# Review: Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 13, 2015)

```
Sometimes it’s nice to get a new perspective on an older lens. The EF 50mm f/1.2L might be one of the most polarizing lenses in the Canon lineup, some can’t live without it, while others wish it never existed. The contrasting opinions of the lens are usually because of the focus shift that some photographers experience with it. Certain shooting styles make the issue more prevalent for some.</p>
<p>Friend of the site Dustin Abbott has completed his thorough review of one of my favourite lenses in the Canon lineup. I love the EF 50mm f/1.2L as well as the EF 50mm f/1.0L. I think I just have a fetish for fast 50’s!</p>
<p>Dustin has this to say about the 50L when compared to the competition:</p>
<blockquote><p>The biggest threat to the Canon 50L has been the release of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART lens. TheZeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 (review coming next week) remains the class leader since its introduction, but its dizzying price (nearly $4000) and lack of AF means that it will stay off most photographer’s radar. The Sigma, however, has image quality that charts much better than the 50L’s along with autofocus, although it can struggle with focus accuracy and consistency. It also retails for about a third less than the 50L (which retails for $1450 when not on sale). You can read my review of the Sigma here. Is it the better lens? It is certainly sharper and has better contrast, but I’m not convinced that it has as “magical” a drawing/look as the 50L.</p></blockquote>
<p>I agree with most of what Dustin says in his review and I’d recommend the EF 50mm f/1.2L to anyone.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://dustinabbott.net/2015/05/canon-ef-50mm-f1-2l-usm-review/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/457680-USA/Canon_1257B002AA_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_2L.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
```


----------



## YuengLinger (May 14, 2015)

Dustin, nice images for the review, images which add much to your already strong credibility as a photographer; however, most of what I read is a rehash of the controversy that has surrounded this lens for years.

I don't own the lens. I've never tried it. I don't need to buy a car that has bad reviews from reliable sources. With the 50 L, from the preponderance of published evidence, and especially the mostly disappointing images available on Flickr, I decided not to get it. I'm happy with the 135 and the 85L. Furthermore, I am friends with a hard working wedding photographer who works on high-end projects, generally in the $10k per event range, and I trust her opinion: The 50mm L is not reliable enough for her business, and so she owns instead the 50mm 1.4, which she puts to great use for detail shots and storytelling shots between key moments of weddings. Anecdotal? Absolutely, but from someone I know personally, somebody whose work and business approach is outstanding.

As you say, ironically, "Opinions are cheap on the internet..." Oh, yeah.

If I'm coming across as a bit aggravated, you are correct, and that is because your essay seems less a review than a critique, in fact, a put down, of those who have complained about problems with the lens, clearly implying that they don't have taste, craft, or vision. Why do the other Canon primes not generate so many complaints?

I'm patiently and eagerly waiting for a new version of this lens. Hopefully it will address the focus shift issue which eluded you. While the current 50L can produce "dreamy" images, its flaws, for many competent and creative photographers, outweigh its few advantages over its peers.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 14, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>I agree with most of what Dustin says in his review and I’d recommend the EF 50mm f/1.2L to anyone.</p>





YuengLinger said:


> If I'm coming across as a bit aggravated, you are correct, and that is because your essay seems less a review than a critique, in fact, a put down, of those who have complained about problems with the lens, clearly implying that they don't have taste, craft, or vision. Why do the other Canon primes not generate so many complaints?
> 
> I'm patiently and eagerly waiting for a new version of this lens. Hopefully it will address the focus shift issue which eluded you. While the current 50L can produce "dreamy" images, its flaws, for many competent and creative photographers, outweigh its few advantages over its peers.



And that may be why I started my review by saying that the 50L is a polarizing lens.


----------



## drjlo (May 14, 2015)

This is a nice balanced look at the "polarizing" 50L. I have the 35L, 50L, 85L II, and 135L, and they each have their unique charming qualities even within the fast prime niche. 

I do believe the quality of AF improved somewhere along the 50L's production, with much less of the front-focusing issue for later year productions. The next Canon's 50L will most certainly be sharper, becoming more like the more modern 50 mm lenses like Sigma, but it will also mean it will lose its signature look and "draw."


----------



## YuengLinger (May 14, 2015)

You are, Dustin, without a doubt, a provocative gentleman.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 14, 2015)

I can't speak for 50ART. However, 50L truly has that "magical" looks. I had owned this lens for 1.5yrs. I don't recall I ever used anything smaller than f1.6.

It was replaced by 85L II at the end 8)


----------



## Travelintrevor (May 14, 2015)

The anecdotal internet opinions aka "gospel" almost kept me form buying the 50L. When I did, I tried to find fault with it and even had myself convinced that the plastic fantastic was just as good. It was my wife that talked me into keeping it and once I was over my anti-GAS, I re-evaluated the lens. It is the sharpest prime I own and it is my go-to lens for the processional(s), vows, etc.

