Canon 50mm 1.4 vs 50mm 1.2L

[john_e2]

<p>I don't need the wider aperture that 1.2 provides but I'm willing to spend the extra money if the glass is better and will provide sharper crisper images. Does the 1.2L have better glass and is it enough to notice?</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>You may want to check reviews on the Sigma 50/1.4 EX DG. Better than the Canon 50/1.4 IMHO and a lot less pesos than the f/1.2 L.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>If you want to shoot wide open then you need the L lens. The F1.4 lens is very soft at F1.4 and soft at F1.8. It starts to get usable at F2. By the time you get to F4 the L lens has a slight advantage but there is little to choose between them. Some people complain about the AF on the F1.4 lens but I have had no problems myself. This link may help you http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5<br>

I looked at the Sigma and the copy I tested was sharper than the Canon wide open - but still very soft. The digital picture reviewed this lens and found AF issues. I personally only buy Sigma as a last resort - having been burned with a 14mm lens some years ago. My understanding is that Sigma does not license the EF mount but reverse engineers it. Thus I had a 14mm lens that was not fully compatible with the EF mount. Sigma offered upgrade chips but by the time I knew I had a problem they had "run out of chips" so the lens does not work on new EOS bodies!</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

[craigd]

<p>The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 is only a third of a stop -- not really likely to be crucial.</p>

<p>The Canon f/1.2L, compared to the Canon f/1.4, offers better construction and weather sealing, but it's larger, heavier, slower to focus, and optically not really any better except between f/1.2 and f/2, where it has a sharper, less dreamy look than the f/1.4 lens. Both lenses allow you to manually override focus at any time without flipping the AF/M switch. I don't really consider the f/1.2L worth the extra money, but if you expect to be shooting at super-wide apertures most of the time, you might find it worthwhile.</p>

<p>The Sigma is also a nice lens but there have been many reports of inconsistent focus accuracy -- see, for instance, this review at The Digital Picture:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

[craigd]

<blockquote>

<p>My understanding is that Sigma does not license the EF mount but reverse engineers it. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's true of all third-party manufacturers of EF lenses. Canon doesn't license the EF mount specifications to anyone, as far as I know. Because of this, there is always a risk of compatibility problems (either now, or in the future) with third-party EF-mount lenses. Historically, Sigma has been the worst of the major third-party lens makers in this regard; Tamron and Tokina have been much more reliable.</p>

[john_e2]

<p>Forgot to mention I'd be shooting at around F8 most of the time. it seems as though the cheaper 1.4 is better in that range. </p>

[JohnMWright]

<p>Stopped down... no brainer... save your money and buy the cheaper one. </p>

[john_e2]

<p>Thanks for the info. I think I'll got get the cheap one.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>In the f8 range, the 50/1.4 should produce equiv or better sharpness and IQ to the 50/1.2L and the Sigma 50/1.4. If all you plan to do is shoot stopped down, then there is no tangible reason to buy either of the more expensive glass options.</p>

<p>Except of course from a reliability standpoint. Also, if you are shooting video, the MF is a bit 'clunky' for smooth operation while shooting video. Both the 50/1.2L and the Sig 50/1.4 are much smoother.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The f/1.4 lens at f/1.4 suffers more from low contrast than from soft focus, so it is certainly usable wide open if you can work curves/contrast a bit in post. It is fine stopped down even a partial stop, so f/2 is great.</p>

<p>You mentioned that you don't need f/1.2 but didn't mention what you do need. Are you simply looking for a 50mm prime that performs well in general use and wondering if the f/1.2 version is generally going to provide you much better IQ at all apertures and thus be worth the price? Or is it that while you don't need f/1.2, you somehow do need the partial stop smaller f/1.4 aperture? </p>

<p>If the former, I have to say that the 50mm f/1.4 is overall an excellent performer. If image sharpness is your concern, the f/1.4 lens will produce excellent, sharp images. I use it for night photography and landscape and I'm consistently impressed with what it can do.</p>

<p>If the latter, then for a very large price premium you can get better performance at f/1.4 from the L lens... but one wonders whether it is worth the cost.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Forgot to mention I'd be shooting at around F8 most of the time. it seems as though the cheaper 1.4

is better in that range.

 

50/1.8

 

Even cheaper...

[alan_bryant1]

<p>If you're going to be shooting at f/8, I'd say just get the 50/1.8. Or the 50/2.5 compact macro if better build and low distortion are needed.</p>

[craigd]

<blockquote>

<p>50/1.8<br /> Even cheaper...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but the disadvantages of the 50mm f/1.8 II over the f/1.4 are:</p>

<p>1) No USM (noisy, slow focusing; no full-time manual focus override<br />2) Very cheap build (very easily damaged by minor impacts; even the lens mount is plastic!)<br />3) Pentagonal bokeh due to the aperture iris having only five blades (though this wouldn't be much of an issue shooting at f/8 as the OP says he mostly does)</p>

<p>I think the f/1.4 USM is a better deal, but the f/1.8, for all its flaws, is optically quite sharp and very good value for money.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> Or the 50/2.5 compact macro</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. The 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro is worth considering. It's more expensive than the f/1.8, but significantly cheaper than the f/1.4, and it's probably Canon's sharpest 50mm prime. It doesn't have USM, so focusing will be noisy and slow, like the f/1.8, but otherwise it's pretty respectable and you get half-life-size macro (1:2) too.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>If you check out photozone's <a href="http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff">reviews</a>, John, you'll see that the EF 50/1.4 has superior resolution to the EF 50/1.2 L and the Sigma 50/1.4 at virtually all apertures (except f/1.2, of course!).</p>

[alwin_lai]

