# Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 12, 2013)

Discuss the review of the EF 50 f/1.2L


----------



## vscd (Jan 12, 2013)

In my opinion this lense is a shame for the given price. It's well build and wheather sealed and of course this counts sometimes more than anything else, but if you check out the testresults (f.e.







...you can't use the open aperture for something except art and you have to get down to at least f2.5 to get a sharp picture. So you pay a lot more for a fraction of a EV-step you can't even use and you have better results with the 50mm 1.4 up to aperture 2.5 and more (!). Just save the money and get the 100mm 2.8 Macro L IS as extra lense for the same price, together.

The 85mm 1.2 L II is the total difference, the 85mm is marvelous. But the 50mm is to be replaced, soon. Hopefully. If your company buys you the stuff or the buildquality is imnportant, get it. If you collect red rings, get it too. Otherwise... save the money.

Edit: Just to compare it to the Canon 50mm 1.4:


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 12, 2013)

Roger Cicala of lensrental sums it up nicely...this is a highly controversial lens with users divided on liking it or hating it. 

For a key, standard prime flagship L lens this shouldn't be the case. 

For the price point, if you have to explain this, that, or the other (between f1.2 and f 2.8 it is sharper than my aunt's tongue...blah blah)... sorry...it should just work... No explanations should be necessary.


----------



## Matthew Saville (Jan 12, 2013)

I'm sorry but, the only reason the 50 1.2 is so highly regarded is because Canon intentionally leaves the 50 1.4 as such a piece of crap. It is a classic "entice to upgrade" tactic. I know this is going to sound like flame bait but as a Nikon user myself, since we simply do not have f/1.2 (with autofocus) as an option thus far, Nikon has gone the opposite route: Both their f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm's are absolutely killer. My 50mm f/1.8 AFS-G has identical sharpness to the Canon 50 1.2 L at f/1.8, and it cost me $200.

I totally agree that with their larger lens mount, Canon will always be the king of bokeh, and f/1.2 is f/1.2. But just some food for thought. Personally, though I own Nikon I do shoot both Nikon and Canon, and what I'd love to see from Canon is a better 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, those two options are much more practical for the masses. Part of the whole point of primes, in my opinion, is to be light and small. Both of the Canon 1.2 primes are downright "compensating for something" size, I feel like many pros only buy them as a status symbol when they don't even come close to pushing the envelope far enough to actually need the DOF that the f/1.2 offers; they would create identical images if Canon had a sharp-as-heck f/1.4 or f/1.8 with solid construction. Heck even my 50 1.8 has a weather sealing gasket!

Respectfully,
=Matt=


----------



## ecka (Jan 12, 2013)

Sigmalux is still the best fast fifty


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 12, 2013)

Don't hijack this thread with nikon comparisons...what is available in the EF line up is the most relavent....often the contentious area is the value for the price comparisons between the f1.2L and f1.4 canon 50's.

Once we venture into nikonland, the arguments will just feed the trolls. So please don't take the bait.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 12, 2013)

ecka said:


> Sigmalux is still the best fast fifty



After buying the Canon 1.4 and going through three copies without finding one that could focus properly I picked up the Sigma. It is super sharp and the focus actually works. Build quality is excellent. Lack of 1.2 seems meaningless.

I am really looking forward to the 35 1.4 when I get the funds.


----------



## EOBeav (Jan 12, 2013)

There is absolutely no new information here that hasn't been presented before on The Digital Picture, et al. The bottom line is that if you shoot professionally wide open (>f/2), you'll want the 50L. Personally, I wouldn't turn one down if given one, but I do have the 50mm f/1.4 that works just fine.


----------



## CrimsonBlue (Jan 12, 2013)

I've owned every version of this lens (1.8, 1.4, 1.2) and they are all worth the price you pay. The 1.2L does amazing work, but you also have to have a good command of the camera with such razor sharp DoF. I noticed a little backfocusing in low light, but it produces top-notch images 95% of the time.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jan 12, 2013)

All the photos except the bokeh photo are taken with the 50L. A little bias? But after owning the 1.8 Mrk 1, 1.4, and the 1.2L, I know the bias for the 1.2.

The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 12, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> There is absolutely no new information here that hasn't been presented before on The Digital Picture, et al. The bottom line is that if you shoot professionally wide open (>f/2), you'll want the 50L. Personally, I wouldn't turn one down if given one, but I do have the 50mm f/1.4 that works just fine.



+1... Sums up my view. I don't know why this review was dragged up again waving the f1.2 fan club flag. Way too much has been said already about this overrated lens. I sold mine and haven't looked back. Next!


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 12, 2013)

Matthew Saville said:


> Nikon has gone the opposite route: Both their f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm's are absolutely killer.


I haven't tried the Nikon 50/1.8, but the Nikon 50/1.4 is certainly not killer. It's ok, but the Canon 50/1.2 draws better. People look at the resolution numbers and seem to ignore the actual photographs. To judge a lens properly, you have to look at the photographs it makes. Resolution numbers can only tell you so much. The Canon 50/1.2 has a very beautiful way of drawing pictures, especially in the f/1.6 to f/2.5 range. I've gotten wonderful results from it that go beyond what the resolution numbers would tell me. In that aperture range, there is no issue with focus shift. And with the 5D3, focus is more reliable than with past camera bodies. It seems to me that the lens designers had a certain artistic look in mind, and they succeeded brilliantly. Sure, we all wish for a sharper 50, as good as the $4K Leica 50/1.4, but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities. And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.


----------



## drjlo (Jan 12, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.



I don't know about that, but despite all the bashing about its sharpness, according to Lensrentals testing, the 50L is the sharpest lens from f/1.2 to f/2.0 including alll Canon, Zeiss, Nikon, and Sigma 50mm choices. 

What I love about the 50L is how it retains such nice contrast and color below f/2.0, which is something my Canon 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4 could not do, not to mention the superior bokeh of 50L . 

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


----------



## Robert Welch (Jan 12, 2013)

I currently use a Canon 50/1.4 and am happy with it. But I am looking forward to trying the 50L 1.2 one day. The photos I've seen from it are indeed special, it strikes me that this lens is for those who want a certain feel to their photos, a unique quality that can't be delivered from just any lens. There are many 'sharp' lenses out there, but there are few than can take a photo which you can actually identify which lens was used. Not every photo taken with a 50L can be identified as such, obviously, but there are photos I've seen that have a quality which can be identified as having been taken with this lens (and such can be said for the 85L, as well as certain other lenses made by Lieca, Carl Zeiss and perhaps a few others). This quality from these images isn't something that can be measured on a graph, but only by the eye of the beholder. I've seen enough such images to convince me there is something special in these lenses, and while you can still take wonderful photos with other lenses, you can't take the exact same photo as you could with a lens like the 50L unless you use the 50L in such a way that you take advantage of it's unique qualities. It's not a general purpose lens, seems to me, the 50/1.4 would be better suited to that. But if you want to explore your creative potential with a single lens, the 50L is probably one of the better choices, seems to me.


----------



## Wilmark (Jan 12, 2013)

I too have found this lens to be disappointing. It is really a different beast. It is quite good for cinematic video. Unfortunately most of the reviews dont make these differences well known - that is the focus and CA issues.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 12, 2013)

> f/1.2 is so out of focus that your focus can be out of focus.



That's so true of this and the 85 1.2. I find both to be challenging beasts, even on my 5D MkIII, but when you nail a shot, it's so worth it. Also, I'm glad you mentioned the color and contrast - two items that always seem to get lost on "lens review" sites. The 50 has both in spades.

My only comment on the review itself is your bokeh comparison - why at f/7.1? I guess it's to show they are similar, but at f/2-4, they are very different...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 12, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> A very expensive lens for photographers with artistic ambitions.
> I myself used Vaseline on the filter 30 years ago and together with Hasselblad.
> The 50/1, 2 impresses many people,size and price, but the lens un-sharpness , focus shifts etc has never impressed me.



On most sites, it tests less sharp than the 50mm 1.4 once they are both stopped down just a little, much less sharp at the edges. It is still said to have a lot of LoCA/PF. If the 50mm 1.4 simply had a working, true ring USM AF motor, I wonder how many would even look at the 50mm 1.2.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 12, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities. And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.



The 50 1.4 from canon looks better there actually.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 12, 2013)

drjlo said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.
> ...



It is???



> What I love about the 50L is how it retains such nice contrast and color below f/2.0, which is something my Canon 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4 could not do, not to mention the superior bokeh of 50L .



this might be and might make it worthwhile

i'd be interested to see if it really does pan out like that


----------



## Cannon Man (Jan 12, 2013)

I have used the 50 1.2 for two years now and it is the only L lens that i have that seems outdated.
My TS-E 24mm II, 85mm 1.2 II and 135mm 2.0 are noticeably sharper and more reliable.

Even then it is on my camera half the time because i love the focal length and aperture.
All Leica 50mm lenses put the smackdown on the canon 50 1.2. That is why i am saving for the new Leica M with 50mm apo 50mm 2.0.

Please Canon update the 50mm to the level of your other better primes.


----------



## KyleSTL (Jan 12, 2013)

Sorry for the pedantic comment, but the bokeh of the 1.8 is pentagonal (five-sided), not hexagonal (six-sided). 

