# Canon 50 F1.4 VS 50 F1.2L Lenses



## Secretariat (Aug 26, 2012)

How do the Canon 50 F1.4 and 50 F1.2L lenses compare to each other?Which has a better IQ and sharper?Which has better contrast and color rendering?Which focusses faster?And lastly,if the 50 F1.2L is better,would it be worth getting it over the 50 F1.4?

Thanks.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 26, 2012)

50 f/1.2L is sharper from f/1.2 to about f/2.0. From f/2.8 and beyond, the 50 f/1.4 lens is sharper. By f/8 it's noticeably sharper in your photos. The 50 f/1.4 focuses faster. I own both and am selling the 50L and keeping the 1.4. Then again, I'm getting a 24-70L II as well.

The 50L wider than 2.8 is amazing, but if you're up close to your subject DOF becomes a technique issue. It is better constructed as well. Overall, it's the most disappointing L lens I own. It just doesn't do better than even the nifty fifty narrower than f/4 or so.

The only reason you'd buy it is if you need to shoot a lot of f/1.2 to f/2. I don't anymore, so I'm selling. If you shoot at f/1.8 let's say, it is truly amazing and the bokeh approaches that of the 85 f/1.2L II.


----------



## pwp (Aug 26, 2012)

I have had both, but now have the pick of the bunch, a Sigma 50 f/1.4. 

Read up on this lens. No it's not 10/10 perfect score perfect, but in my experience it's one of the few non-Canon aftermarket lenses than really stands out from the crowd. Same goes for the Sigma 85. 

I'm generally not one for aftermarket non genuine hardware, but the Sigma 50 was too hard to ignore.

-PW


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 26, 2012)

pwp said:


> I have had both, but now have the pick of the bunch, a Sigma 50 f/1.4.
> 
> Read up on this lens. No it's not 10/10 perfect score perfect, but in my experience it's one of the few non-Canon aftermarket lenses than really stands out from the crowd. Same goes for the Sigma 85.
> 
> ...



same here i got the 85 first and it was so damn good i just had to try out the sigma 50 too i have the new version sigma 50 not the old one with crinkly paint


----------



## nicku (Aug 26, 2012)

I don't own a 50L but i have a 50 1.4... very sharp even at 1.8 ( on a crop frame sensor) on FF is even sharper 

the 50 f/1.4 is an older design.... so you need to do some micro adjustment using in camera AFMA to get the maximum out of that lens.


----------



## Stefan (Aug 28, 2012)

I dont have the 1.2 but I do have the 1.4 and it is hands down my favorite lens. I have had it for about 6-7 years with no issues. The focus is reasonable fast, I would say on-par with other L lenses that I own (70-200 2.8 IS, 17-40L). I have used it on both crop (20D) and full frame (5D3) and quality is surprisingly sharp at 1.8 and above. I normally shoot at around 1.8 or 2.0, I sometimes go all the way to 1.4 and you can tell its not as sharp as you'd like it to be but its still very much usable.

I can post a couple of sample photos if you like (let me know).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 28, 2012)

I did this dusk shot in June of a passing coal train with the coal dust blowing across the field. This was with the 1.4 on a 5D Mark III.


----------



## dswatson83 (Aug 29, 2012)

The 50 1.4 has some issues. The sharpness is good, especially from f/2.0 on, but the focusing is slow and sometimes not on. Probably due to the fact that this is an older design and does not have a USM motor on it. Thus, it is fairly slow. That said, your only other option is the Sigma 50 or the overly expensive Canon 50L. For the price, the 50 1.4 is not bad, other than the focusing.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 29, 2012)

dswatson83 said:


> The 50 1.4 has some issues. The sharpness is good, especially from f/2.0 on, but the focusing is slow and sometimes not on. Probably due to the fact that this is an older design and does not have a USM motor on it. Thus, it is fairly slow. That said, your only other option is the Sigma 50 or the overly expensive Canon 50L. For the price, the 50 1.4 is not bad, other than the focusing.



Hmm. I have not noticed this problem with mine on the 5D Mark III. I use it a ton and it focuses really fast. The 50L is slower.