I even compared it to the 50mm ART and this is what I found: 

The 50L is 2/3 brighter at the same f stop down to around 2.8 or so. In other words, when both lenses were at 1.4, the Canon shot needed to have exposure decreased by 0.66 in LR to have the histograms match. All settings were manual and light was controlled for. 

Wide open to 2.0, sharpness was the same in the center but the Sigma was the winner in the corners. Hands down. Once at 2.0, they were evenly matched.

The 50L focused better and nailed the subject with more consistency. 

Bokeh is very close but the Sigma had a few "funky" spots here and there. 

Future compatibility is a non-issue with the 50L. I am now actually regretting owning a few Tamron lenses since they don't work with my 7D MK II (live view) and will end up selling them due to non compatibility. 

Having said all that, I could not fault anyone for buying the Sigma because of the amazing price and performance. I got my 50L brand new for $1250 during a sale and a $250 Canon credit card promo. I could sell it and still make money! 

I'll try to throw some photos on a blog type post that were taken with the 50L and then post the link here but time is a precious item these days...

Regards...and happy shooting!

RC


----------



## jdramirez (May 14, 2015)

I lost my introductory dictionary... What is focus shift and does it affect zooms differently than primes?


----------



## LukasS (May 14, 2015)

Never used Sigma's 50 ART, but also neither regretted buying and owning 50L. My first prime was Canons' 50/1.4 but due to mechanical problems (i.e. AF gave up twice) I decided one day to get 1.2.

As I'm thinking about it, the 50/1.4 was the prime that swayed me to using and owning more and more primes, so I'm grateful for both those lenses .


----------



## zlatko (May 14, 2015)

This is such an excellent review! Well written and beautifully illustrated. The 50L is one of my favorite lenses and this review describes it perfectly.

Looking forward to Dustin's review of the new 50/1.8 STM!


----------



## eninja (May 14, 2015)

Wow nice review. - wow in the context that it is the same as from my experience.
50L they say, not good at AF. But I didn't experience any bad AF at all.
AF nails on my 6D, well according to my expectation.
Focus shift, I am not to keen to observe that, for me, there is no such thing as exact in this world.

Just want to note, 50L af does not work on my 70D, who knows why.
AF goes crazy on my 70D, crazy means, there is no confirm pattern how did it got to focus (the wrong focus) on my testing.


----------



## candc (May 14, 2015)

I don't use the focal length much but I love the 50l. It was designed with spherical aberration. Its like a really great guitar amp in that its valued by how it colors the tone. Plus its the coolest looking 50 there is!

Mine is one of the newer ones. I haven't had any focus problems with it.


----------



## meywd (May 14, 2015)

Thanks for the review Dustin, I really like the 50mm lenses, and I plan on upgrading from the nifty fifty when the budget allows, the Otus is the dream, and you confirmed it more with this review, as I want more bokeh as well as more sharpness, and currently the Sigma Art is the top choice, unless I win the lottery ;D, however you say that the rokinon is close to the 50L, though ofc its manual, and at its current price its tempting to get it as a practice for when I get the Otus, and I want a sharp lens, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is a really amazing lens in that regard, though I have very shaky hands, still I get super sharp images from it, however the real issue is, I am leaning toward the 85L, since you used it, which do you think is the better portrait lens, the 85L vs (50L, 50 Art, Rokinon 50, Otus 55)?, from what I have read, many consider the 85L as the top priority, but isn't the 70-200 enough?


----------



## jdramirez (May 14, 2015)

meywd said:


> Thanks for the review Dustin, I really like the 50mm lenses, and I plan on upgrading from the nifty fifty when the budget allows, the Otus is the dream, and you confirmed it more with this review, as I want more bokeh as well as more sharpness, and currently the Sigma Art is the top choice, unless I win the lottery ;D, however you say that the rokinon is close to the 50L, though ofc its manual, and at its current price its tempting to get it as a practice for when I get the Otus, and I want a sharp lens, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is a really amazing lens in that regard, though I have very shaky hands, still I get super sharp images from it, however the real issue is, I am leaning toward the 85L, since you used it, which do you think is the better portrait lens, the 85L vs (50L, 50 Art, Rokinon 50, Otus 55)?, from what I have read, many consider the 85L as the top priority, but isn't the 70-200 enough?



I love my 85L mkii, but but the dof is so razor thin, so when I shoot at f/1.2, I'll occasionally get one eye in focus... and the other eye is just outside of the dof... it's fine when looking at small images... but larger prints...


----------



## tcphoto (May 14, 2015)

I have owned every Canon version of the 50mm lenses and have owned the 50L for a year and a half. I may have tried using it wide open but any error was usually on the operators side. I find that it has been on my 1Ds3 almost exclusively when shooting for clients and response when shooting tethered to an Apple 27" display has been nothing but positive. I haven't used the Sigma lens but I'm pretty happy with what I own.


