# 50mm 1.2



## imansf (May 16, 2012)

I wanted to purchase a 50mm 1.2 but wanted to know if a new 50mm will be coming out soon. Putting budget aside, would you get a 50mm 1.2 or a 1.4?


----------



## untitled10 (May 16, 2012)

if you're putting budget aside why wouldn't you get the 1.2?
its faster, sharper and has better build quality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2012)

The 50/1.2L was released in 2007 - it's very unlikey there will be an update in the near future.

I'd say get the L lens, unless you always plan to shoot at f/2.8 or narrower (in which case, why get a prime?).


----------



## thepancakeman (May 16, 2012)

untitled10 said:


> if you're putting budget aside why wouldn't you get the 1.2?
> its faster, sharper and has better build quality.



I thought the 1.2 was really slow to focus? Or was that the 85mm?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> I thought the 1.2 was really slow to focus? Or was that the 85mm?



That's the 85L. The 50L is quite fast.


----------



## Z (May 16, 2012)

untitled10 said:


> if you're putting budget aside why wouldn't you get the 1.2?
> its faster, *sharper* and has better build quality.



_Is it_ sharper? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7

Admittedly I've picked the aperture of f/5.6 to illustrate a point. At f/1.4 it would be sharper indeed. But if sharpness is the deciding factor, the f/1.2 L does not excel. The bokeh, and by that I mean the _quality_ of the background blur, is why people tend to pick the f/1.2, as well as its weather sealing/build quality, wider aperture (though I have heard some controversy about the truth of its "1.2" aperture, but I won't speculate on that) and red ring.


----------



## imansf (May 16, 2012)

Should I not buy it then and just stick to my 24-105L?


----------



## msdarkroom (May 16, 2012)

I would strongly consider this Zeiss 50: http://amzn.to/JvlU7I

I love it. It is an excellent lens, very well built, very high IQ. It's MF, which I find to be something that slows me down - in a good way - and forces me to think about my images before I make them.

Give it a look. It's awesome.

-MS


----------



## thepancakeman (May 16, 2012)

imansf said:


> I wanted to purchase a 50mm 1.2 but wanted to know if a new 50mm will be coming out soon. Putting budget aside, would you get a 50mm 1.2 or a 1.4?



Just to play the devil's advocate--if we're putting budget aside, and there are indeed advantages to the 1.4 (there are obivously some to the 1.2), why not get both? :


----------



## robbymack (May 16, 2012)

budget aside 1.2, however if you asked what's the best value for your lens $ in the canon 50mm line up, it's hard to argue with the 1.8 or 1.4 The 1.2 does not, at least in my mind, justify it's price tag. Probably more important questions of whether one would buy this lens without the constraints of a budget (which seems very rhetorical) is what you plan to shoot with it, what your current kit looks like, and whether or not you make, or plan to make, $ off your captures?


----------



## Viggo (May 16, 2012)

Z said:


> untitled10 said:
> 
> 
> > if you're putting budget aside why wouldn't you get the 1.2?
> ...



I don't think I have ever even considered using any of my fast primes, except the 24 and 17 at apertures narrower than 2,0. 5,6 comparison? Not why you buy 1,2 lens.


----------



## EOBeav (May 16, 2012)

imansf said:


> I wanted to purchase a 50mm 1.2 but wanted to know if a new 50mm will be coming out soon. Putting budget aside, would you get a 50mm 1.2 or a 1.4?



If you've got the bucks, go for it. I love spending other people's money. But as I've said in previous comments on here, the difference in IQ between the two are negligible at f/2.0-ish and lower. I would say only get the f/1.2 if you really depend on bokeh quality to pay your bills. Otherwise, get the f/1.4 and another lens for about a grand.


----------



## Z (May 16, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I don't think I have ever even considered using any of my fast primes, except the 24 and 17 at apertures narrower than 2,0. 5,6 comparison? Not why you buy 1,2 lens.



Fine, fair point. Use the link I provided to do the same comparison at f/2 then. My point still stands.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 17, 2012)

Z said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think I have ever even considered using any of my fast primes, except the 24 and 17 at apertures narrower than 2,0. 5,6 comparison? Not why you buy 1,2 lens.
> ...



