# 50mm.. Upgrade or not?



## iSy (May 22, 2013)

Hi guys

Probably done this subject to death, although I am considering getting the 50 1.2 (currently have the 1.4).

I am a semi pro wedding photographer mainly as well as portraits and have two 5D3's, 24-70 II & 70-200 II with a 50 1.4 for low light and bokeh shots as and when needed.

I guess I am a bit of a snob and do love my L gear which is why I am considering the 50 1.2 as an upgrade. There appear to be loads of good and bad reviews and its not like I have money to waste although I can afford this lens but obviously dont wanna waste money.

I am not really interested in the 85 1.2 as I feel the 70-200 covers this range well enough, I can live with the 2.8 and love the IQ and use of this lens so much I wouldnt want to take it off in place of a prime hence the 50.

I did have the 35L last year which was nice but I tend to find its a bit wide for portraits/make up shots and you really do need to get up in people's faces.

So, who would recommend the 1.2 over my current 1.4 to complete my 24-70II & 70-200II combo?

Cheers

Sy


----------



## Dylan777 (May 22, 2013)

Sold my f1.4 and replaced with 50L - no regret 

50L is NOT a sharpest lens in the L line. 50L will provide very creamy bokeh & decent sharpness. AFMA is almost required for this lens. Buy this lens if you plan to shoot wide open apertures. 

1. Price tag @ $1600, does 50L worth 4-5 times(better) than f1.4 in term of IQ? quick answer is no. However, with 50L you can shoot @ f1.2 where f1.4 needs to step down to f2 to f2.8 or so.

2. Am I going to buy this lens over f1.4 again? YESSSSSSSSSS


----------



## AE-1Burnham (May 22, 2013)

(1st time poster here on Canonrumors)

I purchased the 50/1.2L mainly because of build quality/weather sealing.

I have gone through 3 copies of the decent performing 50/1.4 (2 of which the AF just stopped working,-I think the hood &/ extending element are two big build weaknesses -- the 3rd copy due to light rain and stupidity though replaced on warranty), this over 10ish years of quality images. I still have my #4 50/1.4 but rarely use it since upgrading... by the way, the innards of the 50/1.4 make a nice loop and someday will be built into a bellows system or something.

What does the 4x£ give you? Reassurance and also a little "L" confidence. :-D

Goodluck with the decision!


----------



## Zv (May 22, 2013)

If you need the bokeh then yeah get it otherwise your 24-70II should cover any need for primes in that focal range, a 50L seems superfulous to me. 

Also you will want at least sone of the persons face in focus for wedding and make up so going down to f/1.2 isn't really ideal. I think f/2.8 is shallow enough on a FF camera for portraits. 

If you want to do other artistic stuff then thats a different story.


----------



## iSy (May 22, 2013)

Thanks guys, I appreciate the feedback.

I agree that 2.8 on the 24-70 II is more then enough for most things and sub 2.8 you do lose details. The reason I want f2 and under is for beauty shots whereby having everything in focus isn't the goal, so its really about getting the sharpest focal point with the best bokeh for everything else in the frame.

I love the shots I am getting from my 50 1.4 so naturally curious to know if the L is going to improve on that, and I understand its not going to jump out with differences I would just like to make sure its better, not worse as some reviews seem to be mixed.

I also agree the build quality/focus ring on the 1.4 isn't the best although I am rather cautious with all my gear so its not a massive concern although I do like knowing its built proper which is one thing that everyone says about the L.


----------



## Zv (May 22, 2013)

I think it's mostly the price that people grudge about it. They feel that for the extra amount you pay the lens isn't "that much sharper".

There's not really much of an alternative, is there? I mean there's a Sigma 50mm but some say the AF is unreliable. No lens is perfect. 

If fifty is your bread an butter then you will benefit from the upgrade as it will be more reliable and less likely to break while on a paid job. That in itself is prob worth the upgrade.


----------



## sandymandy (May 22, 2013)

Rent it for a while and then make ur choice. I think every Canon shooters dream is a complete collection of L lenses


----------



## Random Orbits (May 22, 2013)

iSy, for your purposes the 50L would work well. Try borrowing/renting it before committing the funds. It's not the sharpest, but it wasn't designed to be. It has much better focus accuracy than the 50 f/1.4, and you'd be playing to its strength for beauty shots. Bokeh and color rendition are also better, but is does have some serious quirks.

Your 24-70 II will destroy any 50mm prime that is AF capable on a Canon body sharpness wise, including the 50L. If everyone had enough money, everyone would own the 50L and 24-70 II for best performance at any aperture.