I do agree with the assessment that if Canon made a 1.4 with the build quality and wide-open image quality of the new 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm IS primes, the sales of the 1.2L would be greatly affected. I like my 1.8 v. I, but I'm always on the lookout for a deal on a used or broken 1.4 because of the wider aperture, better (not excellent, though) build quality, and USM (though not Ring-USM). Personally, I wouldn't consider the 1.2 for myself because of price alone, but the advantages over the 1.4 (build, weather sealing and Ring-USM) are obvious. The image quality and focus accuracy are debatable.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 12, 2013)

Love the 50L, worth every penny.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 12, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> I have used the 50 1.2 for two years now and it is the only L lens that i have that seems outdated.
> My TS-E 24mm II, 85mm 1.2 II and 135mm 2.0 are noticeably sharper and more reliable.
> 
> Even then it is on my camera half the time because i love the focal length and aperture.
> ...



+1 ... agreed.

At least part of the draw for some users is the snob value of the L lens, don't get excited if this is not the reason you like the f1.2. 

But to quote an earlier poster the only ones who complain "are those who can't afford it" ...without meaning anything personal, what a pathetic, snobbish thing to say... So something expensive, by default, HAS to be of high quality? is this the way to define oneself as being "better"?... If not, why would someone even vocalize such a thought? What does it say about you?

50L is a controversial L lens and for such a basic standard focal length, there should be no contention...it should be hailed as being stellar... this L lens has at best mixed reviews. If it works for you, great, but don't discount significant number of users who have owned it and passed on it. 

In spite of some who would pay 4 times more for the L's red ring and are appologizers for lens... Canon will quietly update it faster than the usual cycle... they know they cannot have half the potential market even having second thoughts.


----------



## Shermanstank (Jan 12, 2013)

One of my favorite L primes. I still shoot film both 35mm and medium format. The color rendition of this lens is spectacular. I really have no issues with misfocused shots since I always try to manually focus after recomposing the shot. 


Love this beast 





UNIONSQUAREMARKET#11 by TheShermansTank, on Flickr


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 12, 2013)

Shermanstank said:


> One of my favorite L primes. I still shoot film both 35mm and medium format. The color rendition of this lens is spectacular. I really have no issues with misfocused shots since I always try to manually focus after recomposing the shot.
> 
> 
> Love this beast



Why did you edit the original post to remove the attached picture?


----------



## Eli (Jan 12, 2013)

I love my 50L, my most favourite lens. When I had the 1.4 I'd never use it below f2.8, but with the 50L, shots you get with f1.2 are just magical and still retain a lot of contrast and colour, may take a few clicks of the shutter though. And not to mention the build quality feels amazing, the lens just feels "right" on my 5d mkiii, and weather sealed. I'm no professional photographer but all my lenses are weather sealed, I've been in situations where my gear has gotten quite wet and thankful for weather sealing.
The sharpness or "lack of" doesn't bother me either, I'm not printing large prints or using 100% crops of photos, and even if I was I'd just stop down to 2.8. Just because its an f1.2 doesn't mean you have to use it at 1.2 all the time, at 2.8 it's still an excellently sharp lens. But 1.2 is where the magic is, and that's why people buy the magical and appropriately named "King of BOKEH".


----------



## Marek Truchlik (Jan 12, 2013)

I have tried all Canon 50mm lenses.
I hope upgraded version will be born soon. 
I would love to add new extremely sharp L lens into my kit.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 12, 2013)

Really great shots, Standard.


----------



## rossbeckernz (Jan 12, 2013)

I have an FD50 f1.2L which I replaced the FD mount with an chipped EF mount & use it a lot on my 1D4 bodies.
It's a fabulous lens, very small, about the size of the EF50 f1.8. The FD 50L has a very long helicoid & so manual focusing is very precise.
Incidently I've also retrofitted an EF mount on a FD85 f1.2L which is also a fabulous lens. It's much bigger & heavier than the FD50L.





You can see photos of the conversion here (50L first then the 85L)
http://goo.gl/GVLnW
http://goo.gl/xsZzt


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 12, 2013)

Robert Welch said:


> But if you want to explore your creative potential with a single lens, the 50L is probably one of the better choices, seems to me.



I think you summed up my experience with the lens nicely. Being able to explore and play with Bokeh and depth of field to that degree is indeed a creative decision more than technical.


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 12, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> All the photos except the bokeh photo are taken with the 50L. A little bias?



The bias is that it's a review on the Canon 50mm f/1.2 L lens. And while I felt it important to show some level of comparison (the differences between lenses is often a question I ask myself), it wasn't a comparative review itself. Obviously, owning the 50 1.4, I have a FAR greater catalogue of images taken with it.


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 12, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> > My only comment on the review itself is your bokeh comparison - why at f/7.1? I guess it's to show they are similar, but at f/2-4, they are very different...
> 
> 
> 
> True true, I wanted to show the difference the aperture blades make, nothing more, I mention it's not a comment in the overall quality of the background, but, starting at around 7.1 you can see the shapes they make, and that could be an issue for some.


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 12, 2013)

Standard said:


> As for the review, I don't think much of it – neither accurate nor complete.



I don't know how my opinion can be inaccurate, incomplete for sure, story of my life - literally. Thanks for reading!


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 12, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> Sorry for the pedantic comment, but the bokeh of the 1.8 is pentagonal (five-sided), not hexagonal (six-sided).



No, thanks! I can't make the edit myself though, so I'll just sound more like a tool. :-X

One of my long time curiosities with the lens was will I upgrade from my 1.4? After 2 weeks with the 1.2 the answer is no - but I did *like* using it more than I do my 1.4, and maybe that counts for something?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jan 13, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> All the photos except the bokeh photo are taken with the 50L. A little bias? But after owning the 1.8 Mrk 1, 1.4, and the 1.2L, I know the bias for the 1.2.
> 
> The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.



+1...never own 1.8. But I did owned 1.4 and sold it. Bought the 50L, I mainly use this lens at 1.4.....Bokeh is super


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 13, 2013)

In the listing of Canon 50mm primes, the review fails to mention the f/2.5 compact macro. Sure it's a macro and slower than the others, but it's still a 50mm prime, and IMHO sharper and better built than the f/1.8. 

I hope that Canon releases a new f/1.4 with true ring USM sometime soon.


----------



## vscd (Jan 13, 2013)

Well there seem to be mixed opinions about this lens. I got one some time ago and sold it again... it was a nice lens for some special pics, but I didn't thought the price would benefit the results (f 1.2 is 36,11% more light than f1.4, only). The 85 f1.2 is magic all over it's range, but the 50mm 1.2 is rather poor. It's better than the 50mm 1.0, really... but no match to the Canonball or newer lenses from canon without "L"-designation (but sadly nearly the same pricetag).

There are drawbacks on the 85mm 1.2, f.e. you need power on the mount to manually focus the lens, no wheater sealing for the "L"-Lens, slow AF and the extending front isn't nice, eighter.

On the other Hand you pay nearly the same price for Carl Zeiss 50mm Lenses with *manual* focus but to say "you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results. I guess quite a few use the 50mm 1.2 on cropped sensors, only. So, the weak points are missing in the picture and hey, a 50mm lense is one of the simplest lens-calculations out there. I think Canon will bring a new 50mm 1.4 formula which will excell the old 50mm 1.2, easily. I think the disapearing of the old 50mm 1.4 is even anounced, yet. 

It's like everything, f.e. like a sportscar: you can pay 20000$ in extra for the 10 Horsepower S-Edition... but you could spend the money on a bike and get the same results but with a brighter smile on your face ;D


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 13, 2013)

JonAustin said:


> In the listing of Canon 50mm primes, the review fails to mention the f/2.5 compact macro. Sure it's a macro and slower than the others, but it's still a 50mm prime, and IMHO sharper and better built than the f/1.8.
> 
> I hope that Canon releases a new f/1.4 with true ring USM sometime soon.



True, I guess I was too sweeping with my statements in listing the lineup. I considered the lens, but omitted it knowing that it's not really in the same lens category. I try to keep the reviews from being too complicated (listing a MF Macro lens etc etc) but, not trying to be misleading.

I'd love for you to post more examples of your experience here if you'd like!


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 13, 2013)

vscd said:


> Well there seem to be mixed opinions about this lens...
> 
> There are drawbacks on the 85mm 1.2, f.e. you need power on the mount to manually focus the lens, no wheater sealing for the "L"-Lens, slow AF and the extending front isn't nice, eighter.
> 
> On the other Hand you pay nearly the same price for Carl Zeiss 50mm Lenses with *manual* focus but to say "you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results. I guess quite a few use the 50mm 1.2 on cropped sensors, only. So, the weak points are missing in the picture and hey, a 50mm lense is one of the simplest lens-calculations out there. I think Canon will bring a new 50mm 1.4 formuala which easily will excell the old 50mm 1.2, easily.



I agree with everything you said. I have an 85 1.2 review still in draft with similar sentiments.


