# Disappointed with 50 f/1.2 sharpness @ f/1.2



## Birger.Niss (May 22, 2013)

Learned friends,
One week ago I bought the Canon 50 mm f/1.2 for my new 5D Mark III, specifically for the very shallow DOF at f/1.2.
I am however disappointed with the sharpness of the lens at f/1.2. At f/2.8 its excellent.
I enclose two 100 % crops showing some text at f/1.2 and at f/2.8. The two images were taken at an angle of about 30 degrees, thus making the test independent of AFMA settings - it is clear that there is a focus shift, but that is not what I am complaining about.
I trust that you will agree that the f/1.2 image is a lot fuzzier than the f/2.8 image. My question to you experts is whether such a difference in sharpness is to be expected or if I should return my glas? Your help is highly appreciated


----------



## Pi (May 22, 2013)

Unless you really need to use this lens that way, testing it at very close distances is a waste of efforts.


----------



## Birger.Niss (May 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> Unless you really need to use this lens that way, testing it at very close distances is a waste of efforts.


Hi Pi, I shot the images at approx. 0.5 m distance, which in my mind is not very close. Please note that the enclosed images are 100 % crops.


----------



## iSy (May 22, 2013)

Interesting results, consider I have just posted today about upgrading my 1.4 to the 1.2 and I was concerned about sharpness as my 1.4 is actually pretty sharp. 

I have done similar tests with my 1.4 and I would say its sharper at 1.4 then your 1.2 shot, the greens and pinks are not so pronounced.


----------



## Birger.Niss (May 22, 2013)

iSy said:


> Interesting results, consider I have just posted today about upgrading my 1.4 to the 1.2 and I was concerned about sharpness as my 1.4 is actually pretty sharp.
> 
> I have done similar tests with my 1.4 and I would say its sharper at 1.4 then your 1.2 shot, the greens and pinks are not so pronounced.


Hi iSy, I could well be that my 1.2 at f/1.4 is as sharp as yours at f/1.4, but then your incentive to go for a 1.2 might vanish


----------



## RLPhoto (May 22, 2013)

Wow, That's pretty unsharp. My 50L doesn't look near as bad as yours.


----------



## Birger.Niss (May 22, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Wow, That's pretty unsharp. My 50L doesn't look near as bad as yours.


How does your lens compare at f/1.2 and f/2.8, RLPhoto?


----------



## RLPhoto (May 22, 2013)

Birger.Niss said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, That's pretty unsharp. My 50L doesn't look near as bad as yours.
> ...



http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review


----------



## vscd (May 22, 2013)

@BirgerNiss

That's normal for this lense. The 50mm 1.0 is even worse. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14970.msg272132#msg272132


----------



## pdirestajr (May 22, 2013)

I may be mistaken, but I don't think this lens is intended to be used to photograph text at an aperture of f/1.2.


----------



## Birger.Niss (May 22, 2013)

pdirestajr said:


> I may be mistaken, but I don't think this lens is intended to be used to photograph text at an aperture of f/1.2.


I think you are quite right  But text shows very well my point.


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 22, 2013)

The 1.2L is not the sharpest tool in the shed from 1.2 to 2.0, but that's common knowledge I'd say.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 22, 2013)

Birger.Niss said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you really need to use this lens that way, testing it at very close distances is a waste of efforts.
> ...



MFD for the lens is about 18 in, so you are close to the MFD. Take a few steps back and take a pic, it will look better.

The other issue is that the resolution at f/1.2 is about 2/3 of what it is at f/2.8, so yes, it WILL be fuzzier at f/1.2 than at f/2.8. Take a look at the test Lens Rentals did (link below).

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

What you did was to use the 50L how it was not designed to be used. The real question is how does it look in real world usage as a portrait lens wide open.


----------



## Pi (May 22, 2013)

Birger.Niss said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Unless you really need to use this lens that way, testing it at very close distances is a waste of efforts.
> ...



See this thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1294152

I cannot imagine a situation where you would need to use the 50L near the MFD wide open but you know better.


----------



## Birger.Niss (May 22, 2013)

Thanks a lot to you all - I really appreciate your input. 
My worry was that my copy is worse than could expected. You have put my mind at ease


----------



## vscd (May 22, 2013)

So, to sum it up... you could also use a 50mm 1.8 and patch it to *L*







just kidding


----------



## ScottFielding (May 22, 2013)

I love my 50 1.2 and is great for portraits of my kids. It is obviously nowhere near as sharp as my 135 f2 but love both these lenses.

