Canon 50mm - 1.2L vs. 1.4

[philip_wilson]

<p>G Dan - just one question Have you ever shot a Leica or Contax lens on your Canon Body?<br>

If you have not then I suggest you give it a try - it will either re-inforce your beliefs or you may actually like the experience. If you read my post correctly I said that they made different trade offs - I did not say they were better except for build quality and materials. The build quality and materials is an objective fact for most lenses. I recently posted some crops of the Leica R 35-70 F4 vs my Canon 28-70 F2.8 while the Leica has lens has a much more modest spec the IQ differences are clear to see (http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00atUJ).<br>

This is not true of all lenses and vendors - Leica has made some very poor R series lenses over the years. If the OP is looking for a different look wide open then Leica and Contax are obvious places to look. This is especially true since she appears to be looking for impact. Clearly you have to make trade offs and modern EOS DSLRs are not the easiest to use with old MF lenses. People often react negatively to Leica (usually without even shooting one) based purely on the price and specification. Interestingly owning Leica lenses is actually very cheap (usually almost free) as their lenses almost never depreciate and they usually appreciate. My cheap Contax 50 F1.7 cost me $90 a few years ago but I expect it will sell for $200+ on the auction site. My Canon 50 F1.4 (with hood and case) will sell for about $100 less than i paid in about the same time period. While these lenses are not for everyone and not for every situation (which is why I own the Canon 50 f1.4) they offer an alternative. The OP has a number of options and looking into older high quality lenses is one of them. By the way while you state that the proof is not in the photographs I suggest that you look at the winners of world press photographer of the year over time and see how many were taken with Leica. Before you say this is just history you may be interested to note that the last win (with a film Leica) was in 2008. <br>

The prices of these old lenses have risen quite a bit of late - I believe this is mainly driven by film makers who attach them to RED and similar bodies. Perhaps you should try a Leica sometime - what have you got to lose? Indeed the DP review on the M8 by Phil Askey ended with<br>

So what's the bottom line? I have to admit that I've been turned, from a skeptic to a believer, certainly the M8 isn't a camera everyone is going to afford, but a rangefinder is certainly something any 'serious' photographer should try at some point in their life. It's changed the way I shoot, I've found myself going back to manual focus more even when I use DSLR's and being more selective about lenses and depth of field, and more creative in my framing. My advice on the M8 would be, if you can afford to then get one, be aware of its limitations, shoot RAW and rediscover 'capturing moments'<br>

<br>

Indeed he did later buy one.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Sheldon's two pictures are perfect examples of bad comparisons and not one of you has pointed out the glaring problems between the two images. </p>

<p>The 1.4 is clearly back-focused around two feet behind the lady as can be seen in the driveway, the 1.2 is perfectly focused on the groove the lady is standing on. For the 1.4 this dramatically decreases sharpness and contrast of the subject and also decreases the oof blur in the bush to picture right, and that is the most obvious difference in "bokeh", the focus inaccuracy in these two comparison shots is the main reason for the differences seen, just cover up two thirds of the right hand side of the image and you will see the real differences between these two lenses, practically nothing.</p>

<p>Now I don't care which you get, to me if you want a lens with a red ring on just because it matches your camera strap is just as good a reason as any, as is better build quality, weather-sealing etc etc, but don't kid yourself on the actual differences in image output, there are some differences, but they are tiny and if you do any kind of post processing these tiny differences are generally overwhelmed.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Scott, by Jove, you're right! You've got more discerning eyes than the rest of us.</p>

<p>Despite the focus issue that Scott has pointed out, I stand by my previous comments. Buy the EF 50/1.2 L if you've got limitless cash; otherwise, be happy with the 50/1.4. It's not a status symbol, but merely the better lens.</p>

[julie_a.]

