# Canon 50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4?



## Cory (Jan 1, 2018)

Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
Thanks.


----------



## BillB (Jan 1, 2018)

Cory said:


> Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
> Thanks.



There seem to be three things that people don't like about the f1.4: IQ wide open, autofocus, and iffy durability. Other people like its IQ stopped down to F2.8 or beyond. I don't use mine all that much, partly because I don't use 50 mm that often, but also because stopped down, I am happy with the IQ of my zoom in that range and like its flexibility.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 1, 2018)

Color, contrast and bokeh is better on the 50L. The difference in overall image quality shows best in apertures from f1.2 till f2.8. From f2.8 the 50 f1.4 is as least as sharp, probably sharper. Color and bokeh remains better on the 50L at smaller apertures. 

I don’t like the 50f1.4 much, but I love my 50L. It isn’t the technically best lens, but it creates great looking images. If you have the money, and if you like to shoot at large apertures, I wholeheartedly recommend the 50L.

You should look up Dustin Abbots review of the 50L. He sums up the strengths and weaknesses of the 50L in a very good way.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 1, 2018)

Cory said:


> Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
> Thanks.



No. And nobody can tell the difference unless they have same shot comparisons, they think they can but I have done this before, challenged people to blind comparisons of different images and nobody even gets close to reliable accuracy, indeed most fail to even get a random average so end up being wrong more than they are right.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 1, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
> ...



Yes. It is a difference, and it is noticeable when you have used the lenses and gotten to know them. Whether or not one reliably can pick out which lens took which picture in a blind comparison doesn’t prove anything. Compare them side by side, and the differences become obvious.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 1, 2018)

Larsskv said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Cory said:
> ...



Yes that's what everybody says, then fails miserably to be able to actually identify images taken with their lens that has a 'special look'. My point is if it isn't identifiable, and repeated test have proven it isn't, then it isn't special, in which case there is no real difference, which was the OP's question.

I am not saying there aren't good reasons to buy the 1.2, or the 1.4, over the other, just that a 'distinctive look' when shot at f2.8 isn't one of them. Content and post processing will have a vastly greater impact on the image than any differences in the lenses.


----------



## Larsskv (Jan 1, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Larsskv said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



When scrolling through pictures on flickr, I can sometimes believe a picture is taken with a 50mm lens, while it was taken with a 135mm lens, or the other way around. Sometimes I mistake a picture taken with a MFT system for full frame. Does that prove that I am mistaken all the time? Does it mean that my general observations are only subjective? Does it mean that every lens of the same focal lenght and aperture will look the same, and that gear doesn’t matter for the end result? 

As an amateur that only takes pictures for personal use, I will often shoot the same people in similar settings, and I do recognize differences, and I become aware of the “personality” of my different lenses. I have no doubt that I can mistake the 50L for a 50f1.4 in some pictures, but if you let me use the two lenses for myself, for shooting what I often shoot, I will be able to identify the 50L pictures 4 out of 5 times.


----------



## BillB (Jan 1, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
> ...




Can people tell the difference if they have same shot comparisons?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 1, 2018)

This kind of a question is a real hot potatoe because there's two sides to the coin really. If you the user can see a difference and gain more satisfaction and pleasure from it then it's real. Just don't expect others to be able to see the difference


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 1, 2018)

Wait for the new 50mmL. Patiently.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 1, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Wait for the new 50mmL. Patiently.



Well it'll probably be a 1.4 if a new 50 L does turn up, maybe an IS aka the 85 and not replace the current one. The current 50L isn't a lens meant for charts, it has an optical formula virtually identical to the original 8 element Takumar produced by Pentax in the 60's to get one over on Zeiss. Apparently they lost money on every one due to the expense of producing the things. It's a lens that's meant to have a softness and early graduation in the out of focus zone, and I think sometimes this does come through. Of course you have to be a connoisseur to appreciate it


----------



## docsmith (Jan 1, 2018)

If you only are interested in f/2.8 and larger, I would get the 50 f/1.4. Any difference, if noticeable, will be in rendering and personal opinion. Greater than f/2.8, the f/1.4 lens is sharp across the frame, contrasty, and renders beautifully. I owned the 50 f/1.4 for years before upgrading to the Sigma 50A. At f/2, the center starts getting real good. From f/2.8 and greater, it is simply a phenomenal lens. The AF isn't bad, but is not fast. I have heard reports, like others, of 50 f/1.4's getting dropped and ruined. But mine functioned great for years under normal use. 

I only upgraded after getting frustrated with using it from f/1.4 to f/2 over the entire frame and edges from f/2 to f/2.8. But if you are after greater than f/2.8, just get the f/1.4. It is truly a classic.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 1, 2018)

docsmith said:


> If you only are interested in f/2.8 and larger, I would get the 50 f/1.4. Any difference, if noticeable, will be in rendering and personal opinion. Greater than f/2.8, the f/1.4 lens is sharp across the frame, contrasty, and renders beautifully. I owned the 50 f/1.4 for years before upgrading to the Sigma 50A. At f/2, the center starts getting real good. From f/2.8 and greater, it is simply a phenomenal lens. The AF isn't bad, but is not fast. I have heard reports, like others, of 50 f/1.4's getting dropped and ruined. But mine functioned great for years under normal use.
> 
> I only upgraded after getting frustrated with using it from f/1.4 to f/2 over the entire frame and edges from f/2 to f/2.8. But if you are after greater than f/2.8, just get the f/1.4. It is truly a classic.



But if working f/2.8 and tighter, why not just use a 24-70mm f/2.8?


----------



## slclick (Jan 1, 2018)

220, 221


----------



## sdsr (Jan 1, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> But if working f/2.8 and tighter, why not just use a 24-70mm f/2.8?



Because it's a fraction of the size, weight and price? A better question might be why not just use a 50mm f/1.8, which is cheaper and smaller still and probably much the same at 2.8 (I've not used the latest one, though, so I can't comment first hand).

The reason to get the 50L is the sort of image it can create at f/1.2, not at f/2.8 (or if you sometimes want to focus manually: the f/1.4 is a pain because of its sloppy focus ring - unless mine was atypical).


----------



## docsmith (Jan 2, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> But if working f/2.8 and tighter, why not just use a 24-70mm f/2.8?



The OP asked about f/2.8 and to compare the two 50 mm lenses. Otherwise, I agree, which is why I went for the 50 Art. I am one of those that am having a great experience with it on both my 5DIII and 5DIV. But I use it primarily at f/1.4-f/2.2. Anything more narrow, I am using my 24-70 II.

But, at f/2.8 and more narrow, I really think the 50 f/1.4 is a classic wonderful lens. 



Cory said:


> Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
> Thanks.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Jan 2, 2018)

there is some magical "double gauss" render on the 50mm f/1,2L


----------



## aceflibble (Jan 2, 2018)

*Quick version:*
The differences between the f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses are minimal in most shooting conditions, and they each have an equal number of advantages overall. At f/2.8 they're so similar you could never tell their results apart. If f/2.8 and smaller is all you care about, you may as well save money with the 1.4 lens. (In fact at f/2.8 it's slightly better anyway.) But you're most likely to be better served by the Sigma 50mm or Tamron 45mm.


*Full version:*
As someone who has owned multiple copies of both (as well as other 50mms from Canon and other manufacturers) over the last 10 years (I finally went digital just a few months after the 50mm f/1.2L was on store shelves), using them on a variety of bodies (everything from a 400D to a 1DX) and for a variety of subjects (everything from casual photos with friends you wouldn't spend 5 seconds thinking about to productions for Dubai royalty with budgets in the multiple millions), I'd say I have a pretty good handle on how they compare. I've no examples to share (I don't use either lens these days; more on that later) but for what it's worth, here's how I view each. For the sake of clarity, I'll simply call them by their widest f-stops, i.e. 1.2 and 1.4.
_(Oh boy, that was a lot of parentheses)_

Subjective differences, unmeasurable differences, or draws:

The 1.4's colour rendition is ever so slightly warmer than neutral, while the 1.2's colour rendition is ever so slightly cooler than neutral; neither has enough of a colour cast to be unfixable, even if you shoot .jpg.
At f/4-5.6 there is absolutely no discernible difference between the two. For that matter, there's no significant difference with the f/1.8 STM, either.
_Center_ sharpness and rendition at f/2.8 and f/8 is identical.
At wide apertures, the 1.2 has more contrast overall, though the edges less so; at small apertures, the 1.4 has more contrast overall, though the edges less so.
Flare control is more-or-less the same between the two models. I've seen more variation between individual units of the same model than I have between the two designs overall.
Vignetting is the same at all apertures, with the unique wide open 1.2 aperture offering a slightly brighter center but a darker edge than the 1.4 wide open or the 1.2 stopped down to 1.4.
Bokeh at the same aperture and framing is identical. (Remember, "bokeh" refers to the _quality_ of out-of-focus rendering, _not_ how far out-of-focus something is.)
When the same aperture and framing is used, there's no difference in AF accuracy. The only difference in accuracy is when the 1.2 is used wide open, where its narrower depth of field obviously makes critical focus harder.
The 1.4's actual focal length is around 48mm, while the 1.2's is around 51.3mm; both 'breathe' as they focus closer. This is completely standard for all lenses—it's incredibly rare that any lens is actually _exactly_ the focal length it is marked as, let alone when focused closely—and the difference between 48mm and 51.3mm is essentially nothing. However, these things do bother some people, so there you go.
This could be complete blind luck, but in terms of durability, the 1.4's outer shell and focus have broken more easily for me while the optics have been tougher, and vice-versa for the 1.2, where all of mine have had optics damaged or misaligned after slight knocks while the outer shell and other mechanics remain unscratched.

