Thinking of the Canon 50/1.2L? Here's an initial report.

[fotografz]

Received the Canon 50/1.2L which I guess is a replacement for the long gone 50/1.0L (which I also once

owned).

 

This lens is optically better than the 50/1.0 was (which isn't saying much). It also focuses faster.

 

OOF areas are very beautiful, much like the 85/1.2.

 

It is smaller than the 50/1.0, but big compared to the non L 50/1.4. However, the build quality is 100% L.

That is to say very well made and assembled.

 

I thought the first 50/1.2L I got was a tad soft over-all, so I sent it back and got another. This replacement

is better, but it's not quite up to the 85/1.2L in terms of sharpness at the critical focus point. I've detected

some Haloing around light areas (like reversed out lettering on a sign) ... and some wierd color fringing on

occassion.

 

While I will keep it, I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it unless you are an absolute speed freak

like me ... I'll take any edge I can get.

 

The 50/1.4 is a better bargain for sure, and at these prices you could get three+ 50/1.4s.

[jfr]

hmm, sounds like I'll have to keep my Nocti around for a while. Hoped on changing to canon with everything. Thanks for your report.

 

PS I don't think this is a replacement of the 50 1.0 it's more the EOS version of the 50/1.2L in FD mount. It looks pretty much the same (I like that in Canon, people that come from FD get something familiar just like with the two 85/1.2's.

[jmichaelc]

Marc, how do you compare the sharpness at 1.4 to the current 1.4? If this lens was anything like the current 85 1.2, i was seriously thinking about going for it. Putting build quality asside, which i do not need, if the 1.2 is not sharper than the 1.4 by a significiant margin, then i would most certainly pass. My current copy of the 1.4 is extremely sharp when i hit the target right on.....when it's not sharp it's usually my fault due to the limited DOF to play with at that aperture. The flare results that i've seen from the 1.2 so far are scary.

[jmichaelc]

In terms of sharpness, i know that the 85 1.2, 35 1.4 (which is my next purchase) and 24 1.4 blows this sample below away. But... Marc, how does the current 50 1.2 in your opinion compare to this typical shot taken with the 50 1.4 @ 1.4 ISO 3200 1/100? This is typical results that i'm experiencing with the 1.4 in real life applications and not too bad wide opening. This shot has only been converted to BW from RAW and no shapening has been applied. The only reason i'm asking is i have been highly considering the 50 1.2 but i need some convincing.<div></div>

[fotografz]

Jammey, IMO it lags the 85/1.2 in the area of sharpness at the point of focus. I thought

maybe my camera was off when I tested the first one, but it was like that on both cameras

and they show none of that with the 85/1.2. The second one I got was better, and is even

better at f/1.4.

 

But I didn't get it for f/1.4 ... I want to shoot at ISO 1250 instead of 1600 in available light.

 

Let me modify my post a bit, this is a fantastic lens pictorially, maybe even prettier than

the 85/1.2, but I know some folks are obsessed with sharpness, and MAY be disappointed

... so the 50/1.4 may be a better choice.

 

Lets put it this way, the Mother of the Bride is going to love the results from this 50/1.2 :

-)

[fotografz]

Sorry, I posted my reply just after you Jammey.

 

Tell you what, I haven't shot a wedding with it yet but have one to do on Dec. 30th.

 

I'll come back with more info from real life.

[jmichaelc]

I bet your wife just loves that. I'm in the dog house for quite some time, i accepted one this Saturday the 23rd. Ouch :)

 

Looking forward to seeing how that lens performs in the best of hands.

[mendel_leisk]

In The-Digital-Picture's tests the 50mm f1.2 never catches up with the f1.4, at *any* aperture. I really wonder if this is a mis-focus issue. And the f1.8 best's them both. Here's a comparison between the f1.2 and the f1.4 with both at f5.6:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=115&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4&Camera=9&CameraComp=9

 

I'll stick with my f1.4.

[fotografz]

Here's an example of the pictorial qualities I was indicating. In some ways it reminds me of

my old Leica Noctilux. Lenses optimized for super low light shooting while supressing

backlight flare. We'll see as I use it more.

 

This was shot at ISO 1000 on the 5D. I wonder if the way this lens seems to handle the light

will be an aid when shooting at 1000 and above? Absolute sharpness isn't everything, I have

other lenses for that. This seems a more "expressive" tool. The Noctilux was good at that

also.<div></div>

[marcin harla]

Marc,

 

Thanks for posting this. I'm considering this lens also, mostly because I'm not too happy how 50 1.4 handles backlit subjects

[kenghor]

I wouldn't recommend the 50 f1.2 L for grab shots during a wedding event. While the lens

is good and sharp wide open, getting precise focusing is a challenge.

<p>

Using the 50mm lens for portrait shots, u have to get very close and intimate to your

subject. A 85mm L might be a better option.

<p>

And the 50L flares more compared to the f1.4.

<p>

See <a href="

http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm"> http://

www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm</a> on my test between

the 2 lenses.

[fotografz]

Contrary to the above opinion, I actually USED the 50/1.2 at a wedding and it neither flares

nor is it a challenge to focus. It is a better lens that the 50/1.4 by a mile. It is built better,

it focuses just as fast, and it has absolutely beautiful bokeh.

 

As usual, your mileage may vary. I had to send the first 50/1.2 back to get the current one

that I used to shoot the wedding with.