<p>Thanks guys. I think I'm going to try all the other suggestions on here before jumping into the 1.2, including Philip's. If this many are happy with the 1.4, as well as Philip is with his options, I think the best option is for me to try those out first before buying anything.<br>

I don't care about a "red ring" unless that's truly the best in my own eyes. I don't shoot with, or even know many, other photographers (hence no one to "show-off" to) and my subjects wouldn't know if my lenses were anything special or not. I just know how impressed I was with my 85 1.2 (once I worked out the microadjustment) and thought maybe I'd have the same experience with the 50, that's all. </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Funny. Sort of.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am <em>so</em> wounded....</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Mea culpa. Nice one Scott. I am very annoyed at me for not interrogating: but most happy for you - and that you did.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>The 50 F1.4 is not a bad lens and mine works fine. My copy has slightly slow and not perfect AF (although the AF is faster than the 85 F1.2 II). Mine is over 5 and has not broken so it is quite functional. Manual focus lenses are not a panacea and for lots of purposes are unsuitable as Manual focus on an EOS DSLR is not an ideal process. If you want something different old MF lenses offer a set of trade off that you may like. This (albeit taken with a Leica M body not and EOS body) shows an image taken with an old design 50mm lens - not technically perfect but this CZ 50 F1.5 Sonnar handles Bokeh. As you can see the trade offs made result in a completely different look for the background - this is a look I have never been able to get with a Canon lens (the old FD 85 F1.2 L probably comes closest)</p><div></div>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>"G Dan - just one question Have you ever shot a Leica or Contax lens on your Canon Body?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That dismissive come-back doesn't work, despite the fact that such a reply is often offered as if it should stop discussion in its tracks.<br>

<br>

So, no, I have not. There are many things I have not done, however, that I don't do because facts don't support the wisdom of doing them, or because facts support the wisdom of doing something else. Let me give you a photographic example. I have chosen certain specific lenses for my photography. In the process of making those decisions I investigated and considered many other lens options, almost all without actually trying them, and came to logical and intelligent decisions that led me to choose something else. <br>

<br>

The argument that people can only have opinions about things they have actually "used" is, on its face, simply nonsense. It also is an absurdly impractical concept. I'd be willing to bet that you (who offered up this gem of an argument) do not follow it in the rest of your life. For example, you might be able to offer an opinion about political systems or countries and whether you would prefer to live in them or not, but you would be a very unusual person if you had actually lived in all of them about which you have an opinion. I'll bet that when you purchase a car, you do not try <em>all</em> of the options that you dismiss before deciding that you are uninterested in them. You might claim to know things about places you have never visited. (It is cold in Antarctica. There is no oxygen on the moon...)<br>

<br>

While this writing about cars and political systems and far-off places may seem like an irrelevant digression in a photography forum, it really is not. There are those who will claim certain "magical" attributes for unusual, expensive, or hard to obtain photographic equipment, often waxing poetically about the ineffable qualities of such gear. The very fact that this gear is so expensive or unusual (or sometimes simply harder to use) let's the user persist in the claims of its wonderfulness... and dismiss any questioning of these claims as being ignorant (which is, of course, the underlying claim of your protest that I haven't used the gear) and uninformed. <br>

<br>

However, there are a few facts worth considering by those who would persist in this approach. First, it is well-known that those who believe that a thing should have increased value and who invest in such things quite often attribute special qualities to those things that are not objectively there, perhaps in an attempt to buttress their belief that a) they made a smart choice, b) they possess special sensitivity, and c) that they are therefore superior. In endeavors in which gear plays a role (photography, cars, audio, etc.) such people may build up their sense of personal value and importance by focusing on the perception that the <em>tools</em> prove their superiority: the $20,000 sound system produces ephemeral music, the $100,000 car makes one a better driver, the expensive and rare lens makes them better photographers. However, in none of these cases is there any connection between the expense and the quality of the work. No stereo system will even sound as good a symphony orchestra; BWM drivers are no more skillful than Ford drivers, and those who shoot with very old and odd lenses do not produce better photographs than those who use more prosaic gear.<br>

