Talk me out of buying a 50 1.2L

[manuel barrera houston,]

I have putting off buying for all the above reasons, I have the 24L that is faster focusing in low light, which is where you need the quick focus ability, I have the 50 f/1.4 and it does suck in low light because it hunts. People will say do manual focus, I wish my eyes were still 20/20. But that same 50 f/1.4 at f/4 is an awesome lens and a heck of a lot cheaper. Now having said that, the 50 f/1.2 lens I will probably buy some time next year as that is my favorite distance, as I do a lot of low light photography. Do I think that the 50 f/1.2 will take better pictures, well the contrast and color will be better, but most importantly it will take pictures where other lens can't at a much lower ISO.

[leeuwtje]

If you want to shoot 2-3 children then you are not working at the lens it's minimum focus distance and you will have nothing to worry about the focus shift.

It's at MFD and f/1,6 - f/2,4 when focussing with middle focus point that focus shift will occur.

 

I bought it for the DOF & focus speed and like it.

 

Only you can decide if you want to spend the money at this lens and what your ROI will be with a crises comming in ....

 

Leeuwtje

[markus_puustinen]

I had the 50L and loved it. Focus issue on smaller apertures didn’t bother me because I mostly shot it wide open.

<br>

<br>

Here are some of the pictures I took with it: <a

href="http://markuspuustinen.com/index.php?x=browse&category=19">http://markuspuustinen.com/index.php?x=browse&category=19

</a>

<br>

<br>

There simply isn’t other autofocus lens available that can achieve same results and as shallow depth of field.

[sbp]

Question - if you are shooting children at play, do you really need or use f/1.2?

 

FWIW, i have the 50 f/1.4, which is my only non-L lens, and love it. I have never had focus or functionality issues. Like

Bruce, i keep the hood on all the time, to protect the extending barrel. IQ is good in the environment which i use this lens -

very low light, high ISO, moving subjects, usually on 1D3.

 

For the same $1.400, you could buy a 50 f/1.4 AND a 135 f/2L (the sharpest of 13 L lenses i own).

[HarryBaker]

If you really need a 50mm f1.4, then I recommend the new Sigma 50mm f1.4 DG HSM. I use this on my 5D and it is excellent and much cheaper than the Canon f1.2 L. It is very well constructed, focusses well and is sharp. Although I'm comparing apples and pears I have been quite disappointed with the Canon 24mm L lens which is not so sharp and which has focussing problems. Do you really need f1.2?

[michael j hoffman]

Don't buy it. I'll buy it for you, then you can buy me the 24/1.4L II that I'm lusting after. Then, we'll swap for Christmas and/or Hanukkah! Life's short, and whoever dies with the most toys wins. Get it!

 

Michael J Hoffman

[ben_quinn1]

The economy has fallen of the edge of a cliff, keep your cash and buy gold with it and keep it under your matress. We will

probably have years of deflation so you can get it cheaper if you wait.

[emile_sprenger]

I have the 50L .. get it if you care about shallow DOF and beautiful bokeh. I love this lens. Now saving for the 85L

If this isn't an issue for you, then you'll probably be just as happy with the 1.4.

[thomas_hardy1]

Natharit said"

 

"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"

 

 

Agreed, but I think the new Nocti is now going for 10 large! (-:

[warren_lafever]

i forgot to mention something. if i have my camera on C-AF it is super slow and hunts in low light BUT if i use S-AF it will focus right away.

[warren_lafever]

you have buyers remorse and you did not buy it, how do you think you would feel after?

[kevin_surfane]

OK, I'll try. <p/>In January 2009: the worst retail sales figures in over a decade will come out, the worst

corporate earnings reports in over a decade will come out and, as a result, the DOW will sink below 7,000,

massive layoffs will be announced (even if Detroit gets there bail-out), people will be desperate and sell all of

their photo equipment for pennies on the dollar - film gear will be traded for food. But, before you wait to buy

the 1.2L at a ridiculously low price, you yourself will lose your job and you will be wishing that you did not

buy that $1,400 + tax lens because you could eat for a year with that money.<p/>Hows that.

[clgriffin]

Contax 50mm Planar T* f1.4 ZE! Manual focus and auto exposure. What more do you need? Plus it is less than the Canon 1.2.

[juans eye]

I don't think Michael Angelo ever spent $ 1400 bucks on a chisel. Neither did Rembrandt, on a brush. Surely Salvador Dali tried to. Juzfughedabowdit! Take you camera to China or something, and start shooting.

 

/bing

[chris_clarke3]

There are well documented issues with back focussing but despite that I enjoy this lens.

 

I have had a few strange results with it but I stress a 'few'. It's shallow DOF is a challenge after using zooms and being used to 2.8/F4 , so user error is a factor that has to be addressed.

