Canon 50mm - 1.2L vs. 1.4

<p>Feelings on whether the 1.2 is worth the extra money? I can afford it, but I don't want to waste money if the difference doesn't warrant it.<br>

Thoughts?</p>

<p>Julie, the 50/1.4 L actually has <em>lower </em>resolution than the 50/1.4. Check out photozone's respective <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff">reviews</a>. So, really, the only reason to get the more expensive prime is if you absolutely need f/1.2.</p>

<p>For me, the 85/1.2 L is definitely worth its price differential over the 85/1.8, but that of the 50/1.2 L over the 50/1.4 is not - which explains why I still have my 50/1.4.</p>

<p>I can speak for the 1.4, and can truly say it is probably my favourite lens, in among a range of mostly L lenses. It is such good value for money. I've used the 1.2 before - very briefly - and the only difference I noticed (aside from the wider aperture & heavier weight) was that it possibly focussed faster & more accurately. </p>

<p>I can speak for the 1.4, and can truly say it is probably my favourite lens, in among a range of mostly L lenses. It is such good value for money. I've used the 1.2 before - very briefly - and the only difference I noticed (aside from the wider aperture & heavier weight) was that it possibly focussed faster & more accurately. </p>

<p>Sorry, I meant to type that "the 50/1.2 L actually has <em>lower </em>resolution than the 50/1.4."</p>

<p>Mark, that's weird! Why would it have a LOWER resolution....? I do not absolutely need a 1.2. At least, I don't think I do. I have the 85 1.2 and most of the time I shoot with it, shooting at 1.4 is still too shallow for my (mostly human) subjects (i.e. the eyelashes are in focus, but not the eye).<br>

Barry, I've read some of the reviews saying that the 1.4 craps out and starts making a clicking noise after awhile. Hopefully that isn't the case because if you like it that much, it seems that maybe it's the better choice (considering also the price). </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>“Feelings on whether the 1.2 is worth the extra money?”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO no, unless one absolutely needs F/1.2 – (that’s very rare)<br>

I am not that hung up on the Bokeh (difference) between these two lenses.</p>

<p>The 50/1.4 is more than quite suitable for my requirements: I would and did buy the 50/2.5 before I would consider the 50/1.2. And I do use the 50/1.4 at: F/1.6 and F/1.8, sometimes at F/1.4.<br>

If you still have the passion you expressed in 2010 for 'maximum sharpness lenses', then you might consider the 50/2.5 - sure slow to AF but a mighty sharp 50mm lens.</p>

<p>Continuing the comparisons and value for money theme - IMO the 50/1.4 is a very good ‘value add’ when compared against the 50/1.8MkII. </p>

<p>I might buy a 50/1.2 eventually – but it would be a luxury item to play at F/1.2 rather than and everyday tool: sure it has its ‘allure’.</p>

<p>If you have the money then I doubt many would notice the differences between the 50/1.2 and the 50/1.4 when shooting Portraiture. So getting back to: “is it worth the extra money/” - the ‘allure and the “F/1.2 fun” and the red stripe all have to be added into the equation . . .</p>

<p>***</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>“I do not absolutely need a 1.2. At least, I don't think I do. I have the 85 1.2 and most of the time I shoot with it, shooting at 1.4 is still too shallow for my (mostly human) subjects (i.e. the eyelashes are in focus, but not the eye).”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You probably don’t.<br>

It is more likely the ‘need’ is that we would want to stop motion in low light, rather than open up to move incrementally to a smaller DoF for most Portraiture.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>Also - @ Mark –</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“For me, the 85/1.2 L is definitely worth its price differential over the 85/1.8”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Specifically for the clarity of my understanding your comment, do you mean?:<br>

<em>“For me, the 85/1.2L <strong>MkII</strong> is definitely worth its price differential over the 85/1.8”</em> </p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

WW</p>

<p>Have had both multiple times, and have settled on the 50L. My 50 f/1.4 was very sharp, even wide open, but was a little flat, lacked contrast and didn't have great colors. The rendition of the lens never really did much for me. I owned a stellar copy for a number of years but didn't make many images with it.</p>

<p>The 50L has better color, a nicer rendition, better build, better AF, and despite being slightly less sharp it just makes images that I really like. In the past year that I've owned it I've made literally ten times as many keeper images as compared to the 50 f/1.4. </p>