----------



## vscd (May 22, 2013)

@iSy.

The Canon 50mm f1.2 would leave you with mixed feelings. Of course it's a L-Lense, which gives you great colours and a fantastic bokeh. Otherwise it's sharpness is below (!) the 50mm 1.4 and will start to kick in at f2.5 and more . So, you should ask yourself the question why to spend a grand or more over the existing one, if you can't use the open aperture. From 1.4 to 1.2 you win around 30% of light, but the image will be blurry. Really blurry.

So if you need the extra light, which mostly can be done with a 1/3 of higher ISO stop, too... you should get the 50 1.2. This will work for analog photos nicely. Otherwise you should lend the lense for a day and you'll love or hate it.

Hint: The lense is weathersealed, but just if you do a filter in front of the lense. The rest is well done.


----------



## CANONisOK (May 22, 2013)

For me, the build quality and weather sealing were the dominant factors in adding the 50L (plus I got it during one of Canon's 15% off refurb lens sales). I am really a big fan of the 50 1.4, but jumped at the chance for a "budget" upgrade. After using the 1.2 for a while, I can confidently say the 1.4 will be going bye-bye soon. No regrets.


----------



## V_Raptor (May 22, 2013)

Man

There is a lot of rubbish about this glass on the web. I love mine, never ever had any dramas with autofocus this or tha, mind you I use it on 1Ds mk3 ( two diff bodies) and both are perfect and tack sharp whereever you point the selected focus point...

I'm attaching couple examples

First shot was focused on the "OU" of the last word, note that on this trip to this nice place on the mountains it was pissing down all day, did I care ??? Not at all since the lens is weather sealed.

Second was shot whilst walking next to my wife, focused on my daughter's eyes, any sharper it would cut my screen in half

Buy it RIGHT NOW !!! 

I can send you the RAW files if you want to have a look at them, however I can guarantee you, for what you want, this piece of gorgeous glass is unbeatable. 

Cheers 

AL


----------



## V_Raptor (May 22, 2013)

First pict didn't upload,

Fear not 

There we go


----------



## iSy (May 22, 2013)

Cheers guys, its a really tough choice to make I must admit.

Just had a play with the 50 1.4 at 1.4 to 2.0 and its pretty dam good, eye lashes are nice and crisp even at 1.4 but when stopped to f2 they are razor clear. Guess I am hoping the 1.2 can produce the same level of sharpness (and I know this isn't the only factor) but if it didn't equal the 1.4 lens I would feel a little unhappy.

I know someone with a 1.2 thankfully so I have just asked if I can give it a go for the day and compare. I'm not a lens collector, I like to keep my choices down to 3-4 lenses and feel the 24-70II & 70-200II compliment each other I am just looking for that magic prime, so far the 1.4 is doing well so I guess I am just wondering if it can be beat and normally an upgrade to an L is obvious but it would appear that the 50 is the one lens that is different.. Spending cash has never been so hard lol


----------



## vscd (May 22, 2013)

@V_Raptor
Please submit something with f1.2, anything else dosn't make too much sense, I guess. The problem of the 50L 1.2 is the aperture, wide open. I'm not someone who only reads specs, but this lense is far away from the 85L 1.2. The weathersealing is a nice *pro*, definately, so the bokeh is. But my cam isn't weatersealed, so mostly I don't care toooo much about the lenses. My only weatherproofed cam is my EOS 1n, so far  The colors of the L are far superiour in my opinion and if you make portraits the lense-unsharpness in the borders are more or less no problem. But if you use it as the normal 50mm alroundlense (as we all did back in the 70s/80s), you should know that the USM 1.4mm is overall the *better* choice.

50mm 1.4 (left) againt 50mm 1.2L (right)


----------



## RLPhoto (May 22, 2013)

The 50L is really for 50mm nuts like myself. It just has character.


----------



## V_Raptor (May 23, 2013)

VSCD

My 50 already paid itself many times, I shoot for living (hence only 2 posts) and I couldn't care less for what charts say, or people that shoot brick walls and pixel pep over it. I remember the 70s & 80s very well since my dad gave me my first camera in 1974!!! Back there there was the 35, the 50 and maybe the 80ish and there was it...And lots of people still made lots of money with them. 