----------



## cliffwang (Aug 29, 2012)

pwp said:


> I have had both, but now have the pick of the bunch, a Sigma 50 f/1.4.
> 
> Read up on this lens. No it's not 10/10 perfect score perfect, but in my experience it's one of the few non-Canon aftermarket lenses than really stands out from the crowd. Same goes for the Sigma 85.
> 
> ...


I haven't use 50mm F/1.2, so I cannot tell how is the 50mm F/1.2. However, I had both Canon 50mm F/1.4 and Sigma 50mm F/1.4. I end up to keep Sigma 50mm F/1.4. The IQ and the bokeh of Sigma 50mm F/1.4 is better than Canon 50mm F/1.4. The only problem is the focus issue. I have to do +17 MA for this lens. Sigma lenses are not good for camera without AFMA feature.


----------



## DB (Aug 29, 2012)

I got rid of my Canon 50mm f/1.4 was too noisy and slow to AF. The Sigma sounds interesting but at 2x the weight and almost 2x the price it had better be a lot better than the Canon equivalent.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 30, 2012)

The 50L is the sharpest 50mm from 1.2-2.8. After that the 1.4 is better but yes, once I bought the 50L I never wanted anything else. 8)

Its AF was slightly faster than the 1.4 IMO, and hit better.


----------



## pwp (Aug 30, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I did this dusk shot in June of a passing coal train with the coal dust blowing across the field. This was with the 1.4 on a 5D Mark III.



Damn! I sure wouldn't want to be living downwind from the rail line! Most places on the planet legislate that coal must be drenched before being freighted in open rail-cars. But like smoke, smog, fog and dust storms, coal dust can be the photographers friend. Nice shot.

-PW


----------



## CharlieB (Aug 30, 2012)

MY 50/1.4 is very old... from the EOS-5 days - mid 90's era.

Never had a focusing issue - the key there is to not stress the part of the lens that carries the glass, the part that moves in-out as it focuses. The hood on - all the time - does that, so mine still does ok.

The focusing repeatability on the 9 focus point cameras.... is so-so. At f/1.4 its hit and miss. I've tried others, and they're the same. You can set up the tests, shoot checkerboards, do all the jumping thru hoops... its hit or miss. At close distances, say under 10 feet or so, avoid shooting at less than f/2.8 if you can. Now that really sucks for me. I'm used to shooting Leica, and with my M4's or M6TTL - you focus on an eye, and the eye is in focus, assuming nobody moved. I love shallow DOF, and rarely shoot a Leica stopped down much at all.

Which leads to.... some hardware is better suited than others for certain purposes. You want to shoot close and wide open at f/1.4 or f/2.0 all the time... and have corner to corner sharp (which the Canon 50/1.4 doesn't do until about f/4.5 or so), then you choose the equipment that will do it best.

There will be an M9 in my bag very soon. Can't sell all the film Leicas, but... gotta keep one, maybe the M4-2 since I'll get the least for it.


----------



## TexPhoto (Aug 30, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The 50L is the sharpest 50mm from 1.2-2.8. After that the 1.4 is better but yes, once I bought the 50L I never wanted anything else. 8)
> 
> Its AF was slightly faster than the 1.4 IMO, and hit better.



2X the price? Where are you shopping. I got mine new for < $400, love it.
Here's a short video shot with it: Monster Bokeh


----------



## 2n10 (Aug 30, 2012)

My copy of the 50 f/1.4 seems to focus just fine and at a decent speed. IQ is is mush better than the price would lead you to expect.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 30, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 50L is the sharpest 50mm from 1.2-2.8. After that the 1.4 is better but yes, once I bought the 50L I never wanted anything else. 8)
> ...



50L = 3x price of 1.4
1.4 = 3x price of 1.8
1.8 = cheap as chips. 8)


----------



## EOBeav (Aug 30, 2012)

No question, the 50 f/1.4 gives you the best IQ for the money in their entire lineup. But it's finnicky and can be fragile. Learn it's little quirks and treat it gingerly, and you should be ok.


----------



## cliffwang (Aug 30, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> No question, the 50 f/1.4 gives you the best IQ for the money in their entire lineup. But it's finnicky and can be fragile. Learn it's little quirks and treat it gingerly, and you should be ok.