----------



## vscd (Jan 13, 2013)

@JVLPhoto
If you like the 85mm 1.2 (and I love mine), you probably find this page interesting: http://www.gletscherbruch.de/foto/85er/objektiv.html. It's german, but you can translate it. It's some rare pictures of the Canon 85mm L 1.2 II from inside  The effort taken to move the heavy glaslenses is immense... on the 6th picture from the top you see some reflexes in the glass.... those reflexes are 72 (!) balls to hold one of the lenses because of it's own weight. 

Maybe the 50mm 1.2 has some complex parts, too, and the price is reasonable... but someone has really to pay 4 times the price for the last 1/3 stop he's never gonna use. The famous* 50mm f1.0 *is known to be much more worse and nearly unusable full open, but to dazzle around people pay $6000 and more on ebay. And I must admit, just to have one... luckily I have to pay my gear by myself. This is out of scope 

Edit: One good point on bright Canon-lenses is the posibility to close the aperture by 1/3 EV steps, mostly. Often the open aperture form 3rd PartyLenses (maybe a lense with max [email protected]) is followed by f2, then some half steps and from f4 on full steps etc...


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 13, 2013)

vscd said:


> "you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results.
> 
> It's like everything, f.e. like a sportscar: you can pay 20000$ in extra for the 10 Horsepower S-Edition...



+1 

I said the same thing about the comment that those who have issues with this lens do so because they "can't afford it". 

Though my 50L made some great shots, it was not something that hit the mark reliably...when I needed certainty, I was falling back on the simple f1.4... I eventually bit the bullet and sold it. I will not say it has no merit at all...it does. But, it is like dating a beautiful, but rather tempremental girl who has PMS at random times. If it works for you, awesome.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 13, 2013)

If you are desperate for this look on a budget, take a flier on a SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (or, if you are shooting full frame, try the SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8). Manual everything, of course, but the adapters are available for $10 and these lenses produce a lot of that unique character on a budget. 

For example:




Saturday Morning (In Honor of the Children) [Explored December 16th, 2012] by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr

In interest of full disclosure, however, while I have owned both the EF 50mm f/1.8 and f/1.4, I have not owned the 50L. I suspect that it superior to the Takumars in every way (other than size and build quality - those Takumars are close to bulletproof and beautifully manufactured). Difference being that you can get one of the Takumars + an adapter for typically less than $100 USD.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 13, 2013)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Saturday Morning (In Honor of the Children) [Explored December 16th, 2012] by Thousand Word Images by Dustin Abbott, on Flickr



Awesome.


----------



## Caps18 (Jan 13, 2013)

I want to see if Canon comes out with an updated 50L in the next year, but it is the last lens that I really 'want'.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 13, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > "you are jealous" if you can't afford one, is childish. I use a lens to make pictures and I can assure you there are a lot of lenses out there for small budget but with great specs. There is no need to pay hundreds of dollars for the red rings just because of fluorit glasses or metal case if you can't see the results.
> ...



I disagree I can afford the 50 f1.2 and the 85 f1.2 however i chose the sigma 85 f1.4 because on 5D bodies there is a significant AF speed difference and its a stunning lens
I chose the the canon 50f1.4 and also have the sigma 50f1.4 the canon is very compact and better to carry around when travelling, the sigma is bigger but IMO better than the 50 f1.2
however with the image quality coming out of canons latest generation lenses i am very keen to see what they do when they finally update the 50 f1.2L


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 13, 2013)

wickidwombat said:


> Ray2021 said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



You are misreading what I said...partly because of my phrasing...we agree (I think) that it is not the price that is the deciding factor. My point was that it is childish to claim that the critics of 50L are the ones that can't afford it (an earlier poster's comment, not mine). Price does not always dictate quality and it is lame to link them.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jan 13, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > Ray2021 said:
> ...



oh yeah, totally agree with that


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 13, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew Saville said:
> ...



The LensRentals "Shootout" provides a direct numerical comparison across brands. Photozone and SLRgear do not. So those links are not as helpful. Photozone states very explicitly "tests results are not comparable across the different systems!" and they emphasize that with an exclamation point. On SLRgear you have to compare the colors of the blur index charts (I didn't find their resolution numbers), but the blur charts seem consistent with LensRentals results: the Canon 50/1.2 looks a bit sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss 50/1.4 lenses.


----------



## Shane1.4 (Jan 13, 2013)

I too sold my 50L and went back to the 1.4. The CA on my copy was the deal breaker. I sent it in to Canon and they didnt do anything. I hope they update the whole 50mm line very soon.


----------



## infared (Jan 13, 2013)

Justin...for all of the hits you are taking here, about this review, I just want to say to you how GREAT and REFRESHING your reviews are!
You give us "real-world" reviews off the cuff AND you back up your take on whatever you are reviewing with SOLID photography...(many reviewers do not have that ability!).
The thing is...when you give us your input, I listen to what you have to say because your images give you credibility...so I listen when you talk. If people want a super-analytical, technical review from some dweeb who can't shoot...let them go elsewhere. Your discussions are relaxed, intelligent and informative.
Just keep doing what you are doing...You have brought new life to this website and I for one am enjoying your presentations here.


----------



## raiveeson (Jan 13, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> All the photos except the bokeh photo are taken with the 50L. A little bias? But after owning the 1.8 Mrk 1, 1.4, and the 1.2L, I know the bias for the 1.2.
> 
> The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.


\\

ACTUALLY, I think you are correct..PEOPLE DO THE SAME WITH 85mmL and 100L Macro... The images are sharp in both versions..But it is more about the coating and and color reproduction..

JAY RAIVEESON


----------



## christianronnel (Jan 13, 2013)

@JVLphoto: I always enjoy your lens reviews. You've convinced me to spend the extra money to get the 24-70II. This review for the 50L is another great review. Definitely made me not want to get one.




Matthew Saville said:


> I'm sorry but, the only reason the 50 1.2 is so highly regarded is because Canon intentionally leaves the 50 1.4 as such a piece of crap. It is a classic "entice to upgrade" tactic.


I think you've raised a good point. Why has Canon left the 50mm f1.4 alone for such a long time. It's been one of their most popular lens, one would think it would receive an upgrade sooner than any other lens. Unless they really think it's still good enough.




Daniel Flather said:


> The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.


I think this comment is a little juvenile, no?




mackguyver said:


> ...My only comment on the review itself is your bokeh comparison - why at f/7.1? I guess it's to show they are similar, but at f/2-4, they are very different...


I was wondering the same thing. It would be nice to see the bokeh differences between each lenses before f2.8.




LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities. And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.
> ...


I agree. 50 1.4 look better from this shoot-out.




Standard said:


> It's a stellar lens for me. Nothing bad to say about it. As for the review, I don't think much of it – neither accurate nor complete.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow. You make a good counter argument. My experience with the 50 f1.4 is that it's unusable until stopped down passed f2, it's not sharp and the purple fringing is really annoying. The only reason I'm keeping it is to train myself for composition. I would like to get a better lens but with lots of negative reviews with what's out there, I chose to wait and see if Canon would update this dinosaur. Both the 1.2 and the 1.4.

But with images like yours, maybe I should try it out for myself.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 13, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities. And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.
> ...


That's true, but just a tiny bit. The point is that the Canon 50/1.2 is sharper than the 50/1.4 lenses from Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss (unless you stop down to f/4), so it's not an unsharp lens and not the dog that some people make it out to be. 

While the Canon 50/1.4 may deliver on sharpness, it doesn't quite deliver the look of the 50/1.2 at wide apertures, and the AF is not as reliable.


----------



## AudioGlenn (Jan 13, 2013)

well... i want one....and currently cannot afford it! haha 

the comment regarding those who cannot "afford" it was....well... not nice

that said, I sold my EF 50mm f/1.4 after I got my 24-70 2.8 II. I really liked the (50mm) lens at 2.8 and smaller apertures but it didn't look that great at wider apertures so I figured, if I was gonna stop down to use that focal length, it was defeating the purposes of having a fast prime. I'll save up for the 50 1.2L and use the 24-70 in the meantime.


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 13, 2013)

infared said:


> Justin...for all of the hits you are taking here, about this review, I just want to say to you how GREAT and REFRESHING your reviews are!
> You give us "real-world" reviews off the cuff AND you back up your take on whatever you are reviewing with SOLID photography...(many reviewers do not have that ability!).
> The thing is...when you give us your input, I listen to what you have to say because your images give you credibility...so I listen when you talk. If people want a super-analytical, technical review from some dweeb who can't shoot...let them go elsewhere. Your discussions are relaxed, intelligent and informative.
> Just keep doing what you are doing...You have brought new life to this website and I for one am enjoying your presentations here.



Thank you! You just made my morning


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 13, 2013)

christianronnel said:


> @JVLphoto: I always enjoy your lens reviews. You've convinced me to spend the extra money to get the 24-70II. This review for the 50L is another great review. Definitely made me not want to get one...
> 
> My experience with the 50 f1.4 is that it's unusable until stopped down passed f2, it's not sharp and the purple fringing is really annoying. The only reason I'm keeping it is to train myself for composition. I would like to get a better lens but with lots of negative reviews with what's out there, I chose to wait and see if Canon would update this dinosaur. Both the 1.2 and the 1.4.
> 
> But with images like yours, maybe I should try it out for myself.