Personally I can see why pros get frustrated with this lens but as a guy not relying on shots to earn cash I'm quite happy with it.

I'm looking forward to trying it out on my pre-ordered 5D2 as FF is where this lens should be. (It's just too long for me on my 20D).

Build quality is excellent and it feels very nice.

That aside I bought it on a B&H special for $1100 US in February when the Canadian dollar was at par.

If I don't like it on the 5D2 I can sell it for at least what I paid for it. Quids in!

[mdc002]

If you buy that lens a black hole will be created and all digital cameras will be sucked into it, therefore requiring us to all go back to film!

[anthony_thornborough1]

Wait for inevitable MkII version with SWC nano technology, and use the f/1.4 version for now.

[peter_ferling]

My 1.4 focus is spot on, and I use a hood, and I don't shoot it at anything less than f/2.0 anyway. I compensate by ISO, monopod or flash. Like all lens', there are quality control issues, and even canon releases a few dogs. When I get a lens, I test it out right away before the return date expires. I picked up a 100mm macro in bestbuy, and they don't have a return policy on their lens, but the sale was a good deal. So I shot a few tests right in the store, fired up LR on the laptop and did some pixel peeping.

 

$1400 can wait for a deal on used, as others said, the current economy is driving bargains onto ebay.

[christopher hartt dallas]

The camera body you attach the 50 1.2 to will influence your impressions of the lens performance. For me, I use the 1.2 on a Ds2 and Ds3. Along with the 85 1.2L, the 50 1.2 is probably one of the two best lenses I can use on these bodies. I've tried the 1.2 on a 5D and 50D and the performance (focusing) is ho-hum...not completely consistent. On the Ds2 and Ds3 bodies, the focus is excellent and the lens allows a broad range of creative opportunities with its razor thin dof. I often prefer it for portraits because of the shorter range it allows on the FF Series One bodies.

 

I also own a 1.4 and it's a fine lens when new... I tend to be a heavy user of the lens though, and find that it doesn't retain critical focus as well as the L lens over time. At the very least, the 50 1.2 is an investment grade lens that you will likely never 'outgrow'.

[JDMvW]

I don't think there is any way around the fact that an f/1.2 lens is a specialized tool. That extra little bit wider costs a lot in money and usually such lenses will do no better, and often worse, than "lesser" lenses when stopped down.

 

With modern digital cameras and their ability to shoot at high ISOs, I find even my cheapie f/1.8 to work for most low light photography. However, for that incredible bokeh, etc. I still use my old Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2 lens wide open with a simple adapter. One of the first things I used my Canon digital camera professionally for was a shoot in a painted cave where the Nikkor worked beautifully for hand-held shots (difficult to use tripod where there's no place to put it) together with the generator-driven spots.

[ned1]

OK, I'll talk you out of it.

 

The 50/1.2 is grossly inferior to the Zeiss 50/1.4, and the Zeiss is only a few hundred dollars more. Don't waste good money on inferior merchandise. Real men buy Zeiss!

 

Did that work?

[hjoseph7]

I would love to have that lens if I could afford it, but this year I'm concentrating on lighting equipment. On my Canon 5D that would give me an extra stop with out rellying on the ISO and the nosie reduction software. I'm not an ISO freak, maybe this goes back to film days. I rarely go above 400 although occassionally for a "must have", I'll go up to 800. If its too dark I use a flash. Not sure how the optics on the 50mm 1.2 are, but I know first hand that the 85mm 1.2 is an awesome lens !

 

By the way Leica does not relly on high ISO. They relly on the old fashioned the stuff that gave them their name, that is good lenses with great optics in low light situations.

[Landrum Kelly]

There simply is not a lot to be said for the 50 1.2. While it is true that it is an "L" series lens, it is not strictly comparable to many other L lenses.

 

The bottom line is that it simply is too expensive and is not all that useful.

 

--Lannie

[ralph_jensen]

Because it was the worst-rated of Canon's six 50mm lenses at fredmiranda.com's reviews.

 

See 79 user reports here:

 

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

 

I agree with the others in this thread, though; if you really think it'll have noticeably better performance than

the 50/1.4--let alone 4x better performance!--you should buy it. Talented indeed is the viewer who can readily

discern the difference between 1.2 and 1.4 wrt things like background blur, but maybe your viewers are more

discerning than mine.

 

Personally, I would listen to those who would usually tend to *defend* an expensive lens purchase who instead say

the 50/1.2 is not worth the money (see link above) instead of basing my judgment on one bad experience with a

50/1.4, but it's your money, not mine. So go for it.

[john clark]

May I recommend the 50/1.8mkII and putting the rest of the money into a suitcase under the bed? Or send it to me for safe-keeping?