If you are not comfortable with Canon 50mm F/1.4, go with Sigma 50mm F/1.4. It's much better than Canon 50mm F/1.4.


----------



## EOBeav (Sep 1, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> EOBeav said:
> 
> 
> > No question, the 50 f/1.4 gives you the best IQ for the money in their entire lineup. But it's finnicky and can be fragile. Learn it's little quirks and treat it gingerly, and you should be ok.
> ...



Build quality, maybe, but the difference in IQ is negligible from what I've seen. Plus, I'm reading a lot that the Sigma AF is inconsistent. Not that the Canon's AF is stellar, though. There's some give and taken no matter what you do.


----------



## scotthillphoto (Sep 1, 2012)

I'm about actually to upgrade to the 50L I have the 1.4 and used to have the 1.8 each lens is better and what it comes down to are you a professional or a hobbyist. Being that I am a professional I need to have the best in order to get those shots at 1.2 if its near dark and can't use flash and still get that sharp picture. If you are a hobbyist and and just having fun I'd go with the Sigma 50 1.4 (For Full Frame) or the 30mm 1.4 (For cropped sensored)

I use the 30 1.4 on my 7D when I travel and love the lens, it comes back with some pretty amazing shots even at 1.4 but I don't count on that lens for the money shots. Especially the ones that you only get one picture of....


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 1, 2012)

scotthillphoto said:


> I'm about actually to upgrade to the 50L I have the 1.4 and used to have the 1.8 each lens is better and what it comes down to are you a professional or a hobbyist. Being that I am a professional I need to have the best in order to get those shots at 1.2 if its near dark and can't use flash and still get that sharp picture. If you are a hobbyist and and just having fun I'd go with the Sigma 50 1.4 (For Full Frame) or the 30mm 1.4 (For cropped sensored)
> 
> I use the 30 1.4 on my 7D when I travel and love the lens, it comes back with some pretty amazing shots even at 1.4 but I don't count on that lens for the money shots. Especially the ones that you only get one picture of....



Going from the 50 f/1.4 to the 50 f/1.2L isn't what I'd call an upgrade. It's a downgrade in sharpness beyond f/4. Upgrade in sharpness f/1.2 to f/2.8 and build quality. It's 50/50 (YES I KNOW, I'M AWESOME! I'M HERE ALL NIGHT!).


----------



## Ew (Sep 1, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> It's 50/50 (YES I KNOW, I'M AWESOME! I'M HERE ALL NIGHT!).



Nice!


----------



## Cannon Man (Sep 1, 2012)

Think about it this way:
Would anyone who has had the 50 1.2 for some time give it up and swap it to the 1.4.
I don't know of anyone would. The 50 1.2 spends the most time on my camera.


----------



## Michael_pfh (Sep 1, 2012)

I haven't tried either but bought the Zeiss 50mm f2.0 Makro Planar which some people claim to be the best 50mm.
Since I do not care about AF and have other lenses that are faster than f2.0 I am sure that I got the 50mm that suits me best. Just love its sharpness and the special Zeiss bokeh...


----------



## cliffwang (Sep 1, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > If you are not comfortable with Canon 50mm F/1.4, go with Sigma 50mm F/1.4. It's much better than Canon 50mm F/1.4.
> ...


Do you really own both? I have used both Canon 50mm F/1.4 and Sigma 50mm F/1.4. For me Sigma is better than Canon. I don't know how other Sigma 50mm lenses, but my AF is very consistent. I have even used FoCal to adjust AF. From the test numbers, I can tell the AF is very consistent as well. You should try it out by yourself.

Edit:
I just remember one thing. Sigma 50mm F/1.4 has reversion in year 2010. In many forums people report that the new version has improved its AF.


----------



## jondave (Sep 1, 2012)

scotthillphoto said:


> I'm about actually to upgrade to the 50L I have the 1.4 and used to have the 1.8 each lens is better and what it comes down to are you a professional or a hobbyist. Being that I am a professional I need to have the best in order to get those shots at 1.2 if its near dark and can't use flash and still get that sharp picture. If you are a hobbyist and and just having fun I'd go with the Sigma 50 1.4 (For Full Frame) or the 30mm 1.4 (For cropped sensored)
> 
> I use the 30 1.4 on my 7D when I travel and love the lens, it comes back with some pretty amazing shots even at 1.4 but I don't count on that lens for the money shots. Especially the ones that you only get one picture of....