<br>

Second, perhaps like me, you actually know and occasionally work with some of the folks who are among those acknowledged to be the "best" and most admired and successful photographers in various genres. And perhaps you have noticed that quite a few of them - most, actually - do not use the so-called classic and unusual sorts of gear that some here want to promote. In fact, most of them regard lenses and cameras as basic tools rather than as objects of art or things that impart magic to their work. Yes, they use good quality gear. No, it often is not the most expensive stuff. And, no, it is very, very rarely the stuff that some gear heads dream about. It is almost always relatively everyday examples of good gear from mainline manufacturers. Truth be told, when such people get together they may talk about gear - a bit - but it is usually not the main topic. (Want to irritate a photographer? Walk up to him/her and start asking gear questions or, worse yet, pontificating about this or that lens or camera. Yuck!) When the topic does come up, it usually leads to some simple and objective discussion about some aspects of the functionality of the equipment. Or, not infrequently, it leads to a bit of head-shaking and laughing about those who focus on gear a lot and photography itself very little or, to put it more bluntly, obsess about gear rather than photographs. (If you haven't already see <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/hammerforum-com">this</a>, you should.)<br>

<br>

I am utterly confident that we could hang work done with Leica, Canon, Nikon, and a range of other gear in an exhibit and no one would be able to categorize the work based on the brand or model of lens used. Of all the things that have relevance to photography and the power of photographs, this business is close to the very least important.<br>

<br>

Dan</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>And that kind of self defending diatribe is exactly the reason I no longer post here. </p>

<p>For your own personal purchasing decisions not trying something before deciding to not buy it is fine, offering advice to people who are asking the difference between two readily available and popular lenses when you haven't used one makes your input considerably less relevant, however well meaning, accurate, or verbose your defense.<br>

<br /> There are plenty of people out there who do have experience of both these lenses, some chose the 1.2, some the 1.4 and many even went to the Sigma 1.4, and it is interesting to hear their actual experiences and reasoning as each lens works for each person for many intangible reasons, be that real or imaginary image characteristics, balance, weight, focus speed, focus accuracy etc etc, the important thing is they are happy with their purchase and use their cameras more because of it.</p>

<p>Thanks, William ;-) and Mark!</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>I dont want to prolong the debate, but you appear to be rather closed minded. You make the statement<br>

<strong>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.</strong><br>

This is quite a definitive statement when you have not tried the lenses themselves. I was merely suggesting to the OP that if she is looking for a different look, switching to a German designed lens may give her what she is looking for. If you study the subject you will see that German lens designers often take a different approach to the trade offs lens designers have to make - this leads to a different look. <br>

By the way while a $100K car might not make you a better driver it will probably allow you to drive faster - thus for someone who wants to go faster it is a more appropriate tool. Your argument is rather disingenuous as it suggest that no equipment has special attributes or superior performance but when you get to cars you shift from the equipment (the car) to the driver! I would suggest that BMW cars are often better than Ford on objective criteria. You seem to have a real issue with alternate vendors - especially if they are brands with a strong reputation (and high prices). Lens design is a series of trade offs and different approaches will bring different results. I never once said Leica or Contax were better in terms of IQ. Indeed in terms of AF and IS these lenses are clearly inferior to Canon offerings. Their build quality is superior to EF lenses - but this is true of most manual focus lenses including most of the Canon FD lenses.<br>

By the way I still know several people who do not use mainline manufacturers but use Hasselblad, Phase One, Leica S and others. If you have not compared the quality of a 16 bit CCD sensor with no AA filter to a DSLR I suggest you should try and find the opportunity. Of course the need for such image quality is a debatable point in many circumstances. and I cannot personally justify the expenditure.</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>I have 50 1.2 on my short list, as soon as I win 6/49.</p>

[nico_morris]

<p>For what it's worth, I did not find the 1.4 EF the equal of the old OM Zuiko 1.4. I had trouble believing it so I tried with manual focus too. Not a nice feel either. So yeah, something else... ;)</p>

[mubeen_mughal]

<p>The EF 50mm f/1.2 L is "probably" more of an ego-trip, and it's users will justify claims about its wondrousness and esoteric appeal. <br>

The advantage of the extra 1/3 stop of the 1.2 over the 1.4 is questionable, particularly at the edges. For practical purposes, I doubt whether one could differentiate photos taken with either lens, and certainly neither can introduce aesthetics or art in your images (only you can).<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/19725722@N06/sets/72157603812692225/</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Mubeen</p>

<p>I can see the difference quite clearly in Sheldon's shots above (even if the focus is a little different) and many of us can. Look at the difference in the bokeh. It's quite clear at f1.4. At f2 the two lenses would be closer, but at f1.2-f2 is where the fast lens produces smoother bokeh. Whether it matters to you is entirely another thing.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>neither can introduce aesthetics</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Aesthetics are surely impacted by the quality of the bokeh, which is what the L lens is all about.</p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<blockquote>