It amazes me how many people bitch about the 50L without have never ever used one (not saying or implying it is your case) just because someone said somewhere that it was rubbish. The only reason I've decided to post about it, was to try to help iSY  

Like yourself I also have the 85 1.2 II, in fact I only have 4 lenses (50, 85, 24 and the only zoom is the magnificent 70~200 2.8 mk II) and they are very different lenses, 85 vs 50. I had the 50 1.4 before and I didn't like it at all. I can say my situation is different since as I've said I use it for living, therefore I cannot afford to having to stop shooting because its raining 

I use mine 50 as walk around (whenever I have some spare time) and it is nothing short of amazing, case in point is the two pictures I've posted to elucidate what I mean by how sharp it is, both pictures were taken on holidays with my pregnant wife, daughter and my trusted 1Ds mk3, 50L and 580 II combo... 

There are lots of pictures out there shot in 1.2, those I've posted were shot in f2.0 if I remember correctly, I wanted a bit more in focus and a bit less melted to oblivion background. 

Cheers from Australia 

AL 8)


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2013)

Hmm. That's a tough question. I don't think the 50L can do anything the 1.4 can't do, in wedding situations. And if you already have the 24-70L II, no way it's worth it. I have used and owned the 50L and at the apertures I shot, f/2.8 and narrower, the 1.4 was sharper. It's a specialty lens (and very good one at that) from f/1.2 to f/2.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2013)

Zv said:


> I think it's mostly the price that people grudge about it. They feel that for the extra amount you pay the lens isn't "that much sharper".
> 
> There's not really much of an alternative, is there? I mean there's a Sigma 50mm but some say the AF is unreliable. No lens is perfect.
> 
> If fifty is your bread an butter then you will benefit from the upgrade as it will be more reliable and less likely to break while on a paid job. That in itself is prob worth the upgrade.



Not only that, it's _less_ sharp at f/2.8 and narrower. Only the OP can decide if that much money is worth the use from f/1.2 to f/2. It is strictly a specialty use and an individual matter.

This is the one prime lens of Canon's that I don't understand the price tag. I realize that 50mm at f/1.2 is going to require a lot of glass, but I also expect better overall performance than it delivers. That's just me.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (May 23, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The 50L is really for 50mm nuts like myself. It just has character.


I really like your reply here, no comparisons between us as photographers since I'm just a hacker (in golf terms). It doesn't always have to come down to what's 'best' all the time, it's what feels right what makes you happy with using it and the results you get.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 23, 2013)

My two cents is that if I had your existing lens kit, I would wait. I have a feeling that the next year is going to bring some interesting lenses in the 50mm department, including an ART remake from Sigma and a nice 50mm (probably with IS) from Canon. There's a lot of good about Sigma's current 50, but the AF isn't one of them. The enhanced build quality and AF from the 35mm f1/4 in a new 50mm from Sigma could be very interesting, and most of Canon's new primes (while expensive), have been significant optical upgrades from their predecessors.

In the meantime, I think you are pretty well covered between the 24-70II and 1.4, particularly if you are pretty satisfied with your 1.4.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 23, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Hmm. That's a tough question. I don't think the 50L can do anything the 1.4 can't do, in wedding situations. And if you already have the 24-70L II, no way it's worth it. I have used and owned the 50L and at the apertures I shot, f/2.8 and narrower, the 1.4 was sharper. It's a specialty lens (and very good one at that) from f/1.2 to f/2.



That's why we use 50L - be able to shoot and get best results at wide open ;D

However, it would be nice to be able to shoot at smaller apertures without worrying focus shift :-\


----------



## Shane1.4 (May 23, 2013)

Sold my 1.2 and returned to the 1.4. 1.2 had terrible CA and was very soft. I am desperately awaiting a new 50 from canon or Sigma.


----------



## Standard (May 23, 2013)

> My 50 already paid itself many times, I shoot for living (hence only 2 posts) and I couldn't care less for what charts say, or people that shoot brick walls and pixel pep over it. I remember the 70s & 80s very well since my dad gave me my first camera in 1974!!! Back there there was the 35, the 50 and maybe the 80ish and there was it...And lots of people still made lots of money with them.
> 
> It amazes me how many people bitch about the 50L without have never ever used one (not saying or implying it is your case) just because someone said somewhere that it was rubbish. The only reason I've decided to post about it, was to try to help iSY



Finally. Someone who shares my same sentiment. I have posted regularly in support of the 50L before but got tired of the rhetoric by one too many pixel peepers. I too use the 50L professionally. It is the lens I use the most on assignments as well as the lens I always take when I am traveling. It is nothing short of stellar. If you're seriously considering this lens, do the research yourself and you will find many happy users, most of which I can say are out shooting and not spending time bitching on forums.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 23, 2013)

Standard said:


> > My 50 already paid itself many times, I shoot for living (hence only 2 posts) and I couldn't care less for what charts say, or people that shoot brick walls and pixel pep over it. I remember the 70s & 80s very well since my dad gave me my first camera in 1974!!! Back there there was the 35, the 50 and maybe the 80ish and there was it...And lots of people still made lots of money with them.
> >
> > It amazes me how many people bitch about the 50L without have never ever used one (not saying or implying it is your case) just because someone said somewhere that it was rubbish. The only reason I've decided to post about it, was to try to help iSY
> 
> ...



