# Canon 50L - Love or Hate?



## mackguyver (Apr 16, 2014)

Given all of the love and hate that's arisen on CR from the Sigma 50A's debut, I thought I'd set up a silly poll... Yes, I'm guilty of 50L love, but have no ill feelings towards the Sigma.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Apr 16, 2014)

It appears the new Sigma has better IQ for less money than the 50L, so it seems the obvious choice to replace the current Sigma 50 f/1.4 I have now. Half a stop is something I'd trade off here just fine. My 0.02.

Jim


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 16, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> It appears the new Sigma has better IQ for less money than the 50L, so it seems the obvious choice to replace the current Sigma 50 f/1.4 I have now. Half a stop is something I'd trade off here just fine. My 0.02.
> 
> Jim


I think that's a very fair way to look at it, and I'm sure it will be a nice upgrade for you.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 16, 2014)

This is one of my favorite Canon lenses, it is like a baby 85L II when mastered.

No, it is not the sharpest lens in the world wide open, and a look at the MTF chart confirms that (though it becomes very sharp when stopped down). But, I already have a slew of sharp lenses if that is my criteria. This lens has a very special output that is extremely flattering for taking pictures of people with. Bokeh reminds me of the Noctilux, as do the purposely uncorrected "flaws" of the lens.

It is also worth noting this lens takes more skill than the typical lens, so unless you dedicate time to it you are not going to get the results you are expecting. It also helps to have the Eg-S focus screen to nail that razor-thin f/1.2 DOF and rely less on autofocus at f/1.2-f/2.8.

The Canon 50mm f/1.2L is one of the best tools in my lens arsenal, and there is no other 50mm lens I would trade it for remotely near its pricerange. I do understand that some are more about clinical sharpness and want something that is a bit more forgiving. But, in my opinion, the effort you put into this lens produces results wonderfully different from most other lenses.


----------



## drjlo (Apr 16, 2014)

Ruined said:


> This lens has a very special output that is extremely flattering for taking pictures of people



Exactly. I use my 50L and 85L for people shots mainly, and the corner softness if anything adds to creating a unique look to portraiture. If I am going to do stopped-down landscape or architectural shoot, I break out my 24-70 II or T-SE 24 mm II. 

Nailing focus at f/1.2 is not going to happen for everybody, but I highly recommend installing ML and use focus peaking in live view 8)


----------



## Ruined (Apr 16, 2014)

drjlo said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > This lens has a very special output that is extremely flattering for taking pictures of people
> ...



Bingo, my thoughts exactly.

I would like to see an 135mm f/2L IS, modern day update of the 135L. Then 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L II, and 135 f/2L IS and you would have the ultimate "people" kit. And throw in a 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro for portraits you want tack sharpness on.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 16, 2014)

I think the problem is that I read this article...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

And the 50 usm beat or matched the 50 L in sharpness. This is when I owned and primarily used the 50mm f/1.8 as my main lens. 

Quick story about the f/1.8. I bought it for $75ish and we went to Disney World... and I proceeded to shoot every image @ f/1.8. So when I finally looked at the pictures, the AF selected a subject that wasn't my subject (I was a novice then... so not forgivable... but I learned from my mistakes). Also the lens was soft... very soft @ f/1.8... center to corners. Eventually I learned the lens sharpens up at around f/2.8 give or take. 

So when I bought the 50 usm because it was the best bang for the buck... I shot at around f/2.8 and I was bored with the images. They were good... I got many a complement... but I miss shooting REALLY wide open. So the 50 usm collected dust. And I had no interest in the 50L because the sharpness was on par... and while I completely acknowledge that the bokeh and the color rendition are better... I wasn't willing to shoot at f/2.8 again. 

So I harbored these rather negative emotions about the 50L for the past 3ish years... and that bias is hard to give up. 

So for me... I can't respond to any of those options... I would say... because of the MEH factor of the other 50's in my life, I didn't want the 50L. I don't want to say I hate it... but for the money... I would so rather get other lenses in my bag. 

Assuming $1300... I'd lean towards an 85 f/1.8 for portraiture, a 50usm for the focal length which is handy and throw on a 24-105... (which puts me over by around 50 bucks give or take). 