Interesting thing was I found using the 50 1.2 a bit more pleasurable in feel and use, but it gave me a newfound appreciation for my 1.4 as well. I use it at f/2.0 and find that a perfect sweet spot for me. It's one of Canon's oldest lenses now, and I can see it updated (maybe with IS like a lot of others in the line?), but with that comes a significant price bump.


----------



## infared (Jan 13, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Justin...for all of the hits you are taking here, about this review, I just want to say to you how GREAT and REFRESHING your reviews are!
> ...



That being said...I use the Sigma f/1.4. LOL! Great for my needs. I have mostly L Glass...but I just didn't see the benefit for my shooting needs to spend more than twice as much for the L (I put the Sigma ahead of the Canon f/1.4 for "image look and feel" and bokeh...also build quality...so the Sigma is priced right) ...I have the Canon 85mm f.1.2L when I need the ultimate in sharpness and bokeh...so I think I have it covered.
Great review for the Canon f/1.2, though! Great lens....but your review also reaffirms my 50mm prime choice.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 13, 2013)

Justin, keep the reviews coming. When you put yourself out there, you always open yourself up for criticism. But by doing so, you also make your opinion matter. I too enjoy the strong photographs that accompany your reviews; many reviewers take pictures of the same boring things every time. I can understanding the need for consistency as a baseline between lens, but in my opinion you don't use all lenses the same. A lens like this is going to be shot in a more creative, artistic fashion - demonstrating that capability is more important than shooting a chart. Thanks for the taking the time!


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 13, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



You've provided 3 links so far, and _none_ of your links provides a direct comparison of the Canon 50/1.2 lens to any other lens. Not one. The LensRentals Shootout does. It's easy to maintain that something is a "myth" without any direct comparison. Sharpness is not the selling point of this lens, but its sharpness tests very well when there is a _direct_ comparison to other fast lenses. LensRentals shows this. The blur charts on SLRGear also show this if you bring them up side by side:


----------



## LukieLauXD (Jan 13, 2013)

> I'm sorry but, the only reason the 50 1.2 is so highly regarded is because Canon intentionally leaves the 50 1.4 as such a piece of crap. It is a classic "entice to upgrade" tactic.



I loved my 50 1.4 :[ I'm a 12th grader, so when I started photography, my dad gave me the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 (both of which were amazing taking pictures at the school play I went to last night) and I thought that for the price, the 50 1.4 is a really great lens.

I think the assumption that the 50 1.2 is highly regarded reflects over the entire L-prime lines and not only the 50. Ignoring the fact that it costs a kidney. T_T


----------



## KyleSTL (Jan 13, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry for the pedantic comment, but the bokeh of the 1.8 is pentagonal (five-sided), not hexagonal (six-sided).
> ...



Sorry, I'm an engineer, that's kind of how we roll. I didn't mean it as an insult or anything. I did enjoy reading your review on the lens, and I think everyone's experience with it is valid, and personal to some level. Keep the reviews coming, and I will continue to read and enjoy what is written. Thanks again for sharing.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 13, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > Justin...for all of the hits you are taking here, about this review, I just want to say to you how GREAT and REFRESHING your reviews are!
> ...



Yes, keep the reviews coming. 

And as an aside, with this particular lens you have to at least be "seen" as being even-handed in your review, which you clearly were. 

If you hadn't, the 50L cult would have run you over with their trophy Hummers getting 3 miles per gallon. So, really smart call. ;D


----------



## Matthew Saville (Jan 13, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> Sorry for the pedantic comment, but the bokeh of the 1.8 is pentagonal (five-sided), not hexagonal (six-sided).
> 
> I do agree with the assessment that if Canon made a 1.4 with the build quality and wide-open image quality of the new 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm IS primes, the sales of the 1.2L would be greatly affected. I like my 1.8 v. I, but I'm always on the lookout for a deal on a used or broken 1.4 because of the wider aperture, better (not excellent, though) build quality, and USM (though not Ring-USM). Personally, I wouldn't consider the 1.2 for myself because of price alone, but the advantages over the 1.4 (build, weather sealing and Ring-USM) are obvious. The image quality and focus accuracy are debatable.


THANK YOU! Finally someone understands that I'm not just trying to be a Nikon troll, I'm trying to push Canon in a better direction with their more affordable offerings. I'm not saying that the Canon 50 1.2 isn't the queen of bokeh. (The 85 1.2 being king, of course) I'm just saying that Canon intentionally leaves their 1.4 at sub-par performance levels on purpose.

Canon could EASILY make a 50 1.4 with gorgeous bokeh and rugged build quality. Sigma has already proven that this is possible for ~$500. So my point is, if build quality and overall image rendition were identical, how many of you would still pay an extra ~$1,000 if the only difference was the 1/2 (?) of a stop? Very, very few. And Canon knows this. That is why they haven't updated their 50 1.4. That is why Canon users should stop praising the 50 L and start asking for better glass across the board, down to even the affordable beginner lenses.

=Matt=


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 13, 2013)

Matthew Saville said:


> I'm just saying that Canon intentionally leaves their 1.4 at sub-par performance levels on purpose.



They do ... until they don't. Canon has been upgrading their small primes. It's just a matter of time before the 50/1.4 gets upgraded. But an upgrade also means a price increase. Not just because they can, but also because better products generally cost more to build. Lenses are built for a price point. You want better optics — better bokeh, better AF, better durability, better close focus performance, better color, better flare resistance, etc. — every improvement adds to the cost. Your wish for a lens with _identical_ "build quality and overall image rendition" won't happen for $500. Sigma didn't achieve that (although their 50 may be very fine).


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 13, 2013)

Standard said:


> > I don't know how my opinion can be inaccurate, incomplete for sure, story of my life - literally. Thanks for reading!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough, and you don't have to appologize, just as my "review" reflects my brief experience your opinion doesn't mean I hold you responsible for its strengths and weaknesses. I agree, it's a tool, and not easily quantified over a short period of time. As I build these "reviews" I also can't afford to own all the lenses. Some I do, some I don't. Some I have for a short period and they blow me away, some don't.

I'm sure the review you are looking for is out there, though I do appreciate you taking the time out to have a look at my words. I checked out your images and see you've put your lenses to great use, especially the 135 f/2 it seems.

I think there are other people, like me, who won't ever get a chance to use the lens unless they purchase it - a significant purchase no matter the use - and my brief experience may help them make a decision either way (a few people want it no matter what my experience is, especially with a more artistic flare). I believe a "fair" shake on a top-of-the-line lens should reveal,itself Immediately. It did with the 24-70 f/2.8 l II, it certainly did with the 200mm f/2.0 L IS, and it did on the 50 1.2. It's a well built lens, top of its class, with some quirks that many people won't like. My opinion, but one no less valid than your own experience.

Thanks for sharing your images, again, they help complete the review in ways I can not.


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 13, 2013)

Matthew Saville said:


> KyleSTL said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry for the pedantic comment, but the bokeh of the 1.8 is pentagonal (five-sided), not hexagonal (six-sided).
> ...



I don't build lenses, but I think more should be expected as you say, people would pay twice what the L costs now, just make it amazing - it's really the only qualification. (It's basically a 1/3 stop... Nobody should care, ISO's are getting so good nowadays). I hope to get a copy of Sigma's 35 1.4, this is a line that interests me as true competition may be the only thing to make Canon shake things up a bit.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 13, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



I don't know what three different tests you're referring to. LensRentals shows the Canon 50/1.2 and 50/1.4 as very close in resolution, and SLRGear shows the 50/1.2 as better. Since you brought up SLRGear, let's look at their results, first with the 50/1.2 at 1.2 and next with both lenses at 1.4.


----------



## AmbientLight (Jan 13, 2013)

According to the test data shown the f1.4 results go often into that red zone, while the f1.2 lens delivers nicely in that deep blue zone, which I believe is supposed to suggest reasonable resolution. Do you believe those charts to be showing the f1.4 to deliver far better resolution than the f1.2 lens? Do you also believe that the corners are consistently better than resolution at the center? I truly have difficulties matching what you describe with the results Zlatko posted. 

Attached you can find a sample shot I took last December in Zurich. This is an f5.6 shot, so not even close to the apertures this lens is typically used for. Nevertheless I am not able to blame the lens for being soft in the corners or anything, so I think this lens has its uses beyond the more typical shallow depth of field shots.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 14, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> I can now ad a fourth test of 50/1.2.
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
> compare Canon 50/1.2 and 50/1,4 f-stop by f-stop
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
> ...



The Digital Picture results look much like LensRentals' results, which showed that the two Canon 50s are very close in resolution. Depending on whether you look at center, mid or corner, each outperforms the other at various apertures.

Lenstip's results also look roughly consistent with LensRentals' results: the two Canon 50s are very close in resolution, with one edging out the other depending on where you look. Which is better at which aperture may come down to sample variation.

Let's look at the LenRentals table: the resolution top score bounces back and forth between the two Canon 50s, depending on the aperture and depending on whether you look at the center or the average. Both of them out-resolve the other brands _except for Leica_ and except when you get to f/4 where the Zeiss 50/1.4 takes the lead at center. But even at f/4 both Canon 50s out-resolve the Zeiss on average.

Photozone is the only anomaly, showing the Canon 50/1.2 as much worse than the Canon 50/1.4. I don't know why their results are so different.


