# 50mm 1.2



## littlepilotdude (Nov 27, 2012)

Hello,

How does the 50mm f/1.2 compare to other 50mms? Is it worth the extra $1400 from the 1.4? 

Thanks,

littlepilotdude


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2012)

If you're going to shoot between f/1.2 and f/2, or need weather sealing, or need amazing bokeh, then yes.


----------



## EOBeav (Nov 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you're going to shoot between f/1.2 and f/2, or need weather sealing, or need amazing bokeh, then yes.



+1 What he said.

The f/1.4 is fairly soft wide open, but has excellent sharpness after about f/2. I find myself shooting portraits at f/2.8 or so. 

If you get the 50L, and plan on shooting at f/1.2 on a regular basis, get ready to reject a lot of photos until you get that kind of thin DOF figured out. It's tougher than it looks, but worth the effort in the long run.


----------



## littlepilotdude (Nov 27, 2012)

This is a little off topic but, is the 135L a good combination of portrait lenses?


----------



## Standard (Nov 27, 2012)

> If you get the 50L, and plan on shooting at f/1.2 on a regular basis, get ready to reject a lot of photos until you get that kind of thin DOF figured out. It's tougher than it looks, but worth the effort in the long run.



It's actually not hard at all to shoot at f/1.2. I've shot plenty of portraits, food, street scenes, etc at f/1.2 and have gotten gorgeous images. Rarely are they out of focus. I know this is different from one person to another, even from one 50L to another but one shouldn't be intimidated or discouraged by f/1.2.

As for the 135L, you certainly can use it for portraits. It frames tighter because of its focal length. If you're gonna use it indoors such as in a studio environment, make sure you have the room to move about for framing. Otherwise, I'd recommend the 50L or the 85L which is really considered the king of portrait lenses. More inexpensive alternatives are the 100L macro and the 85mm f/1.8.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 28, 2012)

I don't have the 1.4 and 1.2 though I've used 1.4 a bit and thinking to get it and replace my 1.8. Right now I'm using a 1.8 II in an APS-C body. Here's a sample.

Canon 50mm F1.8 II, shot at F1.8, ISO 100.


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 28, 2012)

littlepilotdude said:


> This is a little off topic but, is the 135L a good combination of portrait lenses?



There is no right or wrong answer to this. The 50L/135L are my go to lenses for almost everything. Others may prefer something completely different. You might want to try those out before making any significant investment. And there are obviously cheaper ways to get similar results so you better know exactly what you're looking for from either of these.

Look through the forum a bit since some of the folks here including myself have written up some of the advantages and disadvantages of these two lenses.


----------



## kennephoto (Nov 28, 2012)

As soon as I bought my 5d mark ii the first lens I bought was the 50 1.2L I've always wanted it and I really enjoy it. I went to the national camera and looked at the 1.4 and 1.2 side by side and the choice was so easy. The 1.2 will hold its value if I ever want to sell it and its well built. Oh and a friend asked me to take some photos for her at her wedding reception and I basically almost exclusively used the 1.2 on my 5d and shot at 1.2-2.0 and it was so much fun! I love the photos you can create with it! If you can afford it get it I don't regret it, and I was on the fence about the price too because you could buy a few lenses for 1500$!


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 28, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> I don't have the 1.4 and 1.2 though I've used 1.4 a bit and thinking to get it and replace my 1.8. Right now I'm using a 1.8 II in an APS-C body. Here's a sample.
> 
> Canon 50mm F1.8 II, shot at F1.8, ISO 100.



Here is one with a similar theme shot with the 1.2 at 2.2 on a 5DII.


----------



## scottc (Nov 28, 2012)

I had the 1.4, but the AF totally fell apart after one wedding season (to be fair, it was like 30k shots on it, so I got my money out of it!). A few years back, I ponied up for the 1.2, and have not been disappointed! I honestly don't think that either are super sharp wide open, but that's not really the point (at least for me, anyways) of shooting at 1.2 or 1.4. I have found the 1.2 to be far superior in other image properties, especially contrast - I can't tell you how many images came out waaay flat when shooting wide open on the 1.4. If you have the money, and like the 50 style (it's my favorite! and the 5d3 handles it so much better than the 5d2 did!), than you won't be disappointed by 1.2!

Also, if money is a concern, I'm not sure if anybody mentioned it or not, but the Sigma 50 1.4 seems to be a pretty legit option. I've not used one, but form what I've seen from other photogs, it's a lot better than the Canon 1.4 version.

-Scott


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 29, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> Here is one with a similar theme shot with the 1.2 at 2.2 on a 5DII.



1.2 has a much softer bokeh than 1.8. Truly one of my dream lenses. Hmmm... is 1.2L really better than 1.4 open wide? If so, I'd rather save more for this lens.


----------



## Eli (Nov 29, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> Hmmm... is 1.2L really better than 1.4 open wide?



Yes.


----------



## Nishi Drew (Nov 29, 2012)

Once I moved to the 5DII my 50 f/1.4 just sunk itself, it was good enough even wide open on a crop body, but now the overall image with that harsh bokeh is not pleasing to me. I shoot mostly at F/2 ~ F/2.8, and those settings produce better bokeh, though highlights begin to show octagon shape and that's not always cool.
So for me it's either the 50L or Sigma 50, or I just go with the new Sigma 35 for something different~


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Nov 29, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you're going to shoot between f/1.2 and f/2, or need weather sealing, or need amazing bokeh, then yes.



