# Buy 50mm f1.2L now or wait for the II?



## mrjgx (Jul 28, 2013)

Hi guys,

I'm new here and since this thing is bothering me for 2 weeks already I guess I have to post it up here and seek feedbacks from the members here.

I'm planning to buy the 50mm f1.2L but I found out that there's a rumor saying the new II version is being tested. So anyone can predict when will it be released? 

I'm in the middle of upgrading from APSC to FF camera, and I was thinking to better invest in a good lens first and the body upgrades can come much later. I'm planning to complete the Holy Trinity primes. The thing is, I don't want to spend a large amount of money only to regret having not to wait for a few more weeks when the new improved version is to be released. 

Thx guys!


----------



## Aaron78 (Jul 28, 2013)

Lens release dates are next to impossible to predict ( look at how long the 500II, 600II, and 200-400 1.4 took to be for sale after they were announced). The only one indicator to some older lenses getting an update would be if/when canon announces a high MP body, if some of the old lenses need to be improved due to the higher resolution. If you want the 50 1.2 bad enough, buy it. If a ver. II gets announced, it will be alot more money than the current version, and you at that point will be able to sell your lens for about what you paid for it if you decide you need/want the updated version.


----------



## BL (Jul 28, 2013)

in case you're new to L lenses, what you'll come to find is that prices tend to hold, even in cases where mkI versions are getting replaced by mkII's (case in point, 24-70 L, or any of the super tele's)

i bought my 16-35 II for $1350 back in 2008 and just sold it on ebay for $1300 in spite of CR2 rumors and whatnot floating out on the interwebs about prototypes to replace it in the field for testing. 

if you want the lens, buy it now. use it. enjoy it for many months or even years, then sell when it's time to upgrade or move on.

you'll drive yourself crazy trying to plan your purchases around rumors and CR ratings!


----------



## mrjgx (Jul 28, 2013)

Thanks for the reply guys. Well noted on the points, so I guess I'll be heading to shop and get the lens quickly ;D

I have 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, and tamron 17-50 f2.8.

I'm about to buy the 5d mark iii body but I guess I'll go with the lens route first. With the price of the body I can get my hands on 2 L lens. I guess that will be the wiser options to go with.

OOT a bit, as I will be mostly doing portraiture thingy (outdoor), other than the 50 f1.2, which one should I choose between the 135f2 and 85 f1.2?

thx


----------



## Aaron78 (Jul 28, 2013)

What camera body are you using, and are you using a speedlite? The 85 is much loved by many, but focuses slower than most from what i gather.


----------



## RomainF (Jul 28, 2013)

mrjgx said:


> OOT a bit, as I will be mostly doing portraiture thingy (outdoor), other than the 50 f1.2, which one should I choose between the 135f2 and 85 f1.2?
> 
> thx



Most people usually choose between the 50 or the 85, depending on their very personal opinion and get the 135 anyway. 
You're the only one who can tell which one you prefer, either 50 or 85. As one said sooner, you could buy the 85 or the 135 and if you're unhappy with the lens you bought, just sell it and buy the other one. You can also rent both of them for one day, that's the best way to make you choice. 

Well, as another just said, if you want that 50L glass, just buy it and enjoy it. The more time you spend on the forums, the less you spend shooting. And no one on the internet can decide better than yourself.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2013)

Wait for the 50/1.2 MkIII. It'll be even better! 

The current version is from 2006, it's weather sealed, and I doubt it's high on the priority list for an update. 

RE 85L vs. 135L, I find the 85L a bit more versatile for portraits (indoors and out), I tend to use the 135L for outdoor portraits and indoor sports.


----------



## rs (Jul 28, 2013)

mrjgx said:


> OOT a bit, as I will be mostly doing portraiture thingy (outdoor), other than the 50 f1.2, which one should I choose between the 135f2 and 85 f1.2?


Focal length for portrait very much depends on how tight you want to crop - head and shoulders, upper body, or whole body. So your best bet is to experiment and find out what you're most happy with.

Your crop camera, 50 and 85 will give you a good idea of what an 85L and 135L's focal lengths are like on FF. (your 50 acts like an 80, and your 85 acts like a 136) - so try them out, and then bear in mind how long you'll be using the lens on your crop camera before buying a 5D3.