----------



## Matthew Saville (Jan 14, 2013)

JVLphoto said:


> I don't build lenses, but I think more should be expected as you say, people would pay twice what the L costs now, just make it amazing - it's really the only qualification. (It's basically a 1/3 stop... Nobody should care, ISO's are getting so good nowadays). I hope to get a copy of Sigma's 35 1.4, this is a line that interests me as true competition may be the only thing to make Canon shake things up a bit.



I just tested the Sigma 35 1.4 today, and it is indeed the new 35mm king. Absolutely flawless sharpness, gorgeous bokeh, and built like a tank. I'd love to own one!

=Matt=


----------



## r2lau (Jan 14, 2013)

I think what hasn't been discussed here is the poor quality control from Canon on the 1.2L. I had to return a new 1.2L lens to B&H because of back focusing. Read else where that this is extremely common with the 1.2L. I think the 50mm line from Canon really needs a refresh.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 14, 2013)

The 50 f1.2 L is a good lens, just not a great lens. Optically, it's not much better than the 50mm f1.4 in terms of sharpness. But it's contrast is usable wide open, which the 50mm f1.4 needs a lot of post prod to correct....milky is the word I'd use for the 50mm f1.4...and fragile. It's not a professional grade lens and it's not built for the riggors of pro use. I've used a 50mm f1.4 until it fell apart and then I bought a 50L to replace it. It's bigger, heavier, better contrast, brighter (by a bit) and flares a lot less. It's weather sealed and can take a knock or two. But and here's the big "but", it should be sharper than this and in my opinion of using all of Canon's primes professionally, it's the softest of all the L primes and the weakest performer. As a consequence, it's the least used lens in my inventory...which is a pity. It's the best 50mm currently made, but it's far from perfect. It works well in a 24mm / 50mm / 100mm Macro three lens combo....but I prefer a 16-35 / 35mm / 85mm combo.


----------



## DigiAngel (Jan 14, 2013)

MTF figures are one thing, optical quality in real photos is another story. the f1.2 is not razor sharp at 1.2, but you can happily use it for portraits etc. when there is no need to pixelpeep. it has nice colors and contrast even wide open.

the 1.4 on the other hand produces horrible halos around bright subjects wide open, theres are distinct lack in contrast and colors and the bokeh is just ugly. you dont see that in test charts, but you see it on real pictures under real natural light. 

but true, the 50 1.2 is the worst L and not worth its price, but if you want usable pictures on f1.2/1.4 and the sigma 50 1.4 is not an option: you simply have to buy it. end of story.


----------



## birtembuk (Jan 14, 2013)

DigiAngel said:


> MTF figures are one thing, optical quality in real photos is another story. the f1.2 is not razor sharp at 1.2, but you can happily use it for portraits etc. when there is no need to pixelpeep. it has nice colors and contrast even wide open.



I applaud to that !!! Emphasis is always on sharpness while it's only part of the equation of what makes a picture dull or stand out with an oomph. This refers to something like the personality or character of the glass. I'd call it the lens mojo. In fact, lots and lots of most real-life pictures are not that sharp because many factors are involved during the take. Some incredibly beautiful pictures are not that sharp, or even have been softened a bit. I don't think my mother in law would like a post-sharpened picture taken with the 85/II at f/5.6. I value contrast, color, depth, texture much more than sharpness. And discussion/opinions/rankings on the real personality of lenses is always a very elusive piece of information to skim from most reviewers.


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 14, 2013)

Standard said:


> For the record, when I first used the lens, I wasn't able to get the clarity I wanted, but after some rethinking, researching, and relearning how to shoot and focus correctly, I rarely get a soft image...and if I do, it's always user's error.



Absolutely, as I mention in my review, a lot has to do with how someone wants to achieve results, and I (in particular) am not very well suited to shooting wide-open.


----------



## tortilla (Jan 14, 2013)

Standard said:


> I'm just gonna make one last attempt to help balance the review by posting the test image I'd taken last year, then I'll look away from this thread.



I've seen this image before, a couple of months ago. It really impressed me, and it still does.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 14, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> You can obviously not interpret lenstip measurement , lenstip figures first and then photozone . Read Imagin-Resource test where they thought the lens was faulty. se Turners report.



Let's summarize. You say 50/1.4 has better resolution. DigiAngel's bicycle photos above (thank you!) show us the reality.

You say 50/1.4 is sharper overall and you cite the Lenstip tests. The Lenstip tests show that it depends on the aperture. For example, if you look at the centers (red), the 50/1.4 is better at f/1.4, and the 50/1.2 is better at f/2, and both lenses are equal at f/2.8, and the 50/1.4 is better at f/4. This back and forth lead is similar to what was found by LensRentals. It seems you took most of the blue (edge) dots out of the 50/1.2 chart from Lenstip, but I presume the blue dots mean the same edge point on both charts. There again, which is better depends on the aperture.

You asked me to look at Imaging Resource but your link is to SLRGear (?), so I clipped SLRGear's blur charts which show the 50/1.2 as distinctly better at f/1.4. The lower, darker and flatter the blur chart, the better the resolution, and the 50/1.2 lens definitely shows a better blur chart at f/1.4 and f/2; by f/2.8 they are comparable. SLRGear was disappointed with the 50/1.2 lens based on its price, but they did say (in their "Tanner Report") that "It's blur profile is somewhat better than that of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide open". Looking at the blur charts, there is no question about that.

You link to The Digital Picture (TDP), but their charts show that which is better depends on where you look and which aperture. For example, at f/1.8, the 50/1.2 shows a better center and mid-frame, but a worse corner. At f/1.8, I would rather shoot the 50/1.2 lens than the 50/1.4 lens. TDP's results supports this.

You dismissed the LensRentals test results as "wrong". Well, just dismissing test results doesn't help your argument about the "myth", especially when their results are similar to those on Lenstip, TDP and SLRGear.

I'll grant you that Photozone's test shows the 50/1.4 as much better than the 50/1.2; that stands out as the anomaly among all of these sources. Of all the sources you cited, this one supports your point.


----------



## Studio1930 (Jan 14, 2013)

Daniel Flather said:


> The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.



That is not true. I can easily afford it. I bought it I used it. I returned it. The focus shift issue was the reason I returned it. I don't care how sharp or not sharp a lens is if I cannot focus it accurately. For me, this lens was not usable. For others who use it differently and don't experience the focus shift issues, it might be a great lens.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 14, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> _" DigiAngel's bicycle photos above (thank you!) show us the reality."_
> 
> What reality is that? He mentioned three lenses and has two images, neither are labeled. We don't know the lens used, the aperture used, the camera used, if the image is cropped, how they were processed etc etc.
> 
> Certainly if the left hand image is a full frame image from the Canon f1.4 wide open then it is in stark contrast to my experiences with the lens. Further, he mentions the Canon 1.4 as having horrible bokeh, if you crop just the backgrounds of those two images they are so close as to make no real world difference.



DigiAngel please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the bicycle image on the left shows how the 50/1.4 looks wide open. The halation is consistent with my experience. The 50/1.4 is a fine lens when stopped down, lovely at f/2.8 and great at f/4.


----------



## drjlo (Jan 14, 2013)

Studio1930 said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.
> ...



Do you remember the date code on that 50L and on which camera body? Reading through the large amount of user reviews out there, one gets the feeling Canon changed *something* with the 50L in the last couple/few years without official announcement, either some sort of hardware/firmware change or maybe even change/tightening of QC. People with the latest batch of 50L and camera bodies seem much happier than before, e.g. I am very happy with sharpness and focusing of 2011 50L + 5D MkIII combo, with -3 lens microadjustment.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 14, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



I've addressed all of the test results, especially in my previous reply to you. I won't keep repeating myself. I've tried to keep this discussion factual, discussing the various tests. You seem intent on condescension and I won't reply to that.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 14, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> It is not much to own to that price, it is only ( and now Im using the word uninformed people) who think 50/1,2 is something special. good luck and Elvis is still alive, live in Motala Sweden



Had all the canon 50mm's, and the 50L is the best performing from F1.2-2.8. Its fantastic.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 14, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> I've addressed all of the test results



Thanks for that from me, this thread has been very interesting concerning the 50L real world performance - though that doesn't change the fact that most people seem think it's overpriced even if it can be a good tool at wider apertures.


----------



## DigiAngel (Jan 14, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > _" DigiAngel's bicycle photos above (thank you!) show us the reality."_
> ...



sorry i thought the pictures itself would make it clear. the left one with the bad halos is the 50 1.4 @1.4, the right one is the 50 1.2 @1.4. even if you count slight focus variations in, you can see how bad the 50 1.4 handles this situation. both pictures are 100% crops slightly off-center from an 5D II image, just converted via adobe acr, no corrections or lens profile used.


