# Canon 50mm f1.2 worth?



## factoryxii (Apr 21, 2013)

Anyone own 1.2 and 1.4? Is 1.2 worth it? Compare 1.2 & 1.4 image quality..?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 21, 2013)

Check reviews at The Digital Picture and photozone.de. If you're going to use it at wider than f/2, then the 50L delivers better IQ. Bokeh is better, it's weather sealed. It's also 4-5 times the cost. Only you can decide if it's 'worth it' because only you know your needs and budget.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 21, 2013)

If you shoot sub/2.8 all the time, yes it's worth every penny. Or if your shooting in the rain a lot.


----------



## factoryxii (Apr 21, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> If you shoot sub/2.8 all the time, yes it's worth every penny. Or if your shooting in the rain a lot.



What about at 1.2 or 1.4 compare with Canon 1.4？


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 21, 2013)

I sold my 1.4 and replaced with 50L. 

I do not think is worth it. However, if I have spend my money again btw f1.4 and 50L, I'm willing to pay for 50L. Better contrast, color, build quality, bokeh, AF and of course much better in IQ @ wide open. It just feel right on my 5D III 

I mainly use this lens @ 1.4


----------



## florianbieler.de (Apr 21, 2013)

I owned both lenses and used them on my 5D Mark III.

The 50L comes with weather sealing, generally feels much much more worthy than that over 20 year old 1.4 and has a beautiful bokeh, but it's not the sharpest tool in the shed. Below f/2 the optical performance is mediocre, it's quite soft in the center and even worse in the corners. The 1.4 performs almost equally but the bokeh is not that beautiful, don't get me wrong it's still great.

They both perform very good from f/2 or f/2.8 upwards, the 50 1.4 is very sharp at f/4 but if you want to shoot at f/4 you wouldn't need a f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens in the first place.

If you don't care that much about tack sharp pictures like a 100L or 135L deliver, they are both good performers, it's your choice if weather sealing and that extra half stop is worth the quadruple.

I know that pixel peeping makes no one happy but the comparison shows the difference clearly:

50L vs. 50 1.4 @ f/1.4
50L vs. 50 1.4 @ f/4.0

I now finally gave up my hope for a good 50 with wide aperture, bought the excellent Sigma 35 1.4 Art and hope for a new 50 1.4 by either Canon or Sigma (Art series) that turns up the optical performance by many notches.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Apr 21, 2013)

The f/1.4 has one of the best priceerformance ratios in Canon's lineup. The f/1.2 might have the worst priceerformance ratio in Canon's lineup.

Both are really, really, really good lenses. And each will outperform the other in certain limited circumstances, and there's a great deal of overlap where they're almost indistinguishable.

When it comes down to it, the f/1.4 should be the default choice unless either you know from experience what you'll be doing that the f/1.2 can do that the f/1.4 can't or unless this will be your bread-and-butter lens for your business or unless $1,000 isn't a significant amount of money for you. In all other circumstances, there're lots of much better ways to spend that extra Grover Cleveland.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Act444 (Apr 21, 2013)

I had this same question. The 1.2 is the only weather sealed 50mm lens in the lineup...yet, with a test unit and a test 5D3 at the store I was able to confirm the "focus shift" phenomenon, which I figured would drive me crazy (backfocus that even the AF microadjust couldn't compensate for)...


----------



## AudioGlenn (Apr 21, 2013)

I know this is a little off topic but I found I was using my 50mm f/1.4 at 2.8 or smaller most of the time so i sold it and got the 24-70 f/2.8 II instead. 

If you need to use the lens wider than 2.8, I always hear that the 50 1.2L outperforms the 50 1.4, but only marginally.


----------