----------



## ihendy (May 14, 2015)

Hi Dustin,

This is the best and most accurate review I've seen yet for the 50 1.2L I held off buying this lens for years as I had the 35/85/135 combo and I too believed the internet hype, so I stuck with my 50 1.4. I love the 50 mm focal length, but felt I could not justify the cost of this lens. Well I managed to get a second hand copy for a fairly decent price and having used the lens for a couple of months now, I wish I had not waited so long. 

Your review is spot on. There is just something about the lens that can't be measured in charts. It has to be shot, it has to be felt. Great Review Dustin


----------



## jdramirez (May 14, 2015)

tcphoto said:


> I have owned every Canon version of the 50mm lenses and have owned the 50L for a year and a half. I may have tried using it wide open but any error was usually on the operators side. I find that it has been on my 1Ds3 almost exclusively when shooting for clients and response when shooting tethered to an Apple 27" display has been nothing but positive. I haven't used the Sigma lens but I'm pretty happy with what I own.



I go live view... frame the shot... move the box to the eye... make sure both eyes are in the plane of focus, go to x10, and then I look at the catch light from the ambient light to get it right in focus... then I snap away... try at least.


----------



## eninja (May 14, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> tcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I have owned every Canon version of the 50mm lenses and have owned the 50L for a year and a half. I may have tried using it wide open but any error was usually on the operators side. I find that it has been on my 1Ds3 almost exclusively when shooting for clients and response when shooting tethered to an Apple 27" display has been nothing but positive. I haven't used the Sigma lens but I'm pretty happy with what I own.
> ...



Don't you wish while zooming in live view, only a small part of it zooms that way we can still see whole composition?

I also use face recognition from time to time, I believe face recognition also targets the eye.
I wish 6D mark ii got DPAF.


----------



## jdramirez (May 14, 2015)

eninja said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > tcphoto said:
> ...



Actually, I would really like an evf, so I could zoom in the way I do now and feel comfortable doing so. But I wouldn't mind a picture and picture type of deal where the overall composition is maybe 20% opacity.


----------



## iShootCandid (May 14, 2015)

Hi,

I'm a long-time reader but for the first time I've decided it's worth to write something because this is about my favourite lens. Actually I sold any other lenses I had after I bought this one. There is no reason to have more than one lens, right? 

I really liked the review and can agree with most things Dustin pointed out but I got two comments. First of all, I also use it on Canon 6D so it's easy to compare my experience with AF to Dustin's. So basically my copy is excellent when used with central AF point. The accuracy is very high and the consistency is also quite high. The situation changes dramatically with outer points: I don't trust them while I shoot at f/1.2 or close to this value. At f/2.8 they're alright but wider it seems to be hit or miss, especially in f/1.2 - f/2.0 range. Dustin mentioned he didn't observe the infamous focus shift quite often reported for this lens. Well, it is there but in most circumstances you won't notice it. I shoot in conditions when it's becoming visible (for instance portraits from very close distances) especially around f/2.8 but I quickly learned how to live with it. BTW, it's still more manageable than AF inconsistency of Sigma 50mm Art

The second comment is about the image quality. I think the sharpness is good enough. For me the lens is quite sharp at f/1.2, very sharp around f/2.2 and extremely sharp at f/2.8 and beyond. The overall contrast isn't very high but that's a good start for post processing. I got quite a few portraits taken with this lens (often at f/1.2) and I believe they're extremely sharp, just take a look: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ishootcandid/ There is a lot of complaining about sharpness and image quality of this lens but if this images aren't sharp just tell me what is! 

So, I love the lens, I love shooting with 50mm and this is all need to go out and create the images I like.


----------



## geekpower (May 14, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> I lost my introductory dictionary... What is focus shift and does it affect zooms differently than primes?



focus shift is when stopping down the aperture changes the focus distance. since autofocus is done wide open, shooting not wide open can cause some front focusing. there comes a point where stopping down enough creates a depth of field wide enough to keep the subject in focus even when the actual focus is shifted.

in my experience with the 50L, there is some shift between 1.4 and 2.5, but it is really only visible when shooting close to the minimum focus distance, and even then the shift is minimal, a few mm. at normal portrait distances the dof is wide enough to mask the problem.

i don't own the 24-70 f/4 but there are reports it has focus shift as well, so it is not something that is specific to primes. look up "residual spherical aberrations" once you locate your dictionary.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 14, 2015)

These days, there's a lot of technical photographers...who have a great handle on the technical aspects of camera and lens construction....but so far are artists...crafting art and narrative out of light and darkness. 

