Canon 50mm - 1.2L vs. 1.4

[tdigi]

<p>My 50 1.4 was used hard for about 5 years and I never had it break but was just not as smooth and accurate as the 50L. People seem to either love or hate the 50L so maybe try to get one used or rent first to see if its for you. <br>

Canon is making a new 35 non L so maybe a new 50 1.4 is in the works. Along with the new higher prices. </p>

[sheldonnalos]

<p>Magic or hyperbole aside, here's roughly what the difference between the two lenses looks like. It's flat cloudy lighting and at slightly longer shooting distance, so it doesn't quite "shine" as much as it can in other conditions, but at least it's consistent light and framing between the two shots. 50L and 50 1.4, both shot at f/1.4 at identical exposure settings, processed identically in LR (pretty much SOOC). Pull up the two shots in different tabs and toggle between them.</p>

<p>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/_32O7744-2.jpg<br>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/sheldonnalos/_32O7745-2.jpg</p>

 

[zml]

<p>Sheldon: too bad that the exposure differs between the frames shot with the 1.2 and 1.4 but your comparison shows exactly what I was talking about in my post above, so "ditto" from me.</p>

<p>As an aside, I have noticed that I consistently need + 1/3 EV with the EF 50/1.4 vs. my other lenses.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Yes, it's got better bokeh. This is a well known plus of the 50L. I also agree though with Dan's view of the performance of the 50/1.4 lens at f1.4 - it's not as bad as many say.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I noticed that, in addition to the improved bokeh, the transitional zones (ie, where the IF area transitions to OOF area) are also smoother. obviously, in the example Sheldon kindly posted, that's not really noticeable, but, in many less controlled situations, the difference is often more tangible.</p>

<p>As to why Canon hasn't issued a mk2 to the 50/1.4? I couldn't say, they've<em> needed</em> one for about 18yrs... Though perhaps they are now working on a 50/2 IS for $800? Just my opinion of course ;-) .</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Mark, that's weird! Why would it have a LOWER resolution....?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How many F 1.2 lenses do you see on the market? Ever wonder why?</p>

[sheldonnalos]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Sheldon: too bad that the exposure differs between the frames shot with the 1.2 and 1.4 but your comparison shows exactly what I was talking about in my post above, so "ditto" from me.<br>

As an aside, I have noticed that I consistently need + 1/3 EV with the EF 50/1.4 vs. my other lenses.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, these were each shot "as metered" by the camera so they would be representative of what you could expect to see if you didn't apply any exposure compensation when you were shooting. They also were the same exposure value of 1/2000, ISO 100 at f/1.4 in consistent light conditions so they also illustrate how effectively the lenses each transmit light. The 50L benefits from reduced vignetting since it's been stopped down a bit as well while the 50 1.4 is wide open, and that can make the photo seem brighter overall. </p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>I already have a Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 lens which works fine on both my Nikons and my Canons (with adapters for FD and EF).</p>

<p>I've said it here before, so I'll keep it short this time.</p>

<ul>

<li>If you have to ask "Why?" to get a f/1.2 lens you don't need one.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>If you don't know what it is for, you don't need one.</li>

</ul>

<p>f/1.2 lenses are very specialized tools. They do some things that other lenses cannot do well: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Primary among these, in the old days before 36,000 ISOs, was to squeeze every last photon out of the darkness. A second thing was to have (in the best cases) lovely shallow depth of field with creamy bokeh. Not the least of the functions of f/1.2 lenses is as "bling". You can have the fastest lens in your photo collective until somebody shows up with an f/1.0 lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If these functions do not cry out to you that you <em><strong>must</strong></em> have it, then there is no sense to getting one.</p><div></div>

[zml]

<p><em>> f/1.2 lenses are very specialized tools. They do some things that other lenses cannot do well</em></p>