Areas where the 1.4 is certainly stronger:

At f/2.8 and f/8, the 1.4 is _slightly_ sharper in the corners and overall has a more uniform look to the image; comparatively, the 1.2 is a little softer around the edges and contrast varies between the center of the frame and the outside at these apertures.
Most cases of colour fringing aberrations are better-controlled by the 1.4.
The 1.4's AF is slightly faster, in most conditions.
The 1.4's manual focus is more responsive. (Though still pretty loose.)
The 1.4's transmission is slightly more _accurate_, as it is only 1/3rd of a stop behind the f-stop; the 1.2's transmission is nearly 2/3rds of a stop slower than the f-stop.
Repair costs on the 1.4 are, unsurprisingly, a lot lower for similar work. (Let alone the difference in which parts seem most vulnerable in each lens, as noted above.)
The lower weight and size really is very noticeable.
Smaller filter size is always handy.

Areas where the 1.2 is certainly stronger:

Wider than f/2.8, the 1.2's rendering is more uniform across the frame and it has less ghosting—but not _no_ ghosting—in the corners.
Despite the transmission being less accurate, the 1.2 does still let in about one quarter of a stop more light than the 1.4.
In extremely low light and with the very best bodies, the 1.2's AF doesn't slow down _quite_ as much as the 1.4. (Though it's not a huge difference and we are talking about only the most extreme scenarios _with_ the most sensitive bodies.)
When focusing closer than around 6 feet, the 1.2 shows slightly less barrel distortion. (Though there is still a noticeable amount.)
AF is slightly quieter.

Overall, I'd say it comes down to a pretty simple case of practicality vs desire.

If you want to show off the fact you own an f/1.2 lens, an L lens, the biggest front optic you can get, or simply the overall cost of your gear, *buy the 1.2*.
If you want to get the most out of shooting wide open (whether your work demands it, e.g. extreme low light, or it's just your style), *buy the 1.2*.
If you shoot at medium or smaller apertures, are looking for a travel lens, want technical quality in a studio, or in other words don't actually care about using f/1.2, *buy the 1.4*.
 

... All that said, _most people shouldn't bother with either of them_. The fact is there are three other 50mm lenses available for Canon EF mount (not including specialist variations or luxury models), all of which offer more than both the Canon 1.2 and 1.4.

Canon's own 1.8 STM offers technically better (i.e. overall frame resolution, neutral contrast, and neutral colour) image quality at f/4 and smaller, and is subjectively equal at f/2.8 where it is a fraction sharper than the others but has lower contrast. The fact it does so at such a low price point means it's hard for non-pros to justify buying much else and even studio pros may actually be better off with it, if it wasn't for...
... the Sigma 50mm beating everything else for technical quality. If contrast and resolving power across the frame is what you want, and you've got the kind of budget where you're looking at the 50mm f/1.2L anyway, the Sigma 50mm is the lens you'll be best off with. The only drawback of the Sigma is the AF accuracy, which can be inconsistent.
For everyone in the middle, as well as some people looking for something higher-end but without the need for the fastest apertures, there's the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC. It's nearly as optically clean as the Sigma, and better than any of the Canons. (Subjective taste, such as colour rendition, notwithstanding; the Tamron's is about the same as the Canon 1.4's, by the way.) Most importantly it is weather-sealed and has vibration compensation (IS), which makes it by far the most useful for travel, as well as for anyone using a higher-resolution body. If you use a 5DS, 5D4, or any 24mp+ APS-C body, or if you plan to get any of those bodies, the Tamron is the _only_ 50mm (okay, 45mm) lens you should even consider. If you need your lenses to be durable, get the Tamron. If you simply want great optical quality, the Tamron is second only to the Sigma, and at a lower price, lower weight, perfectly accurate AF, and with stabilisation. The only downfall of the Tamron 45mm is that its light transmission is even worse than the Canon 1.2's, being t/2.5. That said, t/2.5 is still fast enough for all modern AF systems to work to their full capabilities, and 4 stops of stabilisation more than makes up for three quarters of a stop of light loss. Tamron even provide a far more extensive warranty than any other company, not that you should need it 'cause their 45mm is also the toughest-built of any of these lenses.

So, though the Canon 1.2 and 1.4 have their strengths and weaknesses and certain people will be better off with one than the other, really _everyone_ is better off with one of these other three lenses. People who demand the highest resolution at all apertures should get the Sigma; people who mostly shoot at f/4-8, or simply wish to save money, should get the Canon 1.8 STM; everybody else should get the Tamron.


For what it's worth, I said at the start that I no longer use the Canon 1.2 and 1.4, after years of using both. That's partly due to the nature of my work changing (everything now needs either wider or longer focal lengths, and everything in the middle isn't really useful) and partly due to the presence of the Sigma and Tamron. I still have one Canon 1.2 sat here just in case I do need a 50mm, but it's gathering dust. I've rented the Tamron and Sigma instead and the only reason I don't sell the Canon is because the arrangement I have with them means it's technically a (very) long-term loan rather than a lens I own outright. If I ever need to buy a 'standard' prime that is truly my own, it'll be the Tamron, unless Sigma fixes their AF consistency in which case I'd go for that.

And for the sake of completion, I'd also add that the Canon 40mm is a great 'standard' prime, if all you want is f/2.8 and smaller. At comparative apertures it's got the same image quality overall as the Canon 50s, but with less distortion. (Despite being wider.) The EF-S 24mm is the same deal for APS-C cameras.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 2, 2018)

Ah-Keong said:


> there is some magical "double gauss" render on the 50mm f/1,2L



As opposed to the _""double gauss"_ render" of the 1.4 and 1.8, oh and the f1.0? They are all double gauss designs.


----------



## slclick (Jan 2, 2018)

Tell me, what needs to be done to avoid a sticker effect in a retrofocal if Canon goes that direction? Coatings? Shape of elements?


----------



## Cory (Jan 2, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> *Quick version:*
> The differences between the f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses are minimal in most shooting conditions, and they each have an equal number of advantages overall. At f/2.8 they're so similar you could never tell their results apart. If f/2.8 and smaller is all you care about, you may as well save money with the 1.4 lens. (In fact at f/2.8 it's slightly better anyway.) But you're most likely to be better served by the Sigma 50mm or Tamron 45mm.
> 
> 
> ...


That was absolutely incredible. Thanks and maybe my 40mm lens is all I need, really.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 2, 2018)

BillB said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > Is there much difference in colors, contrast, etc. between the Canon 50 1.2 and the much less expensive 1.4 at, let's say, 2.8 (on full-frame if that matters)? Or even a little difference?
> ...



This is just about right -- the micro USM AF can hunt but it's still quicker/better for stills than STM for me. I rarely use mine wider than f/2 as the output is cloudy (if that makes any sense). 

As for durability, it's that damn external focusing design, which protrudes an inner barrel beyond the outer barrel of the lens during focusing. Sticking out, it can take incidental pushes/bumps (especially in your bag, in transit, bouncing around on your hip, etc.) which can damage the internals. I try to remember to manually set the focusing ring to infinity when I'm done shooting with it.

But it's not without its virtues. The 50 f/1.4 is generally a sharper lens than the 50 f/1.2L (other than in the center) and it is delightfully compact. It remains my #1 choice as I need first party AF and it remains Canon's sharpest AF 50 prime at the apertures I shoot.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 2, 2018)

docsmith said:


> If you only are interested in f/2.8 and larger, I would get the 50 f/1.4. Any difference, if noticeable, will be in rendering and personal opinion. Greater than f/2.8, the f/1.4 lens is sharp across the frame, contrasty, and renders beautifully. I owned the 50 f/1.4 for years before upgrading to the Sigma 50A. At f/2, the center starts getting real good. From f/2.8 and greater, it is simply a phenomenal lens. The AF isn't bad, but is not fast. I have heard reports, like others, of 50 f/1.4's getting dropped and ruined. But mine functioned great for years under normal use.
> 
> I only upgraded after getting frustrated with using it from f/1.4 to f/2 over the entire frame and edges from f/2 to f/2.8. But if you are after greater than f/2.8, just get the f/1.4. It is truly a classic.



This is my experience as well. If you don't need f/1.4 output (which is admittedly iffy at best) and can live narrower than f/2, the 50 f/1.4 USM is the lens for you.