----------



## DigiAngel (Jan 14, 2013)

man the forum ate my posting...

and again -.-

okay third and last try: your image is an f4. there is nothing wrong with the lens from f2....f2.8 and up, it might be even better then the L at those apertures. it just has that severe lack of contrast and bad halation wide open. i used several copies over the years and everyone behaved the same, so i rule out a defective lens. its just and old design.

as for the rubbish bokeh: its a well known fact that it can produce very harsh backgrounds. i once did a comparision between the canon 1.4 and the sigma 1.4, see attachments. the 1.2 L tends to be as good, or better then the sigma, depending on the situation. sometimes its very creamy, sometimes much harsher then f.e. the 85 1.8 USM - but its easily much better then the 50 1.4 

6017 is the sigma, 6018 the canon..obviously


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Jan 14, 2013)

With a video background, while relearning stills, I have to say that the 5DII- 1.2L combo is $ in the bank. Also, very nice for my deserted streets at 4 AM/PM folio. And, it is good to see the word "pedantic", one of my favorites, get some press.


----------



## erwinwang (Jan 14, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...




I respect all results fm these sites(good or bad)but there is one major factor ignored among your argument with Zlatko-SHOOTING DISTANCE. pls be noted lensrental results base on a 15feet distance while PZ is around 2feet(to my recall).They are all TRUE, but just different angles rendering the same picture -50L is amazingly good in resolution when shooting beyond 4feet , while incredibly nasty within 2feet.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 14, 2013)

erwinwang said:


> I respect all results fm these sites(good or bad)but there is one major factor ignored among your argument with Zlatko-SHOOTING DISTANCE. pls be noted lensrental results base on a 15feet distance while PZ is around 2feet(to my recall).They are all TRUE, but just different angles rendering the same picture -50L is amazingly good in resolution when shooting beyond 4feet , while incredibly nasty within 2feet.


That may explain the difference. Thank you! I hope PZ is not testing at 2 feet because that is very close.


----------



## erwinwang (Jan 14, 2013)

actually 50L is the only reason I still got a 5D Mark2,meanwhile my only 35system glass left . portraits using this glass wide open have been enlarged to 3feet and resolution is not a problem at all. color /contrast /rendering are all superb.focusing is a problem coz the shallow DOF, yet not a big one to me. but just bear in mind :NEVER ever use it like a macro lens.


----------



## marinien (Jan 14, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Which one of your four links compare the bokeh of the 50 f/1.2 to the 50 f/1.4 @f/2?
Mikael, bokeh may be irrelevant to you, because you prefer take photos of flat scenes, e.g. test charts, I GOT it!
When I looked at the comparison of background blur @f/2.8 of the three EF50mm f/1.2, f/1.4 and f/1.8 in your first link http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx , I know without doubt which one is my favourite


----------



## BrettS (Jan 14, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> *again- who are talking or discussing bokeh?*. I are answering about the *resolution test-NOTHING ELSE*
> Why are you people dragging in another parameters?
> Shall we also discuss anomalies like coma, CA, focus shift or whatever?
> *Read now the 4 links I have provided and make a own assumption about how good the 50/1,2 are* compared to 50/1,4 from Canon



Indeed. I have read and I see the advantages of the 50 f/1.2L. You have stirred me into renting a 50 f/1.2L with a mind to purchasing if I like it's qualities.



Mikael Risedal said:


> *50/1.2 are a expensive, overrated lens compare to 50/1,4.*



A very absolute statement in conflict with both the reviews, and your opening paragraph (above). Perhaps you should have stated: 

_*"50/1.2 are a expensive, overrated lens compare to a 50/1,4 in terms of resolution test-NOTHING ELSE."*_ 

Having read the reviews, I would have to disagree with your absolute statement.


----------



## erwinwang (Jan 15, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> And how are you Interpret or explain photozone and lenstip resolution test? In the middle and borders/edge?
> AND it is only resolution I am discussing , read back
> What do you se at f-2.0 and up to 5,6 ???????
> I think we have some different experiences of testing lenses and look at the results, I my self have only 30 years of experience, from 18x24 9x12 6x7 6x6 24x36 and APS lenses
> ...


*Object distance*,man.always remember the *object distance*.

Close target imatest results are just unfair to wide-angle/ultra large aperture or any non-macro lenses that produce large amount of corner fall off and field curvature.But in field situation you probably will never meet conditions demand exactly flat focus plane performance in very close distance.And obviously that is not what fifties designed for.

Resolution is not a problem shooting objects beyond4 to 5 feet.Though not razor sharp,but very rich details.Sharpness *doesn't* equals to resolution.Detail contrast affects much on sharpness,which can be easily solved using any sharpening filter.


----------



## erwinwang (Jan 15, 2013)

Here is some more 100% screen crops wide open in original raw on Lightroom4.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 15, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Don't need to. My experience in using the equipment has proved to me the value of the 50L.


----------



## erwinwang (Jan 15, 2013)

Sharpness is not everything.(for sure 50L is not lack of capable here )

The magic about this glass is how it handles harsh light condition,how it renders the colors in such a amazing tone and the elegant gradation of DOF.That combines a impression of a photography.Never a audience will praise your work because it is razor sharp,especially girls your shot .Solely struggling on sharpness is really childish for any photographer other than equipment fan.

Just treat it like a price-smart version of Noctilux.


----------



## erwinwang (Jan 15, 2013)

All in all 50L is not short in any aspect to be a fine 50mm lens.

Worth every penny.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 15, 2013)

erwinwang said:


> Just treat it like a price-smart version of Noctilux.


Yes! You've got the right idea. A price-smart version of the Noctilux ... and with autofocus!  

Thanks for the photo samples!


----------



## RuneL (Jan 15, 2013)

I don't get why people claim you can't do anything but art at f 1.2. I've done several things solely at 1.2 that were published and were definitely not art but reportage and features and portraits and sports. 

I love it when the fous is spot on and hate it too because it's so expensive and the build quality isn't exactly good.


----------



## mrmarks (Jan 15, 2013)

erwinwang, thanks for the beautiful shots and sharing your views. As a user of 50L and 50f1.4, I can't agree more to your views.


----------



## caruser (Jan 15, 2013)

mrmarks said:


> erwinwang, thanks for the beautiful shots and sharing your views. As a user of 50L and 50f1.4, I can't agree more to your views.



Does that mean you have both of them? And, if yes, any deeper reason than simply not (yet) having sold the old one after upgrading?


----------



## mrmarks (Jan 15, 2013)

I sold the f1.4 some time after getting the f1.2.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 15, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > erwinwang said:
> ...



I don't know about the display cabinet, but the Canon 50/1.2 does very well in the hands of Sebastião Salgado, David Burnett, Paolo Pellegrin, Mario Sorrenti, Denis Reggie and Pete Souza, among others.


----------



## erwinwang (Jan 15, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > Zlatko said:
> ...


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 16, 2013)

Anyone else notice the focal jump between the 50L and 50 1.4?
The 50mm f1.4 is longer than the 50L. By my eyes, the 50L is pretty spot on to 50mm, but the 50 1.4 is closer to 60mm....maybe 58mm?


----------



## BrettS (Jan 16, 2013)

Zlatko said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > Zlatko said:
> ...



+1


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 17, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Zlatko
> 
> You have rejected four recognized test sites results concerning 50/1.2 and resolution compared to 50/1,4.
> Then you have have mixed up the results from
> ...



The center is better on the 50L and there is less haze in shots i've taken from the 50L vs the 1.4.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 17, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> As you can se, 50/1,2 are less sharp than 50/1.4 at F-1,4



You have to select the 2nd 50L sample, the first one is a "bad copy":

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



RLPhoto said:


> The center is better on the 50L and there is less haze in shots i've taken from the 50L vs the 1.4.



Somehow the intra-Canon dogfight between the 50L and the old and rather crappy 50/1.4 seems a little strange to me, if there is a cheaper alternative it'd be the Sigma:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=1&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=473&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 17, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Mikael Risedal said:
> ...



Nah, Look at the diagonal lines mid-frame on the 50L @ F/2, It has better contrast. Its the same story up to F/2.8.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 17, 2013)

Did you even look at the lines? ??? Its pretty obvious.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 17, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Did you even look at the lines? ??? Its pretty obvious.
> ...



I guess you didn't get the memo. :-X


----------



## wayno (Jan 17, 2013)

Agree with the above. Mine's decently sharp at 1.4 too.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 17, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Mikael Risedal said:
> 
> 
> > As you can se, 50/1,2 are less sharp than 50/1.4 at F-1,4
> ...



Thanks for that link. Yes, the second copy is better than the first. TDP shows that at f/1.4 and at f/2, the 50/1.2 lens is better at center and worse at corners. In that aperture range, I would rather shoot the 50/1.2 lens than the 50/1.4 lens as the center is more important than the corners. Strangely, the SLRGear blur charts show the 50/1.4 to be much worse in the corners at f/1.4.


----------



## Zlatko (Jan 17, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> Zlatko
> 
> You have rejected four recognized test sites results concerning 50/1.2 and resolution compared to 50/1,4.



I haven't rejected any of the test sites. I discussed all of them (several times). Photozone is the only one that supports your view that the 50/1.4 offers better resolution overall. The others show the the better resolution depends on the aperture and the part of the frame. As someone mentioned above, perhaps Photozone is testing at a closer distance than the other sites (?).


----------



## mrmarks (Jan 17, 2013)

FWIW, here's a comparison done in 2006 with a 5D body between the f1.2 and f1.4 http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm


----------



## JVLphoto (Jan 17, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> One day one of you guys will actually take some photos
> 
> _"...... and the old and rather crappy 50/1.4......."_
> 
> ...