Have you actually tried using the 50L at 1.2? I wouldn't exactly call it sharp, plus the DOF is razor thin. I wouldn't actually use a 50L at 1.2 to get 'money shots', especially when its near dark and I can't use flash on a 7D. On that kind of conditions using f/1.2 with the 7D's AF your keeper rate will be extremely low.


----------



## @!ex (Sep 1, 2012)

Ok, so my 2 cents. I've only been shooting Canon for about 4-5 months, and full frame about the same amount of time. I used to shoot Pentax (que boo's). I have a very prominent wedding photographer friend that shoots the 50 1.4 on a 5d mkii like 70% of the time and loves it, but the main difference beside sharpness below 2.8 and build quality is CA's (we recently di a direct comparison with in camera compensation off). for a wedding photographer high contrast outdoor shoots are a dime a dozen and the 50L kills the 1.4 in CA's, by a HUGE margin. Either way if you can afford the 1.2 go for it, you will love it (1.2 and huge glass is addictive). Here is my money in my mouth, just a couple snap shots I've gotten with it since I bought it a few months ago. It truly is my favorite walk around, by a mile (I'm too cool for zoom now




Cloud Bunker by @!ex, on Flickr




Spring by @!ex, on Flickr




The Edge of America by @!ex, on Flickr




My Hood by @!ex, on Flickr




Available Light... by @!ex, on Flickr




A Night @ Red Rocks by @!ex, on Flickr




Japanese Bokeh Garden by @!ex, on Flickr




Through the Cracks… by @!ex, on Flickr




Into the Sun by @!ex, on Flickr




Confederate Cloth. by @!ex, on Flickr




Out of the Mist by @!ex, on Flickr




Leaf it Be by @!ex, on Flickr




Bugging Out by @!ex, on Flickr


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 1, 2012)

Cannon Man said:


> Think about it this way:
> Would anyone who has had the 50 1.2 for some time give it up and swap it to the 1.4.
> I don't know of anyone would. The 50 1.2 spends the most time on my camera.



I did. And I'm happier with my 50 prime. Let me explain though. I never shoot wider than f/2.8 with it. That is my unique useage. If I needed it in low light and did that type of photography, absolutely wouldn't have sold my 50L. But the majority of my shots are f/4 and narrower, and quite frankly, this lens at those apertures is sharper than the 50L. I can certainly see uses for the 50L though, don't get me wrong, it is a great lens. I enjoyed it while I had it.


----------



## scotthillphoto (Sep 1, 2012)

jondave said:


> scotthillphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm about actually to upgrade to the 50L I have the 1.4 and used to have the 1.8 each lens is better and what it comes down to are you a professional or a hobbyist. Being that I am a professional I need to have the best in order to get those shots at 1.2 if its near dark and can't use flash and still get that sharp picture. If you are a hobbyist and and just having fun I'd go with the Sigma 50 1.4 (For Full Frame) or the 30mm 1.4 (For cropped sensored)
> ...



Yes I have, tho it was with a 1D3, but I would be using the lens on a 5D3 not the 7D. But I don't trust the 50 1.4 unless I use it above 2 and I shot 1.4 with the 50L and the images were just butter.... And I shoot a TON of low light or no light and there are times where I need that extra light of the 50L


----------



## 7enderbender (Sep 1, 2012)

Funny you should ask. I'm seriously considering upgrading to the 50L. And no, I don't expect 100% perfection. The thing however is that my 50 1.4 is one of my most used lenses. And I shoot it wide open a lot.

The L is supposed to be slightly sharper when shot wide and has better contrast. The price you pay for that seems to be a little more fringing, slightly less sharpness over f/8 (or so) and slower AF. Not sure if I would/will notice this.

