tom_berkowski Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 I have almost decided to make the 50 1.2L my gift to myself. Someone talk me out of this $1400 purchase. Sample reasons that will cause me to put away my credit card: - Someone can speculate that Canon will come out with a better 50 1.4 which will focus faster & more accurately than the one I purchased & returned last year and that reported reliability issues will improve. - Someone can tell me to wait for a Conurus to start conversion of Contax N 50 1.4, that I shouldn't worry about possible mirror clearance with 5D, that it image quality will be exceptional, and that focus speed and accuracy will be in the ballpark of a Canon 50 1.2L. - There is some other substitute for the breathtaking, "did I really shoot that?" quality of a few of shots from the last time I rented this lens. (I commonly used 1.8, so 2.8 zooms not an option. 85 definitely not a substitute, and 35 probably not the best choice in my experience) - That there will be a rental company that will open nearby that will always have this in stock at last minute. - That the infrequent focus issues I had first time I rented this lens (and decided not to purchase) should stick in my mind. (Focus issues were not as bad as 50 1.4, just more annoying than I thought should happen in a lens so expensive.) - Many other reasons, I'm sure. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn1965 Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 I have the Sigma and have been really pleased with it. Very sharp. Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 You seem terribly concerned about focus issues. Do these 50mm lenses not have the autofocus performance like other Canon lenses that you already have? Is it possible that it is your camera body or technique that is causing the problems that you had with the 50mm lenses? My concern is that the 50/1.2 L may not be that much better than the 50/1.4 with respect to actual image qualtiy. I have not specifically researched this though. The 50mm focal length is not as important to me as other focal lengths so I would have a hard time justifying the expenditure but if you use yours alot than it may well be worth it to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradfernihough Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 What do you use it for? I was considering it myself but am going to hold off a bit longer. It appears that the general view is that it's not worth the extra $1000 for the 1.2 over the 1.4. I have the 1.4 and borrowed a friends 1.2 the other day, and am now comparing. The new 50mm 1.4 EF bayonette Zeiss lens was released this week and at about $750 is substantially less. (No auto focus though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btmuir Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 I have the 50 1.4 qnd it nails focus. I can't complain about any "reliability" issues. I keep the hood on it all times including in the bag to protect the front, my favorite on a crop body followed by my 85 1.8 on FF. I may go 1.2 on the 85 one day but not at the moment. On the other hand L glass is why we shoot Canon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 Get it, if you hate it sell it, you will only lose a few weeks rent on the thing and you will be able to lay the ghost to rest. Take care, Scott. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bueh Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 I am too are not that happy with the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens. It must be the worst 50mm lens I've tried! But I would not think that f/1.2 glass would be better in perfomance -- I have an old manual focus Tomioka f/1.2 lens and while it is definitively a high-end lens, it has some optical abberations like glow and low contrast that would not work so well with autofocus. I guess Canon's f/1.2 is somewhat better optically, but then again, many other manufacturers were able to make decent and autofocus-friendly 50mm f/1.4 standard lenses. I would rather give SigMa's new 50mm a chance than waste a lot of money on a lens that is probably not really better than Canon's old f/1.4 normal lens when it comes the focus accuracy. I mean, even you experienced critical focus troubles with it when you rented this lens. It's a feature of super-fast lenses to be very demanding on autofocus systems! Maybe a high-end body with the very best AF technology will focus better with any lens, but I don't think that a f/1.2 lens will make you happy if the current f/1.4 is performing poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_clark___minnetonka_mi Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 Have you looked at the new cameras that do a pretty good job handling higher ISO's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richterjw Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 Don't do it; those lenses are known to carry the Bubonic Plague, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions in Europe and Asia. JR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peza Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 I can confirm, EF 50/1.2L is not the most consistently focusing lens I own. Consistent means - no finetuning will solve the issue. EF 28/1.8 is the worst, however - even highly praised EF 70-200/2.8L IS is better, yet not great in this respect. EF 50/1.2 L is very good wide open and is flare resistant. Good lens. If you have use for it - get it. I have no good words to say about EF 50/1.4 - maybe except it is great stopped down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_russell1 Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 What you gain in speed by virtue of the non-stopped f1.2 you will probably lose in terms of depth of focus if used wide open or at up to f2.8. If you really need a dcent 50mm, then track down a pristine 50mm f1.8 mk1, spend the money on a body with focus adjust memory instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomwatt Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 While I'm certain that purchasing the 50mm f1.2L will make you popular with everyone within a hundred miles, cause the Pulitzer Committee to start asking