I wish TDP would re-evaluate the 50L. I've borrowed a f/1.4 and I got a used f/1.2. The f/1.2 focuses more accurately than the f/1.4 wide open. My experience more closely mirrors what Lens Rentals (http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout) found on their 50mm shootout rather than TDP's evaluation. I could not get consistent AF with the 50 f/1.4 with apertures larger than f/2.8, but I can with the 50L. I tend to use the 50L wide open and f/4 and smaller since I don't have a mid-range zoom after moving to FF.


----------



## imansf (May 17, 2012)

What Filter should I purchase for the 50mm 1.2?


----------



## jaayres20 (May 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the 1.2 was really slow to focus? Or was that the 85mm?
> ...


The 1.2 does not have a fast AF. The 1.4 focuses a lot faster and is actually sharper once you get past 1.8. Now the 1.2 has a lot better picture quality and better bokeh.


----------



## RuneL (May 17, 2012)

I love mine but it's difficult to live with, but it's probably one of my favorites right now, just be aware that working at that DOF is tricky.


----------



## KeeFy (May 17, 2012)

50L is IMO comparable to the 85L in focus speed. May be slightly faster, but by not much. 

My 50L is mated to my 5d3 90% of the time. The image rendition is special imo and it's different from the 1.4 and 1.8. Bokeh is awesome. Even comparing the bokeh at fixed f2 for all 3 lenses (1.2, 1.4, 1.8), the 50L comes up tops with the bokeh as creamy as yoghurt. Obviously you buy such a fast lens to use it wide open as well regardless of sharpness. 

















All 3 pictures shot with a 5D classic. All shot wide open f1.2


----------



## EOBeav (May 17, 2012)

Viggo said:


> I don't think I have ever even considered using any of my fast primes, except the 24 and 17 at apertures narrower than 2,0. 5,6 comparison? Not why you buy 1,2 lens.



I guess it depends on what else you've got in the stable. If you ONLY shoot your prime wide open, then you're probably not taking advantage of the versatility of a 50mm, which is one of the main reasons why they're so popular. Personally, if I want 50mm, regardless of aperture, I need to go with my 50mm f/1.4. My other zooms don't go through the 50mm range. 

But if you bought a 50mm to only shoot at extremely wide apertures, and have other lenses to cover that focal range, then more power to you.


----------



## Axilrod (May 18, 2012)

The 50mm f/1.4 is terrible past f/2, but definitely comparable to the 50L in terms of sharpness.


----------



## Axilrod (May 18, 2012)

imansf said:


> What Filter should I purchase for the 50mm 1.2?



If you're asking questions like this you may want to reconsider your purchase. Recently there has been a slew of people that seem very new to photography buying 5D3's and asking about the most expensive lenses like the gear is the most important aspect of learning photography. Get the 50mm f/1.4, if you really like the 50mm focal length get the 1.2. 

My neighbor is the highest-paid photographer I've ever met and he uses the 50mm 1.4. Actually the majority of his favorite shots are from the 24-70mm.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 19, 2012)

I personally wouldn't get the 50mm f/1.2L because I do not shoot in low light and I never use apertures wider than 2.0 at 50mm. If you want better, all around coverage at 50mm, the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 are nearly as sharp or sharper at 2.8 and above. Also, in my experience, the 24-70L zoom lense performed just as well as the 50mm f/1.2L at f/2.8. So if you don't really really need that narrow use of a 50mm lens, there are better lenses. Unfortunately Canon does not make a 50mm lens that is super sharp across all apertures. I wish they would make one comparable to the 35L and 85L. You almost have to buy both the 50mm f/1.2L and the 50 f/1.4 or 24-70mm L to get full aperture coverage from Canon at 50mm. Good luck!


----------



## drjlo (May 19, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Also, in my experience, the 24-70L zoom lense performed just as well as the 50mm f/1.2L at f/2.8.



While I do agree Canon needs to do better at 50mm compared to their 35 and 85, two things are still true:
1. Canon 24-70L cannot shoot at f/1.2. 
2. There is NO other 50mm prime available from any company that is sharper at f/1.2 than 50L.


----------



## niccyboy (May 19, 2012)

My 50 is permanently mounted to one of my 5ds. My absolute favourite lens. 