I know this quote is regarding the two 50's in question, but how does that "amazing bokeh" compare to the performance of the 35L? For a hobbyist, I've been lucky enough to spend money on equipment, but can only justify spending for one quality fast prime. Been debating quite a while between the two and looking at images I've gotten at either focal length I realize the photos I like the framing of could have been taken with either with a slight change of background. At the moment I have the opportunity to get a 50L for about $1200 (excellent condition). 

I use a 7D with a 10-22, 24-105L, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2X III. I don't have a specific intension for the lens, just want one lens to give me the ability to shoot creamy photos, shots by the fire, candle light, etc. I love long exposure night shots, which I do with what I already have, but would love the ability to capture reasonable walk around night shots. The 35L might have the edge on that last use on a 7D, as well as in smaller rooms if trying to get a full body shot, but I'm wondering if a good opportunity should bias the decision. Especially since I have not really been able to decide over the last months anyway.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 29, 2012)

bluenoser1993 said:


> I know this quote is regarding the two 50's in question, but how does that "amazing bokeh" compare to the performance of the 35L? For a hobbyist, I've been lucky enough to spend money on equipment, but can only justify spending for one quality fast prime. Been debating quite a while between the two and looking at images I've gotten at either focal length I realize the photos I like the framing of could have been taken with either with a slight change of background. At the moment I have the opportunity to get a 50L for about $1200 (excellent condition).
> 
> I use a 7D with a 10-22, 24-105L, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 2X III. I don't have a specific intension for the lens, just want one lens to give me the ability to shoot creamy photos, shots by the fire, candle light, etc. I love long exposure night shots, which I do with what I already have, but would love the ability to capture reasonable walk around night shots. The 35L might have the edge on that last use on a 7D, as well as in smaller rooms if trying to get a full body shot, but I'm wondering if a good opportunity should bias the decision. Especially since I have not really been able to decide over the last months anyway.



I prefer the 35L on a crop camera. It is more forgiving than the 50L and has better corner performance, which is nice as a walk-around lens. When I had a crop camera, the 35L stayed on it whenever I was indoors -- outside, I would switch to the 17-55. I found the 50mm focal length to be a bit tight for me indoors, but that is personal preference. After moving to FF, I tend to use the 35L more as a city-walkaround lens. The 50L's focus shift has been the subject of many threads, and it is real. I would not recommend the 50L if it is the first time you're trying to use a fast prime.

That said, it looks like Sigma's 35 may deliver better performance than the aging 35L. It might be worth looking into.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 29, 2012)

This might Help.

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Nov 29, 2012)

Thanks Ramon, I enjoyed the review of the 50. I love what the 50 can do, and I am drawn to it even though I know I'll make a mess of using it for a while. I also tend to agree with Random's remarks about a 35 mm. As much as I'd love to get into FF, I'll be using the 7D for a good while yet. I'm guessing until the next greatest comes out and there are a lot of used 5D3's on the market. I know the 70 end of my 2.8 zoom is nothing like the 50 1.2, but it comes close to covering the focal length at reasonable light levels. The 35 would fit into my bag where there is a complete void and I think will be a little more versatile on my 7D. I thought I had it figured out before a good deal came along.


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 29, 2012)

verysimplejason said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > Here is one with a similar theme shot with the 1.2 at 2.2 on a 5DII.
> ...



That's for you to decide I suppose. Wide open the 1.2 is better in my view in that it is slightly sharper and the background blur is even softer. What more significant for my taste is that contrast is the big winner. And build quality. But there are downsides to that. You get more contrast but also more chromatic aberration. Also, the 1.4 is slightly sharper when stopped down in the 2.8 to 4 range. So it is also a question how you would use the lens for the most part. It is clearly designed in my opinion for people who like to shoot at wide apertures. Here I think it beats everything else on the market. And it is more than just usable stopped down further. So yes, for my taste and usage it was really better than my 1.4. And it's also my favorite focal length so it made sense. Is it an absolutely must have? No, absolutely not. The 1.4 is a fabulous lens as well and has served we very well over many years in it's FD version on my film cameras. Actually, if the EF 1.4 was as well build as the FD 1.4 I may have not bought the 1.2. About 50% of that decision was due to build quality.


----------



## theqspeaks (Nov 29, 2012)

> I also tend to agree with Random's remarks about a 35 mm. As much as I'd love to get into FF, I'll be using the 7D for a good while yet.


Sorry to continue the hijacking of this thread..., but if you're going crop for a while, why look at the super expensive Canon 35L or even the new Sigma 35mm when there's the crop sensor Sigma 30mm 1.4? Not a perfect lens, but the Sigma 30mm is about half the price of the Sigma 35mm and a third the price of the Canon 35L. The bokeh is often nice, it's pretty sharp, and it's much smaller than the Canon 35L. 

Here are some pics I've taken with it:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6748719075/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6665006571/#
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6714226133/#lightbox/ (hand held at 1/10s)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/theqspeaks/6714217545/#
And some more: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=sigma+30mm&w=83261600%40N00&ss=2&s=int


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 30, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > 7enderbender said:
> ...



That got me into thinking. As I'm going FF next year, 50mm seems isn't sufficient for me. Sorry ops for hijacking the thread but since somebody with more experience is giving an advice, I want further advice from him. I've been thinking of an 85mm F1.8 or 100mm F2. Please note however that I already have the 100mm macro F2.8. Is the macro bokeh on FF comparable to those previous 2?


----------



## Mike2000 (Jan 14, 2013)

On my site there are plenty of images taken with 5d2 and 50 1.2. Wonderful lens, my most used one.


----------