I liked my 50mm f1.2L, it is more like a lecia noctulux than any other Canon lens. But there is it's problem. It's and art lens and not a sharp lens. I've had every 50mm that canon has made on the ef format. What I've learned is that I'm not a great 50mm user. Others find great art in this focal range...I don't. I've tried and tried...it's just not my mojo. I get far more joy out of my 35mm f1.4L and 85mm f1.2 IIL. 

In my view, the 50L is a flawed masterpiece. It's frustrating and difficult to use in a professional context compared with other lens offerings. It's a lens which is both talented and troubling at the same time.

I still think that the Canon 50mm f1.2L lens is the finest 50mm lens currently available. Sure it's not a "sharp L" lens, but it's adequate. It's got accurate AF, it's built like a tank. It's flare resistance is excellent and it's contrast and colour rendition are amazing. But it's best feature is it's imbued imagery....some pay a lot of money for "that" look in lecia glass...it's ironic that us Canon users tend to gloss over it's talents and concentrate on it's shortcomings.


----------



## roby17269 (May 14, 2015)

I agree with the gist of the review. It is a great lens when used properly and it makes sense when used wide open or thereabouts...
A few comments:
* Mine become "better" as I went from a 5D mkII to a 1D X - I think the camera AF is to praise / blame
* While I do like the image quality it delivers, I do not used much as 50mm is a bit nor fish nor flesh on FF for me - I use the 85L much more
* Regardless, I still lust over the 55mm Otus or even a used 50mm f/1.0L ;D
* Still disagreeing with people praising the 50mm f/1.4: perhaps I had a bad copy, but mine was even softer and finickier at focussing than my 1.2L (with the caveat that I did not try it on my 1D X since it was sold before I got the camera)
* I like the images on the review


----------



## meywd (May 14, 2015)

eninja said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > tcphoto said:
> ...



There is the Magic Zoom feature in MagicLantern, it does just that.


----------



## Sporgon (May 14, 2015)

Around 50 mil is definitely my most used focal length and I enjoyed reading the review that isn't based around chart results. 

The beautiful landscape shot of the island in the lake looked pretty good right to the very extreme corners to me, certainly a world apart from the dreadful edges we see on chart tests, even at smaller apertures. Am I not right in saying that field curvature at close and flat (chart) distances will make the corners look worse than they really are in practice ?


----------



## Berowne (May 14, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> ...
> But it's best feature is it's imbued imagery....some pay a lot of money for "that" look in lecia glass...it's ironic that us Canon users tend to gloss over it's talents and concentrate on it's shortcomings.



This is correct and remember that each of the three Noctilux are _realy_ expensive. People who use it consistently report, that they are difficult to handle, wich is also true for the Leica-R 1.4/80. But you must not necessarily spend a lot of money. There are also some fast Nikon and Minolta-Lenses wich may be more affordable and produce nice Bokeh. In every case the photographer has to be much more careful to get good results. 

Greetings Andy


----------



## Berowne (May 14, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> ...
> The beautiful landscape shot of the island in the lake looked pretty good right to the very extreme corners to me, certainly a world apart from the dreadful edges we see on chart tests, even at smaller apertures. Am I not right in saying that field curvature at close and flat (chart) distances will make the corners look worse than they really are in practice ?



This may be the reason for the bad Chart-Test-Results. Usually _every_ well centered 50mm-Prime will be equally sharp at infinity and f 5.6. This relies on the "Doppel-Gauss"-Construction. Difference only come at wide apertures and closer distances.


----------



## wockawocka (May 14, 2015)

First thing I thought when I saw this was 'Why is a review of an 8 year old lens on the homepage of Canon Rumors'?

Cynical I know, sorry.


----------



## meywd (May 14, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the review Dustin, I really like the 50mm lenses, and I plan on upgrading from the nifty fifty when the budget allows, the Otus is the dream, and you confirmed it more with this review, as I want more bokeh as well as more sharpness, and currently the Sigma Art is the top choice, unless I win the lottery ;D, however you say that the rokinon is close to the 50L, though ofc its manual, and at its current price its tempting to get it as a practice for when I get the Otus, and I want a sharp lens, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is a really amazing lens in that regard, though I have very shaky hands, still I get super sharp images from it, however the real issue is, I am leaning toward the 85L, since you used it, which do you think is the better portrait lens, the 85L vs (50L, 50 Art, Rokinon 50, Otus 55)?, from what I have read, many consider the 85L as the top priority, but isn't the 70-200 enough?
> ...



Yeah I heard of that, and I know it will make some photos look soft, if not positioned well, and you get that even with the 70-200 @ f2.8, actually the dof with the 200 is less, but of course the framing is a lot different.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 14, 2015)

iShootCandid said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm a long-time reader but for the first time I've decided it's worth to write something because this is about my favourite lens. Actually I sold any other lenses I had after I bought this one. There is no reason to have more than one lens, right?
> 
> ...