If you are a sharpness junkie and don't mind chimping/pixel-peeping for missed focus, the Sigma 50 Art is a razor blade when the AF delivers. It's a fundamentally better instrument. But I'd rather not shoot with a huge pickle jar prime and I haaaaaaaate AF that swings and misses. So I've been patiently waiting for (preferably) a 50mm non-L with IS to arrive, but I'd honestly consider a new 50L if it rectified the current 50L's cotton ball corners and didn't 'get huge' like the Art/Otus lenses.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 2, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> But if working f/2.8 and tighter, why not just use a 24-70mm f/2.8?



Smaller
Lighter
Less conspicuous / more discreet for candids/street/travel
Slightly sharper at f/2.8 (Photozone doesn't quite have apples-apples there, they report the zoom at 40mm)
Dramatically less expensive

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 2, 2018)

sdsr said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > But if working f/2.8 and tighter, why not just use a 24-70mm f/2.8?
> ...



The 50 f/1.8 STM has some painful drawbacks in my mind: it's effectively a non-featured lens (other than the AF switch) -- it lacks a distance scale, it's a focus by wire design, ring USM > STM all day for me (for stills), has an odd/uncommon filter size, etc.

It's okay, I guess, no knocking it or its wonderful value. I just want something like the 35 f/2 IS to be offered in a 50mm FL: 90% as sharp and only a hair slower than the L, but at 60% the size and price.

- A


----------



## docsmith (Jan 2, 2018)

Cory said:


> That was absolutely incredible. Thanks and maybe my 40mm lens is all I need, really.



I really enjoyed Ace's write up as well. 

The 40 mm f/2.8 pancake is a great lens. You already own it, so you know. What you would be gaining with a 50 mm prime is a slightly different perspective (46 degrees versus 57.3 degrees is different) and vignetting.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=810&LensComp=115&Units=E

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?Lens=810&Camera=453&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=9&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

But, depending on what you are trying to shoot, I can see going with the 40 mm pancake. It is a very nice lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 2, 2018)

Cory said:


> That was absolutely incredible. Thanks and maybe my 40mm lens is all I need, really.



It's a wonderful little gem, but my 40 pancake sits in the cabinet at home while my 35 f/2 IS USM and/or 50 f/1.4 USM comes along all the time.

USM > STM for stills, and apparently that really matters to me as I am frustrated by slower focusing / focus by wire lenses.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > That was absolutely incredible. Thanks and maybe my 40mm lens is all I need, really.
> ...



Although I don't have the 35/2 or 50/1.4, my 40/2.8 comes along quite frequently (and even if I had one of the other two lenses, I'd bring the 40/2.8 over them). The reason is the small size of the pancake. I frequently go out to shoot events with the 70-200/2.8L IS II, on nature hikes with the kids with the 70-300L, or birding with the 600/4L IS II, and in those cases, I can just tuck the 40/2.8 in a pocket of the bag or my clothes and bring it along for a normal FoV if needed. Anything bigger would be left at home.


----------



## aceflibble (Jan 3, 2018)

STM doesn't have to be universally worse than USM. Stepping/focus-by-wire lenses have been made which _are_ extremely fast and accurate... just not ones made by Canon, yet. And of course different bodies drive each lens differently; some USM lenses can be quite slow on some bodies but very fast on others, and the exact same can be said for STM motors. For example, the very fastest AF drive currently available for Canon is the old 100mm f/2 USM on a 1DXmkII or 7DmkII (it's actually _disgusting_ how fast that lens is on those bodies and makes you wonder why they've not reused that motor in any other lens), but on any 5D it's nothing special and on the 80D it's actually slower than the 18-135 STM.

If anything, the 40mm's slower AF can be more logically attributed to the small size (less leverage to shift elements) rather than the stepping design itself. Doesn't change the results, but basically, it's bad form to blanket say that USM is better than STM; they can both be good and both can be bad, just depends on the specific lens, the specific body, and the specific shooting conditions combined.



docsmith said:


> The 40 mm f/2.8 pancake is a great lens. You already own it, so you know. What you would be gaining with a 50 mm prime is a slightly different perspective (46 degrees versus 57.3 degrees is different)


Heads up on this: as I touched upon briefly before, very few lenses are _exactly_ the focal length they're marked as, and these 50mms and the Canon 40mm are no exception. For example, the 50mm 1.4 is very slightly wider than 50mm (48mm) and the 40mm is very slightly longer. (42mm by my calculations, but I'm not a total expert and I could be +/-0.5mm off.) This means your angle of view measurements are very slightly inaccurate, though the basic idea is sound.
Also I think it's worth pointing out that in this case, specifically, the Canon 40mm has less barrel distortion than any of the Canon 50mm lenses. Combined with the perspective not being _quite_ as different as it first appears, You can easily move in closer to get the same framing and you won't really be able to tell you used a wider-angle lens, other than the depth of field possibilities of course.

That 40mm isn't a perfect lens by any means, but I do believe it keeps up with the Canon 50mm lenses (none of which are perfect, either) at comparable apertures and it's a lens I happily keep around despite being made 'redundant' by the presence of other similar-length lenses. 90% of the results in 50% of the size should not be underestimated. I wouldn't suggest every professional immediately sells their 50mm f/1.2L to swap to the 40mm STM... but they should buy the 40mm STM anyway and keep it to hand. _At worst_ it's a very capable back-up.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 3, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> For example, the very fastest AF drive currently available for Canon is the old 100mm f/2 USM on a 1DXmkII or 7DmkII (it's actually _disgusting_ how fast that lens is on those bodies and makes you wonder why they've not reused that motor in any other lens), but on any 5D it's nothing special and on the 80D it's actually slower than the 18-135 STM.



Interesting about the 100/2 having a unique USM motor. I didn't know this, but have always found that the 100/2 is basically 100% reliable in it's focus at f/2 whereas the mechanics of the 85/1.8 just don't seem to be able to reliably stop the lens in precisely the right place for 1.8 shooting, and I've had at least five copies of that lens over the years. I've always said here on CR, anyone looking at the 85/1.8 should seriously consider the 100/2. It's one of my favourite lenses. 



aceflibble said:


> If anything, the 40mm's slower AF can be more logically attributed to the small size (less leverage to shift elements) rather than the stepping design itself. Doesn't change the results, but basically, it's bad form to blanket say that USM is better than STM; they can both be good and both can be bad, just depends on the specific lens, the specific body, and the specific shooting conditions combined.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do like the 40mm pancake, but people should be aware that it has pretty acute field curvature which I find especially noticeable at infinity focus. You've really got to be at least f/8 on FF to get a straight line of focus across the frame. Funnily enough in reviews on the net I have only come across one that mentioned this strong FC.


----------



## sulla (Jan 3, 2018)

I, too, believe that there will be hardly any noticeable IQ differences between the 1.2 and the 1.4 lenses. The main difference is certainly build quality. I never used the 1.2, but I never liked the build quality of my 1.4, which was frankly awful. I liked the images, however. They are a bit soft wider open than f/2, but still, I liked the look of the images a lot.

Cory, if you intend to shoot at narrower than 2.8 only, then why not use the 50 1.8 ? IQ at 2.8 should be very nice and again costs only a fracion of the 50 1.4 and is again much smaller. Build quality should also be better than on the 1.4.

If you can cope with the significantly narrower framing of the pancake 40 2.8, you will know yourself that it is a wonderful lens with perfect IQ, even wide open, and its cheap and small. But it will frame noticeably wider and thus be less suited to typical portrait photography. 40 is not 50 by a large amount.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 3, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> For example, the very fastest AF drive currently available for Canon is the old 100mm f/2 USM on a 1DXmkII or 7DmkII (it's actually _disgusting_ how fast that lens is on those bodies and makes you wonder why they've not reused that motor in any other lens), but on any 5D it's nothing special and on the 80D it's actually slower than the 18-135 STM.


Says who? Canon have made various claims through the years on their fastest focusing lens, normally the latest 300 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8, I've never seen them mention the 100 f2.

I know when I got my 300 f2.8 IS new they claimed it was their fastest focusing lens ever.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 3, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > For example, the very fastest AF drive currently available for Canon is the old 100mm f/2 USM on a 1DXmkII or 7DmkII (it's actually _disgusting_ how fast that lens is on those bodies and makes you wonder why they've not reused that motor in any other lens), but on any 5D it's nothing special and on the 80D it's actually slower than the 18-135 STM.
> ...



We need a damn AF speed & AF hit rate / consistency website, for crying out loud. 

No claim short of the general YAPODFC is more common here than 'the AF on ______ stinks' and we cannot seem to actually document that for some reason.

