50mm 1.4 or 50mm 1.2L

[kim_angel]

I need some help deciding if the 1.4 or 1.2L would be best for me. Let me give everyone a little background about

myself and what I need. I am a horse show action photographer. I will be mainly shooting at night, but I have to use

a high shutter speed (over 500) in order to freeze the action. I have a 24-70mm 2.8L, but need a lower aperture

because many of the pictures turn out dark and very grainy when I ramp up the iso, even when I use my 580EX II at

full power. At high speed sync mode, the flash does not put out as much light. I like the image quality I get from a

prime lens, so I ordered the cheap 50mm to try and it works perfect except it has trouble focusing on the moving

subjects in very poor lighting conditions. When I used it at a show this weekend, it often backfocused and I missed

several shots because it was hunting for the subject. I prefer not to use manual focus, because the horses are often

going by so fast and they are so close together that I have trouble catching the sellable pose and focusing manually

at the same time. My current camera body is a Rebel XTi.

 

Since I will be shooting moving subjects at night under very poor lighting conditions, I will need a lens that is able to

focus quickly and accurately. I have heard that the 50mm 1.4 has has a faster autofocus than the 1.2 because it

does not have as much glass. I like the thoughts of getting the better image quality from the 1.2, but I am afraid that

the autofocus will be too slow for what I need. Out of the three 50mm lenses Canon makes, which has the best

ability to focus on moving subjects in low light?

 

Any help will be appreciated.

-Kim

[zml]

<i> I will need a lens that is able to focus quickly and accurately. I have heard that the 50mm 1.4 has has a faster

autofocus than the 1.2 because it does not have as much glass. </i><br>Yeah, you've heard correctly, the 1.4 is

faster even though neither lens is a fast-focus champion. IMO save your pennies and get the 1.4, unless you don't

mind really slow focus or (and) are morbidly fascinated with shallow DOF :-)

[kim_angel]

Does the 1.4 focus faster than the 1.8? Are there even enough differences to upgrade to the 1.4?

[john_g10]

Having a really fast lens is fine but how much DOF do you need ?. Why not spend on a better camera body for low light purpose ?.

[ryan_rittenhouse]

The 1.4 focuses faster than both the 1.8 and the 1.2. Going from the 1.8 to the 1.4 gets you better background blur, CA, flare, contrast. Not a huge difference, but definitely noticeable.

[bueh]

Are you using the <abbr style="border-bottom: 1px blue dashed;" title="autofocus">AF</abbr> assist beam of your flash for focusing?

[alan_green4]

Kim

 

yes. the 1.4 is much better than the 1.8. (however, 'much' means slightly). nonetheless, it's worth the upgrade. the only reason i kept my 1.8 is for if/when my other lenses fail. the 1.4 has better color and is sharper wide open (and is [way] faster). the 1.8, for my needs, is so soft it's not usable from 1.8 - 2.8. this makes the 1.8 a de facto 2.8 with bad color. the 1.4 is not a speed demon when it comes to focusing, though, but neither is the 1.8.

 

there's a reason the 1.8 costs less than $100. you get what you pay for

 

the 1.4 is quite sharp wide open, but does suffer from halation of the highlight areas. this halo gives the impression of softness but that's an illusion. the effect is not necessarily undesirable. has a romantic soft-focus look that was hot in the 70s and 80s. but, bottom line, this optic may be the only option under certain conditions (unless, of course, you have a faster lens)

 

personally, i wouldn't spend the money on the 1.2, unless i absolutely needed the speed. dof will be extremely shallow with the 1.4 -- would be worse with 1.2. could be problematic. then again, if you need 1.2...

[yakim_peled1]

>> Does the 1.4 focus faster than the 1.8?

 

No. I tried them both at the same time. Bothe are pretty good but neither is a staler.

 

>> Are there even enough differences to upgrade to the 1.4?

 

Better bokeh, better build, quieter AF (though not faster and not more accurate), FTM. I have not witnessed better flare resistance, better CA (with neither it was a major issue) or better contrast.

 

Neither the 50/1.4 nor the 50/1.2 has IF/RF design but the 50/1.2 has ring-USM vs. the 50/1.4 Micro-USM. Therefore, logic dictates that that, coupled with the added light from the faster aperture, would make for a faster AF.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[zml]

<i>logic dictates </i><br>EF 50/1.2L in terms of AF speed is a real dog: AF speed is <b>much</b> slower than

with the 1.4. It's my experience genrally shared by the photographing public, not logic.