Wonderful photos, and a testament to the ability to use the lens properly and get excellent results. Great lighting in almost all the shots, and a knowing touch with the processing. 

To those who fear losing the "magic" of the lens, some of the signature "drawing," should a new version with a floating element and no focus-shift boogeyman, I simply ask, Why? Why couldn't Canon keep the best features and correct the ones that have caused so much doubt over performance during crunch time?

Instead of berating photographers who mention focus charts (even in ignorance), listen to the ones who need a consistent keeper rate. Apparently Canon has, if they are actually preparing a version II.

But Dustin's article has prompted me to take another look at images available on the Web, and I admit I see the allure of the lens which might prompt owners to scorn those who have trouble with various aspects. The past six months, since I last looked, there are many better images on flickr (instead of the cats, streetlamps, and bad landscapes I've seen so often). And the article did prompt many owners to sing its praises.

I say if the faulty : version is so interesting, bring on the corrected one, the Holy Grail of 50mm lens lovers!


----------



## bp (May 14, 2015)

I've owned the 50L and also own the 85L II. I ended up selling the 50. Infuriating focus shift aside, to me, it's a great thumbnail lens: most shots taken with the lens look fantastic as thumbnails, but on closer inspection are not even close to sharp enough to justify its price tag. Any pixel peeping reveals a halo of fuzz around everything, even in the area that is "in focus".

The 85L II on the other hand is worth every penny. IMHO


----------



## HighLowISO (May 14, 2015)

I always wanted the 50mm f/1.2 mainly because I like the 50mm focal length for photographing smaller objects and some details. I got caught in the trap of waiting for an update, but recently found the Sigma at a nice discount and I'm happy so far (I've only had it for a couple weeks). I suspect now I may never own the Canon lens, unless Canon updates the lens and the resale value of the current one drops such that I can find one at a great price. My first Sigma lens, and I think they deserve support for their recent efforts.


----------



## zlatko (May 14, 2015)

geekpower said:


> in my experience with the 50L, there is some shift between 1.4 and 2.5, but it is really only visible when shooting close to the minimum focus distance, and even then the shift is minimal, a few mm. at normal portrait distances the dof is wide enough to mask the problem.



I'm pretty sure the focus shift is most visible in the f/2.5 to f/4 range (approximately), not in that f1.4 to f/2.5 range. And only when shooting near minimum focus distance, as you note.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 14, 2015)

bp said:


> I've owned the 50L and also own the 85L II. I ended up selling the 50. Infuriating focus shift aside, to me, it's a great thumbnail lens: most shots taken with the lens look fantastic as thumbnails, but on closer inspection are not even close to sharp enough to justify its price tag. Any pixel peeping reveals a halo of fuzz around everything, even in the area that is "in focus".
> 
> The 85L II on the other hand is worth every penny. IMHO



+1

Images support your point of view. Test charts not necessary.

For me, 50mm works in many situations, so having one 50mm lens that produces the hazy look but no sharpness, and another that allows sharpness but minimal "magic" is not worth the trouble. That's why I dream of the replacement that does both. 

I've seen too many shots where photographers "force" the eyes to be sharp in post-processing, and mostly such efforts look unpleasant.


----------



## cayenne (May 14, 2015)

I've rented the 50L for some shoots, that were on a pub crawl in VERY dark bars.<P>
The 50L at f/1.2 turned nighttime into daylight.

I've been saving to buy one of these babes and when I heard a new version was coming out...I've held off.

But I do want to buy one.

The last scenes in this video were shot in Sinners and Saints in the French Quarter, the last ones..they turn almost ALL lights off in the bar except some red ones. I corrected the red out to try to get closer to real skin tones...and got a bit of a surreal color look that I actually ended up liking.

But you can see the girls dancing just fine, the ISO wasn't nearly as high as you might think (I forgot the actual number)...and it was just shy of pitch black with a red glow in there when the last shots were filmed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irURYjGS_oA

If you don't want to see the whole thing...it is 50L f/1.2 starting around: 7:56.

The other first Bridal Crawl I shot..has a shot in a bar that had normal light color, but again, was almost pitch black in there to normal human eyes. 

See scene at 3:04 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOIlThG5ww0


But while the colors are a bit surreal on the first link, it shows how well the 50L does for low, low light video on a canon 5D3.

I wish there was some way I could show how dark that it was in reality to give a better idea on what it shot.

cayenne


----------



## gmon750 (May 15, 2015)

I purchased the 50mm f/1.2 lens back in January. I absolutely love it.

One has to wonder if Canon silently did something to resolve the focus-shift issues that folks are complaining about as I have experienced none of that. Focusing is always spot-on, AF speed is decent considering the size of the ring. I have very little to rant about it. Perhaps I got lucky with my purchase?