- A


----------



## wsmith96 (Jan 3, 2018)

sulla said:


> I, too, believe that there will be hardly any noticeable IQ differences between the 1.2 and the 1.4 lenses. The main difference is certainly build quality. I never used the 1.2, but I never liked the build quality of my 1.4, which was frankly awful. I liked the images, however. They are a bit soft wider open than f/2, but still, I liked the look of the images a lot.
> 
> Cory, if you intend to shoot at narrower than 2.8 only, then why not use the 50 1.8 ? IQ at 2.8 should be very nice and again costs only a fracion of the 50 1.4 and is again much smaller. Build quality should also be better than on the 1.4.
> 
> If you can cope with the significantly narrower framing of the pancake 40 2.8, you will know yourself that it is a wonderful lens with perfect IQ, even wide open, and its cheap and small. But it will frame noticeably wider and thus be less suited to typical portrait photography. 40 is not 50 by a large amount.



I found this comparison on SLR lounge: https://www.slrlounge.com/canon-50mm-prime/

It has examples for side by side comparisons.

I have the 50 1.4 and find it to be quite sharp from f2.0 on. I've only compared it to the 1.8 and I found them to be very similar. As others have stated, the 1.8 is a bargain for quality if you normally shooting from 2.8 on.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 3, 2018)

Hmm... now knowing that the 85L IS made several compromises to get the IS into the design, I wonder how feasible it is to have a non-L 50mm with IS. Would Canon go with two IS options at 50mm?


Option 1: a modification to the existing 50 f/1.4 to add IS but leave most of the optical characteristics the same.

Option 2: a 50 f/1.4L IS that is largely based on the work done for the 85L IS

I would have loved to see Canon keeping it's max aperture advantage, but it seems like more corrected versions are getting slower and slower (200 f/1.8 -> 200 f/2, 50 f/1 -> 50 f/1.2 -> 50 f/1.4IS?, 85 f/1.2 -> 85 f/1.4 IS).


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 3, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> Hmm... now knowing that the 85L IS made several compromises to get the IS into the design, I wonder how feasible it is to have a non-L 50mm with IS.



...because they've pulled it off in a 35 f/2 lens, and few are complaining of the compromises that lens had to accept.

The non-L lenses are not built around atom-splitting sharpness. They are built around very good sharpness in a not so huge package. I could see a 50 f/1.4 IS USM fitting in a package in-between the size/weight of the 50 f/1.2L and 50 f/1.4 Canon currently sells today, and I think it would work just fine. 

Now whether Canon _wants to offer such a lens_ is something we could debate (and have debated quite a bit before). Canon very well may 'pull an 85' and offer this as an f/1.4L IS to be sold alongside the f/1.2L and not update the non-L. 

- A


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm... now knowing that the 85L IS made several compromises to get the IS into the design, I wonder how feasible it is to have a non-L 50mm with IS.
> ...



The 50 f/1.2 rear element is closer in size to the 85 f/1.2 II than the 35 f/2 IS, which was why I was positing that if a non-L 50 f/1.4 with IS came out, it might use similar optics to the existing 50 f/1.4, which is small. I thought that the 50L and 85L II share similar designs, and I'm wondering if Canon is taking a similar tact this time too.

I would like to see an IS version of the existing 50 f/1.4, but that may be too close to the rumored 50L f/1.4 IS. With the 85 f/1.4 IS, Canon has shown that it doesn't value absolute sharpness above all other factors (unlike Otus and 85A). The 50L is used primarily as a portrait lens (like the 85), so bokeh and other factors become significant factors in addition to edge-to-edge sharpness.


----------



## BillB (Jan 3, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> We need a damn AF speed & AF hit rate / consistency website, for crying out loud.
> 
> No claim short of the general YAPODFC is more common here than 'the AF on ______ stinks' and we cannot seem to actually document that for some reason.
> 
> - A



Your best hope might be to be to get Roger Cicala interested in setting a database up, or at least in offering an opinion on whether there are significant AF accuracy differences among lenses. 

In 2012 he did some work on AF and discovered to his surprise that newer Canon lenses (e.g. EF 28mm IS and 40 mm pancake) when paired with a newer Canon camera (e.g. 5DIII) were much more accurate than older lenses, because of an iterative focussing design that Canon had introduced. Presumably the feature has been included in lenses and higher end cameras that Canon has released since then, but I don't think Roger has written anything about it since his 2012 work, and Canon has never said anything about it so far as I know.

His 2012 work is in the Lensrental blog archives, and you can find it by googling Lensrental AF accuracy. Autofocus Reality Part 3B: Canon cameras dated Aug 1, 2012 has links to Parts 1,2, and 3A.


----------



## aceflibble (Jan 4, 2018)

*edit:* Okay, didn't mean to type so much... again. I've made the font smaller, should cut down space. I don't expect everyone/anyone to read all this. If you _do_ want to read all this, hit the 'quote' button or copy & paste it into word and up the font yourself. *Short version:* some lenses you wouldn't think are great, and Canon don't advertise as being great, actually are really great at something. Whether that's actually any use to you or not is another matter.



privatebydesign said:


> Says who? Canon have made various claims through the years on their fastest focusing lens, normally the latest 300 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8, I've never seen them mention the 100 f2.
> 
> I know when I got my 300 f2.8 IS new they claimed it was their fastest focusing lens ever.


Manufactures make all sorts of claims. Fuji claimed their X-T2 was the fastest-focusing camera on the market, until Sony made the same claim, then Pentax did, and then Nikon did. Canon say the 80D's got the best dynamic range of all their cameras, yet the truth is it only does so because it lies about the ISO ratings and even then only manages to uphold that range for the ISO 100 setting (which is actually closer to ISO 50). Fuji claim their lenses are the highest-resolving lenses money can buy, but you'd sure never know it 'cause their camera's processors bake in so many adjustments even with raw files that there's no way for the lenses to be tested properly.

Canon pretty much shift their claims depending on what they want to sell at any given time. They make a helluva lot of money on the 300mm f/2.8 IS, so they go out of their way to say it's the fastest and most optically-perfect lens they make. The 400mm f/2.8 IS is actually optically better, but they don't make as much money on that so they'd rather the claim went to the 300mm instead. The 50mm f/1.8 STM at f/4 is sharper than the 50mm f/1.2L at f/4, but do you think Canon would ever advertise that their most-expensive 'pro' 50mm can _ever_ be beaten in any way by their cheapest? (Which also already sells bucketloads and so doesn't need and wouldn't benefit from the marketing.) 

The Canon 100mm f/2 USM is kind of an awkward stepchild for Canon and you won't see them advertising it much unless you specifically ask them about it. It's a holdover from the 80s where people still hadn't fully settled into 85mm as 'the' portrait focal length, and having both an 85 and a 100mm was deemed important by manufacturers who didn't know which would 'win'. As it is the 85mm ended up gaining in popularity so the 100mm focal length died off a bit (same with 28mm, as 24mm grew) and became relegated to macro duty and special effects. The 100mm f/2 continues to be made basically only because the 85mm f/1.8 is so popular and they share components (see also: 28mm f/1.8 to the 50mm f/1.4, the 24mm IS and 28mm IS, and Tamron's 45mm and 35mm), so the 100mm became a kind of "eh, we've got nothing to lose" deal for Canon. They don't make much money off of it but it also doesn't cost them much to keep producing, resulting in a very small but very low-risk profit. Hence it stays in production but they don't promote it.
Because of how the late 80s went and the 85mm becoming more popular, it's often assumed that the 85mm f/1.8 was the first lens designed and the 100mm f/2 was born as a variation of the 85mm, but it was actually the other way around. (People foten forget the 100mm was actually released about 6 months _before_ the 85mm.) _This is why the 85mm doesn't focus as quickly or confidently as the 100mm and its optics are a tiny fraction worse_. It was all made for the 100mm first and the 85mm had to kind of 'make do'. But since 85mm simply became a much more popular length shortly after, Canon and everyone else just kind of forgot about the 100mm.

When they were first released, the bodies available didn't vary much in terms of AF drive speed, which meant expectations of the 'fastest' AF were pretty low. The 100mm _was_ marketed as a fast-focusing lens at first, but with it being a matter of tiny fractions of a second at the time and not anything earth-shattering, it's not something which ever really caught on. With the 85mm shortly overshadowing it, that aspect of the 100mm lens was quickly forgotten. In 1999 the 300mm f/2.8 IS was released, updating the '87 300mm, and that became Canon's golden child; they'd found a way to charge nearly twice the price for a lens without the manufacturing costs increasing much at all. Suddenly, Canon made every claim imaginable about the 300mm f/2.8 IS. It was the most optically perfect, fastest-focusing, toughest lens in the world, and the lightest of its type. Of course it wasn't _actually_ as optically perfect as many macro lenses, it wasn't as fast to focus as many smaller lenses, it wasn't really as tough as some more balanced primes, and it was only the second-lightest big aperture telephoto lens... but none of that stopped Canon from promoting its new cashcow as such. (For the record, do not get me wrong, the 300mm f/2.8 IS and its mk II revision are _gorgeous_ lenses.)

And yes, they recycle these claims for every new or revised big lens. Don't forget they also started to claim they were painting their biggest lenses white for the sake of durability. (And totally not just as a really easy way to the lenses to stand out and advertise the brand.) And the old lenses get forgotten more and more.

