which L would you choose and why?

[mathew_gardella]

<p>would you choose the canon 85mm 1.2L on a FF body or the 50mm 1.2L on a crop sensor? I am interested in the reasoning for your answers. Right now I often shoot between the 85mm and 50mm 1.8 versions on a crop sensor. I am not sure if the 85mm on the crop sensor would be a waste. (Considering the price tag! what are the advantages/disadvantages of the FF vs. Crop sensor) I know that the two have similar focal lengths when put on the FF and crop body so which do you like better? Keeping mind both the budget conscious and the BiG spender in you....</p>

[authoritee]

<p>Well, taking into consideration that you have both, an FF and an APS-C camera, I'd buy the 50mm f/1.2 L in order to use it as a normal lens in the FF and as a not-too-far telephoto lens with the APS-C (it would work as an 80mm lens). The 50mm f/1.2 L is also cheaper than the 85mm f/1.2, but it's just as good and fast. In my opinion, I find a combination of a 50mm and an 80mm much more useful and versatile than an 85mm and 136mm combo.</p>

<p>Since you're already putting two expensive lenses into comparison, I guess you are willing to pay over $1000 dollars for one of these lenses, but if you want to shorten your expenses, applying the reasoning stated above, you should also consider the 50mm f/1.4. Although it's not an L lens, it delivers great images, with a fast aperture and focusing speed, for a much cheaper price.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I prefer the EF 50 1.2L USM on my 5DII (& 5D before it): the field of view is close to my eye's sweetspot and the perspective feels natural. Basically I can walk around, see an image, position myself without looking in the VF and pretty much raise camera to eye and shoot what I saw in my head. A short tele angle of view is too narrow and I find myself backing up most of the time. The only time I use my 85 is for outdoor portraits. It's pretty unnatural for most other things.</p>

[chris_cross1]

<p>If you want to shoot something different, get the 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 on the FF like Erwin Said. If you get the 85L on the FF it will be similar to the 50mm on the crop. I have a 50mm 1.4 on my crop sensor body and have really enjoyed it. What kind of shooting you do also dictates your decision probably. Both of these focal lengths and lenses are amazing so its really a win win situation either way. I'd go play with those lenses at a store if at all possible. They are big, they are sort of slow, but they are excellent quality. </p>

[ben_goren]

<p>If I were a “BiG” spender, I’d go for a 120 mm lens on medium

format….</p><p>But seriously. What are you shooting? What’s your budget? Which cameras are you

comparing?</p><p>As for your question about different formats (<em>i.e.,</em> “FF vs. Crop sensor”), as

I’ve written elsewhere, <em>all else being equal,</em> a cropped image from a larger format

camera is indistinguishable from an uncropped image from a smaller format. A crude example would

be the 5D Mark II compared with the 30D; both have the exact same pixel size, so a crop of the

center 3504 × 2336 pixels of the 5D would be identical to the exact same picture taken with

the exact same lens, <i>etc.,</i> with the 30D.</p><p>Notice the word, “crude,” above? The sensors on the 5D are much higher quality

than the 30D, so you’d actually get a better picture from the 5D. A “real”

comparison would be film cameras, shot with the same film (and lens, <i>etc.</i>). Each digital

camera has its own distinct “film,” so comparisons get muddy. The 50D is much

higher resolution than the 5D, but it’s also noisier, for example.</p><p>Now, coming back to the subject at hand: With an 85 on a full frame camera, you can produce a

shallower depth of field than with a 50 on a crop sensor. (A 120 on medium format can go even

shallower, and a 300 on 4 × 5 is shallower still.) One might be tempted to suggest that the 50

on the crop sensor can get a deeper depth of field, but one would be worng; shrink the aperture,

crank the ISO, and same-sized prints will have the same depth of field and

comparable levels of noise but the larger format will have more resolution. (Again, all else being equal.)</p><p>So, yeah. There are reasons to use a larger format. There are also reasons to use a smaller

format: budget, ease of handling, and lots more. So pick the right tool for the right job, and worry

more about your light than your equipment.</p><p>Cheers,</p><p>b&</p>

[andrew_harto]

<p>I'd opt for the 85mm on an FF body. The 85L on a crop sensor is definitely not a waste. On 1.6x crop sensor, you can skip on ever buying the 135mm 2.0L (great lens!). You are basically getting the same focal length (85x1.6=136) and DOF (1.2x1.6=1.9) as from the 135L.<br>