Well put!


----------



## Marsu42 (Jan 17, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> One day one of you guys will actually take some photos
> _"...... and the old and rather crappy 50/1.4......."_



Actually I was refering to the micro usm on the lens which I found annoying when I tried it (as a potential replacement for my 50/1.8). Btw I am not a big fan of the "get out and shoot" reasoning to prove a point - all discussed gear is ok to good and of course good shots can be taken with it, that doesn't prevent me from looking at the rather minor differences anyway when deciding what to buy.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 18, 2013)

It seems to me that there are two distinct camps here and this is only my interpretation of the previous three pages. There's the group who have bought a very expensive lens (50L) and are justifying it's merits (there are many but not with sharpness) with viggor and there are those who have the 50mm f1.4, a vastly cheaper model and they are generally more aggressive in their arguments and think that most 50L owners are crazy fools who buy kit because they like the red ring. 
I have to say that I have owned two 50mm f1.4 lenses. One broke after a few years, it literally fell apart and the other I sold when i bought my 50L. The 50L is a vastly superior product. It feels a lot nicer to use, the AF ring feels quality and it's more usable and refined. The sharpness for an L lens is very disappointing and I nearly sent my copy back to the shop because I was shocked at how weak it was compared to my other primes. But it does have more contrast, wide open the files need minimal post processing. The flare is a lot less too. But it's so much more robust in it's construction. I've had mine for 5 years and it's never missed a beat...but it's not a lens I'd call "sharp". It's a reliable workhorse, but not Canon's finest.
I would never criticize a photographer for their choice in kit, it's a personal decision based around cost and features. No two people need the same kit. But I wonder if there is a bit of gear envy which goes on with this lens choice.
I just wish Canon would hurry up and make a better 50L, one which we can all be proud of. I think a 50mm f1.8 IS would be a great idea too.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 19, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> It seems to me that there are two distinct camps here and this is only my interpretation of the previous three pages. There's the group who have bought a very expensive lens (50L) and are justifying it's merits (there are many but not with sharpness) with viggor and there are those who have the 50mm f1.4, a vastly cheaper model and they are generally more aggressive in their arguments and think that most 50L owners are crazy fools who buy kit because they like the red ring.
> I have to say that I have owned two 50mm f1.4 lenses. One broke after a few years, it literally fell apart and the other I sold when i bought my 50L. The 50L is a vastly superior product. It feels a lot nicer to use, the AF ring feels quality and it's more usable and refined. The sharpness for an L lens is very disappointing and I nearly sent my copy back to the shop because I was shocked at how weak it was compared to my other primes. But it does have more contrast, wide open the files need minimal post processing. The flare is a lot less too. But it's so much more robust in it's construction. I've had mine for 5 years and it's never missed a beat...but it's not a lens I'd call "sharp". It's a reliable workhorse, but not Canon's finest.
> I would never criticize a photographer for their choice in kit, it's a personal decision based around cost and features. No two people need the same kit. But I wonder if there is a bit of gear envy which goes on with this lens choice.
> I just wish Canon would hurry up and make a better 50L, one which we can all be proud of. I think a 50mm f1.8 IS would be a great idea too.



I don't think it's gear envy for me. I could afford and purchased the 50L. I also tried a copy of the 50 f/1.4 at the same time. I shot many photos and sold the 50L and kep the 1.4. At the apertures I shoot, it is sharper. Period. I don't care much about build quality, I care about IQ of the photos. Plus, I can break 2 of them, buying a total of 3 50 f/1.4's for what the price of a single 50L cost back then. The 50L is hands down Canon's weakest L lens and the reason I dispute it so heavily is not to persuade others, but I guess because deep down I am so disappointed with Canon regarding this lens. Consider the 135L. It's much cheaper, but much, much better. I don't think anyone is a crazy fool for purchasing the lens at all. I do think, however, that some buy it just because it's an L lens, but you know what, that's their personal decision and none of my business.


----------



## MartinAchatzi (Jan 25, 2013)

well, it is a very special lens. And it should be used with a tripod. Don`t laugh....but the field of depth at 1.2 is soooooo small.....Just a little move by model or photographer...and your point of focus has gone...
Sorry for my bad old school english


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 26, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> MartinAchatzi said:
> 
> 
> > well, it is a very special lens. And it should be used with a tripod. Don`t laugh....but the field of depth at 1.2 is soooooo small.....Just a little move by model or photographer...and your point of focus has gone...
> ...



Test charts don't impress everyone.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 26, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Test charts don't impress everyone.
> ...



Especially test charts images shot @ 1.2.


----------



## BrettS (Jan 26, 2013)

Mikael Risedal said:


> [...]
> *50/1,2 is a highly overrated lens for the price and when it comes to over all resolution/sharpness*-and that is what Im discussing
> NOTHING ELSE if you read back.



It's exceedingly difficult to "read back" with clarity when you keep going back and editing all your posts.


----------



## iso79 (Jan 31, 2013)

Such an overrated lens! ;D


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 4, 2013)

iso79 said:


> Such an overrated lens! ;D



In your opinion. 
Some users find it's output very simular to the vastly more expensive (and manual focus only) Lecia noctilux 50mm. Some lenses are more that their sharpness charts.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 18, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > Such an overrated lens! ;D
> ...


I couldn't agree more. Once you dial in the AF Microadjustment, this is a killer lens, CA, corner softness, close focus issues and all. I've recently been using it for panoramics (@ f/11-16) and the low distortion is a huge plus over my 24-70 II. But the real joy of this lens is the f/1.2-2 range, where it's color, contrast, and DOF are amazing. I liked my 50 f/1.4, but I LOVE my f/1.2.


----------



## Crapking (Jul 18, 2013)

PRVX0323 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture f/1.6
Focal Length 50 mm (1.2L)
ISO Speed 2000

Sharp - check
Colors / Contrast - check
Bokeh (pleasing ?) - check


----------



## vscd (Jul 24, 2013)

f1.6? Show us samples with f1.2... this picture could've been taken with a 50mm f1.4, too. We want to justify the 50mmL 1.2 ;D


----------



## JVLphoto (Jul 24, 2013)

vscd said:


> f1.6? Show us samples with f1.2... this picture could've been taken with a 50mm f1.4, too. We want to justify the 50mmL 1.2 ;D



It's hard to justify, that's the whole point I think - but build, and optics are *there* just not worth it for everyone. Read: People who aren't rich.


----------



## vscd (Jul 24, 2013)

JVLphoto
You're right, but at f1.2 we would see even more CA's or LA's and less sharpness. Something which Canon made right with the 85L 1.2, but missed on the 50mm. I hope there will be a better Version somehow... but anyway, I'm over the 50mm perspective. After all those years I really don't like it anymore. Maybe the pictures are just to boring for me, I don't know. I'm totally confirmed to 35mm now and never regreted it. I guess the Nikon Guys are also gone to 35mm 1.4. The new standardprime


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 26, 2013)

vscd said:


> JVLphoto
> You're right, but at f1.2 we would see even more CA's or LA's and less sharpness. Something which Canon made right with the 85L 1.2, but missed on the 50mm. I hope there will be a better Version somehow... but anyway, I'm over the 50mm perspective. After all those years I really don't like it anymore. Maybe the pictures are just to boring for me, I don't know. I'm totally confirmed to 35mm now and never regreted it. I guess the Nikon Guys are also gone to 35mm 1.4. The new standardprime


To each his own...but some of us love the lens.


----------



## BozillaNZ (Jul 26, 2013)

Yeah, the whole reason why most of us hate the 50L because of the existance of the 85L


----------



## vscd (Jul 26, 2013)

>To each his own

You should learn history.

You can love the lense, like I do love my 85L, but that doesn't mean it's worth it's price...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 26, 2013)

I wouldn't say the 85L is better, but its certainly sharper.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 26, 2013)

vscd said:


> >To each his own
> 
> You should learn history.
> 
> You can love the lense, like I do love my 85L, but that doesn't mean it's worth it's price...



...and you should learn tact.

I don't remember saying "according to his ability" but thanks for the insult. I don't remember saying it was worth it's price, either, but whatever. If you love your 85, find a thread to tell everybody about how much you love it instead of wasting your time "hating" this lens. It has flaws, but so does the 85 f/1.2 and EVERY other lens. There is no perfect lens.


----------



## Fotofanten (Jul 26, 2013)

I've used quite a few 50's, including the Canon ones (excluding the f/2.5 macro), the "Sigmalux", Oly OM 3.5 macro, Zeiss f/2 ZM, Rokkor, and every single one of them has been very different both in output and in use. The Sigma is really very great when it hits, but AF is so utterly unreliable that you can never rely on it at large apertures, even after proper calibration. That is a shame because the optics are very good. Even so, I still prefer the 50L even if it is not necessarily sharper than the Sigma at 1.4. Not everything can be easily quantified. The Zeiss was excellent, but I simply did not like the way it rendered. It was too "clinical". I find the 50L is amazing in every way: bokeh, color, contrast, build, weather sealing, reliable af, and most importantly, I really love its overall dreamy yet punchy signature. If you measure the value of lenses in sharpness only, then no, it is not worth it's asking price. However it's plenty sharp for my use, even wide open (in the centre).