I have just taken these shots at 30 degrees and 50cm away and 100% cropped. They are in quite low light, but will hopefully put your mind further at ease, f2.8 and f1.2:









Cheers,

Scott


----------



## Birger.Niss (May 22, 2013)

ScottFielding said:


> I love my 50 1.2 and is great for portraits of my kids. It is nowhere near as sharp as my 135 f2 but love both these lenses.
> 
> I have just taken these shots at 30 degrees and 50cm away and 100% cropped. They are in quite low light, but will hopefully put your mind further at ease, f2.8 and f1.2:
> 
> ...


Thanks a lot Scott, your results are identical to mine. Now a can sleep like a child 
And to you, vscd - hehe  Great invention, good economy!


----------



## AJ (May 22, 2013)

Another comparison
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5


----------



## LOALTD (May 22, 2013)

This lens is soft, soft, soft. 50mm is my favorite focal length and I do not own one. It’s *slightly* sharper than the f/1.4 at very big apertures if you pixel-peep…as soon as you stop down, the f/1.4 is sharper. It’s razor sharp compared to the old 50mm f/1.0 though…

The 85mm f/1.2...on the other hand...


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2013)

>The 85mm f/1.2...on the other hand...

Yes. There they showed what Canon is able to do...


----------



## Dylan777 (May 23, 2013)

@ OP - I think your copy is fine 

Here are some of mines, 24 inches away from the book. Crop 1:1 in LR. Focus point was between "RALES trial"


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 23, 2013)

Its not uncommon for lenses to be a bit fuzzy at close range. Macro lenses have a different design that makes them sharp even at mfd.

The new 24-70mmL f/2.8L MK II is another lens that is not at its best when you get near mfd.


----------



## jdramirez (May 23, 2013)

Then you should have read up about it. The 50mm f/1.4 is sharper at f/1.4 than the f/1.2 is at f/1.4 Actually the f/1.4 is sharper than the f1.2 at almost every aperture (save for f/1.2 which it can't do).

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


----------



## Birger.Niss (May 23, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Then you should have read up about it. The 50mm f/1.4 is sharper at f/1.4 than the f/1.2 is at f/1.4 Actually the f/1.4 is sharper than the f1.2 at almost every aperture (save for f/1.2 which it can't do).
> 
> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout


You're right - I should have done my homework. After a good nights sleep and the input from all you good people I am now satisfied with my acquisition and ready to go out and use it for what it was intended for.


----------



## LOALTD (May 23, 2013)

vscd said:


> >The 85mm f/1.2...on the other hand...
> 
> Yes. There they showed what Canon is able to do...



This lens is one of the reasons that I am, sometimes begrudgingly, sticking with Canon  It's a gorgeous piece of glass in every sense of the word.


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 23, 2013)

The 50L in my opinion is way too expensive for its performance, you don't buy a 1.2 lens to not shoot at 1.2 because it's not really sharp. Don't misunderstand me, I had it for some weeks and it got me some good shots but they all were just not comparable to the sharpness of a Sigma 35mm 1.4 or a Canon 135mm 2.0. 

That and the exorbitant age of the current 50 1.4 is why everyone screams for a new 50 1.4.


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> The 50L in my opinion is way too expensive for its performance, *you don't buy a 1.2 lens to not shoot at 1.2 because it's not really sharp*. Don't misunderstand me, I had it for some weeks and it got me some good shots but they all were just not comparable to the sharpness of a Sigma 35mm 1.4 or a Canon 135mm 2.0.
> 
> That and the exorbitant age of the current 50 1.4 is why everyone screams for a new 50 1.4.



Could not say it better.


----------



## e-d0uble (May 23, 2013)

The 50L can be fairly sharp at f/1.2, just not as sharp as perhaps the 85L II. Sharpness isn't everything, and this lens has fantastic color and contrast reproduction as well as great bokeh (which is why I shoot it wide open). Here's an example of it wide open:

http://stinkfoot.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2024

Lots of CA, and certainly not sharp like the 135L but I don't mind


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2013)

This picture could've been done with the 50mm f1.4 aswell. But I drift your catch. Don't know why to spend a 
grand more as told before, but well, a f1.2 pic


----------



## e-d0uble (May 23, 2013)

vscd said:


> This picture could've been done with the 50mm f1.4 aswell. But I drift your catch. Don't know why to spend a
> grand more as told before, but well, a f1.2 pic



Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.  