Fact is, the 100mm f/2 is the fastest-focusing lens Canon has. They used to tell you that themselves proudly, and they still will if you directly ask Canon reps about it. It's an easy focal length to produce, and it's a relatively compact lens with most of the construction actually being taken up by the AF motor. There's not a lot of glass to push and it doesn't have to be pushed far. Not all bodies deliver full power to the AF motors of all lenses—for example, the original 7D gives full power to the IS 'big whites' but less power to anything smaller—but on the bodies which _do_ give every lens the full whack (e.g. 1DX2), that 100mm is the single-best autofocusing lens Canon makes. It's only gotten faster as newer bodies have been able to give it more and more power. 
Every other lens they've made since has either had a better motor but hampered by having more glass/further to push (i.e. every telephoto lens, every macro lens, and every zoom), or they've had less glass to move but worse motors. (i.e. The really low-budget EF-S lenses and the first generation of STM lenses.) Of course, some lenses suffer from both lots of glass and weaker motors. (The 85mm f/1.2 is never going to win any speed awards.) The 100mm is somewhat lucky, and remains moderately unique (the 85mm f/1.8 borrowing some parts and not using them as well notwithstanding), because that focal length and aperture at that size is basically the perfect balance as far as focusing motors go. While the 100mm f/2.8L Macro has to cope with a longer focus throw and higher gear ratio, the 135mm f/2 has to push slightly more glass, and shorter lenses aren't granted the same amount of space for their motors to have enough leverage to focus ultra-quickly, the 100mm gets the balance as close to perfect as physically possible.

However, you can look at it is a series of negatives, too. Having a small focus range to shift through can also be interpreted as having a poor minimum focus distance. Having gearing built for speed can be interpreted as having loose, inaccurate manual focus control. f/2's balance of light-vs-size isn't such a great trade if what you really want is f/1.4, let alone f/1.2 as a lot of people want in a medium-telephoto prime. For a lot of people the whole lens is useless because 100mm is such an oddball focal length now, and no focus motor in the world would make them pick it up over an 85+135 combo or a 70-200.


Which, to bring us back to the main topic at hand, can (mostly) be applied to the 50mm f/1.4, too. In fact the 28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 100mm f/2 were first designed and marketed as 'the' prime kit for Canon, with Canon going as far as to make sure they all share filter threads so all three could be bought and used as a matching set... until 24mm became more popular than 28mm and 85mm slaughtered 100mm and Canon started pretending those two lenses didn't exist. The 50mm f/1.4 is a flawed lens in many ways but actually is still better than more expensive options in others (at least in certain scenarios; see my previous post about the 50mms for details on when and where the 1.4 really shines), much like the 100mm f/2. Whether the positives outweigh the negatives is something each individual user will have to judge for themselves. Lenses like the 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2 don't have the unique talking points of f/1.2 or IS or macro capabilities to make them easily-bought, must-haves, but for 'medium' shooting, let's say f/4 in standard daylight on a mid-priced 6D body... they can actually wind up beating more expensive, specialist lenses.


If you believe Canon's marketing, every lens is perfect for everything and you're a fool if you don't give them a direct line to your bank account. Reality is, every lens they make is good for something and not so great for other things. Some of their best-performing lenses get very little time in the spotlight while some of their more average lenses are always front-and-center. Canon's marketing and claims are driven by what will make them the most money, and don't really reflect the reality of using any of these lenses.

So whether you're doubting if the 50mm f/1.2 is really that much better than the others or you're not sure the 100mm f/2 is really that fast or if you're looking at the 24-105 mk II and wondering why Canon even bothered, just know that the answer is never as simple as "whatever Canon says, goes". As I said here, the 100mm f/2 is the fastest-focusing Canon lens, at least one the bodies which allow it to be, but whether or not that's of any use to you is another matter entirely. As I said in my previous post, the 50mm f/1.4 can beat the 1.2 in many ways but whether those conditions will apply to your own shooting is something only you can judge. (I have no answer for why Canon bothered to remake the 24-105 when all they did was make it heavier.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 4, 2018)

So you don't have anything to back up your claim?

The screenshots below are from the Canon book Lens Work, I forget which version. 

I understand marketing make a fine distinction between misdirection and lying but they state, unequivocally, that the 300mm f2.8 IS has _"The world’s fastest*1 autofocusing"_, not even Canon's, the fastest in the world when used on the NiCad driven higher end bodies.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 4, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> So you don't have anything to back up your claim?
> 
> The screenshots below are from the Canon book Lens Work, I forget which version.
> 
> I understand marketing make a fine distinction between misdirection and lying but they state, unequivocally, that the 300mm f2.8 IS has _"The world’s fastest*1 autofocusing"_, not even Canon's, the fastest in the world when used on the NiCad driven higher end bodies.



Damn, private, for a few minutes I was able to feel that my 100/2 was better than your 300/2.8 ;D

Serious though, aceflibble has stated an awful lot of facts, and it does make me wonder how he knows all this when this information doesn't seem to be available anywhere. If true then I guess that much of it will be from "personal communication" with Canon. However, on the subject of the 100/2, I have always found it to be a better lens than the 85/1.8 principally in the fact that it focuses much better, not necessarily faster ( I use 5 series) but more accurately, and I've never been able to find out why this is. To me it seemed that the 85 was just a more budget version, being about 25% cheaper. As it is also "faster" and in recent times more people have fixated on prime speed, everyone buys the 85 and no one wants the 100. 

I don't really agree with the idea that in the industry didn't know which way 85 and 100 was going to go. I seem to remember that many brands used "105", although I think even then Canon was on "100", but in recent times it's become a speed thing IMO, an 85 is faster than the equivalent 100 and as the two focal lengths are close The People want the 85. The way in which the 24 has taken over from the 28 is again IMO because in the '70s and '80s a 24 was about half as much again or even double a 28. Once more advanced manufacturing brought the prices together The People want the more exotic lens that previously couldn't be afforded. I hear of many people "hating" the 50mm focal length because that was what everyone used to have.....so it goes on, fashions change. 

And by the way, the 50/1.2 L produces a beautiful, subtle rendering that gives the images a unique character..... :-X


----------



## Cory (Jan 4, 2018)

Would it be terrible to pivot into a "general" 50 vs. 85 on full-frame discussion? 
If 50 then clearly the 50 1.2 is what I'm after, but I'm thinking maybe 16-35, 40, 85 and 135 instead of 16-35, 40, 50 and 135. 
Assume that I'm an idiot which should completely eliminate the potential for any personal attacks.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 4, 2018)

Cory said:


> Would it be terrible to pivot into a "general" 50 vs. 85 on full-frame discussion?
> If 50 then clearly the 50 1.2 is what I'm after, but I'm thinking maybe 16-35, 40, 85 and 135 instead of 16-35, 40, 50 and 135.
> Assume that I'm an idiot which should completely eliminate the potential for any personal attacks.



It really is personal choice, there is no right or wrong unless you go to extremes and in this discussion it is all about splitting hairs.

All I would say is that when it comes to a "portrait" type focal length lens, I have found that the longer you make it the harder and more restrictive it is to use well. Thus in terms of dof and sharpness an 85 is easier to use than a 135, but an 85 is still slightly too short to give a flattering perspective of a very highly frames face shot. Thus a 100 becomes a good compromise. However for general, less tightly frames portraits it's cheaper to get subject isolation by using a "normal" speed 85 mm lens than an exotic, really fast 50mm, and an 85 isn't much more demanding to use than a 50.


----------



## sulla (Jan 4, 2018)

Cory said:


> Would it be terrible to pivot into a "general" 50 vs. 85 on full-frame discussion?


Certainly... 
The difference between your 40 and a 50 is small, and your next fixed focal lenght is 135, so yes, it makes more sense to add a 85 to your kit.
When I had the 50 1.4 i loved the perspective it gave me. I tested a friends 85 1.8, and I didn't like its perspective too much. Later, when I got a used 85 1.2 I very much appreciated its perspective and now it is one of my most used lenses. Yes, 85 is a great focal lenght to shoot with.

Question: Why do you prefer primes? Which feature of primes is it that you make use of?

While I love to shoot at low lights and thus need the brightness of fast primes, zooms are so much more useful in real life. I always have the wrong prime mounted for the second shot, and changing lenses all the time is not fun. Why not add a 70-200, eg. the excellent F/4 IS, instead of a fixed 85? Or the f/2.8 II, which acts as an excellent portrait lens, if f/4 is not enough?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 4, 2018)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > So you don't have anything to back up your claim?
> ...



;D

No he stated a lot of opinion, no facts.

One of my favorite specs is that the 50 f1.4 is sharper across the frame at f5.6 than the 100mm L Macro, a fact that is supported by my copies of both and Brian at TDP. I am under no illusions about sales marketing speak but do know the difference between carefully worded and annotated claims that must have some base in reality and broad generalizations that don't.

P.S. I agree on the uniqueness of the 50 1.2, it draws in a completely unique character. 