The biggest factor for me is the build quality and the fact that I use 50mm so much. I'm intending to keep my 1.4 for now and see how it goes. I may also get rid of my 24-105 zoom then since I'm doing fine with just a 50 and the 135L most of the time now anyway.

Don't get me wrong: the 1.4 is a great lens optically - if only it was build better. On film I used my FD 50 1.4 90% of the time. It's the same exact lens design in a metal barrel and MF of course. If that one fit on my 5DII we probably wouldn't have this conversation...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 1, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> Funny you should ask. I'm seriously considering upgrading to the 50L. And no, I don't expect 100% perfection. The thing however is that my 50 1.4 is one of my most used lenses. And I shoot it wide open a lot.
> 
> The L is supposed to be slightly sharper when shot wide and has better contrast. The price you pay for that seems to be a little more fringing, slightly less sharpness over f/8 (or so) and slower AF. Not sure if I would/will notice this.
> 
> ...



If you're going to shoot wide open a lot, get the L. It is sharper than the 1.4 at wide apertures, and noticeably so. Is that worth the money to you? If so, go ahead, I shot with it since April.


----------



## Bosman (Sep 5, 2012)

Three reasons why the L version is the way to go, Legendary Bokeh, Legendary low light performance, Excellent build. The 50L is the 85L mini. The bokeh is stellar and the colors pop! I had the 501.4 and didn't enjoy working with it. While shallow dof can be a pain and oof shots are more often I have learned ot just shoot more and when you hit it, you hit it. Since the 50 is the lens most people will find themselves using most in their kit why not go pro quality. I am sure the siggy's are good, i've heard lots of good reports. If i were tempted the Siggy 85 1.4 would be a route i would take. In that case you give up build quality to the 85L. No Siggy build will handle the punishment an L lens will. I've never felt quality craftsmanship in my hands cept the nikon and Canon Pro lenses. This isnt bias talking either.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 5, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Three reasons why the L version is the way to go, Legendary Bokeh, Legendary low light performance, Excellent build. The 50L is the 85L mini. The bokeh is stellar and the colors pop! I had the 501.4 and didn't enjoy working with it. While shallow dof can be a pain and oof shots are more often I have learned ot just shoot more and when you hit it, you hit it. Since the 50 is the lens most people will find themselves using most in their kit why not go pro quality. I am sure the siggy's are good, i've heard lots of good reports. If i were tempted the Siggy 85 1.4 would be a route i would take. In that case you give up build quality to the 85L. No Siggy build will handle the punishment an L lens will. I've never felt quality craftsmanship in my hands cept the nikon and Canon Pro lenses. This isnt bias talking either.



I think you are missing my point. Who cares about pro build quality when you have the option of two lenses at f/8, one that is sharper than the other? That was my point. f/1.2 to f/2.8 the 50L the way to go, though. Narrower, it would be a very poor choice considering the cost.


----------



## picturesbyme (Sep 5, 2012)

+1 for the Sigma 1.4. It is awesome!
However when I get the bug to buy another lens I look at what people can do with a lens what I already have or the cheaper version of what I am looking at..... 
Usually I realize that it's not the lens that holds me back  

This lady, Alisa - who shot someone I know - uses 5d2 and 50 1.4 (and 35 1.4). Worth a look what a 50 1.4 can do in the right hands, pointing in the right direction 
*N S W !*
http://alisaverner.com/gallery/portfolio/


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 5, 2012)

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

I like this article. It may be redundant because I didn't read every post, but it makes me feel pretty good about my 50mm f/1.4.


----------



## 2n10 (Sep 5, 2012)

jdramirez said:


> http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
> 
> I like this article. It may be redundant because I didn't read every post, but it makes me feel pretty good about my 50mm f/1.4.



After reading the article I feel the same. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## drjlo (Sep 5, 2012)

2n10 said:


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



It's a good article, especially informative for objectively comparing Canon vs. likes of Zeiss, which are often "thought of" as far superior but perhaps not so much. I sold my Canon 50 f/1.4 and kept the 50L because when it comes down to it, the 50L is still the sharpest 50mm for EOS at f/1.2 8)


----------



## EOBeav (Sep 11, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Who cares about pro build quality when you have the option of two lenses at f/8, one that is sharper than the other?