I had the 50mm f/1.4 once long ago and it's a decent lens, but only decent. The differences between the two (and other 50mm lenses) have been covered here and elsewhere 1000 times so I won't go any further. I'll only say this: A friend of mine once dropped his 50mm f/1.4 to the kitchen floor and it absolutely fell to pieces. I've (embarrassingly enough) dropped my 50mm f/1.2 several times and it's still in one piece.


----------



## vscd (May 24, 2013)

e-d0uble said:


> Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.



Yes, you could. Assuming the man is exaclty 3 meters away, just go 25 cm closer to him and crop the picture to 
the same frame. Voila, you got the same depth of field (0.25m). At the same time you could adjust the ISO to 1/3 
of a stop brighter if you like the speed of shutter. 

Sorry to disappoint you. Physic beats money  And the colors are not that well choicen...


----------



## e-d0uble (May 24, 2013)

vscd said:


> e-d0uble said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.
> ...



These forums rarely disappoint me, and Mr. Spock wouldn't dig that fallacious argument, but I'll stop there.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 24, 2013)

vscd said:


> This picture could've been done with the 50mm f1.4 aswell. But I drift your catch. Don't know why to spend a
> grand more as told before, but well, a f1.2 pic



Unless I had a bad copy, but my last 50 f1.4 couldn't be used at f1.4 to 1.6 - just soft. From f2 and down the f1.4 performs better. Contrast & color are not there. 

My 50L is really sharp @ f1.4 to f1.6. Focus shift starts from f2 to f2.8 - shifts about 1.5" or so. Look forward to have this issue fixed in version II.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 24, 2013)

I can't chime in here because I don't go that wide. Heck I was nervous with my 135L going to f/2.2 in basketball ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (May 24, 2013)

vscd said:


> e-d0uble said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.
> ...



Try that on 2yrs & 4yrs running kids :


----------



## Pi (May 24, 2013)

vscd said:


> e-d0uble said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.
> ...



Speaking about physics - if you get close, you cannot crop to the same frame. You can do that if you step back. In neither case you will take the same picture. 

If you do crop, and the crop factor is about 1/3 stop indeed, you get f/1.6, not f/1.2, where f=57 or so.


----------



## V_Raptor (May 24, 2013)

Birger.Niss said:


> Learned friends,
> One week ago I bought the Canon 50 mm f/1.2 for my new 5D Mark III, specifically for the very shallow DOF at f/1.2.
> I am however disappointed with the sharpness of the lens at f/1.2. At f/2.8 its excellent.
> I enclose two 100 % crops showing some text at f/1.2 and at f/2.8. The two images were taken at an angle of about 30 degrees, thus making the test independent of AFMA settings - it is clear that there is a focus shift, but that is not what I am complaining about.
> I trust that you will agree that the f/1.2 image is a lot fuzzier than the f/2.8 image. My question to you experts is whether such a difference in sharpness is to be expected or if I should return my glas? Your help is highly appreciated



Hello Birger.Niss

Took this shot of my daughter having her bath as an example of "*Real World*" results...(Canon 1Ds MK3, 50L @ f1.2 and 580EX II) Note the DoF is so bloody thin that even her nose and left eye are already OOF 

All I've done to this picture was a bit of white balance correction and cropping to 100%

I don't think there is anything else that I could possibly ask this lens to do for me, You can count her eyelashes!!!... Everything else is just semantics and virtual blablabla


----------



## V_Raptor (May 24, 2013)

e-d0uble said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > e-d0uble said:
> ...



+1

Now...Dr Spock ?!?!?! LOL That really made me laugh here on the other side of the planet .....Sad but true tho...


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 24, 2013)

What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses. "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!" And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot. Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot! If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings? The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site. 

However,

I don't think there is really any reason for 50 f/1.2L owners to defend and justify their purchase/ownership. If it is working for you and you love it, do you really care what anybody else thinks? I know I wouldn't.


----------



## V_Raptor (May 25, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses. "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!" And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot. Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot! If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings? The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site.
> 
> However,
> 
> I don't think there is really any reason for 50 f/1.2L owners to defend and justify their purchase/ownership. If it is working for you and you love it, do you really care what anybody else thinks? I know I wouldn't.



Hey bdunbar79 how is it going ??