If budget isn't an issue. Hire both, the feel, picture quality and bokeh will sell it to you then

The 1.4 and 1.8 are both fantastic lenses and very well priced also, but the 1.2 is brilliant.


----------



## Michael_pfh (May 19, 2012)

msdarkroom said:


> I would strongly consider this Zeiss 50: http://amzn.to/JvlU7I
> 
> I love it. It is an excellent lens, very well built, very high IQ. It's MF, which I find to be something that slows me down - in a good way - and forces me to think about my images before I make them.
> 
> ...



I eventually also settled for the Zeiss 50 f2.0 MP, was hesitant to get the 50 1.2L since I already got the 85 1.2L II. The ZE 50 is definitely great and I got used to the MF in no time, it's quite easy compared to some EF lenses.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 19, 2012)

The 50mm 1.2L is the sharpest 50mm lens I've ever used from f1.2-2.8. (and I've used alot of 50mm's)

The AF is faster than the 1.4, but not by much but it is alot more accurate. 

The OOF is the best I've ever seen on a 50mm. 

Then again, there is always the Leica 50mm's but I don't consider those in the same league. 

If you love the 50mm focal length, there is no better on a SLR system.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 20, 2012)

niccyboy said:


> The 1.4 and 1.8 are both fantastic lenses and very well priced also, but the 1.2 is brilliant.



Oh, time for my 50/1.8 rant: I have it and don't use it anymore because the af is terrible and the build quality is horrible. If you can ignore this, it certainly has the best "bang for the buck" if you don't shoot @f1.8, but the real killer is the so-called bokeh - anyone who gets this is well-advised to look at sample pictures with bokeh before a decision.


----------



## Ricku (May 20, 2012)

I would love to rebuy the 50L if it wasn't such a "mixed feelings-lens".

I love the creamy bokeh and special rendering of this lens, but the focus shift issues and the somewhat soft results at wide open, just cant be overlooked.

The 35L, 135L and 85L are all very sharp wide open. So why can't the 50L be?


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 20, 2012)

Ricku said:


> I would love to rebuy the 50L if it wasn't such a "mixed feelings-lens".
> 
> I love the creamy bokeh and special rendering of this lens, but the focus shift issues and the somewhat soft results at wide open, just cant be overlooked.
> 
> The 35L, 135L and 85L are all very sharp wide open. So why can't the 50L be?



My feelings exactly. The IQ on the 1.8 is good, but not as good as the 1.4 and 1.2. My friend was shooting a lot of 50mm and his AF on the 1.4 stopped working. The 50L is super, razor sharp from 1.2 to about 2.... something, but from 2.8 up there are other 50's sharper. I tried out the 50L and it produced stunning images in low light, at wide apertures. I was actually sorry to part with it. But, photo to photo, I just didn't shoot enough low light at 50mm, so I suggest using the 1.8 and having a good photo editing program


----------



## drjlo (May 21, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > I would love to rebuy the 50L if it wasn't such a "mixed feelings-lens".
> ...



I wouldn't call it "razor" sharp. It's decently sharp at 1.2 to pretty sharp at 2 IME, going on to quite sharp at 2.8.
One thing I've discovered, however, is Canon's "Digital Lens Optimizer" in DPP, and it does a surprisingly good job of bringing out 50L's sharpness without as much artifact as simpling bumping up the sharpness bar. 

I used DLO setting 50 (out of 100) for this 50L shot at f/1.8, which really helped with clarity. 




DZ3C2665Velv by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------



## Bosman (May 21, 2012)

some say once you go black theres no goin back. I say once you go 50L theres no goin 1.4 or 1.8.


----------



## Matthew19 (May 21, 2012)

I've owned the 1.8, 1.4, 1.2 and zeiss 1.4. As others have said, the 1.2 has great rendering and bokeh, the 1.4 build quality and focus ring are a bit cheap feeling. I hated the bokeh on the zeiss 50mm. It also had some weird distortion on portraits. Thats was the deal breaker for me on the zeiss, I really wanted to like it. 

If you shoot wide open and do video (manual focus), the 1.2 is the way to go.
If you are just shooting pictures and stop down often, I'd grab a 50mm 1.4 and a 100mm macro for the same price!


----------



## Dylan777 (May 21, 2012)

imansf said:


> I wanted to purchase a 50mm 1.2 but wanted to know if a new 50mm will be coming out soon. Putting budget aside, would you get a 50mm 1.2 or a 1.4?