I'm starting to ramble... I need one of yall to loan me your 50L for a week and I'll see if my opinion changes.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 16, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm starting to ramble... I need one of yall to loan me your 50L for a week and I'll see if my opinion changes.



If you live in the NY/NJ USA area we could do a CR gear meet in Central Park and take some test shots, heh.

For those who have used the 85L II, if you think the 85L II is amazing it is hard to imagine how you would not love the 50L output just as much once you learn how to tame it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I think the problem is that I read this article...
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
> 
> And the 50 usm beat or matched the 50 L in sharpness.


I think the problem isn't reading those test results, it's _reading too much into_ them. MTF50 in the center and averaged across the frame. Two numbers. 

Here are three numbers: 103, 105, 68. Do they do a good job of meaningfully representing the qualities of this image? 

You can't meaningfully summarize lens performance with a few numbers, any more than the average R/G/B values of a picture meaningfully summarize that image.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 16, 2014)

I think the choices are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
I love the look of the 50L, but wouldn't spend that much on an FL I don't use so much.
For me, the nifty fifty is fine until a more general purpose 50mm comes out or 50A prices go down a bit.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 16, 2014)

The used market place gives a pretty good indication of how the 50L is being received. Other Canon lenses which take a beating in on line reviews such as the 70-300 DO, and 28/1.8 for instance sell for about 50% of their new retail price, whereas most other Canon lenses sell for close to their new price less tax. The 50L, despite many highly critical reviews still sells used for the 'nearly new' price. 

I know that Canon's lack of descriptive info on the 50L at it's introduction led to a number of well known photographers playing merry hell with Canon over the mid frame performance in sharpness at around f4 - 5.6, but they had bought the lens assuming it would be superior to the 1.4 in resolution overthe f stop range and frame. 

I think the lens is better understood now for what it is.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 17, 2014)

Great topic mackguyver 

Sharpness or Bokeh : : :

My 2cent: for those who already have 85L II in their kit, choosing Sigma 50mm ART over 50L would make more sense(from pricing to IQ). If the shaprness is REALLY that good, then, can you imagine shooting 50mm ART on one 5D III + 135L on another? Save 85L II for all CREAMY-BOKEH tasks.

I'm speaking for myself of course.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 17, 2014)

I neither love nor hate it, and yes I have used it, indeed I owned an FD 50 1.2L for a long time.

Having said that my vote went for the nifty 50 as you didn't have a Canon 1.4 option. My copy of the Canon 1.4 gives very little away to either, I am not interested in super sharp corners and I don't find the 50, or indeed the 85 f1.2, very good focal lengths to give the background separation I like for that "dreamy bokeh" style portrait. The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 17, 2014)

Ruined said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > I'm starting to ramble... I need one of yall to loan me your 50L for a week and I'll see if my opinion changes.
> ...



I'm in Central PA... I think we are planning a NYC trip this summer and I plan on going to the B&H Superstore and see what they have available for me to demo. I have a few things on my to try list... 50 art (and I might as well add the 50L to the list), the 200-400 f/4 1.4x, a 24-70 mkii, and I'm not sure what else...


----------



## Ruined (Apr 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.



But, the distance required for 300mm kills a large amount of portrait situations; virtually unusable in most indoor scenarios.

Which again is the beauty of the 50 1.2L, it requires the least working distance of any "bokeh oriented portrait imagery" lens if you want to put it that way


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 17, 2014)

Ruined said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.
> ...



True, nothing comes without effort. 

But however difficult manipulating the situation is, if you want the results that 50 and 85 lenses are incapable of delivering, whatever their speed, then do what it takes. If super bokeh and shallow dof are the primary characteristics wanted of a session then you have to go where you can use a vastly superior lens.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I did notice, by the way that around 85mm (on a FF, not talking of equivalent FoV here) gives a nice balance of providing a 3D perspective and reducing distortion and separating the background. I love my new 135L, but I like portraits at 80-90mm with my 70-200 II better. I believe 300mm will make the subject look even flatter, won't it?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 17, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I did notice, by the way that around 85mm (on a FF, not talking of equivalent FoV here) gives a nice balance of providing a 3D perspective and reducing distortion and separating the background. I love my new 135L, but I like portraits at 80-90mm with my 70-200 II better. I believe 300mm will make the subject look even flatter, won't it?