Yeah I agree with the comparing apples with apples 

On this particular tread tho' the member asked specifically about the 1.2 and opinion from 1.2 owners to check if his copy was faulty or not. I can't say for other people, but I was just trying to help the original poster with his question.

If we go back and read the thread, it seams that owners of 1.4 lenses jumped on the wagon and tried to justify ( scientifically and otherwise ) why the 1.4 would do the same job for 1000 less or something like that...I think this time is the other way around you see  

Cheers 

V_R


----------



## vscd (May 25, 2013)

Maybe I had a bad copy or I'm still upset and so my answers are coloured with my historical feelings. My pictures at @f1.2 weren't as sharp as yours, but the "problem" was more that the 50mm 1.4 outchallenged the 1.2 lense by far. Maybe there are some good ones out there, but I heard the same problem from other people.

From f2.5 on, the lense was a beast, and the colors and buildquality were outstanding... and if you need the red ring or simply the 1.2 you can't get any better from Canon at the moment. But the price and the open apertures weren't even at the niveau of thr 50mm 1.4. So it was sold. This is pixelpeeping. Of course it is, but for a $1500 lense against a $350 lense it's something which is appropriate, I think. Otherwise we all could use a 350D and a 50f1.8.

The 85mm 1.2 II was the opposite, it was a great update to the 85mm 1.8 in all ranges, except weight. The 85mm 1.2 has some other bad points (no weathersealing at any point), but that's ok for portraits in rooms. 

I think everyone should use any lense he want's to, but there were people disappointed of the sharpness (topic) and I just gave my 50 cents because I had one. A red ring doesn't always justify anything. My old Zeiss f2 was sharper, and it was from 1958. At the moment I've no 50mm for the Canon anymmore, I sticked more to the fabulous 35mm range.

Here is a picture from the 85 1.2 with a part as crop. The Crop is from the jpg out of cam, no sharpening applied. This was handhold, I think there is more possible with mirrorlockup and tripod ;D

Sorry for maybe some harsh words, I love you all


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2013)

V_Raptor said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses. "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!" And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot. Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot! If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings? The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site.
> ...



What led you to believe that my post was directed towards you?


----------



## RMC33 (May 25, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses. "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!" And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot. Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot! If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings? The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site.
> 
> However,
> 
> I don't think there is really any reason for 50 f/1.2L owners to defend and justify their purchase/ownership. If it is working for you and you love it, do you really care what anybody else thinks? I know I wouldn't.



I compared both a while back, and a zeiss 50 1.4. I think a few other people have too (just the canons). I stuck with my 50 1.4 mainly because I love the lens and could not see any reason to spend $1400-1600 on a minor upgrade at best. The copy I had also suffered major focus shift (was a CPS rental) to the point were f/1.2 was -2 AFMA and f/1.4 was -9. Until I got to about f/2.8 the focus shift was still very evident.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses. "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!" And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot. Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot! If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings? The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site.
> ...



That's all I was saying too, and admitted it was just my opinion. I don't think the 1.4 is better than the 1.2 by any means. I do not, however, believe that the 1.2 is worth that much in price over the 1.4. It does not take away from the quality of the 1.2, it's just to me, there isn't nearly enough extra quality to spend that much more money. And yes, just my opinion.


----------



## RMC33 (May 25, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



Yup, just wanted to add a few things to your already solid opinion. Don't get me wrong though, I would love to see an updated 50 1.4 or Sigma 50 1.4 that is as good as the 35.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 25, 2013)

If they came out with a 50 f/1.4 II lens, you better believe I'd buy it!


----------



## Birger.Niss (May 25, 2013)

Dear All,
Again a heap of thanks to you all for taking time to answer my initial question - is my copy of the 1.2 faulty or not. It certainly seems to perform precisely as everybody else's and as pointed out in various reviews. Thanks for the sample pics you've posted.
I think it is a valid discussion whether or not the 1.2 is worth the extra buck over the 1.4. You get the extra aperture, a thinner DOF, probably a better build quality (I haven't seen the 1.4 in real life, but I take your word for it), you get the red ring (but that can be remedied as pointed out by vscd ), but will that give you better pics? Well get as much information as possible and then decide for yourself. This great forum is precisely used for such information sampling.
Speaking for myself, I will go out now into the real world and enjoy my 1.2.
Please be nice to your fellow man and remember - we may be alone in the universe ;D


----------