<p>It's a nuanced difference, but one that clicked with me. As to whether it's worth the price difference, that's a subjective question only you can answer. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>“It's a nuanced difference, but one that clicked with me. As to whether it's worth the price difference, that's a subjective question only you can answer.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That has to be one of the most sensible and down to earth comments I have ever read about the comparison of these two lenses.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Yes, William, I mean the 85/1.2 L II. Although it has faster AF than its predecessor, they are optically identical, are they not?</p>

<p>Thank you for answering.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"they are optically identical, are they not?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No I don’t think so - (and I am going from memory – sorry - I haven’t the time ATM to check data)</p>

<p>As well as the better AF – I also recall the MkII:</p>

<ul>

<li>is less susceptible to Flare and Veiling Flare (coatings and internal barrel changes)</li>

<li>has circular Aperture Blades</li>

</ul>

<p>These three changes I recall that I noted at the time, as these performance issues are near the top of my personal hit parade to make me want to buy the MkII version. <br />But had already bought the 85/1.8 (and not the 85/1.2 original) and I have since been content with the 1.8 version.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Well now, Sheldon does make me think.... I'm terribly picky and that extra oomph in color and contrast might matter to me. Enough to spend that much? I'm not sure. Perhaps I should rent them both and test them out?</p>

<p>Take a look at "<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout">The Great 50mm Shootout</a>." Note this: "for practical purposes, [all the lenses tested] are very sharp. There’s not a bad lens in the bunch." Having read "<a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/10/a-new-king-of-bokeh.html">The New King of Bokeh</a>?", I would actually probably get the Sigma 50mm, which is also a much newer lens.</p>

<p>The differences among the lenses you're considering are likely to be small, however. </p>

<p>The whole point to get the 1.2 lens is ..to shoot at 1.2.I agree with Sheldon ,after having both for a long time.<br /> In my opinion it is better in every respect .The 1.4 lens is a normal one ,nothing special,but the L lens has character ,the pictures stand up and the color rendition reminds me of the Zeiss Planar lenses.One photo at 1.2 on Provia attached.Cheers</p><div></div>

<p>The whole point to get the 1.2 lens is ..to shoot at 1.2.I agree with Sheldon ,after having both for a long time.<br>

In my opinion it is better in every respect .The 1.4 lens is a normal one ,nothing special,but the L lens has character ,the pictures stand up and the color rendition reminds me of the Zeiss Planar lenses.One photo at 1.2 on Provia attached.Cheers </p>

<p>I had both and I have become a big fan of the 50L. I had the 50L for about 2 years now and I have not looked back. Both lenses have some weaknesses but I just like what I get out of the 50L at 1.2 to 2.2 much more than the 50 1.4. The other issue is the 50 1.4 micro USM which, at least for me, was terrible in low light.</p>

<p>I am sure you can find samples and opinions for both. Both are fine lenses. The 50L is simply better but more expensive. I find with photography a little better can be a lot more expensive.</p>

<p>Here are a few of my personal favorite 50L photos<br>

1.6<br>

<p>1.2<br>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Feelings on whether the 1.2 is worth the extra money? I can afford it, but I don't want to waste money if the difference doesn't warrant it.</em><br /><em>Thoughts?"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let's reverse the question. Why do <em>you</em> think you need the f/1.2 L lens rather than the f/1.4 lens? What are <em>you</em> looking for in a 50mm prime that you think one offers that the other doesn't?<br>

<br>

The L is certainly a fine lens, but a good number of the folks who rave about it will rave almost equally about any lens that has a red ring and a letter "L" on the barrel or which is bigger and more costly than alternatives - quite apart from the functional and performance characteristics of the lens or its practical relationship to their own photography.<br>

<br>

In fact the 50mm f/1.4 non-L lens is a fine performer. In their attempts to explain away Lens Lust, many will tell you things about the non-L, some true or relevant but many not, that suggest that it isn't a fine performer. In fact, it is an excellent lens that has advantages over the L in certain types of photography and which, for the vast majority of photographers - including some very serious photographers - is actually the better choice.<br>

<br>

There is no "magic" that will accrue to your photographs from buying the biggest, most expensive lens. <br>