The only "issue" I have is not even the lens' fault. The f/1.2 DOF is so razor thin that it takes a lot of practice to focus exactly on what you want to attention area to be. It's a beast of a lens to control. It's both fun and frustrating, which I can definitely deal with.

I'm looking forward to seeing the next-gen of this lens, but it would really have to be something better for me to give up this lens.


----------



## LOALTD (May 15, 2015)

So predictable:


Expensive lens is worth buying!


Less-expensive lens is released.


Expensive lens is objectively demonstrated to be inferior to Less-expensive lens in almost every way measurable.


Expensive lens is now great because it has a hard-to-define, impossible-to-measure quality that Less-expensive lens will never have. Bonus points for the following terms: 3D-look, dreamy, micro-contrast, creamy bokeh, magical.


----------



## sdsr (May 15, 2015)

Since Dustin's engaging review mentions manual focus, including MF-only rivals, I feel inclined to mention that you can buy copies of the FD 50L in excellent condition (mine looks new) for less than half the price of the EF variant; they're a joy to handle (as are so many older MF lenses), smaller and lighter than the EF, and I suspect the image quality is similar (though I don't know first-hand). That said, I would also note that some of my favorite 50mm-ish MF lenses cost a tenth as much as the FD 50L and have "flaws" that are at least as interesting.... Of course, I get the appeal of AF and optically "flawless" lenses, but perhaps it's because I have a few that more-or-less fall into that category that I've come to appreciate the virtues of "flaws" and, at least for now, to prefer "flawed" lenses.


----------



## gmon750 (May 15, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> So predictable:
> 
> 
> Expensive lens is worth buying!
> ...



Wutever... as a very happy owner of the f/1.2 with zero buyer's remorse, I can say for fact that it is a phenomenal lens and it gets the most use with my camera. Not only are the pictures beautiful in the right hands, the build-quality is L-worthy.

Continue your jealousy-hate elsewhere.


----------



## eninja (May 15, 2015)

gmon750 said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > So predictable:
> ...



hi gmon750, 
can share a bit of your work? would like to learn how you use 50mm.
My opinion is, you must have something interesting in the photo, to make use of the 50 focal lenght.
otherwise the photo does not look elegant in the eyes.

If you don't mind only.

Thanks.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 15, 2015)

gmon750 said:


> I purchased the 50mm f/1.2 lens back in January. I absolutely love it.
> 
> One has to wonder if Canon silently did something to resolve the focus-shift issues that folks are complaining about as I have experienced none of that. Focusing is always spot-on, AF speed is decent considering the size of the ring. I have very little to rant about it. Perhaps I got lucky with my purchase?
> 
> ...



Fortunately controlling the 85L at 1.2 or any aperture takes little effort.


----------



## LOALTD (May 15, 2015)

gmon750 said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > So predictable:
> ...




Wow, you sound SOUPER SECURE in your purchase!


I love the 50mm focal length. It's my FAVORITE focal length.


However, I'll never buy this lens. It's so soft. The 50mm focal length deserves much better than this. I wish it were more like my 85/1.2 II. Maybe when/if they update it, it will be.


Canon can, and has, done better than this. Shame on folks for not holding them to a higher standard and letting them phone it in with a lens like this.


And of course it can take great pictures, any lens/camera can in the right hands. This thread isn't about taking great pictures though, this is about a REVIEW of a lens.


----------



## gmon750 (May 15, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> Wow, you sound SOUPER SECURE in your purchase!
> 
> I love the 50mm focal length. It's my FAVORITE focal length.
> 
> ...



I am super-secure with the lens. So what? I've taken thousands of photos with it and the quality is great. I can't comment on the issues with the earlier ones, but mine is 5-months old and exhibits none of the problems that have hampered earlier ones. I may have gotten lucky, or perhaps Canon did resolve it, but didn't advertise it. I honestly don't know. If the 50mm II leak hasn't come out, I would be more than happy to recommend it. 

My taking great pictures of it and commenting on its performance is a review in my book. Why do you feel it okay to criticize a lens you haven't used, but my hands-on, personal use of it is not relevant? It's obvious other folks that have used it had issues with it. I have not. I suspect more recent buyers of this lens will be in the same arena as I am in.

I considered the 85mm version, but the 50mm is better for me in a crowded setting. The 85mm requires I stand farther away from the subject and given my particular situation(s), it doesn't work for me.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 15, 2015)

Why would Canon resolve an issue and not reveal it? Such thinking obliterates your credibility.


----------



## LOALTD (May 15, 2015)

gmon750 said:


> LOALTD said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, you sound SOUPER SECURE in your purchase!
> ...




Of Course I've shot with the lens! I've shot with the Sigma 50/1.4, the Canon 50/1.2, the Canon 50/1.4, Canon 50/1.8 II, and even the Zeiss (NOT Otus) 50/1.4. Did you miss the part where 50mm is my favorite focal length?