The 85 is a middle ground between the 50 and 135, so its probably best not to get all three - you'll probably not end up carrying all three around, and even if you did, you'll no doubt not use all three in one session.

If you want to go with a 24 and 50, the 135 could be best. If you're happy with just two primes, 35 and 85 could be the way to go.


----------



## mrjgx (Jul 28, 2013)

Hi thx for all the inputs and it definitely gave me a new thoughts on my purchase plan. Currently I'm using the 500d, and the reason I'm going FF is because I feel that I'm already at the limit with the body limitation (iso capabilities, shutter speed, and feels)

I love 85mm distance on my APSC so I'll guess I'll be buying the 135L once I go FF. The thing is, if I'm buying the 50L now, it will be my usual comfort distance on the APSC (equiv to 85 on FF) but then when I upgrade to FF it will be wider.

And perhaps I'll skip the 85L, and not going to get the 135L yet until I have the FF body as it will become very hard to handhold it on APSC body without shaking (gonna be 216mm if i'm not wrong).

Since the 50L II is not coming out anytime soon, I know what's my decision gonna be ;D

*FF is coming, hurm perhaps 3-4 months after I get the first L


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 28, 2013)

I'd wait for the II and just get the well not sure what maybe the sigma 1.4 for now? Canon 1.4 is fine but the AF is even worse than the sigma (although tolerable, sort of, on 5D3/1DX) and the AF was designed wrong and breaks easily (sometimes by itself, nearly right out of the box).

I have never tried the 1.2 but people complain about extreme focus shift (?) and that it is easily softer away from center frame than the 1.4 stopped down to the same apertures (?) although depending how you shoot the latter might not matter, some claim it has richer pop for objects in the center, some of 1.2ness of it is wasted by many DSLR sensors since they don't gran the outer rays all that well. I don't know. I've seen many people say it was an over-priced waste, but some other swear by it.


----------



## Cannon Man (Jul 28, 2013)

PLEASE DON'T BUY THE 50MM 1.2!!
I bought 2 of them for my company and i sold them because sharpness is bad and it has a strange glow at all apertures.

Maybe it's just the copies i had but i doubt it.
I also have two 85mm 1.2 II's to compare to and the 50's ate serious dirt every time.

I'm thinking they will come up with a new model of the 50 1.2 since it is so bad at sharpness and it won't survive when +30MP cameras come around.

I'm waiting for a new version but even more for the new TS-E45mm that is hopefully coming soon!


----------



## Eli (Jul 28, 2013)

Rent one before you buy, the 50 1.2 is not for everyone


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 28, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> PLEASE DON'T BUY THE 50MM 1.2!!
> I bought 2 of them for my company and i sold them because sharpness is bad and it has a strange glow at all apertures.
> 
> Maybe it's just the copies i had but i doubt it.



Indeed, the 50L is not for everyone. If having the sharpest lens in the lineup is your goal, the 50L isn't even close. If you want portraits with an incredibly creamy bokeh and an subject/background separation with close backgrounds for portraits that you can achieve with that lens due to the very wide aperture and the normal focal length, and cannot achieve with other lenses, then the 50L is worth a look.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jul 28, 2013)

i used FF primes on crop and went FF in the meantime. The difference in focal lengh (more precise: Field of View) and dept of focus is so significant, that i wouldnt buy primes for FF and use them on Crop for undefined time.

For example a 500d with 50L gives you about the same Picture like a 5d3 with 85 1.8, but in much better Quality. 

As you have a (less expensive) lens linup which is suitable for FF i would buy the camera first, a 5d3 is a wonderful camera. By using it with your current lenses you will see what you want to Change in which priority.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 29, 2013)

If you have FF compatible lenses already, I'd suggest getting the FF camera first, and then deciding on a fast prime later. FF + fast primes give you thin DOFs, which you can use creatively to good effect. How you use each lens will chance when you move from APS-C to FF, so get the camera first, then use it and then get the lens at the focal length you use most.

It's true that the 50L is not the sharpest, so try it before you buy. It has other qualities, but it is up to you if it is worth it. I don't find it as sharp as the 35L or 85L, but I find that it AFs much better than the 50 f/1.4 especially at larger apertures, where it is more critical.