[ralph_jensen]

There are so many complaints about the 1.2 that I would stay away from it, especially considering it costs 5 times as much as the 1.4 (there are rumors that Canon is secretly fixing the 1.2's focus and other issues and issuing an unannounced updated version, but it's all hearsay for now). Here's a typical discussion:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/659288

 

The 1.2 lens also fares worse among FM reviewers than the 1.4:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showcat.php?cat=2&page=3&sort=7&perpage=12&stype=

[PuppyDigs]

I recently upgraded from the EF 50 1.4 USM to the EF 50 1.2L USM (last month!). The 50 1.2L is an amazing optic:

creamy smooth bokeh, peppy and reliable AF and sharp wide open. I locks AF fine in low light, albeit not as fast nor as reliable as some of my IF primes and L zooms. However it beats the EF 50 1.4 senseless. Although the 50 1.4 was okay

stopped down, it was terrible wide open and had the least reliable low light AF known to man, woman or beast. Although I

didn't have ant mechanical problems with it during the 7 years I owned it, the 50 1.4 is known to be delicate. Finally, AF on

both the EF 50 1.4 and 50 1.2 ain't fast, but I'd rate the 50 1.2 a notch faster.

[christopheroquist]

I've had the 50mm f/1.8 II for about a month and think it's a fantastic lens for the price, but the auto-focus is terrible, at least in my experience - it hunts around a lot and will often settle on the weirdest objects to focus on. If you need something that autofocuses quickly and reliably hopefully the 1.4 and 1.2 are significantly better.

 

Chris

[martijn_houtman]

@Chris: don't get your hopes up: I have the 1.4 and I find the autofocus pretty poor in less-than-daylight; in daylight it is

pretty fast and accurate though.

[mark u]

I think you should consider the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. It has HSM and full time manual focus, and excellent image quality. Look at this sequence of close action shots and be amazed by its AF:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=28301575

 

shooting children at close quarters is a real challenge - much more so than shooting horses a little further back. The thread that the above link comes from has what amounts to a full review.

[jim_a]

<a href="http://www.jimarnold.org/blog/2008/02/canon-50mm-f12l-versus-the-ef-50mm-f14/">Canon 50mm f/1.2L versus the EF 50mm f/1.4</a>

[asher]

Here are two more reviews/comparisons:<p>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a>

<a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm">http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm</a>

[mark u]

You shouldn't use high speed sync on your flash for this kind of work: you will do better to set your shutter speed to X sync or lower and benefit from full power flash. The flash duration is shorter, and determines the effective shutter speed if the ambient light levels are low. By all means use a wide aperture to maximise the effective power of the flash (work in M mode).

[kim_angel]

Thanks everyone! I really appreciate the quick replies. I decided to go ahead and order the 1.4 because I think it will do the job for me. Based on all the reviews I have read and the information everyone has given me, there would not be enough difference between the two to pay the extra price. Perhaps Canon will come out with a 50mm 1.4 II and fix the focus problems everyone talks about.

[bueh]

<blockquote style="margin:15px 60px; font-style:italic;">Perhaps Canon will come out with a 50mm 1.4 II and fix the focus problems everyone talks about.

</blockquote><p>

 

SigMa is doing exactly that. But their new 50mm f/1.4 HSM lens is not yet available.

[alan_myers]

Hi Kim,

 

Check out http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/ too. This shows some of the fine points comparing the f1.4 and f1.8 lenses. The f1.8 is a bargain lens, and darned good for the money, but it's got a few weaknesses. One is that the f1.4 gives nicer out of focus backgrounds (bokeh) thanks to having more aperture blades. Another is that the f1.4 is a bit more flare resistant. Finally, the f1.4 is better built to take hard use. The f1.8 even has a plastic bayonet. I'm sure I'd break it in about 3 months use.

 

I wouldn't bother with the f1.2L. It's shallow depth of field will be a problem, using it wide open.

 

Besides, for what an f1.2L would cost, you could get a better camera body *and* the f1.4.

 

Auto focus speed and accuracy is as much up to the camera body as it is lens speed. If your budget allows the 50/1.2, I think you'd be better served to get a 40D instead, which is currently selling for about $1000 under Canon's instant rebate program. It should AF better than your current camera. Another reason to upgrade your camera body, the 40D gives better results at higher ISOs.

 

I am also an equine photographer, I use a pair of 30Ds with 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 fitted most of the time. I have and use the 50/1.4, too, but seldom for equine photography. I regularly use ISO 800, occasionally even 1600. I think 40D would be even better.

 

I *do not* suggest using M mode with full flash, even if you can live with lower shutter speeds (not HSS). If conditions are as low light as you say, you would risk startling the horses with full and powerful flash. I do use fill flash a lot with horses and very seldom have a problem. I try to avoid full flash though.