This lens is 3-4yrs old. You might not see mrk II anytimes soon here. If you already decided to go for L, I think should should go for it, since Canon is offering $120 rebate end June 2nd.

I was in this situation many times; the L or 1.4??? I tested both lenses side by side. At the end I decided to stay with 1.4 --- this is the only lens left in my bag that doesn't have a red ring 

My reason is simple, the IQ on L is not 3-times better than 1.4. I was hoping 2 times better, not even. I say 1.35 to 1.5 better. The ONLY thing I like MOST about the L is build quality. Very solid.


----------



## sandymandy (May 21, 2012)

Bosman said:


> some say once you go black theres no goin back. I say once you go 50L theres no goin 1.4 or 1.8.



And once you go asian you never go caucasian 

I always wanted to get the 50mm 1.2L for my crop body but i think thats a bad decision 
Using the 50mm 1.8II at the moment. Thinking if i should get the 1.4...


----------



## Viggo (May 21, 2012)

I am on my third copy of the 50 L and as much I love parts of this lens I have SERIOUS AF problems.... 

If I aim at 30 meters the lens is dead on with midpoints and 10 meters in front on the outer points. I adjust to make the outer work, and then it's waaay behind when I use midpoints. 

It was the same with the two others, this one is production code UA03, so it's brand new. It's much better than the two others for stabillity, the two others were all over and damn near impossible to MA, never got them to be consistent at one setting.

But it still is the same issue. try the second to last row to the right/left, which are crosstypes (5d3) and it misses both in Ai and One Shot, with spot, single, expanded by four or 9, I can try 40 times, and just doesn't hit. use points closer to the middle and it's sharper than any of the two others, by far. 

Anyone else experiencing this ? As I said, three copies used on three different bodies, 1d4, 5d2 and 5d3.

And for the record, neither copies of my 85 L II and 35 had or have this issue.


----------



## K3nt (May 21, 2012)

I love my 50mm f/1.4... great bang for the buck and once I had my 7D and the lenses all calibrated it has never missed a shot. If it does, I can most certainly look in the mirror to confirm that I missed the shot and not the lens/camera combo.


----------



## melbournite (May 21, 2012)

Always wanted to have a 1.2 lens in the kit for that creamy bokeh. I've found the need for a 50mm in a studio environment but specifically for F8 usage. So from what I understand, the 1.4 is sharper at F8 than the 1.2? That would be a shame because I'd be prepared to the pay the money for the 1.2 otherwise?


----------



## ontarian (May 21, 2012)

Get the FD 55mm 1.2 Aspherical for a grand for equivalent IQ performance as the 50L or the FD 55mm 1.2 SSC or chrome nose (or FL 55mm 1.2) for a 300 dollar budget option that is nearly as nice. Obviously you'd need one of my adapters to make them work but I would go for this over the zeiss if you can handle the manual focus.

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/180855493584?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649#ht_1255wt_1385


----------



## jasonsim (May 21, 2012)

I guess I should chime in on this discussion, since I started on on FredMiranda.com a month or so ago. There I discussed the bokeh quality of the 50mm 1.2L vs the Sigma 50mm 1.4. I still have both and kinda prefer the Sigma's bokeh. Note that at 1.4 both appear to be equally sharp..at least to my eyes. 

I had to try two Canon 50mm L's before finding a keeper and 3 Sigma's before finding a keeper. I strongly recommend that, if you decide to get either that you go to a store where you can try them out on your body before buying. Previous copies of both the Canon and Sigma had AF issues.

Also note that the Canon will suffer more CA at 1.2 and 1.4 than the Sigma.

Link to my discussion:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1107121/0


----------



## drjlo (May 21, 2012)

One reason to stick with Canon EF fast primes is Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO), which was rolled out without much hoopla with DPP but carries a wallop!

For example, the venerable 85L II has tons of color fringing at f/1.2, and even stopped down to f/2.8 there is substantial amount. Similar observations occur with 50L. First photo is 85L f/2.8 shot with sharpening set to 0 in DPP, no DLO applied. These are ~400% crops.




C2.8S0 by drjlo1, on Flickr

Second shot is same settings, sharpness 0, with DLO applied at 60 (out of 100).