----------



## mrjgx (Jul 29, 2013)

Now there are people suggesting to get the FF body first. Believe me I have considered that many many times but I still believe investing in a good lens first is the wiser options. My EF lens is only the 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8. My tammy 17-50 is an efs lens so it'll be not usable.
After browsing so many reviews on the net, I found this link and it made me think http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-ef-50mm-f12-l-defective-by-design/ , let's wait for the II version to come out! To spend a large amount of money only to be disappointed is not acceptable. I'm not going for other L lens yet at the moment as my lens roadmap is to go with the L primes only. 
85mm f1.2 is next in line, and so is the 135mm f2. The L zoom lens that I may consider is 17-40 f4 for travel, landscape and 70-200 IS II for wedding candid in a large hall).
Perhaps this 50mm f1.2 can be put on hold much longer until the ver II comes out.


----------



## mwh1964 (Jul 29, 2013)

You don't mention what your are shooting. However, if I were in your shoes, I would sell the crop stuff and go FF immediately. 6d or 5DIII whatever you can afford. Quite frankly I would go with the 24-105 L for a start. But if you want primes and shallow DOF go 35L + 135 /100 L. Or EF 28 f1.8 and keep your 85 F1.8. If you then need a tele zoom I would suggest the 70-300L over the 70-200L except if you are shooting portraits or lowlight. As a side note I find the 50 f1.4 rather useful if you still want a 50mm. And that lens will save you a lot hard earned dollars.


----------



## mrjgx (Jul 29, 2013)

I generally shoot people, and believe me with my current setup I did shoot couple of weddings, and went for some portraiture classes (hobby). Now I have the budget, (around 4.5k USD) and that's why I'm contemplating between an FF upgrade or a better lens.

Perhaps I can just upgrade to 5dmkiii and be happy with the current primes that I have


----------



## BoneDoc (Jul 29, 2013)

If you want to save money, just get a 6D. When primes get really wide open, they tend to soften anyway. 5DIII is great, but if you're on a budget, I'm not sure it's 1500 dollar better


----------



## bycostello (Jul 29, 2013)

if you are waiting for the next big thing you'll wait forever...


----------



## tron (Jul 29, 2013)

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15865.0

;D


----------



## Random Orbits (Jul 29, 2013)

mrjgx said:


> Now there are people suggesting to get the FF body first. Believe me I have considered that many many times but I still believe investing in a good lens first is the wiser options. My EF lens is only the 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8. My tammy 17-50 is an efs lens so it'll be not usable.
> After browsing so many reviews on the net, I found this link and it made me think http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-ef-50mm-f12-l-defective-by-design/ , let's wait for the II version to come out! To spend a large amount of money only to be disappointed is not acceptable. I'm not going for other L lens yet at the moment as my lens roadmap is to go with the L primes only.
> 85mm f1.2 is next in line, and so is the 135mm f2. The L zoom lens that I may consider is 17-40 f4 for travel, landscape and 70-200 IS II for wedding candid in a large hall).
> Perhaps this 50mm f1.2 can be put on hold much longer until the ver II comes out.



The L primes-only roadmap used to get you the best IQ, but that was before the 24-70 II. The 24-70 II isn't perfect but it is a match against the 24L II and is better than the 35L (and is as good as the Sigma 35) and is a much better 50mm than any EF 50mm prime. The colors and rendering are prime-like. It does have more vignetting at f/2.8 than the primes (especially at 24mm), but for most, it is a trade worth making. The primes will give you better low light performance, but is that worth spending 1k or more to upgrade the performance of your 50 and/or 85 or would it make sense to spend that money elsewhere?

I'm bringing this up not because I think you should go zoom over primes, but to give you food for thought. It is better to think about these trades now before you start committing youself to some pretty expensive gear.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 29, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> mrjgx said:
> 
> 
> > Now there are people suggesting to get the FF body first. Believe me I have considered that many many times but I still believe investing in a good lens first is the wiser options. My EF lens is only the 50 f1.8 and 85 f1.8. My tammy 17-50 is an efs lens so it'll be not usable.
> ...



I'll join with you on that one. Sold off my 24L II, 35 L and 50 L once I got the 24-70, and you don't get a much bigger prime-nerd than me. It's THAT awesome. And at 50mm you have almost no vignetting with the 2470 II. The color and contrast are better than the 50 L.