Awesome. The only problem is, is that the OP is asking for advice based upon his current gear. If he didn't already have the f/1.4 and the 24-70L II, then it would be different. But since he already has those two lenses, he's thinking by spending a ton of money on the 50L that he's getting better gear and or IQ, only to find out later, he's not.


----------



## ishdakuteb (May 23, 2013)

me <-- no, i can live with my 50mm f/1.4 to save money. all images that i have recently posted on his forum was shooting from my everyday test equipments canon 30d and 50mm f/1.4 (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6019.150).

note: i am waiting for new 50mm with IS


----------



## pj1974 (May 23, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> My two cents is that if I had your existing lens kit, I would wait. I have a feeling that the next year is going to bring some interesting lenses in the 50mm department, including an ART remake from Sigma and a nice 50mm (probably with IS) from Canon. There's a lot of good about Sigma's current 50, but the AF isn't one of them. The enhanced build quality and AF from the 35mm f1/4 in a new 50mm from Sigma could be very interesting, and most of Canon's new primes (while expensive), have been significant optical upgrades from their predecessors.
> 
> In the meantime, I think you are pretty well covered between the 24-70II and 1.4, particularly if you are pretty satisfied with your 1.4.



+1

My thoughts EXACTLY. (Thanks, TWI for making my contribution so simple as a +1 and this line). I'm waiting to see what Canon (& other lens manufacturers) will put out in the next 12 to 18 months re: 50mm primes. A Canon 50mm IS USM lens would be great, or a Sigma 50mm 'A' - if either were f/1.4 - f/2


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2013)

>Awesome. The only problem is, is that the OP is asking for advice based upon his current gear. If he didn't 
>already have the f/1.4 and the 24-70L II, then it would be different. But since he already has those two lenses, 
>he's thinking by spending a ton of money on the 50L that he's getting better gear and or IQ, only to find out 
>later, he's not.

I totally second that. If he hasn't already the 50mm 1.4, I would suggest to try the 50 1.2, but with the 50mm 1.4 
I think there will be no "wow"-effect with a 50mm 1.2.

@V_Raptor
I agree with you. If I would earn my money with it, the weathersealing would be a killerfeature, but I don't. 
I just said that you get a less sharper lense from f1.4 to f2.5, what should be the aperture-range why I would
spend a grand more. On my 85 1.8 the update to the f1.2 was a immense difference, upon a already fantastic
85mm lense. I could pray on the 50 1.2, too, for the nice bokeh and build... but at the end. I don't think it's
worth it. The 50mm f1.0 is an even more fascinating lense everyone wants to hold in his hands... but this is
even less sharp. At the moment I don't have any 50mm lense left, because the range is too boring for me. 
That's a punch in a face of classic artists, but I'm more addicted to 35mm.

I think Canon should make a 50mm 1.2 II with the specs of the 85mm 1.2 and everyony will hold still a moment,
bend down to their knees and buy it again.


----------



## iSy (May 23, 2013)

Some great points made, which has pretty much made my decision.... 

I think I will stick with the 1.4 for now and see what happens with the 50 range in the next 12 months. Although, I am now tempted by the 35L again, as from all the reviews I read its way better than the 50L so this introduces another question... Is the 35L a worthwhile investment when I have the 24-70II, I would only be shooting it at 1.4-1.8 if I had one so I guess its down to if its good enough to make me wanna use it over the 24-70II for bokeh shots.

Does anyone else find that when you have money to buy gear you just cant find the right gear? lol


----------



## vscd (May 23, 2013)

Get a 35mm, but get the new Sigma.


----------



## iSy (May 23, 2013)

Just been looking at the Sigma 35 and it does look rather impressive and very sharp, and a good price! hmm..


----------



## Zv (May 23, 2013)

iSy said:


> Some great points made, which has pretty much made my decision....
> 
> I think I will stick with the 1.4 for now and see what happens with the 50 range in the next 12 months. Although, I am now tempted by the 35L again, as from all the reviews I read its way better than the 50L so this introduces another question... Is the 35L a worthwhile investment when I have the 24-70II, I would only be shooting it at 1.4-1.8 if I had one so I guess its down to if its good enough to make me wanna use it over the 24-70II for bokeh shots.
> 
> Does anyone else find that when you have money to buy gear you just cant find the right gear? lol



Yes, I wanted Canon to make a cheap 35 1.4 non L without IS and also a mid priced updataed 50 1.4 non L but neither of these materialized. The Sigma has been on my radar for a while. Just waiting for Canon to do something. 