----------



## vscd (Jul 28, 2013)

>...and you should learn tact.

I learned, did you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedem_das_Seine

Now you again.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 29, 2013)

vscd said:


> >...and you should learn tact.
> 
> I learned, did you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedem_das_Seine
> 
> Now you again.


Okay, point taken, I wasn't aware of that usage of the phrase.


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 26, 2013)

To put a more positive spin on this review - and justify my re-purchase of this lens, I wanted to post the link below that demonstrates the advantages of the 50 f/1.2L that don't necessarily show up in test charts:
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/50mm/test_us.htm
To my eyes, the 1.2 has superior contrast at all apertures.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 27, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> To put a more positive spin on this review - and justify my re-purchase of this lens, I wanted to post the link below that demonstrates the advantages of the 50 f/1.2L that don't necessarily show up in test charts:
> http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/50mm/test_us.htm
> To my eyes, the 1.2 has superior contrast at all apertures.



It's a curious lens...you have re-bought one and I'm about to sell mine...lol.
It kind of reminds me how many times i've bought and sold and re-bought fisheye lenses....


----------



## mackguyver (Dec 27, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > To put a more positive spin on this review - and justify my re-purchase of this lens, I wanted to post the link below that demonstrates the advantages of the 50 f/1.2L that don't necessarily show up in test charts:
> ...


LOL - yes, it was the one lens I regretted selling. I began to realize that even if I don't shoot events much anymore, there are still plenty of times when f/2.8 just doesn't cut it for me in terms of letting in enough light or giving me shallow enough DOF. I also think it's about the perfect travel lens - well maybe it and my 24 f/1.4 II. They're both small and allow me to shoot anywhere with natural light.


----------



## clartephoto (Jan 1, 2014)

This is a great lens and easily as sharp and well behaved as the 35L and 85LII, both of which I have.

I always get tack sharp results with this lens - the reason I think is because I am a pixel peeper and I blame my gear rather than my technique. Consequently I have this lens perfectly calibrated, and know its strengths and weaknesses.

This lens has 1 major flaw - which is that it is extremely soft <2m away or so. I think that's why it scores so badly in some tests than others.

I am an extreme pixel peeper, but honestly, a competently captured photograph using the 24II,35L,50L or 85LII are all virtually the same sharpness wide open.

Great lens.

I also disagree about f/1.2 being thin DOF - it's not that thin - I take group photos at f/1.2 as per below:

Examples all wide open at f/1.2:
1.






2.





3.


----------



## Vossie (Jan 1, 2014)

Wow Clarte, does images are superb. 

The first one just breaths seduction.




clartephoto said:


> This is a great lens and easily as sharp and well behaved as the 35L and 85LII, both of which I have.
> 
> I always get tack sharp results with this lens - the reason I think is because I am a pixel peeper and I blame my gear rather than my technique. Consequently I have this lens perfectly calibrated, and know its strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> ...


----------



## Click (Jan 1, 2014)

Beautiful images clartephoto. I love the first one.

...Welcome to CR


----------



## leGreve (Jan 1, 2014)

clartephoto said:


> This is a great lens and easily as sharp and well behaved as the 35L and 85LII, both of which I have.
> 
> I always get tack sharp results with this lens - the reason I think is because I am a pixel peeper and I blame my gear rather than my technique. Consequently I have this lens perfectly calibrated, and know its strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> ...



Considering you're a pixel peeper you should give zeiss otus a chance. It will most likely blow every lense you have out of the water...


----------



## Click (Jan 1, 2014)

Well, Vossie and I have the same point of view, we love the first one ... But I respect your opinion. 

Welcome to CR 



ETA: The post from Kalle Anka is gone.


----------



## silvestography (Jan 1, 2014)

Beautiful shots! Your editing style is similar to mine - I'm assuming you're cutting off the blackest of blacks with the tone curve to give your images that faded look. I love the look of it and I'm also a bit of a pixel peeper, but that technique does kill some microcontrast in the shadows, so you're losing out a little bit on whatever sharpness is there. I guess it's just a reality we have to live with. Cheers.



clartephoto said:


> This is a great lens and easily as sharp and well behaved as the 35L and 85LII, both of which I have.
> 
> I always get tack sharp results with this lens - the reason I think is because I am a pixel peeper and I blame my gear rather than my technique. Consequently I have this lens perfectly calibrated, and know its strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ruined (Jan 1, 2014)

I got one of these recently also, new.

As discussed endlessly elsewhere and as I expected, using spyder lenscal I can confirm it does backfocus when you are within ~1.5m of the target and not wide open using center point focus. Canon could have avoided the whole backfocus controversy by increasing MFD, but it is nice to be able to shoot close & wide open. If they increased MFD, you would lose that option. So, I think it is better just to know the lens limitation and shoot accordingly. Sort of how you wouldn't bring an 85mm f/1.2L to a sporting event due to the slow focusing, if you are going to take close ups with the 50 make sure you are wide open (or sometimes using outside AF point works).

But, otherwise I have really enjoyed this lens. It has a special look to it, and the 50mm focal length is huge for indoor events in particular, as in my opinion for indoor events 35 a bit too wide, 85 a bit too narrow.

So, while I can see this lens does have a learning curve and is not for someone who just wants to point-and-shoot without worrying, I think it does bring something special to the table.


----------



## clartephoto (Jan 2, 2014)

Thanks for the welcome guys and thanks for the kind words 

silvestography: Yeah I desaturate the image slightly, kinda like this:
http://www.meetup.com/Photo-Workshops-Melbourne/pages/Photo_Tip_of_the_Month_%28August_2013%29
I agree there is a loss of microcontrast, though I find that also helps slightly soften any harshness in the lighting on the faces



Kalle Anka said:


> I do not agree. These images could just as well be taken with any 50mm lens, nothing magic at all with them except the color handling, there are a blue cast in the group image which can be seen in the costume and hair.
> Sorry, not impressed at all



Hi Kalle, any colour casts are entirely my fault, not the fault of the lens - the colour is mostly affected by WB choices in Post Production - not the lens.

RE: lack of magic, unfortunately I'm not good enough with Photoshop to produce any "magical" images - my compositing skills are quite limited, all my images are edited for colour and gentle retouch only.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 2, 2014)

clartephoto, those are great shots, and beware the trolls  If all of our photos looked the same, it would be pretty boring. 

After shooting with my new 50, I am so glad to have the lens again! I knew it was a mistake to sell it, and I'm so happy to have it back in my stable.


----------



## weko (Jan 2, 2014)

Click said:


> Beautiful images clartephoto. I love the first one.
> 
> ...Welcome to CR



+1


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Jan 3, 2014)

weko said:


> Click said:
> 
> 
> > Beautiful images clartephoto. I love the first one.
> ...



+2 however you wanted to interpret the colors is of artistic value, something most of these pixel peepers don't have. Keep on shooting.


----------



## telemaq76 (Jan 16, 2014)

the first picture i post on this forum, i just registered, i own a 50L, true it is expensive, true it s not the sharpness but models don t like sharpness . it s good to have a lens not that sharp than the others to create differents pictures.




lina par telemaq76, sur Flickr


----------



## Vossie (Jan 16, 2014)

telemaq76 said:


> the first picture i post on this forum, i just registered, i own a 50L, true it is expensive, true it s not the sharpness but models don t like sharpness . it s good to have a lens not that sharp than the others to create differents pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great shot! Welcome to CR.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 17, 2014)

telemaq76 said:


> the first picture i post on this forum, i just registered, i own a 50L, true it is expensive, true it s not the sharpness but models don t like sharpness . it s good to have a lens not that sharp than the others to create differents pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your point is valid, although I would personally rather have the latitude of reducing sharpness rather than trying to add it. The 50L clear has beautiful "drawing" that gives images a very pleasing (and professional) look. Add to that the great delineation (separation of your subject) from the image that gives a fabulous 3 dimensional effect and that equals a very special image. It is the latter that makes images from the 135L so special.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 28, 2014)

This lens demonstrate that Canon could fit a 50mm 1.4L lens inbetween the 50mm f1.2L and the 50mm f1.4 trouble is it would likely kill the f1.2L lens.


----------



## willchao (Apr 3, 2014)

clartephoto said:


> This is a great lens and easily as sharp and well behaved as the 35L and 85LII, both of which I have.
> 
> I always get tack sharp results with this lens - the reason I think is because I am a pixel peeper and I blame my gear rather than my technique. Consequently I have this lens perfectly calibrated, and know its strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> ...



Awesome images clarte! I still find it a bit soft for my own uses, I'll wait for Sigma 50 1.4!


----------



## flanderscamera (Jul 29, 2015)

The review made me drag out my lens again, and give it another shot for a while.

After 3K of shots over the last few weeks, the result is still the same - it's an overpriced POS. 
It's faster than the 1.8, looks imprsessive, but the IQ still sux. Focus is still iffy, and don't take it out during a hurricane.

If I was a Canon board member, this lens's existance would embarrass me.

Justin: Start with the best image quality you can produce - then modify in Post. When you start with an inferior image it's just going to wind up different - not better. 

BTW: There is no such thing as "drawing". Canon doesn't manufacture crayons.


----------

