Opinions regarding Canon 50mm f1.2 L

[steve.elliott]

Anybody that has it, what do you think of it? How does it compare in your opinion to the straight 1.4 version?

[squareframe]

it's faster. and hopefully has a better MTBF than my f1.4 that just died.

 

it is a specialized lens, and you have to have a love for low-light photography with the inherent optical compromises of a fast lens. check the specs for focus speed .. otherwise, one buys the f1.2 because they love the signature of a wide-open fast lens. if you are after greater DOF and tend to stop-down, then I think it would be a waste of money.

 

of course .. if you need f1.2 then the comparison is null and void.

 

dt

[anthony_zipple]

Unless a 1.4 is just too slow, the 1.2 is pretty heavy and expensive. If you shoot wide open it also includes a lot of compromises in terms of image quality. If you really need the speed, nothing else will do. If you do not, the 1.4 will do better. Then again, the 1.2 looks wicked cool....

[kelly_flanigan1]

It probably better than my LTM Canon 50mm f1.2 :)

[pbizarro]

What do I think of it? I think it is a great lens, but since it is a specialised lens, it is not for every body. The less experienced photographer will struggle a bit while trying to nail down focus and DOF wide open, and most likely will blame the lens for poor results.

 

As all fast lenses, there may be a steep learning slope. I have used mine for about 18 months now, on a 1V with slide film. I am happy with the results.

[sbp]

In my experience, the 50 f/1.2L is sharper than the 50 f/1.4 from f/1.2 to f/2. At or above f/2.8, they are similar.

 

The f/1.2 is approximately five times the price of the f/1.4. Only you can decide whether an additional .2 aperture is worth $1,200.

And I agree with Paulo - nailing focus at f/1.2 takes some practice, especially hand held (your body movement can exceed DoF).

 

For me, I had both, but sold the f/1.2 and bought a 24-70 f/2.8...8-)

[peza]

it is not the 135/2.0L league, but very good lens. Contrast/sharpness gradually improves from f/1.2 to f/1.8, at f/1.6 is is already very good. It is neither very consitent to focus, not very easy to focus. And - it is perfectly acceptable at f/1.2. The EF 50/1.4 is NOT acceptable by any means @f/1.4 according my standards.

Even 1-series cameras struggle to do it right every time, lesser AF-systems will have REALLY hard time.

In real life - sharpness is limited by precision of AF.

 

50/1.4 might be and likely is (I don't own one since a while to do head to head comparison) sharper in f/4-5.6 area. I'd say - at these f-stops is pretty phenomenal.

[steve.elliott]

I just wonder, because I used to own the 50 f1.4 and wasn't too impressed with the colour quality and CA. Nearest lens I currently own in that focal length is the 35 f1.4 L, which is excellent.

[mendel_leisk]

Comparing to the f1.4: a lot heavier and bigger, way more expensive, marginally faster and better bokey, slightly softer, better build...

 

It has some advantages, but I'll stick with f1.4, just wish *it* had a bit better build and focus mechanism.

[andreasb]

I've heard several rumors that the newer Sigma 50mm f/1.4 beats the Canon 50mm f/1.4 in image quality. I've heard enough to at least suggest checking it out.

[brian_seay]

Neither is a substitute for the other -- not by a long shot. The f/1.2 is stunning at 1.2, and good up to f/2. After that, I switch to the 50mm f/1.4, due to the focus shift of the 50mm f/1.2. If you're building an L prime collection, I was going to suggest getting the 35mm first since it is far more versitile, but you have that already. Depending on what you're shooting, you might get the 85mm instead of the 50mm, as it has more magic at f/1.2 than the 50mm does and actually gets sharper when stopped down. OTOH, AF is slow and it's like sticking a brick on your camera body.

[steve.elliott]

Totally agree Brian, the 85 f1.2 L II is a wonderful lens. I'm lucky to own it, the 35 f1.4 L and the 135 f2 L (plus the 16-

35 f2.8 L II) , and yes building a prime collection as I love the shallow depth of field look and low light performance.

The 50 f1.2 L and 24 f1.4 are possible next purchases. Ofcourse the 24 has just been updated and yet to be

reviewed (and very expensive too!)

[brian_seay]

Very cool Stephen. Don't forget the 200mm f/2.8L -- I bought it last among the "black L primes" but wish I hadn't --

it's sharper than the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS and has incredibly fast and accurate AF. I love it even more than the

135mm recently, for what I'm shooting! Outdoors, I use it more than any other lens these days (until dusk, that is).

 

The 24mm L mk I has a lot of naysayers, but at f/2.8 it's as nice as the 35mm L at f/2.0 even in the corners, by my

copies -- and what choices do you have if you need f/1.4? A Lecia Summilux? Ha!

[steve.elliott]

Bought the 50 f1.2 L. Nice focal length and very very fast.

[bradfernihough]

"and what choices do you have if you need f/1.4"

 

Soon, the Carl Zeiss T Planar 50mm 1.4 with EF attachment....it's what i'm waiting for. Of course no AF.

[brian_seay]

Brad -- we're close to the same page, but I was referring to the ~24mm range.

 

I too am anxiously awaiting the 21mm CZ Distagon, as well as the 25 and the 28 in the ZE mount!