<br>

Dan</p>

<p>Julie if you can live with MF you have several other options. I have and quite like the 50 F1.4 - while the build quality is not great mine has worked fine for many years. My lenses have quite a hard life and despite that the lens has endured. If you can live with MF then the Zeiss lenses are excellent. Personally I use the old Contax 50 F1.7 on an adapter and find it is a great lens. The Contax 50 F1.4 is also a very good lens as is the Leica R series 50mm F2 and F1.4. Some of these lenses are quite cheap ($200 and up for Contax, $600 up for Leica). While this is close to the Canon 50 F1.4 the image quality is higher and the build is at a different level. The Leica lenses are expensive but they really don't depreciate and the build is extremely high. The prices of these lenses has risen somewhat over recent times as film makers have bought these lenses for SLR video solutions (RED, Canon etc...). The made for EOS Zeiss lenses are about $750 for the F1.4 and about $1250 for the F2 Macro.</p>

<p>"If you can live with manual focus"... then you may be happy with the Canon 50/1.4, since its autofocus mechanism often fails after a couple of years :-(</p>

<p>IMPE, <em>typically</em> the EF 50/1.4 produces marginal imagery (at best) WO and near (though the wide sample variation ensures that a few will produce good results even WO - you could get lucky!). If your use is as a landscape lens though, then the EF 50/1.4 will produce fine results. As G Dan says, for some things, it's better than the L, though none of those reasons have anything to do w/ IQ.</p>

<p>While I found that the 50/1.2L<em> is</em> better (and much better controlled), it produces imagery w/ a better 'oomph'. I don't know what it's resolution is, nor do I care. For portraiture (ie f1.4->~f3.5) it's quite good, with superior color rendition, and it gives the imagery great character. I've never owned one, just rented them on occasion, so the copies I've used are in good condition, and well maintained.<br>

One surprise performer I found though (especially for portraiture) was the Sigma 50/1.4 HSM. It's IQ was very nearly the equal of the 50/1.2L, and also <em>far</em> superior to the EF 50/1.4 - especially in the f1.4->f5 range (and yes, it produces marvelous quality work, even WO). As it costs only about $100 more than the EF 50/1.4 new, that makes it a helluva deal. Since I own an EF50/1.4 (my <em>third</em>, as the prior two died of AF seizure) I've only used the Sigs as rentals, but will be replacing my EF50/1.4 w/ one <em>when</em> it dies of AF failure. While the 50/1.2L is nice, it's not worth it (to me), the Sig OTOH certainly seems to be. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"IMPE, typically the EF 50/1.4 produces marginal imagery (at best) WO and near (though the wide sample variation ensures that a few will produce good results even WO - you could get lucky!)"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm tempted to describe this as hyperbolic nonsense, but I'll restrain myself.<br>

<br>

The IQ of the 50mm f/1.4 is excellent in virtually all ways. If resolution is your concern, it equals or out-resolves a number of excellent L zooms and is in the same class as a number of L primes. (I own both L and non-L primes along with L zooms, so I have some basis for saying this.)<br>

<br>

To repeat myself from a number of prior posts: All lenses have strengths and weaknesses, even the supposed best lenses are not "perfect." I tend to think of lenses as having "personalities," and the goal is to find the lens whose personality works well for your own photography. Abstractions like "greatest lens" or "sharpest lens" or "magical colors" are generally subjective and often quite meaningless in relationship to your own photographic needs. <br>

<br>

It is critical to step back from the hyped-up emotions that all-too-often afflict purchase decisions and to then try to be rational about what you really need and what the effect of certain choices will really by. Many among those with sufficient income to consider buying expensive photographic gear also have an affinity for defining their personal worth by owning "the best" things, regardless of whether these things are actually better in real ways for what they do. (Some photographic equipment buyers seem more interested in the acquisition than in the photography, but that is a different topic.) This can manifest itself with a self-congratulatory glow about owning the biggest and most expensive thing, along with inflated claims of the Pure Wonderfulness of said big and expensive thing. <br>

<br>

In the real world, many would be quite surprised to find that many of those producing the best and most admirable photography don't share this perspective. One very talented and very successful west coast photographer who some of you might appreciate and envy and whose books or workshops you might have taken advantage of basically uses two lenses: Canon 17-40mm f/4 and Canon 70-200mm f/4. Among such people, there is often a bit of bemusement about the Gear Lusters.<br>

<br>

Getting back to the EF 50mm f/1.4... what are its weaknesses?</p>

<ul>

<li>It exhibits a <strong>small amount of barrel distortion</strong>. This is essentially irrelevant in almost all photography for three reasons. First, it isn't visible in most photographs unless they include subjects with obvious lines near and parallel to the frame edges. Second, most lenses exhibit at least some barrel (or pincushion) distortion. Third, it is easily, effectively, and invisibly corrected in post by all current raw-conversion software.</li>