Actually, I'm just now having a 50mm f/1.4 returned to me from the repair shop. Build quality was the culprit. That, and my inability to fix my own stuff, but that's a topic for a different thread. Build quality will now become a factor when I'm choosing my next lens.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 30, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares about pro build quality when you have the option of two lenses at f/8, one that is sharper than the other?
> ...



Agreed. I have a 50mm f/1.4 and I NEVER take off the hood for fear of it suffering damage and affecting the AF. I naturally baby my equipment, but I want equipment built like a baby... so if it is dropped, it is practically made of rubber and will bounce back without issue.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 30, 2012)

Bosman said:


> Three reasons why the L version is the way to go, Legendary Bokeh, Legendary low light performance, Excellent build. The 50L is the 85L mini. The bokeh is stellar and the colors pop! I had the 501.4 and didn't enjoy working with it. While shallow dof can be a pain and oof shots are more often I have learned ot just shoot more and when you hit it, you hit it. Since the 50 is the lens most people will find themselves using most in their kit why not go pro quality. I am sure the siggy's are good, i've heard lots of good reports. If i were tempted the Siggy 85 1.4 would be a route i would take. In that case you give up build quality to the 85L. No Siggy build will handle the punishment an L lens will. I've never felt quality craftsmanship in my hands cept the nikon and Canon Pro lenses. This isnt bias talking either.



for what its worth i feel the siggy f1.4 new one is built better than the 50 f1.2L it does not extend for one thing
the 50 f1.2L is not as sealed as many more modern L glass


----------



## Nostrada (Oct 30, 2012)

EOBeav said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > EOBeav said:
> ...



Had both, used them on a 7D. Sigma wins hands down - better bokeh, better AF, better colors.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 30, 2012)

You don't get the 1.2L because it's sharp. You get it because of the creamy bokeh at 1.2.


----------



## kirillica (Oct 30, 2012)

Sigma 1.4 is an ugly piece of CA $hit. The only way it's better is a bokeh. In case it focuses at the right point  

Exchanged mine Sigma 1.4 to Canon 1.4 and happy with that.


----------



## Crapking (Oct 30, 2012)

50/1.2L examples




PineRichlandA-19 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Canon 5D3 1/1000, ISO 4000, f2 (50/1.2L)

Examples of 1.2 Bokeh/OOF Blur/focusing - had read concerns about this lens focusing fast enough, but not a problem with either the 5d3 or 1D-x




_DXR1373 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera	Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure	0.001 sec (1/1250)
Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length	50 mm
ISO Speed	2500


----------



## rahkshi007 (Oct 30, 2012)

i have the canon 50mm f1.4.. i must say that i regret of buying it.. it is not sharp from f1.4 to f1.8... from f1.8 or slower, the result is sharp...


----------



## notapro (Oct 30, 2012)

Cannon Man said:


> Think about it this way:
> Would anyone who has had the 50 1.2 for some time give it up and swap it to the 1.4.
> I don't know of anyone would. The 50 1.2 spends the most time on my camera.



I own the 1.2 and have shot with the 1.4. For what I'm interested in doing (shooting in low light with very shallow depth of field), I wouldn't have anything other than the 1.2 at the 50mm focal length. For portraits, the 1.2 has been outstanding. If you have neither lens and are on a budget, getting the 1.4 would be fine. I held out and saved for the 1.2.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 4, 2012)

Im going to wait for 50L II. ;D


----------



## PeterJ (Nov 4, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> Im going to wait for 50L II. ;D


Same here, looking forward them going back to f/0.95 as recently announced also.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Nov 4, 2012)

It depends on what aperture you need. If you shoot f/2.8 and narrower a lot, then the 50 f/1.4 is actually sharper. If you shoot wider than that, the 50L is sharper. I never shoot wider than f/2.8 with a 50mm lens due to the razor thin DOF that my shots do not require, so I have the 50 f/1.4. However, the 24-70L II zoom lens at 50mm is at least just as sharp at corresponding apertures, as it with the 35L. But, the 24-70L II is way too expensive compared to a 50 f/1.4. Determine which apertures you need to shoot at, then make your decision.


----------