<p>Second, perhaps like me, you actually know and occasionally work with some of the folks who are among those acknowledged to be the "best" and most admired and successful photographers in various genres. And perhaps you have noticed that quite a few of them - most, actually - do not use the so-called classic and unusual sorts of gear that some here want to promote.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As wise man once said, the difference between professional photographer and amateur photographer is that the professional takes photographs to make money and the amateur makes money to take photographs. <br>

Professional photographer makes their equipment choices based on different criteria. Some examples:</p>

<ul>

<li>Professional cares about return of investment. If there is a $399 50/1.4 lens with 4 star performance and $3990 50/1.4 lens with 5 star performance, the professional most likely picks the cheaper lens for better ROI</li>

<li>Professional cares about reputation. Wedding photographer needs to provide good quality photographs from all important moments of the wedding. He/she can't fail. Pro landscape photographer may have obligations to their editors etc. Fast AF, ability to zoom or weather sealing may be of far better value for professionals than improvement in bokeh or clarity an esotheric alt lens provides</li>

<li>Professional photographer has whole day, every day, to improve and profile their personal style (yet they often only copy the successful ones). Amateur with children has few hours a week and obviously looks for alternative ways how to distinguish their work from the crowd within their possibilities</li>

</ul>

<p>Some analogies with cars were given, I will add one too. My taxi driver is a professional and definitely a great driver. He drives Prius. He said it is reliable and has low consumption. It has good ROI and the ride is acceptable. It is all he needs. My neighbor has a Lotus. He drives it for fun. Should he drive a Prius instead? It is used by professionals, right? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am utterly confident that we could hang work done with Leica, Canon, Nikon, and a range of other gear in an exhibit and no one would be able to categorize the work based on the brand or model of lens used. Of all the things that have relevance to photography and the power of photographs, this business is close to the very least important.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There were two blind tests made on another forum with statistically interesting results. People were able to recognize which pictures were taken with Zeiss lenses. </p>

[jeeperjp]

<p>I recently purchased the EF 50 1.4 mm lens. I made the purchase to be able to take photos in low light at 1.4f. However, all of the photos I have taken wide-open at 1.4f are not acceptably sharp. I have found that I have to close the lens down to get decent sharp photos. I was not expecting this with this lens. So this was a surprising disappointment. At this point, I am still learning the lens and can't say if I am pleased with my purchase, all things considered. This is the first 'prime' lens I have purchased. All of my other Canon lenses have been zooms. My camera body is a 5D MII. If I purchase a prime lens again, I will have my camera with me and will test the lens out in the store before I buy. I made this purchase on my overall faith in Canon products, which was shaken a bit this time around. Live and learn I guess. </p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>“I recently purchased the EF 50 1.4 mm lens. I made the purchase to be able to take photos in low light at 1.4f. However, all of the photos I have taken wide-open at 1.4f are not acceptably sharp.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you’re looking at any glass that’s F/2 or faster . . . the same ‘general rules’ apply to these lenses as all other lenses – i.e. that they are a going to be a bit sharper when stopped down one or two stops: but this difference is generally exacerbated with really fast lenses such as those which are sub F/2.<br>

<br />And cost comes into it also. The EF50/1.4 is not really “expensive”.<br>

And also, for many shooting scenarios the DoF at F/1.4 can be very slim – move ½ inch with your camera and that can render a soft image. And also one needs to verify that there is no Subject Movement.<br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=978598">The EF50/1.4 is ‘reasonably’ sharp at F/1.4</a>. (view them all ‘large’ and look at ET’s eyes)</p>

<p>WW</p>

[William Michael]

<p>There are many considerations when using low light examples from real life shooting scenarios to make ‘sharpness judgements’ of any lens - especially shooting on the hop and hand held, . . .<br>

<a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=964622">These fours samples ALL have some degree of Subject Motion and very likely Camera Movement also</a> - it would be unfair to judge the Lens’s ‘softness’ as responsible for those contributing factors . . . Again view ‘large’ for interrogation.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>