Cory, I like the 35 and 85 combination, as many have before.


----------



## Cory (Jan 4, 2018)

sulla said:


> Question: Why do you prefer primes? Which feature of primes is it that you make use of?


Thanks for the responses.
As for primes - I've used the best zooms available and said, "Not bad.", but when I use primes I say, "That's some ****** ****." 
I don't overly care about the larger apertures (since 2.8 is usually enough for me), but there's a quality to pics produced with primes that seems profoundly more outstanding than those with zooms all things being equal. 
Maybe many don't notice and don't care, but my primes just produce a level of excellence that I can't replicate with zooms. 
I was even thinking of an UWA prime instead of my 16-35, but in that range the 16-35 really is exceptionally useful so I'm willing to give up some of the "prime" goodness. 
Can't say that I'm ultra-experienced, but that's just my experience. 
Thanks again and I think the 50 that I'm after might be the Canon 85 1.2.


----------



## sulla (Jan 4, 2018)

Cory said:


> when I use primes I say, "That's some ****** ****."


Yes, I fully appreciate that. Part of the reason I enjoy shooting with primes is that I need to compose more carefully, chose the right position more carefully than with primes, and that results in better images. But when I need to be quick, zooms rule.



Cory said:


> Thanks again and I think the 50 that I'm after might be the Canon 85 1.2.


Good choice, but if I didn't already have the 1.2, I'd give the brandnew 85 1.4 IS a deeeeeep thought. Most likely that will be the more useful lens. I'd suggest to read through the review at DTP.

Personally, I'll wait for ashandford's 50 1.something IS...


----------



## BillB (Jan 4, 2018)

Cory said:


> sulla said:
> 
> 
> > Question: Why do you prefer primes? Which feature of primes is it that you make use of?
> ...



One thing to think about is what you will use these lenses for. I seem to recollect that you had an interest in photographing stage performances. For anything other than portraits, I would like the edge to edge sharpness of the 85 f1.4. Even for portraits, I am not sure you would be giving up very much (if anything) by going with the 85 f1.4.

Also, I do think that the 70-200 f2.8 IS is worth a hard look, because of the sharpness of the lens, and because of the flexibility that the zoom provides. The 70-200 f2.8 IS is not just another zoom. It is maybe the best zoom ever built. It is a heavy lens, but it weighs less than the 85 and the 135 together, and it costs less than the two of them combined.


----------



## Cory (Jan 4, 2018)

BillB said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > sulla said:
> ...


Maybe I am splitting hairs with a 16-35, 50 and 70-200 being "best" all things considered.


----------



## DaviSto (Jan 4, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> *Quick version:*
> The differences between the f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses are minimal in most shooting conditions, and they each have an equal number of advantages overall. At f/2.8 they're so similar you could never tell their results apart. If f/2.8 and smaller is all you care about, you may as well save money with the 1.4 lens. (In fact at f/2.8 it's slightly better anyway.) But you're most likely to be better served by the Sigma 50mm or Tamron 45mm.
> 
> 
> ...



aceflibble ... many thanks for putting the effort to write up this comparison. Very clear and hugely informative. Highly appreciated!


----------



## docsmith (Jan 4, 2018)

Cory said:


> Would it be terrible to pivot into a "general" 50 vs. 85 on full-frame discussion?
> If 50 then clearly the 50 1.2 is what I'm after, but I'm thinking maybe 16-35, 40, 85 and 135 instead of 16-35, 40, 50 and 135.
> Assume that I'm an idiot which should completely eliminate the potential for any personal attacks.



Yeah, 40 and 50 are typically too close. Most people prefer some more spacing in focal length for their primes. You see different variations of the "Holy Trinity" of prime lenses, but for generalists, it is usually either 35/85/135 or 24/50/135. For whatever reason, I tend to really like the 24/50/135 mm focal lengths. I own primes in two of those and will likely be adding 135 mm soon (although I really like my 70-200 II).


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 4, 2018)

The 50mm f/1.8 STM!


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2018)

pdirestajr said:


> The 50mm f/1.8 STM!



I have the previous version of the 50F1.8..... optically it is ok, by AF is a nightmare! When you try to run it through Focal ( I tried a 5D2, 6D2, and a 7D2..... apparently I like the number 2), it AFs all over the place.....

I would like to see a Focal comparison of the 50 F1.4 and 1.2 for focus constancy.


----------



## slclick (Jan 4, 2018)

I have been using my 50 STM adapted on the M5 this last week and I have come away impressed. Speed, handling, accuracy and the 80~mm focal length is sweet. Sure the focus by touchscreen dpaf helps...


----------



## aceflibble (Jan 5, 2018)

(Small'd again so the more on-topic parts aren't bogged down.)


privatebydesign said:


> So you don't have anything to back up your claim?
> 
> The screenshots below are from the Canon book Lens Work, I forget which version.
> 
> I understand marketing make a fine distinction between misdirection and lying but they state, unequivocally, that the 300mm f2.8 IS has _"The world’s fastest*1 autofocusing"_, not even Canon's, the fastest in the world when used on the NiCad driven higher end bodies.


[size=6pt]And yes, you'll notice they throw on a lot of qualifiers to that claim while not disclosing their testing methodology. You'll also notice I did, right at the start, highlight all the other times _every_ company has claimed to have the world's fastest whatever. Typically when they 'test' such things they do so with dubious methods which basically ensure they get the results their marketing has already decided they'll push. You can't say you understand that every manufacturer fudges their results and embellishes their claims but also that you completely take Canon at their word for one specific aspect of one specific lens. Canon say the 300mm f/2.8 is also their sharpest lens, despite everyone who has ever tested them deciding the 400mm f/2.8 is (slightly) sharper.

Fujifilm say their 14mm f/2.8 is the fastest-focusing lens in the world. Like Canon, they specify particular bodies and light to shoot it with and have never disclosed any further testing details. They can't _both_ be the fastest in the world, right? That should clue you in to how gibberish these sorts of boasts by manufacturers are.

And it might be a surprise to you, but no, not everything comes down to a handy-to-copy-and-paste URL or screenshot. Some of us talk to people, study for years, and have direct experience, rather than relying on having Wikipedia on speed dial. My history with nailing down industry information is well-documented—I was the one who leaked the 24-105 was being replaced, 18 months before Canon made the public announcement, and if you'd like to ask the guys at FujiRumors what my track record is like you'll find I've called every single move by that company correctly for the last three years straight including directly leaking many hardware details of products months ahead of public announcement—and I trust my sources at Canon, Fuji, Sigma, Tamron, and Adobe when they tell me pretty much anything. (Typically because it's done off-the-books over coffee, and none of them ever shy away from talking about negative aspects of products too; that, and I've known some of them since we were children.) I mean, hell, you're on CanonRumors, you should be used to the concept of people being able to talk what they've been told but not necessarily having an explicit powerpoint presentation to share.

I wouldn't take it personally, but I thought I'd made everything very clear and I take it as a personal failing if anyone is left confused or doubting anything I offer. I don't say (well, write) something unless I have 100% faith that what I'm saying (writing) is the truth (this actually comes from a disability; speaking words out loud requires a lot of concentration for me, so I've always had to really be sure that whatever I say is important and correct, and that carries over to my writing) so yes, I do take that as an insult. I'd thank you to be more civilised in future. Getting smug doesn't help anyone.




Sporgon said:


> Damn, private, for a few minutes I was able to feel that my 100/2 was better than your 300/2.8 ;D


[size=6pt]Even joking about it, this is the kind of thinking which leads to so much misinformation being spread around. People get so fixated on the thing they bought being better than what someone else bought that they'll very keenly accept anything which fits their narrative. Look at whenever someone asks for advice on what lens or body to buy; everybody just tells them to buy whatever they bought themselves, often ignoring the needs of the buyer.

The 100mm f/2 _does_ beat the 300mm f/2.8 IS mk II (let alone the mk I or the non-IS original) in AF speed, assuming both are used under even conditions and on the bodies offering the best motor drive. The 300m f/2.8 IS is fast, but you can't get around the physics of shifting all that weighty glass around such a long focal length; it's astounding it's as fast as it is, but it's _not_ astounding that a much smaller, lighter, shorter lens can snap into place faster. You can test it for yourself, if you have the means to acquire both lenses and an appropriate body, or next time you're at a trade show, ask any Canon rep about it as they're usually happy to and very good and at breaking down the marketing fluff if you're actually talking to them face-to-face. (Well, maybe don't ask _any_ rep; the interns should probably be left to fetch the coffee.) 

FWIW, we're talking about tiny fractions of a second here, and doesn't occur at all with many bodies. It's not like the 300mm actually being second place on some bodies suddenly means it's a tortoise. On the majority of bodies, it's the fastest lens Canon has. It's just a bit of freak luck that on most of the higher-driving bodies, the 100mm happens to be a right-place-right-time deal and can go even faster. 100mm owners can be happy that it's damn fast on most bodies and record-breaking on a handful of others; 300mm owners can be happy that lens is the fastest on average. Not that the two lenses are even in competition; we're talking about a £6,000 ultra-fast, stabilised lens made for long-distance action and a £350 no-frills portrait lens.