Wide open, it wasn't anywhere near as good as the 85/1.2 II, and stopped down, it was less sharp than the Canon 50/1.4. I just didn't see a point in buying it.


I've since really gotten into video, so I'm really holding out hope Canon will update the f/1.4 with IS...


If you're happy with it, that's good, there should be no need to defend your purchase to strangers on the internet.


----------



## zlatko (May 20, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Dustin, in your review, you write:
> "Center sharpness wide open is actually quite good at distances from 6-15 feet, which further benefits the lens as a premium portrait lens. I found that the lenses optical shortcomings at wide apertures were more evident towards the extremes of the focus range."
> 
> The reason you didn't experience a problem with focus shifting is because you avoided the distances (from 3-6 feet) where it has the most impact on a portrait.
> ...



Yes, we do want that. But in the absence of that, there is an easy work-around to still get the benefit of this lens. Namely, if shooting at near distance, avoid the aperture range where the focus shift is a problem.


----------



## eninja (May 20, 2015)

Maybe its not sharp enough, but sharp enough for me.
I used 6D, at F1.2, use peripheral focus point.
And Focus enough for me.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 20, 2015)

Zlatko, eninja, you both are dodging the issue. Focus shift does not occur at the widest aperture of f/1.2, but we don't want to be restricted to f/1.2. Sometimes the right depth of field, for instance, needs to be a little deeper. But then you both suggest working around the apertures that do cause focus problems, which makes the lens useful at what, only f/1.2 and f/4.5 and above? Just toss out all the creative potential in between those apertures with an L series lens?

That is a mind boggling defense of a product that is clearly flawed.

Hopefully Canon understands this and actually has a better version on the way, one that can focus at least as accurately as the amazing 85mm 1.2 II. 

As for the Sigma, it was frustrating, and I returned it due to flakey AF at any aperture. And no, I'm not a Sigma basher; you can see in many of my posts how I rave about the Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art (after selling my underperforming Canon 35mm 1.4).

Mark Twain wrote several times about a quirk of human nature. We buy tickets to an awful play, but tell others how good it was because we don't want to seem foolish for having spent the money. When other complain about feeling duped, we just tell them they didn't get it, that they weren't perceptive enough to understand the subtle beauty of the performance.


----------



## zlatko (May 20, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Zlatko, eninja, you both are dodging the issue. Focus shift does not occur at the widest aperture of f/1.2, but we don't want to be restricted to f/1.2. Sometimes the right depth of field, for instance, needs to be a little deeper. But then you both suggest working around the apertures that do cause focus problems, which makes the lens useful at what, only f/1.2 and f/4.5 and above? Just toss out all the creative potential in between those apertures with an L series lens?
> 
> That is a mind boggling defense of a product that is clearly flawed.
> 
> ...



You don't have to use the lens at f/1.2 or f/4.5 and above. The lens is beautiful at f/1.6 and excellent at f/2 and around f/2. The focus shift is strongest around f/2.8 to f/4. So that's a narrow range, and only for near subjects. But I still use f/2.8 and f/4 and compensate with a little overshooting. Most subjects are not perfectly flat, so a little back focus is not a big deal. But knowing this aspect of the lens, it is just something you consider as you work. You work around it in order to get the benefits of the lens. It has plenty of creative potential and I won't "toss out" any of it.

Of course I would prefer that the lens were more perfect. Of course Canon can make a better 50. However, be prepared to pay plenty more $$$$$ for more perfection. Leica makes an $11,000 50mm lens and it's still not perfect. Actually Leica makes an $8,000 50mm lens that is pretty close to perfect, but it's manual focus only and f/2 at widest. Zeiss makes a $4,000 near perfect 55mm but it's manual focus and beastly large. Sigma's AF is flaky as you mentioned. So this Canon 50 has a certain charm amongst those other choices. It's not surprising that it's a favorite of many photographers, including some very creative photographers.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 20, 2015)

Good points, zlatko, but I'd be shocked if a new 1.2 is significantly higher in price than other recent L revisions.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (May 21, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Dustin, in your review, you write:
> "Center sharpness wide open is actually quite good at distances from 6-15 feet, which further benefits the lens as a premium portrait lens. I found that the lenses optical shortcomings at wide apertures were more evident towards the extremes of the focus range."
> 
> The reason you didn't experience a problem with focus shifting is because you avoided the distances (from 3-6 feet) where it has the most impact on a portrait.
> ...



I think you are taking a quote from my article and using it to make a point that it was never intended to support. I used the lens at a variety of apertures and at a variety of focus distances. I didn't intentionally avoid any aperture values or working distances; I used the lens just as I would any other. I simply did not experience the focus shift issue. I'm not saying that others don't or won't; I am simply saying that I did not.

