Canon 50mm 1.4 or 1.2

[juanjo_francesch]

Hi,

 

I am going to buy one of these two. Obviously the price difference makes me

think which one...from the 1.2 I like the sealing, the extra light (as I plan

to use it in Social events without flash)the faster and better AF, not sure

about this last statement, I obviously dislike its price plus I read some

comments saying it is softer than the 1.4.

 

Opinions?

[ci_p]

You'd probably be better off with the 1.4. The aperture difference is minimal. The sealing is not so useful in a social context. The images from the 1.2 had bad CA when focused reasonably close (I tried at 2m) which the 1.4 did not. The AF isn't really faster, but I felt it was more responsive.

[michael_notar1]

well 1.4 to 1.2 thats a 1/3-1/2 of a stop, do you really need it?

 

i tested the 85/1.2 vs the 1.8 model, 1 stop gain between them and saw no differences to

bkg blur..thats all i tested though.

[PuppyDigs]

I found the EF 50 1.4 USM AF useless in low light. Even my slowest zooms were more

surefooted. Perhaps I had a bad copy, but my 50 1.4 was so soft as to be useless wide open. F2.8 was useable and it needed F 5.6 or 8 to be really sharp. In contrast my EF 50 2.5 CM is

tack sharp wide open at F 2.5. Focuses better in low light too.

[juanjo_francesch]

Your comments on the build quality of the 1.4 do worry me...

[yakim_peled1]

There are a lot of reports about problematic AF of the 50/1.2. I suggest you test it well before purchase.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[eigtball1]

For the money the 1.2 better be top notch. Anything less and its a ripoff.

[bueh]

It <b><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=9&FLI=0&API=1">seems</A></b> that the f/1.2 is indeed a tiny little bit softer at f/1.4 than the regular d/1.4 version. I would guess that this is not noticeable under real life conditions. The f/1.2 is supposed to have a much better built quality and is weather-sealed. These are the most important improvements (not image quality), so you have to decide if this is worth it for you.

<p>

If you need fast and accurate autofocus in low light disable flash firing but use the <abbr title="autofocus">AF</abbr> assist light for focusing.

[mr. bokeh]

the 1.2L has round aperture blades, this is a big deal for some as it will not yield geometric bokeh stopped down..

[gdanmitchell]

The 1.4 is a bit softer wide open, but not unusable. Keep in mind a few things about the f/1.2 and then carefully consider the

real value of them versus the risk of succumbing to Lens Lust."

 

At f/1.2 you'll have an extraordinarily narrow DOF. Getting everyone in focus at "social events" at f/1.2 is going to be

exceedingly tricky.

 

Yes, you get roughly 1/2 stop more light. 1/2 stop...

 

The f/1.2 is obviously a whole lot more expensive and also bulkier and heavier. Think about what effects that might have on

your "social event" photography.

 

You might get "better bokeh" with the f/1.2 but the f/1.4 isn't a slouch in this department.

 

The initial reports on the f/1.2 have not been entirely positive.

 

Dan

[tdigi]

Or look at it this way you can have the 50 1.2 or the 50 1.4 the 85 1.8 and the 20 2.8.

[bnyc]

Don't forget the 1.4 is significantly lighter, which is a useful feature in itself.

 

As for build quality, you can break and buy several 1.4's before you would have been sorry for getting it over the 1.2. The 1.4 does have a reputation for failing more frequently than some other lenses, but it is probably something like (and I'm using arbitrary numbers for illustration, I don't actually know) 1% for the 1.4 vs. 0.1% for the 1.2, not 50% for the 1.4 vs. 0.1% for the 1.2. In other words, get a 1.8 for backup and don't let build concerns guide your decision.

[brian_vetter]

I vote for the EF 50 f/1.4<p>

 

I've taken thousands of shots of live music performances in low available light with the EF 50 f/1.4 on a 20D body.<p>

 

Here are a few examples with the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldking/tags/ef50f14/">EF 50 f/1.4</a><p>

 

I use just the center AF point and AF is not an issue.<p>

 

I shoot wide open 99% of the time.<p>

 

I really don't think I would like the extra weight and bulk of the 1.2<p>

 

I also love the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldking/tags/ef85f18/">EF 85 f/1.8</a><p>

 

You could get both (the 50 and the 85) for the price of the 50 1.2 and pocket the extra $675.<p>

 

Make sure to get a lens hood.<p>

 

The 1.2 might be more attractive on a 5d body(?)<p>

[yakim_peled1]

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm

 

HTH.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[berthas gallery]

What is bokeh?

 

Bertha.

[marcin berduszek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

[tom_berkowski]

I face a similar issue. I really need a 50 mm and need something I can open wide. (1.4 is probably wide enough)

 

I rented the 50 mm 1.4, but I found the focus to be very slow. It WAS an issue for me (missed shots as kids don't stay still), although this may not be an issue for others. It could have been an overused rental copy, but it's hard to know for certain.

 

I'm not really sure what I'll do. I bang my equipment around a bit but haven't needed L lens professional quality. Price difference is huge. Maybe I'll need to live with slower focus.

 

Do you think I could buy a 50 1.4, then exchange it if I find that focus is too slow? I have had good return experience w/B&H, but it seems that try & return is a different matter than returning an unopened item.

 

I can also rent a 50 1.2, but that won't answer the question of whether a 50 1.4 would have been acceptable for less $. (assuming my previous rental was a bad copy)

[gdanmitchell]

"bokeh" is the smooth out of focus background you get when you shoot at large

apertures. They produce a very narrow depth of field, so objects beyond the focal plane go

way out of focus. "Good bokeh" is smooth looking out of focus areas. "Bad bokeh" can

show some artifacts that make it look less smooth.