I currently own just the 24-70 and 70-200 and I gotta say, with the ISO performance of the 1d X and the AF speed and corner-sharpness of those two zooms, I'm getting much better images and MUCH higher keeper rate and in focus images in any situation. I haven't missed one of my primes once, not once...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 29, 2013)

mrjgx said:


> Thanks for the reply guys. Well noted on the points, so I guess I'll be heading to shop and get the lens quickly ;D
> 
> I have 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8, and tamron 17-50 f2.8.
> 
> ...



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

If you chose the 50L, It's very similiar to 85L. You might want a longer lens like the 135L to seperate your focal lengths more.

If you skip the 50mm, for lets say a Sigma 35mm 1.4... The 85L makes more sense.


----------



## mrjgx (Jul 29, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > mrjgx said:
> ...



Hey man, that's a surprised that the zoom lens can replace all your 3 precious primes. I am a much comfortable shooter with just my 50mm at the moment but definitely will take the new 24-70 II into consideration once I'm active back in shooting weddings.

At the moment my priority is more towards bokeh quality for portraiture and IMO good L primes is the way to go!


----------



## 7enderbender (Jul 29, 2013)

mrjgx said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm new here and since this thing is bothering me for 2 weeks already I guess I have to post it up here and seek feedbacks from the members here.
> 
> ...




I would always buy what you need and not what may or may not come out at some point in the future. And I also know that "need" is often a stretch anyway. I personally have not regretted for one day buying my 50L. Other people had other experiences. It's what you prefer and what compromises you are willing to make. And I think that won't change with a MKII version of that lens - if such a thing ever materialized.

And if it does there is no guarantee that it is really "better". It may have different trade-offs which are - as far as I understand it- part of physics and unavoidable. And (that's just me now) I'd be concerned that given the latest "upgrades" that Canon put out a MKII may end up being something with even more plastic or IS or both.

The only disadvantage would otherwise be that Canon may yet again say that the current 50L becomes an "old and obsolete" lens that is not being serviced any longer in a few years in case something happens.


----------



## Standard (Jul 29, 2013)

> I would always buy what you need and not what may or may not come out at some point in the future. And I also know that "need" is often a stretch anyway. I personally have not regretted for one day buying my 50L. Other people had other experiences. It's what you prefer and what compromises you are willing to make. And I think that won't change with a MKII version of that lens - if such a thing ever materialized.
> 
> And if it does there is no guarantee that it is really "better". It may have different trade-offs which are - as far as I understand it- part of physics and unavoidable. And (that's just me now) I'd be concerned that given the latest "upgrades" that Canon put out a MKII may end up being something with even more plastic or IS or both.
> 
> The only disadvantage would otherwise be that Canon may yet again say that the current 50L becomes an "old and obsolete" lens that is not being serviced any longer in a few years in case something happens.



+1

I love my 50L. It's already paid for itself many times over. Also the newer 50L II will cost much more given the current Canon pricing trend.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jul 29, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> mrjgx said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the reply guys. Well noted on the points, so I guess I'll be heading to shop and get the lens quickly ;D
> ...



I'll leave Ramon's full post in quotes because I think he's a pretty cool fellow, but he brought up the point of the 35/85 combo or 50/135 combo, I went with the 35/85 shooting both a crop and ff and absolutely LOVE it. I rented the 50 to try it out for a wedding last May, and though I was convinced I would buy it, I soon realized that what I needed was a portrait lens with a more shallow depth of field and went with the 85L ii for $1,650 used at Adorama. If it is at all possible, I would look into renting the 50L before buying it. I don't want to dog on the lens since others have had wonderful experiences and there's always the chance that I either had a bad copy or it just truly did not fit my needs. If you want it, great, and I wouldn't wait for the version ii, but I would continue to look at all of your options.

I hope this helps,
-Tabor


----------



## mrjgx (Jul 29, 2013)

thx for all the replies guys..somehow rather my decision keeps on changing everytime someone replied on this topic 

If I want to really skimp on budget, I'd just get the sigma lens.. the 35 1.4, 85 1.4, and 50 1.4. and a 6d. I'm not a pro anyway but there's something in me saying that, just go and collect the L. Life is short anyway :


----------



## pj1974 (Jul 29, 2013)

mrjgx said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



I'm glad there's been some good, open discussion about options for the OP. 