I might also add that I have a wealth of experience with wide aperture lenses. I get to use or own a lot of them, and I also use a lot of manual focus only lenses. I know HOW to focus, even at wide apertures, and that is something that not everyone is good at. Not everyone's eyes are as good, hands are as steady, etc... That's not a criticism, it's just a statement of reality. Some internet reported issues are legitimate defects in the product, but I suspect a lot of them are user error. It is up to the companies to determine which is the case. But as a reviewer, it isn't my job to spend a lot of time speculating on what others have reported; I focus on sharing what I myself have experienced.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 21, 2015)

Intended or not, your article dodged what seems to be the key complaint by users of this lens--focus shift. By going out to 6 feet as a STARTING point for your shots and tests, you avoid where focus shift is at its worst, and you also avoid problems with eyes out of focus, because at 6 feet out and more with a 50mm, facial features do not dominate a portrait.

Knowing as much as you do about lenses, and the old bugaboo about this lens in particular, and NOT giving it a thorough workout at 3-6 feet seems odd.

Summing up, the article seems to 1) put down people who aren't satisfied with the lens, and 2) conclude that the lens is fine for taking 3/4 to full body portraits or group shots, but you didn't bother to try getting in closer.

I am going on about this because with rumors of a new version coming out, maybe by year's end, it would be a shame if Canon didn't get it right. On the other hand, with the new one coming out, getting sucked into a time-warp replay of the same issues with this lens is a bit silly.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 21, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Intended or not, your article dodged what seems to be the key complaint by users of this lens--focus shift. By going out to 6 feet as a STARTING point for your shots and tests, you avoid where focus shift is at its worst, and you also avoid problems with eyes out of focus, because at 6 feet out and more with a 50mm, facial features do not dominate a portrait.
> 
> Knowing as much as you do about lenses, and the old bugaboo about this lens in particular, and NOT giving it a thorough workout at 3-6 feet seems odd.
> 
> ...



Still harping on this? Close to 20% of posts of this thread -- what else needs to be covered?

Which lens is flawless over all operating conditions? What sane photographer will a tool where its performance is poorest?

This is what Dustin writes:
_Who is the 50L for? I think that it will best serve portrait photographers that want to deliver uniquely beautiful/dreamy results to their clients or wedding photographers that want something a little more special than what a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens can offer. The 50L delivers images that just seem to process really well and lend themselves to creating very artful portrait and fine art shots. It is hard to quantify, and you can’t really point to any part of the image and say, “here’s why”, but those that have used the lens know what I’m talking about. I had no issues with the autofocus on the lens (other than it being a bit slow), and was particularly surprised with how well it worked in AF Servo mode. I think this lens would be a great tool for wedding photographers for both of these reasons. General purpose photographers who don’t do a lot of shooting between f/1.2 and f/2 would probably be served with a more inexpensive lens. This is a specialist tool, and thus not for everyone, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM ends up being one of your favorite lenses in your kit._

It's a specialized lens that delivers good results when used for its strengths. It is not for everyone. The 135L and 35L are good generalist lenses that also have fast apertures. The 85L II has a fast aperture, but it's AF is slow and is prone to fringing if you don't get the shot exactly right. The 50L is another specialist lens.

I've used the 50L near MFD wide open (or near wide open), and I never liked the results. Call it focus shift or whatever, I always found it soft. Take a step back and the results are much better but then I set the AFMA to a more normal distance, not near MFD. Use a tool for its strengths, not its weaknesses.

What other EF-compatible 50mm prime has superior color rendition, contrast, sharpness AND AF? None. The Sigma Art is a step in the right direction, and I hope Canon's 50L replacement will surpass the 50A (because it's cost certainly will). Focusing on a low contrast target in low light levels is hard even with the 50L. There is no way that I'd try that with the 50A under similar conditions.


----------



## eninja (May 21, 2015)

"Commercial Break":

Coincidentally, took this shot yesterday.
This was shot on 6D, at F1.8, 
Cropped.
Focus is at just behind the banana, about 2 feet away from lens.

I don't see any focus shift.

Will post raw file link when I get home.


----------



## YuengLinger (May 21, 2015)

eninja said:


> "Commercial Break":
> 
> Coincidentally, took this shot yesterday.
> This was shot on 6D, at F1.8,
> ...



No way to see this as anything other than a beautiful image. Very, very nice. 

A picture is truly worth a thousand gripes words!


----------



## eninja (May 22, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> eninja said:
> 
> 
> > "Commercial Break":
> ...



Here is the raw file of photo above:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cnhkk1ifcds2uhs/IMG_4361.CR2?dl=0

Thanks YuengLinger.

That photo is only one side of the story.

Photo below is the other side. (How do you insert image between lines?) 

These photos is as a result from this thread which I started.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26339.0


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 22, 2015)

On the first photo you're at f/1.8. Why would you expect to see focus shift at f/1.8?


----------