<p>Perhaps, but, the maximum f/stop and other "obvious" technical differences aside, each lens has a "personality" that may or may not suit to what one wants to achieve so choosing one over another is often driven by something else than the "obvious." Good examples of the above in the world of EF lenses are 85/1.2L and 85/1.8; 70-200/2.8 L IS II @ 200 mm and 200/2 L IS; the 50/1.2 L and 3 other 50 mm EF lenses; 100/2.8 L IS Macro and the non-IS/L version, etc.<br>

Each pair, even at the same f/stop and focusing distance will produce a rather different result.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't want to waste money if the difference doesn't warrant it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMHO, the difference doesn't warrant it. I agree with all the above discussion about a slight color this or character that. We are talking about <em>subtle</em> differences in single digit percentages here. Don't buy into the yak about "setting your work apart". No lens in this world ever make a good picture. Unless you truly need to shoot at the edge of darkness or need wafer thin DOF you don't need a high speed lens to create stunning works of art or award winning photographs. Don't fall into the novice trap of fretting about your lenses. <strong>Any</strong> normal lens in the Canon line is worth using and offers unlimited creative potential. </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>each lens has a "personality"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. I was just talking to my Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2 the other day and I have noticed that as it gets older it has become rather more crabby. In fact, close to the end of our discussion it told me to "get out of my field of view".</p>

<p>I think we are into imponderables here.</p>

[julie_a.]

<p>@Louis, I've heard this said about equipment not making the image, and as unpopular as my opinion is, I have to PARTIALLY disagree.<br>

Although I still consider myself somewhat a novice to the digital end of it (because I feel there is so much to learn), I am not new to photography per se. When I upgraded my lenses after buying my earliest DSLR, the quality in my images was immediately, greatly improved. I felt the same when I upgraded my body. This may not be the case with a 1.2 vs a 1.4..... the difference may indeed be negligible....but I am extremely picky about color and contrast, and it's possible it may indeed make a difference to me. <br>

I just feel that photographers can do quite a disservice to those newer to it by telling them their equipment doesn't matter. <br>

@JDM, I do understand why the differences may be important, and I'm always pursuing the creamy bokeh and dramatic separation of my subject from the background, as I do mostly portraiture. And great color is a big thing for me. Someone else may not think this is worth the extra money, but again, I can be VERY nitpicky. For me, it's not about having "the best" equipment, just what I feel good about purchasing and gives me what I want. </p>

<p>I guess I asked this knowing already that only I can answer if it's enough of a difference to push me into the more expensive lens. We all have our own opinions about what's important in the results I guess and trying them both would be my best bet in deciding.</p>

[julie_a.]

<p>@Sheldon, I just saw your images (thanks for posting those, by the way), and the L image does indeed look to have better contrast and color. I know that a lot of people would dismiss it, but not me. I think I may rent them both and do a side by side comparison like you did here, to be sure. </p>

<p> </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>Mark, that's weird! Why would it have a LOWER resolution....?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know why it does, but I guess it was a design compromise that was made to eke out that extra half stop.</p>

<p>If I were you and already had an 85/1.2 (which I do), there's no way I'd be considering acquiring a 50/1.2. The 85mm blows away the 50mm with respect to center resolution, contrast, colour rendition and bokeh, making it a much better portrait lens. You'd be much better off getting a 35/1.4.</p>

[julie_a.]

<p>@Mark, I do have the 35 1.4 already (currently in for repair). I like the 35 but I do a lot of portraiture, and I feel like I get too much distortion at the distance I'm often shooting at. I love the 85 (although I had a rough time before I microadjusted), but I'm shooting with a cropped sensor cam and it's just not appropriate for everything. I was hoping the 50 would be better for more "full body" portraits. Also, I'm considering upgrading my camera in the next year for a full frame sensor cam and feel like the 35 will DEFINITELY be too wide then for what I'm normally shooting.I'd sell the 35 if I liked the 50 most likely.<br>

Oh, also, I just feel like even at 1.4 with my 35, I'm not particularly feeling like I get a very shallow DOF (which I tend to favor on a lot of images). My 85 is great at the same, and I was hoping the 50 would be as well.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>But wouldn't the 35mm be good for full body portraits on your crop body? It would give you an equivalent focal length of 56mm. With the 50mm, it would be 80mm, which is a little long for full body shots (unless you're in a very big room, or outdoors).</p>