> Serious though, aceflibble has stated an awful lot of facts, and it does make me wonder how he knows all this when this information doesn't seem to be available anywhere.


It's not "he". [size=6pt]But starting young helps; I first learned photography at 7 with my father's large format Rollei and got my first paid work at 13. Being from a family of photo/videographers helps. Living nextdoor to the largest publisher of photography magazines in the EU also helps. You don't do this for this long in this place and not build up both a lot of contacts, industry friends, and pointlessly in-depth product knowledge. FWIW, with Canon specifically, my family's connections with the company go back to about a decade and a half was born. It would be weird if I _didn't_ know what was up with Canon products.
Being a gigantic nerd and hoarder of information is the biggest factor, though. I could also bore you all with far too much detail about Sony's gaming division, Marshall Amplifier's new amps for the end of the year, or ASUS computer hardware, but I do try to stay on-topic.

Though as it happens, I learnt about the 100mm f/2 pretty much by accident. It just happened to be the first prime lens to hand in a store, sat on the second hand shelf near the counter, when I was trying the then-new 1Ds2. The manager, who used to work for Canon, then went on a big tirade about how underappreciated that lens was. It stuck with me, and being a huge nerd, I did my research and asked around and wound up piecing together pretty much the whole history of the early-90s prime set. That's how I also got clued in to the 50mm f/1.4, despite already having the 1.2, and why I ended up having both of those at once.




> However, on the subject of the 100/2, I have always found it to be a better lens than the 85/1.8 principally in the fact that it focuses much better, not necessarily faster ( I use 5 series) but more accurately, and I've never been able to find out why this is. To me it seemed that the 85 was just a more budget version, being about 25% cheaper.


You basically nailed it. On a 5 body you won't notice any difference in speed—there's not enough power for the more efficient scaling of the 100mm to matter—but consistent accuracy should always be better, no matter what body you use them on. As you say, it's 'cause the 85 is a cheaper build, less optimised and clumsily reusing some of the 100's parts.

Though I think it's important to stress that the 85mm f/1.8 is still a really nice lens for the price and its popularity and use by both amateurs and professionals for decades is testament to its capabilities, and nobody should feel they have a lesser lens if they own the 85 instead of the 100. You're still getting that extra third of a stop and a focal length a lot of people deem more useful, so it's really an even trade.



> I don't really agree with the idea that in the industry didn't know which way 85 and 100 was going to go. I seem to remember that many brands used "105", although I think even then Canon was on "100"


Before the 80s, 100/105 was definitely a big enough deal. Of course 100/105 still lives on today. It's just that at the end of the 80s, with competition heating up and the market also going through a very small crash (affected film sales more than lenses and bodies, but still), most of the manufacturers wanted to hedge their bets. Canon was leaning toward 85mm (they released the first EF 85mm f/1.2 just a year before these cheaper primes) but they didn't want to give up on 100mm entirely when there was still a chance it could wind up being the bigger-seller. (Nikon was still pretty sure their 105mm was going to win.) 
Bear in mind this is also a time where people weren't sure if 35mm would fully take over from medium format in the professional world, too, automatic body functions were still in early development, and then there was digital on the horizon. This was the period when Canon thought they should put barcode readers on their bodies, and a few years later they tried to push eye-controlled focus selection. It _wasn't_ a time for Canon to wholly abandon any particular focal lengths.



> but in recent times it's become a speed thing IMO, an 85 is faster than the equivalent 100 and as the two focal lengths are close The People want the 85.


At the time it was more to do with the focal lengths, because shooting wider was coming into fashion as cropping for magazines demanded it and people really wanted to switch to 35mm for publication rather than medium formats. An 85 on 35mm let you crop away and get the same frame you'd have with a 210mm 6x7 or 6x8 shot. (The late-80s-early-90s standard for a magazine single-subject shoot.) The speed difference has only really been a significant marketing point in the last fifteen years or so. (Though, boy, what a huge marketing point it has become.)



Cory said:


> Would it be terrible to pivot into a "general" 50 vs. 85 on full-frame discussion?
> If 50 then clearly the 50 1.2 is what I'm after, but I'm thinking maybe 16-35, 40, 85 and 135 instead of 16-35, 40, 50 and 135.
> Assume that I'm an idiot which should completely eliminate the potential for any personal attacks.


Obviously this is far more about just personal taste and how you work and what you're willing to carry around, but FWIW, if you're keeping the 40mm on you and you have a gap to fill until 135mm, I'd definitely go for 85mm. The gap between 40, 85, and 135 is fairly even, while 40, 50 and 135 would leave you with almost no difference at one end and a huge leap at the other. That said, the gap between the long end of 16-35 and 40 is also very minor.
My work demands consistency at full resolution (I'm currently asked to deliver 24mp files _minimum_), so cropping to tweak framing isn't an option and features like IS, weather sealing, and all-round dependability are what's most vital to me. My 'stripped back' Canon work kit is a 16-35 f/4 IS and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS; I can't say I ever miss the gap between 35-70mm. An 85mm and 135mm would substitute that 70-200 perfectly fine, though as no weather sealed + IS version of a 135-150mm prime exists, I currently just swap down to the 70-200 f/4 IS when I need to save space/weight. When the 135mm f/2 IS _is_ released, I plan to replace both 70-200s with the 85mm f1.4 IS and that. (Though I'll also keep the 100mm f/2.8 IS Macro on hand to replace both the 85 and 135, when I need to cut the kit down even further, just as I keep the 28mm f/2.8 IS for when the 16-35 is too big.)
Personal shooting can be a different matter, but for work, I _never_ bother with a 50mm. When I'm already stressing about getting the job done right, I'd rather have less to carry and switch between. As I said before, my 1.2 just gathers dust now and my other 50s have been sold off. (Except one f/1.8 STM which is too cheap to be worth selling really.) At least the Tamron 45mm is weather sealed and has IS, but even that is only barely tempting me. We could talk about the virtues of 85, 100, 135, and 70-200s all day, but for my money there's really no comparison between 50mm and 85mm when you already have a 40mm, a zoom that hits 35mm, and then nothing else 'till 135mm.

But, hey. A hundred other photographers would tell you to ditch it all and just use a 24-105, or _only_ use a 50mm. People who shoot weddings and people who shoot concerts work in similar conditions with similar demands, yet will usually advise two totally different kits. To fill out your kit, _I_ would go for the 85mm, but if 50mm is something you've been set on for a while, go for it. You know your needs better than anybody else.



docsmith said:


> You see different variations of the "Holy Trinity" of prime lenses, but for generalists, it is usually either 35/85/135 or 24/50/135.


Before my work (drastically) changed, I basically operated just on 28/50/100 or 50/100/150, depending on if I'd be mostly indoors or outdoors. Those were my only lengths(/equivalents) for both Canon 35mm, 6x4.5, and 6x7, for years. If I was still doing my old work I'd probably use 24/45/85 now. There's a lot of value in picking one wide, one medium, and one long, and just sticking to them. Truth be told there's almost too much choice now, and it's easy to feel like you have to have one of everything. I think maintaining one lens trinity is a good habit for most photographers to get into.



Don Haines said:


> I have the previous version of the 50F1.8..... optically it is ok, by AF is a nightmare! When you try to run it through Focal ( I tried a 5D2, 6D2, and a 7D2..... apparently I like the number 2), it AFs all over the place.....
> 
> I would like to see a Focal comparison of the 50 F1.4 and 1.2 for focus constancy.


Focus calibration used to be much harder (nearly impossible) at home and when I had an army of 50mm lenses, I pretty much had to rely on sending off to Canon to calibrate each lens + body for me. I've only had to calibrate one 50mm since D-I-Y calibration became more practical. As such, I can't provide any kind of straight figures for how off each lens has been for me. That said, from the best of my recollection of how Canon fixed up everything for me, the 1.2s suffered slightly more variation. My current one was quite badly back-focusing on every APS-C body in particular. (Higher pixel density really makes missed critical focus obvious.) But at a third of a stop wider and a technically slightly longer true focal length, I always expected that and never took it as a problem per se. I could double-check, but I'm pretty sure the 50mm f/1.2 is -8 on my old 7D and -3 on the 5DS.

But, hey, every individual lens and body will give slightly different results, so there's not much value in reading up on what someone else needs to calibrate focus. Just because someone tests a 50mm f/1.4 on a 6D and finds it front-focuses doesn't mean your 1.4 on a your 6D will also front-focus.



slclick said:


> I have been using my 50 STM adapted on the M5 this last week and I have come away impressed. Speed, handling, accuracy and the 80~mm focal length is sweet. Sure the focus by touchscreen dpaf helps...