As has been written above, certainly the 24-70mm II is a great lens - with high IQ, good bokeh and generally good ratings for other properties. In *some cases* it can do away with the need for a prime (or a few primes).

However I don't consider f/2.8 'fast glass'. For me f/1.4-f/2 = 'fast glass' and anything below f/1.4 = 'very fast glass'. I consider f/2.8 = 'medium speed glass'. f/3.5-f4 = ' medium slow glass' and anything slower than f/4 is 'slow glass'.

While others may define 'fast glass' differently eg some photographers might even say f/2.8 is 'awesomely, blazingly fast - incredible DOF control, etc' - that's fine, it's individual - and some people's shooting style doesn't require 'fast glass' (but f/2.8 = 'fast' enough for them). 

However the fact remains that a photo taken at f/1.4 when you really need it (especially for low light situations and/or ultra fine DOF control) is not going to be achieved by a f/2.8 lens, even the sharpest f/2.8 out there. And the resulting image is going to be VASTLY different in many cases. As neuro outlined in his post, Canon's 50mm f/1.2 L is suitable for some, but not for others.

So in that respect, having f/1.4 primes is very different than a f/2.8 zoom. Even with modern DSLRs (especially FF) being spectacular at managing high ISO, there is a huge difference between many photos taken at ISO12,800 at f/2.8 and a photo taken at ISO3200 at f/1.4 Having high ISO on tap can help in many respects, eg freezing action - but it can't decrease dof or impact bokeh positively.

That's why I'm particularly interested in Sigma's new 18-35mm f/1.8 zoom even though I'm very aware it's for APS-C only, and thus some of the benefits (dof control) are more limited compared to being a FF lens. But if more manufacturing of fast zooms can be produced (even with limited zoom ranges, eg a 24-35mm f/1.8 for FF, with great IQ) - that would be very welcome (a lens like this might be some time away, though). But full kudos to Sigma for their new 18-35mm f/1.8 lens - I've seen some good reviews and user reports of it already!

In addition, I'm also waiting for a new 50mm prime. Something between f/1.2 and f/2 is important for me, and AF needs to be spot on (preferably true USM) - 100% consistent AF (Sigma's 50mm isn't)- and great IQ wide open. IS highly preferred. None of the current 50mms from any manufacturer meet my criteria. In the meantime I keep waiting... and taking photos with my other lenses. I'm happy - and enjoying photography & life. 

Regards

Paul


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 30, 2013)

+1 to Ramon and Tabor.

With your budget, your considerations and my tastes in focals, I'd go 6d+Sig35+85L

But taste for specific focals is personnal, we have quite a few 50 fans on the forum too...


----------



## mrjgx (Jul 30, 2013)

I think I know now what primes I will be getting in the next few months / years.

35L + Sig 50 1.4 + 85L + 70200 IS II

I skipped the 50L after countless bad reviews I found on the net, the other L doesn't seems to have many negative reviews though so my money is hopefully worth to spend on


----------



## MLfan3 (Jul 30, 2013)

the 50L is a great lens but it is not the best performer at a lab test like DXO or photozone.de.
but who cares as it performs really well in real world.
so if you get a great deal on it , then go for it but other wise wait mk2 version.


----------



## rs (Jul 30, 2013)

mrjgx said:


> I think I know now what primes I will be getting in the next few months / years.
> 
> 35L + Sig 50 1.4 + 85L + 70200 IS II
> 
> I skipped the 50L after countless bad reviews I found on the net, the other L doesn't seems to have many negative reviews though so my money is hopefully worth to spend on


I have the 70-200 II and the Sigma 50/1.4. Both great lenses, but be prepared for a little bit of hassle when it comes to getting a good copy of the Sigma.

Many people have had to return theirs two or three times to get a good copy. I was lucky, and it took just one swap out (the first one had major AF issues). Sharpness of this lens is very good - better in my opinion than the Canon 50's, and no focus shift when stopped down. Out of all my lenses (including three L lenses), the Sigma's bokeh quality is in a whole different league. I've used the Canon 50/1.4 quite a bit, and that Canon doesn't get even remotely close to the Sigma.