C2.8DLO60S0 by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------



## RLPhoto (May 21, 2012)

Proof Is in the pudding.

Here is a shot of my 50mm 1.2L copy. This particular sample is @ F1.4 but it demonstrates everything that's good about this lens.

COLOR
CHARACTER
BOKEH
SHARPNESS WIDE OPEN.

On my copy there is no issues, Perfect lens. Its just as sharp wide open as it is stopped down, I only stopped down to get more DOF. In this case, F1.4 but I missed focus a tiny bit and nailed the subject shirt. ITS MY FAULT, Not the lens.

Still liked the photo because no other 50mm gave me that "swirling bokeh" kinda look. Its all subjective and the sigma model i've demoed didn't exhibit this kind of character.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 21, 2012)

drjlo said:


> One reason to stick with Canon EF fast primes is Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO), which was rolled out without much hoopla with DPP but carries a wallop!


Did you try Lightroom 4.1 RC2, too and even compare it to DPP? It has even further improved on lateral & axial CA elimination and you're able to fine-tune it or use a lens profile, so with this I don't think any color fringing should be a problem anymore after postprocessing:

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2012/04/new-color-fringe-correction-controls.html


----------



## drjlo (May 22, 2012)

I don't use LR, so can't say. I use DPP for RAW, then transfer to photoshop if I need to use further processes. DLO makes much more difference in overall detail and clarity, more in compared to the Chromatic Aberration correction tool in DPP. In fact, when DLO is used, CA correction tool is greyed out in DPP. 

"New in DPP v3.11 is Digital Lens Optimizer – a revolutionary new tool designed to drastically improve image resolution. Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) precisely imitates lens performance, with a series of complex mathematical functions replicating each stage of the journey of light through the optical path. Using this information DLO can correct a range of typical optical aberrations and loss of resolution caused by a camera’s low pass filter, by applying an inverse function to each shot to take the image nearer to how the scene appears to the naked eye."


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 22, 2012)

I own both the 1.4 and the 1.2L. I NEVER use the 1.4 now. Not because the 1.2L is L and looks awesome, the 50L makes nicer images. Nicer does not imply sharper (and my comment is not bias to which lens is sharper), as most tend to believe. If you only care for sharpness get the 50 macro. The 24L, 50L, and 200/2.0L are special. I'd like to try the 85L one day. You don't buy f1.2/1.4/2.0 lenses and stop them down.


----------



## drjlo (May 22, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> You don't buy f1.2/1.4/2.0 lenses and stop them down.



Well, I hope stopping down 50L to f/1.8 is still in the spirit. I just sold my 50 f/1.4 after getting 50L, and even before I got the 50L, I found myself using other lenses to "make do" like 35L. There's something about 50 f/1.4 images that is a bit unrefined and bothers me. I can say that 50L at f/1.8 is even sharper than 50 f/1.4 at f/1.8, in addition to the refinement in rendering.




DZ3C2797 by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 26, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> I own both the 1.4 and the 1.2L. I NEVER use the 1.4 now. Not because the 1.2L is L and looks awesome, the 50L makes nicer images. Nicer does not imply sharper (and my comment is not bias to which lens is sharper), as most tend to believe. If you only care for sharpness get the 50 macro. The 24L, 50L, and 200/2.0L are special. I'd like to try the 85L one day. You don't buy f1.2/1.4/2.0 lenses and stop them down.



I actually use them both. You're right, the 50L cannot really be "replaced" by any of the other primes below 2.8. I use the 1.4 above that, maybe from 4.0 on, because it is sharper than the 50L, but I suppose in everyday circumstances you wouldn't really notice this. If the 24-70L II is really sharp at 50mm, I will probably get rid of the 1.4 and use the zoom for that distance and aperture. But no lens can go where the 50L can go, I agree with you 100% on that point.


----------



## Daniel Flather (May 27, 2012)

drjlo said:


> ...addition to the refinement in rendering.



+1


----------



## melbournite (May 27, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > I own both the 1.4 and the 1.2L. I NEVER use the 1.4 now. Not because the 1.2L is L and looks awesome, the 50L makes nicer images. Nicer does not imply sharper (and my comment is not bias to which lens is sharper), as most tend to believe. If you only care for sharpness get the 50 macro. The 24L, 50L, and 200/2.0L are special. I'd like to try the 85L one day. You don't buy f1.2/1.4/2.0 lenses and stop them down.
> ...