<li>It exhibits a some <strong>halation and a slight loss of contrast at f/1.4</strong>. This is often misrepresented as "softness" at f/1.4, but the lens is actually decently sharp at f/1.4 - certainly very usable and I use that aperture when needed on mine without sharpness concerns. With some subjects you may want to use contrast or curves adjustments to compensate at f1.4. (If you are a critical photographer and post-processor you are doing this anyway with virtually all photographs, so it isn't that you have to add anything to your workflow - you will just use slightly different settings.)</li>

<li>There are frequently-repeated complaints about <strong>build quality</strong>. This gets us into a complex never-never land of forumtography. Such stories have a way of self-replicating and self-amplifying as those who hear such a story repeat it until the forum universe is eventually filled with stories of a "problem," most of which are actually people repeating (2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. hand) stuff they read in a forum somewhere. I have no doubt that some 50mm f/1.4 lenses have had mechanical problems, just as I have no doubt that there are samples of almost any lens that have needed adjustment or replacement. Worst case, buy a box of 50mm f/1.4 lenses and their combined durability is likely to at least equal that of one f/1.2 L! ;-)</li>

</ul>

<p>In the end, so what? My 24-105 has worse barrel distortion and exhibits zoom creep. I could complain that my 70-200mm f/4 IS is not as sharp at minimal focus distance as it is at longer focus distances. My 35mm f/2 requires me to flip a switch in order to MF it. My 24mm f/1.4 is quite large and bulky for some of the situation where I use it. I have to think about the zoom tension ring on my 100-400. And so on. No lens is the Worlds Most Ultimately Perfect Lens... but somehow all of them allow me to produce photography that seems to work pretty well. :-)<br>

In the end, there are no doubt a few photographers for whom the practical benefits of the 50mm L are worth the added cost (and bulk, etc.), but they are few and far between. Most of the people anguishing over this in forums are worried about things that aren't relevant and they would be very, very happy with the f/1.4 lens.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I like the 50/1.4 and have no complaints, but I treat mine more carefully than other lenses largely because everyone here tells me it won't last. In general, it scores better in optical testing than the 1.2 for most users, but I have to say I would like to try the 1.2 one day. Most of shots I see with it have a "little extra something". However my little extra something lens is the 35L and I am certainly not spending to get a new 50mm with the larger size and weight that goes with it. My aim is always to reduce the size and weight of camera gear if I can.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"If you can live with manual focus"... then you may be happy with the Canon 50/1.4, since its autofocus mechanism often fails after a couple of years :-(</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ed, unfortunately, a typical failure (with this particular lens) could be described as 'seizure'. When it fails, often, the AF locks up tight (regardless of switch position), to the extent that the focus ring <strong>cannot</strong> be moved (by hand at least) I never tried with tools, but it was clear that the amount of force necessary would require breaking an internal, jammed, component. </p>

<p>Count me as someone who <em>had</em> marginal feelings (due to it's substandard optical performance WO and near) about the lens <em>prior</em> to the first failure, but I have very specific feelings after 2 complete failures, and a third copy of the lens with intermittent failures.</p>

<p>The naysayers are correct on this one. Optically, the 1.4 is very good. Mechanically, it's lousy. Of the two copies I've used, one wont focus at all, either automatically or manually. The other focuses manually only, but it feels like somebody threw sand in the mechanism. Very rough and imprecise. The really irksome thing is - if I were to send the lens back to Canon for repair, they'd replace the defective mechanism with the very same junk and it'll be dead again in 6 months.</p>

<p>I can't imagine why Canon isn't so embarrassed with this lens that they don't fix it. But it's hung around for 20 years, unworkable focus mechanism and all, and there's no hint of a replacement.</p>

<p>The 1.2 has a bit better color rendition and contrast compared to the 1.4 The former also sports a MUCH better and more modern construction/build and more consistent AF performance (although there are complaints on both lenses.) Above all, the subjective quality of images produced by these two lenses is very much different: the same scene photographed at athe same f/stop with both lenses will be IMO much more 3D and pleasant (especielly OOF parts) with the 1.2 than with the 1.4. This is a totally subjective opinion, though, so rent both, run some test and then decide. </p>

<p>FWIW: the 1.4 is a rather old construction, ancient mechanically if not optically, so it might get updated, but there is no telling when. The rumor mill also bets on an update to the 1.2 :-)</p>