you to lunch to fish for your opinions, and cure baldness in all the males within your family, you can be absolutely certain that the moment you purchase this lens, Canon will immediately issue an improved, MkII IS version with faster focusing-USM and intelligent image-taking capabilities. The new model will automatically select and photograph the best compositions for you while you're away at lunch. I'd wait for it if I were you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 I'm frankly surprised that so many are maligning the EF 50/1.4. Mine is razor sharp and focuses fine. I don't typically shoot wide open, but if I'm in a low light situation where I need to, I use my FD 85/1.2 L, FD 50/1.2 L or FD 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical. Yes, I'm still shooting film in tandem with digital. It gives me more versatility, and keeps me connected with the art of photography. Tom, I'd go ahead and get the EF 50/1.2 L. My EF and FD L's are quite simply astounding. There is no substitute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warren_lafever Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 you have my permission to not buy it. it seems you have already come up with the reasons why. here is another reason, unless you are shooting super low light with no flash and no tripod you dont really need it and you are not gaining that much speed over a 1.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarah_fox Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 Look at the detailed test data on www.slrgear.com. Chromatic aberration is much higher with the 1.2L lens at all apertures, and the 1.4 is just a tiny bit sharper than the 1.2L at f/2.8 and above. If you plan on shooting at f/2 and below, the 1.2L is your lens. Otherwise the 1.4 is going to outperform it at a much lower price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 Unless you actually _need_ f/1.2-f/1.4 you could buy the EF 50mm f/1.4 and get all of the same photographs... and have money left over for other excellent primes. Bigger and more expensive and larger maximum aperture is not _always_ better for every type of photographic use. Unless your needs are quite specialized you are unlikely to realize photographic value from this lens that equals the difference in cost. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_hardy1 Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 Go ahead and buy it. It's not like you're spending Noctilux type money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_berkowski Posted November 29, 2008 Author Share Posted November 29, 2008 Thanks for all the answers. Yes, focus is an issue for me. I primarily shoot children in unstructured play environments. 50 1.4 was slower & less accurate focusing than other Canon lenses I have owned or rented, and I'm not just comparing to L lenses. 50 1.2 was much better but not perfect in my rental expreience. I certainly expect more from a lens that cost so much. 35 1.4L was better in focusing than the 50 1.2, as was 24-70 2.8L in my experience. I take more groups of kids now (2-4) rather than just one at a time, so I feel the urge to own something wider than 85 to get closer to the action. Also, I almost always use 2.5 and wider apeture. 50 1.4 on paper seems perfect, but I tried renting and owning, and I know I won't be happy. I thought the 50 1.2 lens would have a rebate, but of course not this time. I don't think I want to wait 6 months for next rebate cycle. I haven't used a Sigma since a camera shop tried to push a cheap zoom on me many many years ago. It focused slowly and of course was like f/8 or something. I know that I shouldn't judge all lenses in a brand by this single experience, but I don't even know if my shops rent Sigmas to try the 50. I'll have to check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCL Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 Buy it - anybody who salivates so badly over a lens that they need others to talk them out of buying it will only fall into total despair if they don't get it. Then you can determine for yourself if it does what you want, if not sell it to somebody else. If so, then your exercise was a bust in the first place :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobcossar Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 Yeah......buy it. Someone has to feed the market place..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobcossar Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 Yeah......buy it. Someone has to feed the market place..... But the......doesn't someone make an f/1......even better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_markanich Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 Take the hot water bottle off your forehead and go take some pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg_campbell1 Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 Get a grip, man! :) $1,400 is a big-assed wad of cash. Wouldn't you rather spend it on a vacation to Hawaii, Yellowstone, or some other photogenic location? More seriously, do you really think it will take better pictures? How? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natharit_srimanus Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 From what i've seen, I like the way the 50 1.2L renders images. The only issue is...it's too cheap! Come on guys, only $1.4k compare to $5k for the Leica noctilux? Clearly the Leica is 3.6 times better than the Canon. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgan_gray Posted November 30, 2008 Share Posted November 30, 2008 Because you know damn well that spending $1400 for a lens that doesn't hold a golden key to the gates of a good photograph is absurd. Go with a 1.4 that will closely match the lens and feel good about not succumbing to your brains way of testing whether or not you can honestly answer the question: Is it absolutely necessary? With any new toy comes the effect of a bias, the photographs taken by the 50 1.2L are great, I'm not disagreeing with that, but you can easily make shots that are just as good with something that doesn't make you feel guilty about making an ill decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now