle, I am not giving up my 5D MK IV or Canon. I can shoot on either system any time I want and with my EOS lenses on either having a Metabones 5 adapter. There are pros and cons to each system, so depends on what you want to do. I have taken both on shoots. Do you want 42 megapixel detail with a tiny camera with lots of focal points that at times can be a bit of a pain to use, but still is very usable, and gives you Borg like low light vision seeing what the camera sees or is 31 megapixels on a camera with great build quality and not as many focal points but the ones it has work darn well and a bit easier to use (in my opinion) and gives great photos and still can go into live view mode if you want that seeing what the sensor is seeing feel. Both systems are great, I suggest you rent one.

 

Like cars, food, wine, song and loves, you need to get to know them before you can really know what is right for you. There are no wrong choices which ever way you go.

Edited November 3, 2019 by Mark Keefer

Mirrorless has many advantages over DSLRs, but for me there are two: perfect focus every time, and all that information you can place in the viewfinder. Also, I have an R and the latest firmware update has greatly improved eye-AF, which is a killer feature for portraits. Anyway, if the R suits your work and style, yes, I'd go for it.