 

Sorry, don't have an example handy, but try to Google the word and you should find

something.

 

Dan

[jim_a]

Juanjo,

 

You didn't say if you or using FF or crop sensor cameras. Edge sharpness on a crop sensor might not come into play

 

I bought a 5D/24-105 kit a few weeks back along with a 50 1.4. Being a 50mm fan, I too wondered if the 50 1.2 is worth it, so I'm in the midst of a week-long rental of the 50 1.2. After shooting both lenses side by side I can't see any difference in image quality in terms of sharpness or contrast that justifies the extra $1,000 over the 50 1.4. I was expecting to see the difference I saw in the Leica M series when I switched from the 35 V4 cron to the ASPH cron version. In that case I saw an increase in sharpness and micro detail in the images. Perhaps I got lucky with a good copy of the 1.4?

 

The biggest con to the 1.2 for me is the weight. I see my 50 as a good walkabout "take everywhere" lens and the 1.2 is more than I want to carry. For trips I will take the 24-105 and the 50 1.4 is a good companion to keep weight down.

 

The build quality is nice but as mentioned before I can buy three more copies of the 1.4 before I equal the price of the 1.2. While weather sealing is nice my 5D is NOT weather sealed...

 

I don't find the bokeh on the 50 1.4 objectionable, but this is a personal call only you can make.

 

I have noticed one difference between the 50's. I also noticed this difference between the Leica 35 crons previously mentioned. Shooting the same subject with both lenses at the same distance and f/stop results in a background from the 1.2 that appears a little more out of focus.

[mendel_leisk]

Unless you have really deep pockets and really want the better build/autofocus, and don't mind a 50mm lens the size of a turnip, go for the f1.4.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

Ain't it great to have all these choices? 50/1.8, 50/1.4 or 50/1.2L.

 

I bought a used 50/1.4 about 5 or 6 years ago, previous ownership and history unknown. 50mm was never one of my favorite focal lengths on full frame/film cameras, so it didn't get a lot of use by me initially. At the time, I only bought it because it was a good deal, even included caps and the matching lens hood.

 

Now, it's had one heck of a lot of use, ever since I went mostly digital about 4 years ago. It's such a great portrait lens on 1.6X cameras.

 

I've had no problems with it at all, knock on wood. In the real world I don't see very much difference (in noise, speed, or accuracy) between it's auto focus and that of other lenses I use with it a lot: 20/2.8, 28/1.8, 85/1.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and others.

 

Based on my own experiences with it, I'd have no hesitation recommending the 50/1.4. I haven't used and don't have any plans to get the 50/1.2. I've used a number of other f1.2 lenses in other systems over the past 30 years. They're very pretty... But larger, heavy and pricey.

[mendel_leisk]

Here's The-Digital-Picture's piano key shot, with the f1.2:

 

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Pictures/Picture.aspx?Picture=2006-12-23_19-05-02&desc=Piano-Keys-Picture

 

And here's my attempt with the 50 f1.4.<div></div>

[pbizarro]

All I can say is that I have the 50 1.2, and I highly recommend it. I use slide film and EOS 1V. I have used the 50 1.4 in the past, and I would never go back to it, after using the 50 1.2. Compared to it, the 50 1.4 feels, and looks like, a plastic toy.

 

But it's your money, of course.

[fourfa]

I own both. the 1.4 is a little fragile and prone to focus mechanism breakage (google it), the 1.2 is built to a high end L standard. The 1.2 unquestionably has better bokeh. AF is noticeably better on the 1.2. Both have plenty of aberrations at open apertures, like sagittal coma in the corners. In general when I'm shooting with the 85L and 135L, the 50/1.2L has a similar look (colors, contrast, saturation) whereas the 50/1.4 stands out with its paler colors and notably poor contrast wide open. On the other hand that low contrast is very flattering to faces when converted to B&W. The 50L is way overpriced, but honestly so is the 1.4 - with its dinky construction it ought to cost $250. I personally would not buy one used.

 

The AF caveats of the 1.2 have been well covered. Be sure that you can live with them before buying. The 50L is bigger and heavier, but personally it's a little under my threshold of "too big" and "too heavy." The 35L and 85L are over that personal threshold, so I only carry them when I can afford to have a heavy bag on my shoulder. Whereas I have no problem taking the 50L on a three-month backpacking trip where every ounce counts.

 

In terms of absolute sharpness, it's close and although I consider this the least important comparison, it's an easy one to make so there are many reviews that cover it. For me it was a simple emotional decision, images from the 50L grab me in a way that the 50/1.4 never has. For me a fast 50 is an expressive artistic lens and ought to have a strong character, to my eyes the 50L does and the 1.4 does not.

[Spearhead]

<i>For me a fast 50 is an expressive artistic lens and ought to have a strong character, to my eyes the 50L does and the 1.4 does not.</i><p>Can you give an example and explain where the character is and isn't that is affected by the lens?<p>See, I've been shooting personally and profesionally for a long time, had shows, been published, paid for a lot of work, and I've always assumed that the character in photos came from me. I guess I was wrong, if everyone else had the right lens, I would have lost all that work.<p>So show me the character and some proof that it's a one lens thing. I've been using the 50/1.4 (and the 50/1.8) for quite a while and never been told that my photos were missing some lens character. So show me, then I can understand, sell my equipment, buy some new equipment, and become a photographer who has more character. I'm looking forward to the examples.