Sure it will, and obviously perspective is a taste issue. Personally I like the look of 300mm portraits, I like the bokeh from 300 f2.8's even better, they really do embarrass the short 1.2's. For years Canon's sample image for the 300 f2.8 was a head and 3/4 portrait, I just checked and it still is, just a different one.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



"...super bokeh and shallow DoF..."

Let's consider the latter. If you frame the subject the same, e.g. a full-body portrait at 2 m with the 50/1.2 or 12 m with the 300/2.8, the subject magnification is the same. So, the f/1.2 aperture of the 50L will give a thinner DoF. If the subject-to-background distance is less than ~9 m, the 50L will deliver a stronger background blur. 

Obviously, that's OOF blur amount, which is distinct from bokeh.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



I wondered how long it would be before somebody pointed that out. It would be interesting to know what the actual true focal length and aperture is with a 12mm tube on the 300mm f2.8.

But I digress, I, personally, prefer the combination of destroyed background, slightly deeper dof, and perspective you get from the 300, rather than the far busier background slightly shallower dof, and perspective from the short 1.2's. Though I fully understand it is all personal preference and in many cases limited by practicalities, I only ever used the 300 at one wedding but used the 50 f1.2 at lots! 

P.S. The OOF blur might be more with the wider aperture, but we both know the elements of the background will be vastly bigger, and hence to the eye appear more blurred, with the 300.


----------



## Grumbaki (Apr 17, 2014)

1. The poll is missing "not caring" option, as in "35+85 only". Even though 50 is dominant, I still think I'm not alone around here 

2. I'm very curious after reading those 50L/Sigma topics. Many of you are putting the 85L in the same bag as the 50L. But my 85 is very sharp and the various reviews also point out at quite some difference between the two...


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Apr 17, 2014)

The poll also miss, not really interested in this focal lenght.
I have owned four (4) Canon 50mm lenses. I started with the nifty-fifty 1.8 in a Canon 60D and when mastered it I upgraded to 50mm 1.4 but found that with this lens to get sharp pictures in mid-frame and corners (for the rule of thirds), I had to stop down to f2.5-2.8 hence, I started to carry the 24-70mm f2.8 instead. I sold it and after a while I purchased the 50L (together with my 5D3), since it is considered the best Canon lens in this focal lenght, looking for better sharpness wider than f28, bokeh quality, better performance in low light and better construction. I have to admit I found all of that except better sharpness in borders, compared to the 50mm 1.4.
And to be honest, there many strong users of 50mm focal lenght but I found it very boring and dissapointed for the level of sharpness offered by current lenses at wide appertures and again my 50mm 1.4 is for sale now. 
The two primes that spend most of the time on my 5D3 are the 35mm f2IS and the 100L because the fit my style of photography, are super sharp WIDE OPEN and have IS that really helps in low light situations when low shuter speeds are needed.
If Canon brings a new 50mm with IS and good sharpness corner-to-corner, as found in the 35mm f2IS and the 100L or after testing the Sigma 50A, then I will reconsider buying a new 50mm. 
In the mean time, if I need a 50mm lens I will go back to a cheap nifty-fifty 1.8 that costs me almost nothing.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 17, 2014)

Grumbaki said:


> 1. The poll is missing "not caring" option, as in "35+85 only".





Hjalmarg1 said:


> The poll also miss, not really interested in this focal lenght.



I think this is the option where you don't take the poll, LOL!

Seriously, though- I agree with Grumbaki's second point. I have always heard the 85L is tack sharp wide open and as perfect as a lens can get without the single flaw of slow AF system. Never used it though (not keen on that FL, plus I don't think I am qualified for f/[email protected] yet).
Hjalmarg- from your post it did seem like you are interested in the 50mm FL, and are actually in the sort of same shoe I am in, aren't you? Using your nifty fifty when the occasional need arises (and it doesn't, truth be told, since I got an FF camera and the 24-70 II) and hoping for a better 50mm from Canon or good reviews for the 50A. Good luck to us, both!