----------



## discojuggernaut (Jul 30, 2013)

mrjgx said:


> I think I know now what primes I will be getting in the next few months / years.
> 
> 35L + Sig 50 1.4 + 85L + 70200 IS II
> 
> I skipped the 50L after countless bad reviews I found on the net, the other L doesn't seems to have many negative reviews though so my money is hopefully worth to spend on



I think this is a good combo. The 70-200 is great for fast focus and versatility. The 85L is sexier than the 50L. The 50 Sigma is great bang for the buck. Any 50mm does well as a single-lens walkaround solution. The 35 (i'd go with Sigma at this moment) makes a great combo with an 85mm or a 70-200.

Lots of people go for the 35/85/135 prime trinity. I had the 24/50/135 trinity for a while and liked it (wide/normal/tele). I still have the 24mm, but all these glowing reports of the 24-70 II are making me consider selling it 

And i doubt that a 50L II will be out in the foreseeable future, although a 50mm f/1.4 IS seems likely.


----------



## BrettS (Jul 31, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> PLEASE DON'T BUY THE 50MM 1.2!!
> I bought 2 of them for my company and i sold them because sharpness is bad and it has a strange glow at all apertures.
> 
> Maybe it's just the copies i had but i doubt it.
> ...



Ugh. </facepalm>

If I could be so bold as to quote neuro:

_Excellent bokeh was a priority for Canon with the 50L. They stated, "With the increasing popularity of digital SLR cameras, calls for large aperture single-focal length lenses with excellent image quality and pleasing bokeh (blur effects) for portraits have increased," (Tech Report, 11/2006). Spherical aberration results in a loss of sharpness, but completely correcting for spherical aberration results in a harsh, jittery bokeh. In the 50L design, the spherical aberration was left deliberately undercorrected to produce the creamy bokeh for which the lens is known._

Also, this thread is quite interesting. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10798.0 

Now repeat after me:* Sharpness was not a primary design goal with the Canon 50L.*

And please stop disseminating poorly researched opinions.


----------



## mrjgx (Jul 31, 2013)

I need some clarifications..im not quite sure about this focus shift issues, so it means it only happen at small aperture?

At 1.2-1.8 is there any problem with focus shift? Because im buying the lens just to use for the bokehness and at large aperture. 

Thx


----------



## rs (Jul 31, 2013)

The 50L suffers from focus shift, which is where stopping down the lens changes where it focuses. AF is performed wide open, so it should nail the focus at f1.2 - but stop it down, and it will be slightly off. If you stop down as far as say f5.6 or f8, the increased DoF should be enough to keep your subject in focus. But apertures between wide open and large DoF settings will be affected by varying amounts. Someone with plenty of hands on experience should be able to provide more accurate info than me, but I believe the 50L suffers from focus shift the most at about f2


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 31, 2013)

BrettS said:


> Cannon Man said:
> 
> 
> > PLEASE DON'T BUY THE 50MM 1.2!!
> ...



Yarp...use, repeat.....oooo nice photos....there's far too many gear twitchers out there who take the view that only the ultimate lens is worthy of their lens bag. Or are looking for an excuse not to buy one. If you need the best 50mm which is currently available for the Canon mount, the 50 f1.2 L is it...regardless of it's faults.
Yes there's a focus shift at MFD when stopped down to f2.8. This lens isn't a macro lens and shouldn't be treated as such. But use live view and stop down and you can see the shift and compensate manually. To be fair, if you are that close and need to stop down then this should be on a tripod and you should be using live view to focus anyhow. Wide open and there's no issues with AF accuracy or shift. I've never understood the need for stopping down a fast prime...why not use a 24-70IIL instead? If you need a fast prime, shoot it wide open.


----------



## verysimplejason (Jul 31, 2013)

Sigma/Canon 50mm F1.4. For 50mm focal length I'd skip Canon F1.2L. I'd rather have the 85mm F1.2L or the 135mm F2L for portraits.


----------



## Cannon Man (Jul 31, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> the 50L is a great lens but it is not the best performer at a lab test like DXO or photozone.de.
> but who cares as it performs really well in real world.
> so if you get a great deal on it , then go for it but other wise wait mk2 version.