On an M5 you're also missing most of that lens' extremely strong vignetting, barrel distortion, and inconsistent rendering.
It's a great option on an APS-C body, for sure, but 35mm bodies are a totally different matter. The 50mm STM was revised to optimise it for APS-C cameras, as that's now what those lenses are mostly used on. It really suffers on 35mm bodies. (Except at f/4, where it magically becomes _absurdly_ good, before dropping again at f/5.6. I've not worked out why and nobody from Canon I've talked to really has a grasp on it, either. f/4 on the STM is some kind of freak accident.)


----------



## Ah-Keong (Jan 5, 2018)

after reading all the information and trying out.
I am aiming for the 50mm f/1,2L....

unless there is a new "50mm f/1,2L mark II" or "50mm f/1,4L IS"

:


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> (Small'd again so the more on-topic parts aren't bogged down.)
> 
> 
> privatebydesign said:
> ...



What a load of self indulgent crap. 

Canon said their 300 f2.8 from ages ago is faster to focus than the 100 f2, why would they lie? Subsequently they have made better bodies with better algorithms and better lenses that also focus faster. There is no way on this earth that the 100 f2 focuses faster than those more modern lens on bodies designed for them.

I talk to people, I studied for years and I started getting paid for my photography in 1978, so what?

I doubt what you offer for the simple reason it flies in the face of linked original manufacturer resources, and my personal experience, and common sense.


----------



## slclick (Jan 5, 2018)

"On an M5 you're also missing most of that lens' extremely strong vignetting, barrel distortion, and inconsistent rendering.
It's a great option on an APS-C body, for sure, but 35mm bodies are a totally different matter. The 50mm STM was revised to optimise it for APS-C cameras, as that's now what those lenses are mostly used on. It really suffers on 35mm bodies. (Except at f/4, where it magically becomes absurdly good, before dropping again at f/5.6. I've not worked out why and nobody from Canon I've talked to really has a grasp on it, either. f/4 on the STM is some kind of freak accident.)"


I'll have to check this out for myself on the 5D3. My first thought was BS but I'll take a looksie and see what you mean. It really might be a case of variance and YMMV.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> Canon say the 300mm f/2.8 is also their sharpest lens, despite everyone who has ever tested them deciding the 400mm f/2.8 is (slightly) sharper.



I know how much we like to make fun of DXO, but they rate the 300F2.8 as the sharpest Canon lens (45) and the 400F2.8 as the third sharpest Canon lens (36)


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Canon said their 300 f2.8 from ages ago is faster to focus than the 100 f2, why would they lie? Subsequently they have made better bodies with better algorithms and better lenses that also focus faster. There is no way on this earth that the 100 f2 focuses faster than those more modern lens on bodies designed for them.



WAIT A MINUTE!

Are you saying that a high end 2010 lens focuses faster than a 1991 lens! Who would have thought so!

In this case, he might be right though.... a 100F2 has considerably smaller lenses than a 300F2.8. Since the AF motors have about a quarter as much mass to move, despite older tech and poorer algoritms, it is a possibility. Even so, it is comparing apples to oranges and not a very valid comparison.....


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I would like to see a Focal comparison of the 50 F1.4 and 1.2 for focus constancy.



My Bad..... auto-correct got me and I did not notice.....

I would like to see a Focal comparison of the 50 F1.4 and 1.2 for focus consistency.

I have seen the results from several people's F1.8's, and they do not focus consistently, It would be nice to see how the 1.4 and 1.2 fare.....


----------



## Cory (Jan 5, 2018)

Now as scatter-brained as I may seem, this discussion totally cleared it all up.
I added the 70-200 to my Shopping Cart, but just couldn't do it. My 135 just really is that good.
I then remembered how much I like everything about 50mm on a crop-sensor so fingers started pointing to 85mm on my new ff. 
Not that I need IS, but just put the new 85 1.4 on my Wish List (it's the only thing on the Wish List right now) and might pull that trigger tomorrow.
And then there's the 40mm lens when just a quick and easy package is in order.

8)


----------



## stevelee (Jan 5, 2018)

docsmith said:


> You see different variations of the "Holy Trinity" of prime lenses, but for generalists, it is usually either 35/85/135 or 24/50/135. For whatever reason, I tend to really like the 24/50/135 mm focal lengths. I own primes in two of those and will likely be adding 135 mm soon (although I really like my 70-200 II).



Back in my film days, all I had were primes. Zoom lenses were big, heavy, and not very good. I wound up with a nice selection over time, and would go out with what I thought would be the best tools for the situation. For traveling, I found that a 28, an 85, and a 200mm lens covered about everything I wanted to shoot. I never had a 24mm lens back then, but did eventually buy a used 19mm lens I found amazing at the time.

This fall I bought a 6D2 and got the STM kit lens (no L, so maybe that was my Christmas present to myself). I've been pleased with both, and have been even more pleasantly surprised by the lens. The zoom range is very close to that of my G7X II that I use for travel, so that is probably why I feel so comfortable with it. I did already have some EF lenses, and I'll over time be trying to decide what primes I will want to add, as well as a zoom on the wide end, and maybe a telephoto zoom instead of a prime. We'll see. I found the 50 f/1.4 very useful on the T3i, but don't think I'll have a lot of use for it on the 6D2.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 5, 2018)

The best comparison of the Canon 50mm lenses that I've seen on the web is from slr lounge. They compare in a real live shooting situation and are able to show the very subtle smoothness / softness in the focus transition zone that the 1.2 lens gives due the radiusing of its elements. Incidentally you can get exactly the same effect from a 1960s Takumar 55/1.8 because that was also designed to give this effect, and it's at the expense of outright sharpness at infinity. Try Googling slrlounge 50mm shootout.

Interestingly the cheap Sony 50 mm 1.8 for the a series has this more expensive curvature of the bonded elements too....

But the difference is very slight, so much so that you'd never pick it out from randomly sampled shots from different lenses.


----------



## BillB (Jan 5, 2018)

Cory said:


> Now as scatter-brained as I may seem, this discussion totally cleared it all up.
> I added the 70-200 to my Shopping Cart, but just couldn't do it. My 135 just really is that good.
> I then remembered how much I like everything about 50mm on a crop-sensor so fingers started pointing to 85mm on my new ff.
> Not that I need IS, but just put the new 85 1.4 on my Wish List (it's the only thing on the Wish List right now) and might pull that trigger tomorrow.
> ...



In addition to having IS, the f1.4 is sharper edge to the edge than the f1.2 and has faster AF as well.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 5, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see a Focal comparison of the 50 F1.4 and 1.2 for focus constancy.
> ...



Well...I've owned and used all of the Canon 50mm lenses in a professional capacity. Portraiture, landscapes and weddings. If you want a sharp, contrasty 50mm lens with great AF (fast and accurate) then i would suggest a 24-70mm f2.8 II L and avoid the three Canon prime offerings. 
The 50L f1.2 is an amazing lens, but it models old leicia 50's of yesteryear and as a result it's slightly softer than all other Canon primes. I liked it's rendering but I found it's AF to be a little hesitant and inconsistent, especially in low light. In fact in low light it rarely works properly at all. If you do close up work and need to stop down to f2 -f4 then good luck with the inherent focus shift. 

The 50mm f1.4 is a weird little lens, it's out of focus rendering is very agitated. Contrast is painfully weak and it has a bloom to it's images that I don't like. It's AF is slightly erratic and the build is awfully cheap. I've destroyed several copies at weddings and I've concluded that this lens isn't up for the riggors of pro work. 

I have a metal mount 50mm f1.8 back from the 80's. It's AF is loud and grindy...but it seems to work better than all the others mentioned above. It's smaller and lighter and has put up with more abuse than all the other lenses and still seems to go on working well. Wide open it's sharper than the 50L ever was wide open (ok 1/2 a stop difference), but the bokeh is quite nice wide open and it;s out of focus rendering is nice. Stop down and the bokeh gets quite polygonal...and shaped. But the rest of it's rendering is quite nice and it sharpens up nicely if that's your bag. 
So I've broken 2 50mm f1.4's and sold several copies too. I've bought and sold several 50mm f1.2L's and I've only ever had one copy of the metal mount 50mm f1.8 and I still have it in my bag. But in my opinion, the better 50mm is found in the 24-70IIL.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 5, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> It's not "he". [size=6pt]



Ooops, sorry I was using the word generically rather than genderly ( if that word exists)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Canon said their 300 f2.8 from ages ago is faster to focus than the 100 f2, why would they lie? Subsequently they have made better bodies with better algorithms and better lenses that also focus faster. There is no way on this earth that the 100 f2 focuses faster than those more modern lens on bodies designed for them.
> ...


"He" is not a 'he', of course in this new non binary world that doesn't mean, given the statement "It's not "he"", we should assume they are a she...

Just because the primary optic is very different in size doesn't mean the focusing elements are, don't forget they are both internal focusing designs and as such that focusing group is designed to be in the optimal area of the light path to maximize efficiency both in size and weight. Focus speed certainly isn't a simple function of lens size, if it were the 400 f2.8 and 600mm f4 would be amongst the slowest to focus, and clearly they are not.


----------