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Apr 17, 2014)

Neither love, nor hate. I enjoyed the 50 1.4, sold it, wished I had kept it, rented a 50L, did NOT enjoy the rental, sent it back, bought the 85L ii, liked it for portraits, am just now learning the best way to use it in fluid environments, such as weddings, and now think the issues I had with the 50L came from more of a operator error than failure of the lens itself.

In summary--
Did I like the one I used: No
Would I buy another: Yes
How does this make sense: I have become a better photographer since working frequently with the limitations of the 85L.

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 17, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



300 mm gives a special look, I personally love it (but I come from drawing people). Some years ago I shot this one with a 50D (crop sensor!) + 300/4:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6385346624/photos/2431866/


----------



## justaCanonuser (Apr 17, 2014)

I love my 85 II L, its wonderful balance between decent sharpness and this supercreamy bokeh wide open. So really would like to get a 50L with the same characteristics and replace my old EF 50/1.4. But some very critical reviews like this one made me hesitate:

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 17, 2014)

justaCanonuser said:


> 300 mm gives a special look, I personally love it (but I come from drawing people). Some years ago I shot this one with a 50D (crop sensor!) + 300/4:
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/6385346624/photos/2431866/



I am also more comfortable with a charcoal stick than a camera, but I always like my images to have a three dimensional perspective. These are different schools of thought, and art is very subjective.
Do share some of your drawings some time. Cheers!


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 17, 2014)

I have the 100L, but saying something is sharp wide open at f/2.8 isn't really a fair comparison. There is a world of difference @ f/1.2 and f/1.4 than f/2.8.


----------



## ecka (Apr 17, 2014)

I don't love it
I don't hate it
I don't own it and I don't plan to
I like primes. IMHO, 50L is meant to be used at f/1.2 and it has its look and specific bokeh, which isn't that good at longer focus distances. Personally, I prefer Sigmalux bokeh . The problem is that modern L zooms do better at f/2.8+ than this prime and that makes it a specialized lens (meaning, if I need more dof, I'd rather use the pancake).
I just think that price is too high for its flaws. In other words, it's not perfect just because it has a red ring. The old Sigma 50/1.4 and the 50L both have very similar AF problems, but people rant a lot more about the Sigma, despite that it is just as good or even better optically (less CA or glowing edges), maybe because there are more Sigma owners than 50L (which costs almost 3 times more). Cheaper products tend to sell better, that's a fact. People are expecting "more" or special or perfect when they pay extra for it, but the 50L is not "more" or special, it's "different". Now the 50Art looks very attractive and it may become THE fast 50 to get, if Canon won't wake up from his "let's go video" dreaming marathon. New sharp EF 50mm f/1.4 STM with 9 rounded blades bokeh cream factory for less than $600 could do the trick, leaving 50/1.4 a consumer grade lens, because $950 Sigmalux-Art is expensive.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 17, 2014)

Ruined said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > The 300 f2.8 absolutely blows both the 1.2 50 and 85 L's away when it comes to bokeh orientated portrait imagery.
> ...


+1 The 200 f/2 is a far better choice.

I like my 50L but I'd rather to see a version II.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 17, 2014)

I purchased a used 50L a few months back for a pretty decent price. The seller was a hobbyist and a member of the local photo club. He was struggling with the lens and wanted to get rid of it quick. I bought it in mint condition for the equivalent of approximately $ 700. 

Now how can I not love this lens??? ;D


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 17, 2014)

Lots of interesting response and most of them aren't what I expected, which is a good thing. I would have added more choices, but the poll limits you to 5. 

I get the people who don't care for the 50mm focal length. It's a lot harder to get interesting shots with it vs. a 35 or 85mm lens, and just as I prefer 24 to 35mm, I realize the 50mm length doesn't match a lot of people's creative vision. 

I also understand the overlap between the 50 and 85mm focal lengths and thought I wouldn't miss the 50L when I sold it, given that I had the 85. Out of the 4 or 5 lenses I sold to fund my 300, it was the only one I missed. For me, there's something about having a wider, yet still normal focal length that I can also use with very shallow DOF. I think that's the appeal of the 50 1.4 as well and if it's a focal length that isn't used a lot or shallow DOF or low light work isn't something you shoot much, then the 50 1.4 is plenty.