My experience was completely opposite to yours?? Do you own a copy?? What i found was that the reviews are generally positive but *in the real world* it performs really bad! It back focuses, the sharpness is CRAP at all apertures and it has a weird glow/softness that i can't stand.

If i had a lot of money i would buy every existing copy of the 50 1.2 and blow them to pieces with dynamite and send the video to Canon asking to make a real world L series 50mm.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 31, 2013)

I have owned 3 copies of this lens over the years. They have all performed consistently and in general I have been very happy with them. The only reason I don´t have it at the moment is because I use the 85mm f1.2L II and the Sigma f1.4 instead. There are in my view three main reasons to buy this lens. 1: It is in general the best available 50mm with a canon mount. 2: It has a build quality second to no other 50mm and 3: It gives you very good results at f1.2.

If your problems with this lens is that it does not outperform other lenses at f4, don´t buy it. It is supposed to be used at f1.2. If the only IQ quality you care about is sharpness, don´t buy it, because that is not where it shines. If you have problems with focus shift at MFD, don´t buy it, because it is not a macro lens (focus shift has never been a problem for me, because I always used it wide open and seldom closer than 1.5m). But if you are looking for short DOF, good colors and great bokeh and 50mm is the focal length you are looking for, this is it!

Reading some of the posts here, I feel the same way as I do reading audiophile posts (hifi and music is my other addiction), where the quality of a setup is judged by how heart stopping the punch from the big drum is. Not much music in the frequencies down there. Yes I like sharpness, but I like good color, 3D pop from shallow DOF and beautiful bokeh more. For those of you with serious problems with this lens, and I am assuming that you don´t have bad copies, should probably look for faults else where.


----------



## mrjgx (Jul 31, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I have owned 3 copies of this lens over the years. They have all performed consistently and in general I have been very happy with them. The only reason I don´t have it at the moment is because I use the 85mm f1.2L II and the Sigma f1.4 instead. There are in my view three main reasons to buy this lens. 1: It is in general the best available 50mm with a canon mount. 2: It has a build quality second to no other 50mm and 3: It gives you very good results at f1.2.
> 
> If your problems with this lens is that it does not outperform other lenses at f4, don´t buy it. It is supposed to be used at f1.2. If the only IQ quality you care about is sharpness, don´t buy it, because that is not where it shines. If you have problems with focus shift at MFD, don´t buy it, because it is not a macro lens (focus shift has never been a problem for me, because I always used it wide open and seldom closer than 1.5m). But if you are looking for short DOF, good colors and great bokeh and 50mm is the focal length you are looking for, this is it!
> 
> Reading some of the posts here, I feel the same way as I do reading audiophile posts (hifi and music is my other addiction), where the quality of a setup is judged by how heart stopping the punch from the big drum is. Not much music in the frequencies down there. Yes I like sharpness, but I like good color, 3D pop from shallow DOF and beautiful bokeh more. For those of you with serious problems with this lens, and I am assuming that you don´t have bad copies, should probably look for faults else where.



Sounds like the conclusion of this thread! No issue for me since I plan to use it at 1.2 anyway..I'm after the bokehliciousness of the lens and that's all that matter in my pursuit of the lens. If I'm looking for sharpness I'll be getting the 135L straight away.

Anyway just to note that since I'm not going for a full frame body in the upcoming months, I'll buy the 35L first for traveling purposes 

Thanks all for all the replies!


----------



## BrettS (Aug 2, 2013)

Cannon Man said:


> My experience was completely opposite to yours?? Do you own a copy?? What i found was that the reviews are generally positive but *in the real world* it performs really bad! It back focuses, the sharpness is CRAP at all apertures and it has a weird glow/softness that i can't stand.
> 
> If i had a lot of money i would buy every existing copy of the 50 1.2 and blow them to pieces with dynamite and send the video to Canon asking to make a real world L series 50mm.



My experience was completely opposite to yours?? Do you own a Ford Fiesta?? What i found was that the reviews are generally positive but *in the real world* it performs really bad! It has poor acceleration, the horsepower is CRAP at all RPM and it has a weird glow/softness in the headlights that i can't stand.

If i had a lot of money i would buy every existing copy of the Ford Fiesta and blow them to pieces with dynamite and send the video to Ford asking to make a real world sports car.


----------