 

If you are shooting in arenas that are like the ones I shoot in, it's possible none of the above will solve one problem. If the arena is lit by mercury vapor lamps, you're going to find a serious color cast problem. It's hard to overcome even setting a custom white balance. If you mix in fill flash, or there is any daylight mixed with it, mercury vapor gets particularly ugly and hard to deal with. With flash, an option is to put gels on the flash to make it's output match the mercury vapor, then run a custom white balance.

 

 

I can't give you exactly what gels to use, since mercury vapor color temps are not very standardized and you'll need to experiment locally. The last time I had to *remove* a mercury vapor color cast, I used either 60 Red or 80 Magneta/20 Cyan combined, I forget which. You'd have to do just the opposite with gels to add it to your flash, until it matches, then set a custom white balance on the camera. Run some tests to see what will be the best possible, although it still might need some tweaking in Photoshop.

 

You are welcome to check out my galleries at www.printroom.com/pro/amfoto1. The Hossmoor dressage events this year and last year were shot without any flash, in a large covered arena during the daytime. There are skylights and two long open walls as light sources. I ask them to leave their mercury vapor lamps off. Both were shot mostly with a 70-200/2.8 and a 300/2.8, the latter usually set to f4 for a little additional DOF (otherwise the horse's nose will be slightly out of focus when it's eyes are in focus).

 

To combat noise when I have to use very high ISO, I shoot RAW (always do anyway) and process through Canon DPP for its noise reduction, then finish up in Photoshop. This is from 30D files, it might be easier and better with 40D (which also has faster AF).

[digimage]

I'm very agree n support the answer from JOHN .G & Alan myer . the fast AF some how tobe compatible w/body if you have a chance to try diffirence body like 40D , 1D mark II N . you'll see how fast diffrence .even the same lens 50mm1.4 you have now . best regard

[25asa]

Im still thinking of getting the 1.2L down the road. So there may be a fix for this lens? Interesting. What lens dates that are coming out seem to be the ones with the focus problem fixed?

[jbm]

The 1.4 focuses better. I used to use Canon and tried all three, owned the 1.4 and 1.8. There are great lens reviews at www.imaging-resource.com including a 50mm shootout between Nikon and Canon's offerings. The 1.2L is no better than the rest and might mean you have to sell a kidney to buy it. For the record, I loved having my rebel xt and the 50/1.8. It was light and outrageously sharp and I took a lot of incredibly sharp pictures with it.

 

If you are really having AF problems in low light after changing lenses, you might want to consider an upgrade to a body that has more cross type sensors and a faster AF system. I don't know that the new XSi does, but the AF system in the 40D is really good and it's pretty much a bargain now.

 

Happy shooting.

 

Cheers,

 

Jay

[dave_holland]

I own the 1.4, and it's a great lens. Don't know the 1.2, but the 1.8 is said to be almost as good, with a somewhat cheaper build. The motor design of the 1.4 is not as recent or as fast as the USM motor of your 28-70.

 

However I will question some of your assumptions. Although it is appealing to use a really fast lens for action photography, you will run into problems with the narrow plane of focus with a 1.4 lens, exacerbated by the rapid action. If you stop it down it won't be a lot better than your 28-70, and if you shoot wide open, expect to throw away a lot of duds because of inadequate DOF. When you shoot a horse with a 50 1.4, expect to have most of the horse out of focus, and expect to have trouble keeping the eyes in clean focus. Not easy.

 

I see that you are using a 580EX at full power. That's nice to know that flash photography is allowed. I suggest you remember the basic principle that good light trumps good glass. If I were you I would not get a new lens, I would get one or two more flashes. In the dark the optical trigger of the 580 will probably be adequate, and three flashes will offer much better light, better DOF, more interesting photos. It won't help with focus but with a smaller aperture the focus will be more forgiving. I suggest you try prefocusing on a spot and wait for the action to come to you.

 

Dave

[yakim_peled1]

If you haven't ordered the 50/1.4 just yet, how about the 35/1.4? It is slightly wider than a 50mm and slightly slower than the 50/1.2. Then again, it has ring-USM and IF design so AF is very quick and BQ is a typical L i.e. bullet proof.

 

Personally, fast AF is a must for me so I chose not to buy any of the 1.2 lenses as neither has IF design. Instead I bought the 35/1.4 and the 85/1.8 will follow soon. I'm also consider buying a third copy of the 50/1.8. It's so cheap and so good that I feel it's almost a crime not to have one..... :-)

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.