<p>I find the 35/1.4 to be an outstanding lens for environmental portraiture on my 5DII.</p>

[philip_wilson]

Julie. I was serious with my suggestion of older MF lenses (Leica and Contax). They are not that expensive used and do

give a different set of trade off to the traditional Canon designs. As I say the Contax 50 F1.7 is around $200 and this lens

or it's F1.4 brother may give you the look you want. The image does differ quite a bit from the one you will get from the

Canons. As you see in the shots Sheldon posted the Canon lenses have a very similar look, you can get both an MF lens

(even the Sumicron) and the 50 F1.4 for the price of the L. The good thing about the Contax and Leica lenses is that you

will be able to sell them for pretty much what you paid so they don't cost much to own. In terms of the build quality of the

50 F1.4 mine has worked well for many years - the AF is not the fastest (or most accurate) and it has soft edges and

lower contrast until you hit F2 but it works fine.

 

Perhaps the replacement will be. $850 50F2.8 IS - this seems to be the trend with the 24, 28 and 35!

[julie_a.]

<p>Yes Mark you might be right. I just feel like I get distortion, and I'm not sure why since it's on a crop sensor cam. Maybe I'm imagining it, or again, just being nitpicky. <br>

Philip, I am often shooting under f2, though, and it does really bother me when my images don't look sharp. But I guess it wouldn't hurt to try it out for myself to see. I will definitely look into the Leica and Contax. What is it that you like about them, other than the price?</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<blockquote>

<p>Someone else may not think this is worth the extra money, but again, I can be VERY nitpicky... a lot of people would dismiss it, but not me</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course there is a difference between a $350 lens and $1400 lens. You don't have to "nitpicky" to discern that. You don't need to be a professional photographer to see the difference. Even a rank novice can see the difference. No one in this thread is dismissing it. Your question asked for:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Feelings on whether the 1.2 is <strong>worth the extra money</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yet when I take the time to respond and share my experience with you, and it's not the hyperbole what you want to hear, you write that I'm propagating a disservice onto the photography community. It doesn't matter to me if you buy lens A or lens B. Anybody with a credit card can buy a lens. I make my living being picky about optics and image quality and my opinion is the difference is not worth the money, which directly answers your question. All the Canon 50's are excellent and the keys to good photography do not lie in the minor distinctions between them. You can take my advice or leave, that's fine. You don't have to thank me, that's OK. But please don't call my contribution a disservice. <br>

What I wrote to you was, in fact, the single greatest gift I could ever share with a budding photographer. You are just not in a place along your path where you are ready for it. Perhaps someday you will. Good luck.<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>Of course there is a difference between a $350 lens and $1400 lens. You don't have to "nitpicky" to discern that. You don't need to be a professional photographer to see the difference. Even a rank novice can see the difference. No one in this thread is dismissing it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To my eyes, what Sheldon's samples show is how <em>little </em>difference there is between the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2, and the differences there are certainly have nothing to do with resolution or contrast. His images reinforce my decision not to buy a 50/1.2 (at least, not an EF 50/1.2. I have several FD and Nikkor 50 and 55/1.2's).</p>

[julie_a.]

<p>Ok, Louis, when you say that "even a rank novice can see the difference", that says to me that the difference is indeed worth the extra money. I really don't understand? <br>

If it's your job to be nitpicky about optics, I would think that you would absolutely recommend something that you feel the difference is so great that anyone could see it. <br>

I guess the "novice trap" reference kinda rubbed me the wrong way. I have been away from photography for quite some time (hence the need to learn so much about the digital end of it), but I'm not new to it. While I appreciate the help I get on this forum immensely sometimes, I can even see among others commenting in this thread how easily people get snarky and competitive (well it IS mostly men on here), and that's kinda how I felt that comment came off. I saw a huge improvement in my images with the last lens upgrade. I wished I had "fretted about my lenses" much earlier instead of wondering why I couldn't get what I wanted with the crap lens I was using. <br>