35 is the new 50 my friend, especially if you have a crop body


----------



## 7enderbender (May 23, 2013)

Nothing new to add. I've done it and kept the 1.4 around for a while. Yes, the 1.4 can be sharper in the f/2 to f/4 area. I still never used it again even though it is and remains a very fine lens optically.

Both have flaws so you pick your poison - and there really isn't an alternative out there that wouldn't have a flaw. Until there is something even better the 50L remains my go to lens. Anyone who likes good "bokeh" and any kind of people photography should look at this as an option. Where it occasionally may fall short with respect to sharpness under certain circumstances (a bit blown out of proportion in my opinion) it kills when it comes to colors and contrast. It's the perfect complement to my 135L. YMMV.


----------



## iSy (May 23, 2013)

After a few hours of internet research I have decided to get the Sigma 35 f1.4 DG HSM :O
I may sell my 50 1.4 as I do feel with the 35 & 24-70II it wont see much use if the S35 is as good as what I am reading as I only really need one fast lens as the rest is covered between to the two 2.8 zooms.

I may look at a 50 if Canon decide to upgrade the L or the 1.4 although I have say looking at a fair amount of wedding photographers work, inc. my own I am finding that 35 / 85 & 135 is the main focal range and I feel the 70-200 covers the tele ends well enough whilst the 24-70II covers the wide with the S35 to give me the bokeh I cant see I will need it?

Thanks again for all the comments though, its been a interesting find and I for one never thought I would consider a non-canon lens, fingers crossed the QC has improved


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 23, 2013)

iSy said:


> After a few hours of internet research I have decided to get the Sigma 35 f1.4 DG HSM :O



Exactly what I did after I waited months for a new 50 1.4 from Canon. I first bought the 50 1.2L and it was a nice lens, heavy, weather sealed, just felt right, but the shots weren't satisfying below 2.0. The old 50 1.4 which I owned before won't come back into my bag cause its just such an old piece of plastic and also not the greatest performance at 1.4, at least not even close to what the new Sigma 35mm 1.4 can produce. So, I sold the 50L again and bought the Sigma 35 1.4 and if you get a decent copy with no focus problems then this is what should be the standard for 1.4! Incredibly sharp.


----------



## iSy (May 24, 2013)

Look what I picked up today.. 







Lets hope it lives up to the hype..


----------



## Dylan777 (May 24, 2013)

iSy said:


> Look what I picked up today..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Congrats....post some pics with new Sigma


----------



## 2n10 (May 24, 2013)

Congrats and definitely post up some of the wonderful shots this lens produces.


----------



## iSy (May 24, 2013)

First samples from Sigma 35 f1.4 DG HSM

All unedited RAW files..

5D3 - f1.4 - 1/100 - ISO 200 - Handheld focus on closest eye (My 2.5yr old daughter watching TV)










5D3 - f1.4 - 1/100 - ISO 200 - Handheld focus on eyes (My 2.5yr old daughter in kitchen)










I am very impressed, the focus and sharpness is spot on, and I would say I had a good 85% hit rate and when shooting at f1.4 I am more then happy with that.

Comments welcome.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 24, 2013)

iSy said:


> First samples from Sigma 35 f1.4 DG HSM
> 
> All unedited RAW files..
> 
> ...



It looks like a keeper. Enjoy your new toy and thanks sharing 

Below is my 50L @ f1.6, 1/125, ISO400 - straight out from camera, no PP, just convert from raw to jpeg through LR. My 2yrs princess


----------



## dirtcastle (May 24, 2013)

All of these lenses have good resale value. Just buy and use (or rent) if you aren't sure. If you buy one and it doesn't work out... just sell it and get something else. If you are replacing an existing focal length (e.g., 50 f/1.4 vs 50L), keep your original lens until you KNOW you will be happy with the new one.

Case in point... I got the 85L. It is an amazing lens. But, a year later, I am looking for something more video-friendly. Fortunately, I still have my 85mm f/1.8 to cover me until I find something better. Shameless plug: my 85L is up on ebay right now... ;-)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/140981188345


----------



## hanifshootsphotos (May 24, 2013)

I recently acquired the 50mm 1.2 its been a joy to shoot with, strangely enough it was produced in 2013 (UB date code) and it came with the new snazzy pinch lens cap...hubba hubba


----------