The 50mmL is also a great choice on a 1.6x sensor, though you'd [only] get about the same DOF as from the 85mm 1.8 (non-L) on the shallow end (85 1.8 is a great lens, too). Personally, I love the 50L on an FF body.<br>

Like many questions/discussions on this forum, there is no right or wrong answer. Just personal taste.</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>There's no contest: an 85 on full-frame is better in nearly every way than a 50 on a crop sensor camera. You get more resolution and lower noise, all other things being equal. Also, for a given depth-of-field, you can work at smaller f-stops (and reap the benefits of notably improved contrast) with the FF/85 than the crop/50 combination. Negatives for the 85 are the weight, bulk, relatively slow focusing, and lack of weather sealing.</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>I'm going to say that If I had to choose between a 50 1.2 on a crop and an 85 1.2 on full frame, this is not a tough decision. I'll take the 85 every time.</p>

<p>The 85, while similar in quality to the 50, is somewhat sharper then the 50, (but not much). Also, the 50 does not have a floating element to compensate for back focus when stopped down. With the 85, you don't need to worry about that.</p>

<p>Lenses aside, the full frame camera to me is more pleasing for portraits because it includes some of the lenses imperfections in the corners. I actually like that. I like the smaller DOF, and I like the high ISO performance.</p>

<p>That said, on the 5D II, I use the 50 more than the 85. The 85 (or 135) is my main portrait lens. The 50 is my walking around lens. It's smaller, lighter, and more closely matches what I see.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>f/1.2 lenses are very specialized tools.<br>

What is remarkable about the current crop is that they perform so well despite their extreme aperture. Still reviews of the 50mm f/1.2 lens indicate that it has more chromatic aberration than the 50mm f/1.4, slightly more barrel distortion and rather heavy vignetting, even on a APS-C-sized sensor (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/158-canon-ef-50mm-f12-usm-l-test-report--review?start=2">link</a> ).</p>

<p>The Photozone.de test of the 85mm f/1.2 lens on an APS-C camera shows a few "features" like vignetting wide open, but overall, this may be even better than the 50mm lens.<br>

I really love my Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 lens, and I use it frequently on a 5D, a 20D, and an XTi. Manual focus is not a problem, especially since AF has problems with such a shallow depth of field. No one would ever describe it as "smaller" or "lighter" though.</p>

<p>So, I say, go for it, but you may still want to buy a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 and/or an 85mm f/1.8 for everyday use.</p>

 

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>I absolutely LOVe my 85 1.2 on Canon 5D Mark II. I don't think the Canon 50 1.2 compares IN my opionon Canon missed the mark on the 50. I do own and have great success with the Canon 50 1.8 which was so cheap I just can't complian at all. My next lens will be the 35 or 24 1.X L primariliy for when I need wide angle for video. Please don't laugh, but I would invest in the 85 1.2L well known best portrait lens made and get the 50 1.8 well known sleeper lens (super sharp and super cheap).<br>

PS - the thing I like about the 50 1.8 is it is so small and light that when I take my battery pack off my 5D and put the 50 1.8 on it looks like a regular old camera and no one notices it. But, I can take photos in almost no light at ISO 6400 using Live View. When you put that 85 1.2L on it is HUGE and really attracts a lot of attention. Not descrete at all.</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>Here are some shots that I took on Sunday. These are a little rough, so don't beat me up too much. Extra points if you can tell which are the 35 f/1.4, the 50 f/1.2, and the 85 f/1.2 without looking at the camera info.</p>

<p><a href="http://endearingreflections.smugmug.com/gallery/9069451_pBQwi" target="_blank">http://endearingreflections.smugmug.com/gallery/9069451_pBQwi</a></p>

[jon_salt]

<p>" the 50mm f/1.2 L...with the APS-C (it would work as an 80mm lens)." <em>Erwin Marlin</em><br>

It really does not matter what the format, an 80mm lens works as an 80mm lens. The focal length of the lens does not change.</p>

[andrew_harto]

<blockquote>

<p>It really does not matter what the format, an 80mm lens works as an 80mm lens. The focal length of the lens does not change.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mea culpa...I did confuse the terms, too. I meant to say field of view, not focal length.</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>Regarding DOF the 50 f/1.2 on a crop camera should be closer to an 85 f/1.8 on FF. Also price-wise the combination with 85 f/1.8 + FF would be an alternative.</p>