This has been a pertinent thread for me because I've had a dilemma recently over which 50mm to buy; the 1.2 or 1.4? . Up till now I've gotten away without a 50mm prime but a job has come up where it will be ideal. If the 24-70II was out already and it was as good as the 70-200II, I probably may not be looking at one of these. Although I mostly prefer to buy L and I would love to have creamy bokeh (for personal use), I just ordered the 1.4. Simple reason is that for the job, I need F8 and as everyone says, it's sharper. It also happens to be cheaper although that wasn't the deciding factor - the key factor was that, as mentioned a few times even in this thread, 'you don't buy the 1.2 and stop it down'. So I bought the 1.4 for that. One day I intend to own the 1.2 as well but that may end up being when the MkII is released!

Thank you to all who have contributed to this thread and made my decision extremely difficult - even now while I wait for the 1.4 to arrive.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 27, 2012)

If you really, really want to shoot a lot at 50mm, keep your 1.4, and later down the road buy a Canon refurbished 50 f/1.2L. That's what I did. I do like the 50L indoors and things like night street shots. It's an amazing lens down there. However, sometimes I'll take a zoom and my 50 1.4 with me if I'm out and about. Should the 24-70L II zoom be anywhere near as sharp as the 1.4, then yeah, when you buy the 50L, sell the 1.4. But at least you'll get a lot of practice at 50mm in the interim.


----------



## EvilTed (May 27, 2012)

Hmmm, I think you need to take advise from people who actually HAVE a 50 1.2 mounted to a 5D MK3 
I have one mounted to mine 99% of the time.

PROS:
Fast focusing (yes on the MK3 it's as fast the 1.8 )
Sharp and kinda ordinary from F/2 down
Beautiful and dreamy wide open - something the 1.4 and 1.8 WILL NOT ACHIEVE

CONS:
Heavy
Expensive
Very hard to get shots in perfect focus wide open

I have the 50mm F/1.8 and this is a great lens optically for the $100 price tag.
Get this or the F/1.4 and you will have a great walk around lens. Lighter and better for learning composition than the 24-105 + they work in lower light.
I hated the 24-105 F/4 that came with my kit and sold it instantly.

HOWEVER
The 1.2 is a great lens.
Wide open it will give you something the others cannot.
I don't know about the Zeiss 50mm F/1.4, but there are issues with the focussing screens being fixed on the MK3.
It's supposedly excellent for video on the MK3 (because you use LiveView) and at $700 is half the price of the 1.2.
You are going to have a steep learning curve with either before you get a lot of keepers.

ASSIDE
I bought a Fuji X-Pro 1 + 35mm F/1.4 for my wife, but I've been "learning how to use it" before handing it off to her 
This camera is capable of excellent results - some say it beats the 5D MK2 in IQ.
I think the MK3 + 50mm F/1.2 produces better results.
The Fuji 35mm (53mm equivalent) is sharp wide open and the result is you cannot achieve the dreamy bokeh of the 1.2.
So, it depends what you want.
The 1.2 can be stopped down and look like any other 50mm.
The other 50's cannot be opened up to look like the 1.2

My $0.02

ET


----------



## Viggo (May 28, 2012)

I have the 50 L on the 5d3 very much of the time. BUT only after adjusting it with Reikan FoCal software. It was impossible to do with SpyderLens Cal and other manual tools. I bought a second copy with more STABLE focus, but not adjusted properly. After the software adjustment it is fantastic! I have always loved the lens, the hardest of all Canon lenses to use by far, with all it's faults, sorry, "it's a feature, not a fault", lol. Learn to use it and adjust it properly, and it gives you bokeh, color, contrast and wide open IQ that can't be matched by another 50. And it is very close to my 85 wide open now, which hasn't even been close to before.

Superb lens when adjusted, what will shorten your life dramtically or even kill you with frustration when it's not. Many people buy this lens and trade it off again because it is so hard to control. If you want a wide aperture normal'ish lens, the 85 and 35 will be better alternatives and WAY easier to get great results with, but only the 50 L is the best 50.


----------