<p>FYI the EF 50 1.4 doesn't have ring USM it is micro motor. Just as noisy and lesser quality than the true Ring-type USM.<br /> Currently have the vintage 50mm mkI. I'd thinking to get the Sigma 50 1.4 actually.</p>

[craigd]

<p>The EF 50mm f/1.4 USM doesn't have a ring USM, true, but its micro-motor USM isn't noisy at all, it focuses quickly, and it even has full-time manual focus override. If Canon were to upgrade the 50mm f/1.4 to ring USM, I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>The 1.4 is about what's in focus.<br>

The 1.2 is all about what's not in focus.</p>

[steven_f1]

<blockquote>

<p>The Sigma is also a nice lens but there have been many reports of inconsistent focus accuracy -- see, for instance, this review at The Digital Picture:<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you look carefully at the review on focus he only used the lens at one event. Furthermore the only picture he shows is of kids jumping up and down on a trampoline. With the kid moving up and down while the photographer stays on the ground the plane of focus will continousely move in relationship with the moving subject and most of the time won't align. If the plane of focus is not parallel with what you want in focus you will get mostly an out of focus shots. </p>

<p>The solution to the problem is to stop down the lens to get more depth of field. This is exactly what he states. Using a wide aperture lens is not easy, You need to constantly keep in mind what your depth of field is and make sure the plane of focus lines up with what you want in focus. Most photographers don't think about any of this and even let the camera select the focus point for them. The end result is they get a lot of out of focus shots and try to blame the lens for their own mistakes. </p>

<p>If you go to amazon and look at the reviews you will see a lot of about focusing problems. However if you go to the B&H web sinte and look at the reviews you will see mostly good comments about the lens with few comments about focuing problems. Whats the difference between the two sites if they are sellling the lens? The experience level of the customers on B&H is trypically much higher. </p>

<p>I personally have the sigma (it's my only 50). I typically use only the center focus point and I typically verify the focus before I snap the picture with all my L lenses and the sigma. The sigma focus motor is just is just as acccurate and reliable as my other 4 lenses. The focus motor on the sigma is identical to the ring type Canon focus motor used on all canon L lenses and it has rounded aperture blades for smoother out of focus highlights in the ismage. Optically the Sigma is optimize for maximum sharpness at the center of the image with the aperture at 1.4. According to the detailed Dpreview.com test reviewsThe canon 1.4 is optically at its best at an aperture setting of 5.6. </p>

<p>If you are mostly using the lens at F5.6 to F16 the only advantage to the sigma is the overall build quality, better aperture mechanism and a more reliable focus motor design. (The canon usm micro motor according to many reviews and post on photo.net breaks frequently and must be repaired). </p>

 

[craigd]

<blockquote>

<p>If you look carefully at the review on focus he only used the lens at one event. Furthermore the only picture he shows is of kids jumping up and down on a trampoline.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, he doesn't say he used it at only one event; he says, as an example of the lens' focusing problem, that he had to throw out more than 70% of the shots from a single event. Not the same thing. He also specifies that those were "non-action" shots, so the trampoline picture is clearly not intended as an example of the focusing issue. You're distorting the review in order to try to make it say what you want it to say, or to discredit it.</p>

<p>Obviously stopping down will help, since it results in more DOF and therefore more tolerance for focusing errors. That's kind of beside the point, though. If AF is unreliable at maximum aperture, that limits the lens' usefulness as a fast lens. The fact that the Sigma is optically designed for optimal center sharpness wide open makes focus accuracy at max aperture all the more important.</p>

<p>I think customer reviews on any site are a mixed bag. I would not agree, based on the reviews I've read at B&H, that their customers are necessarily more experienced or knowledgeable than Amazon reviewers. There are some very good reviews on Amazon and there are some very poor ones on B&H (as well as the reverse).</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Neither the Sigma nor the Canon 1.2L offer me compelling reasons to buy it over the Canon f1.4. I agree with G.Dan: it's a good lens with lower contrast, and acceptable sharpness wide open and it's really good at f2.8. The main issue with all of these fast lenses is nailing the focus; even a little off and you may think you have a dud. Take care and the Canon f1.4 rewards you. It's not a beautiful lens in the hand, but I have had no reliability issues with mine over the last 3 years.</p>

[bill_dewberry]

<p>The answer to your questions is yes, and yes.</p>

[vbi]

<p>I have used the 50mm F1.4 extensively between F4 and F8 where it is very sharp with fast focus. What I like most about it is that it makes my 5D Mk2 almost feel lightweight. It is an easy lens to use all day and has never disappointed me.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> it (the 50/1.4) focuses quickly, ...

 

Now that's a knee slapper! Might be true in another universe...

 

 

>>> If Canon were to upgrade the 50mm f/1.4 to ring USM, I doubt most people would be able to tell the difference.

 

 

I would. My 50/1.4 is one of the *worst* lenses I have with respect to autofocus. It's slow and hunts a lot.

Sometimes needs a manual assist when it gets stuck at one end. I'm not the only one - there are plenty of similar

stories out there. If Canon were to upgrade the 50/1.4 to similar levels as my 85/1.8 or 35/1.4, I and many others

would be all over it.

 

For what the OP needs, the 50 f/1.8 is perfect and at a great price. Better yet, buy used...

[mark_pierlot]

<p>That's odd, Brad, because I've used my 50/1.4 more than any other autofocus lens, and have never had any focusing problems with it.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I also find the 50/1.8 to focus faster than the 50/1.4. It is noisier, but otherwise, I find it far better in use than the 1.4. FWIW, the only two Canon lenses of mine that have had problems are the 24-70/2.8L and the 35/2. The 35 literally exploded while shooting. </p>