<br />But you are right, I asked for your opinion, and you gave it. I should have taken it as that and not gotten so sensitive about the other part.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I wrote text that included:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"each lens has a "personality"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Someone replied:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I agree. I was just talking to my Nikkor-S 55mm f/1.2 the other day and I have noticed that as it gets older it has become rather more crabby. In fact, close to the end of our discussion it told me to "get out of my field of view".<br>

I think we are into imponderables here."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Funny. Sort of. But I obviously don't mean that a lens actually has a personality in the sense that a person does. The term "personality" is merely my shorthand for referring to the fact that each lens has its strengths and weaknesses and each lens is more or less suited to a variety of different things. One lens may have no vignetting, yet it has a bit less resolution. Another might be excellent stopped down, but not as great as a different lens wide open. One zoom may offer focal length versatility while another has a smaller range but a larger aperture.</p>

<p>These things are actually the opposite of imponderable. They are objective characteristics of lenses that can be described, used, and seen.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[chris_dooley]

<p>JDM von Weinberg notes with respect to the advantages of a 50/1.2 lens:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Primary among these, in the old days before 36,000 ISOs, was to squeeze every last photon out of the darkness.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would concur, and I would add to this that the extra half stop also made a difference because when we were trying to squeeze every last photon, we were also trying to focus manually. For that reason, I loved my FD 50/1.2, even if I seldom shot it wide open. In combination with a low-light optimized screen, I stood a better chance of getting the focus right in low light, even if I was exposing at F/1.8 or f/2.0 (yeah, I know, get a rangefinder...). <br>

I am sure there are times when the shallow depth of field available at f/1.2 really matters, but for my part I never really figured out what they were, and I suspect that I am not alone. With modern cameras better able to focus in low light than any human, the focusing argument no longer holds, and the DOF at f/1.2 is really too shallow most of the time. To my eye, images shot with such narrow depth of field are like images shot with fisheye lenses: dramatic when used creatively and in moderation, but silly and affected when used in excess. Given the essential parity in image quality with the f/1.4 (of for that matter the f/1.8, although the location of the focus ring is a deal-breaker for me on that one) my sense is that most people mount the superfast lenses more as a status symbol than for their intrinsic qualities.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The German designed lenses have a different design philosophy to the Japanese ones which gives them a different set of trade offs. They tend to try and achieve higher contrast (especially micro contrast) and creamy bokeh. Leica will state that to keep higher contrast to the field edges there is a slight loss of edge sharpness as the tradeoff is having some field curvature. That said my Leica lenses are sharper than the Canon ones (I should say I do not own the Leica R mount 50mm - although I do have to M mount Leica 50s). In terms of construction they tend to take it to another level (especially Leica). This means that lens element centring tends to be more accurate. They also tend to use higher quality glass than many of the alternative designs as in general cost was less of a factor for these manufacturers (there are obviously exceptions to this with lenses such as the canon FD55 F1.2 SSC Aspherical (which can be converted to mount on an EF body although the lens will be about $1000+ and the conversion another $150. The Contax lenses are still a great bargain. There are a number of reviews of older lenses on EOS bodies - this iste has quite a lot http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/carl-zeiss-lenses-swhorizontalmenu-172/zeiss-standard/369-carl-zeiss-planar-t-50mm-f17-cy-lens-review</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>For those imaging that shooting with Magic Name lenses like Leica and Contax and so forth, the proof is (not) in the photographs. Despite the fact that many convince themselves that shooting with such brands makes a tremendous and visible difference in their work, it really doesn't play out this way.</p>

<p>Those alt lenses are fine in many ways, and they come from companies that were once the cream of the crop. But the notion that newer companies are unable to produce lenses of the same or even better optical quality is a combination of wishful thinking and Brand Religion focusing on the "older gear is always better" false mantra.</p>

<p>Dan</p>