I have the 85 II and 300 2.8 IS II lenses as well and find the 85 to be exactly as described - the ultimate portrait lens. I really does excel at all things when it comes to shooting people, other than group shots. The 300 on a full frame is actually more practical than I expected and I've taken some awesome headshots with it. I plan to do more of that in the future.

I realize the Sigma's coming out and so far is looking to be a much sharper lens outside of the center, but for my uses, sharpness isn't critical and the color, contrast, flare resistance, and smooth bokeh are what I love about this lens. I've found that AFMA is critical from my experience and really helps to reduce CA at the focal point. It definitely takes patience and practice to master this lens (at f/1.2), but I love the results.

I'm headed out of town in a couple of weeks and I'm planning to take my 5DIII, 24 1.4 II, and 50 1.2. I've found that to be my perfect travel kit and can't wait to use it.

Finally, J.R. - you got one for $700 - wow!


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2

Edit: I'm removing this photo - since I haven't ask him for permission yet


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 17, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2



To which I refer you back to my earlier link. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_300mm_f_2_8l_is_ii_usm

Just because a picture was taken with a $7,300 lens doesn't make it worth a cent.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > No comment which better, but here is one of shot I took with 300. For creamy bokeh, I like my 85L II @ 1.2
> ...



That photo taken at Santa Ana Zoo. 

I emailed the zoo office of Ted's photos, the train captain. He personally offered my family a VIP ticket(FREE) to the zoo for one month. We went back there couple times with our VIP ticket. My kids got free ride there as well. 

I think my photo worth more than a cent : http://www.santaanazoo.org/visinfoa.htm


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 17, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



You might, and the subject, who presumably isn't a photo enthusiast, might, but that isn't and wasn't my point. My point was if you want blown out backgrounds in your portraits there are vastly better lenses for doing that than the overly hyped 50 and 85 f1.2's. Using a 300 for compelling portraits is far more difficult than using either of the other two and, in my opinion, gives a much "nicer" image, but even if you don't agree with my opinion, you cannot argue the fact that the 300 destroys backgrounds far more effectively than the two much shorter lenses.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 17, 2014)

Dylan, that's pretty cool that you were able to get a free pass just by emailing the photo. I agree that the 300 2.8 (and 200 f/2) is probably the best lens if you want to obliterate the background, but for anything beyond headshots it is a bit tough to use in terms of communicating with the model. The results speak for themselves when they are carefully done, however. I'm (very) fortunate to own the 24, 50, 85, and 300 (yes, I love fast lenses) and really enjoy using each one for their own strengths. It's really just a matter of how much background (context) you want to include in the photos, but I think the 85 is probably the most versatile of these. I find that I can use it for 80% or more of the portraits I shoot. 

The 50L is the lens I reach for when I want something smaller, lighter, and less conspicuous than a zoom, faster focusing and wider than the 85, and with less perspective distortion than the 24.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 17, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan, that's pretty cool that you were able to get a free pass just by emailing the photo. I agree that the 300 2.8 (and 200 f/2) is probably the best lens if you want to obliterate the background, but for anything beyond headshots it is a bit tough to use in terms of communicating with the model. The results speak for themselves when they are carefully done, however. I'm (very) fortunate to own the 24, 50, 85, and 300 (yes, I love fast lenses) and really enjoy using each one for their own strengths. It's really just a matter of how much background (context) you want to include in the photos, but I think the 85 is probably the most versatile of these. I find that I can use it for 80% or more of the portraits I shoot.
> 
> The 50L is the lens I reach for when I want something smaller, lighter, and less conspicuous than a zoom, faster focusing and wider than the 85, and with less perspective distortion than the 24.



I didn't know I'm gonna get free pass and didn't expect any return from Ted. I just want to send Ted some photos. I forgot to mention, we got a chance to meet his wife too - who also works in the same zoo, farm area. Just a wonderful couple


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I understand & agree. I wasn't born with photography skills or have enough times to practice getting the right shots like the pros. However, I believe taking photo in the right moment could still be able to tell story - without thinking too much about rule of 3rd, back and front ground etc...


----------



## skullyspice (Apr 17, 2014)

love


----------

