# 50mm 1.2L + 24mm 1.4L on crop body?



## sandymandy (Jun 8, 2012)

Hi there,

sorry for opening up another thread about the 50mm 1.2L. I searched around a little and didnt find the answer i was looking for.

I got a Rebel body cuz my philosophy always was that one day i will go full frame anyway so i better buy good lenses first, body second. I bought the 1100D cuz it delivers the same image quality like the other crop bodys from canon and thats all what i care for. 

So far i just got a 50mm 1.8II and im quite happy with it but i think the bokeh looks really harsh. I never use it smaller than f/2.8.

I was thinking about buying the 50mm 1.2L and i wanna know if that works out on a crop body or if the 1.2L only starts to shine on full frame?

Same applies to the 24mm 1.4L. Makes sense to buy it for my crop body? I like the wider view i can get from it. I dont need a really super wide lens cuz im just doing portraits. And im just a bokeh addict 

Oh and i just dont like zooms. I dont know why....even when i was just using a Finepix point and shoot and had no ideas about rule of thirds n stuff.....i always refused to use the zoom on it. Just dont like it.

So my basic question: L Lenses make sense on a crop body? 

p.s.

i dont mind it probably gonna balance out badly with the 1100D. Im just a hobbyist. Dont HAVE TO carry my camera all day. Well and im not so weak 

Hope somebody here got a crop body and the named lenses and can give me some more insight. 

Maybe even sample pictures?! Would be much appreciated.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 8, 2012)

Yes, L lenses make sense on a crop body. What you get is better IQ, build quality, consistent AF, and weather resistence, but it costs you money, size and weight.

I've used the 50L and 24L II on my crop body and FF, and they work great. Increased control over DOF/OOF blur is big reason why people choose prime over zooms. That said, the DOF/OOF gets a bigger effect when you move to full frame, but lenses retain their value much better than bodies.


----------



## albron00 (Jun 8, 2012)

You should look closer to EF 35mm L 1.4
Excellent lens!


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jun 8, 2012)

a 1100D with 24Lii and 50L may be overkill for the prinzip of bigger importance on good glas.

With about the same budget you could buy a 5D2 + 35 2.0 + 85 1.8 and keep the 50 1.8

This gives you the same perspective, similar shallow DoF and the same light gattering possibility. The %d2 has a much better ISO performance, so cou can shoot one stop more ISO with same noise


----------



## sandymandy (Jun 9, 2012)

Well i would just buy one lens first. Im not rich like that . At the moment i cant even afford one but i just wanna know for the future. 35mm 1.4L hmmmmmmmm


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 9, 2012)

hendrik-sg said:


> a 1100D with 24Lii and 50L may be overkill for the prinzip of bigger importance on good glas.
> 
> With about the same budget you could buy a 5D2 + 35 2.0 + 85 1.8 and keep the 50 1.8
> 
> This gives you the same perspective, similar shallow DoF and the same light gattering possibility. The %d2 has a much better ISO performance, so cou can shoot one stop more ISO with same noise



Definitely wouldn't recommend the 35 f/2 on a FF camera. 85 1.8 and 50 1.8 a full go!


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 10, 2012)

Buy a full frame camera first, then the lenses. What other lenses do you currently own? I used the 50 1.2 and 35 1.4 on a 50d for a few years. I much prefer them on ff. I shoot wide open, so ff allows shallower dof. The extra cost of the fast lenses (not that that is the only reason they cost more) is lost on a crop. 



albron00 said:


> You should look closer to EF 35mm L 1.4
> Excellent lens!



+1


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 10, 2012)

Also, putting the 24L on a crop is a shame. That lens is awesome in every aspect, and its magic would be killed on a crop. After going from a crop to a full frame, I really believe if you buy L lenses you should really go to a 5 or 1 Series.


----------



## sandymandy (Jun 11, 2012)

I only got the 50mm 1.8 II. Perhaps i will just buy the 35mm f/2.0 (is it any good?) and then leave it like that until i buy a fullframe camera. I dont need a tele lens.

I just wonder if Canon will release another fullframe body. The 5D Mark 3 is waaay more expensive than the 5D MK 2. Nearly 1500 Euro difference. And its a difference for me to save up money like that. Was the 5D mk2 also that damn expensive when it was released?! Im not going fullframe soon, so im 99,9% sure mk2 will be sold out everywhere when i wanna upgrade.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 11, 2012)

Both lenses are superb on crop. I use both alot on my 7D because I may need alittle extra reach so my 50mm 1.2L becomes a 85mm, which is a awesome portrait length.

The 24mm becomes a 35mm which is awesome if you need alittle wider than the 50mm on FF but not too wide like 24mm on FF.

Its a great combo if you have both FF and a Crop camera. Use those two to complement each other alot.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 12, 2012)

You almost can't go wrong with L prime lenses - crop or FF.


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 12, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> You almost can't go wrong with L prime lenses - crop or FF.



I agree - the TS-E24 is great on the 7D

Musn't forget that L lens were designed to be good on 1.3 crop bodies .....


----------



## IIIHobbs (Jun 12, 2012)

The 50 1.2 and the 24 1.4 are both excellent lenses.
Based on your self-assessment as hobbyist, you may find the results just as satisfying with the 50 1.4 and 24 2.8 on your current bodies at a significantly lower price of admission.
If you are thinking of a full frame, maybe now is the time to make the move. You will need an 85mm however to give you the focal length you are accustom to shooting with the 50 on the crop.







Canon 40D w/ 50mm 1.2 1/[email protected]


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 12, 2012)

If you have the 50 f/1.8 and it's still working, and that's all you have, then don't get 50 f/1.2 as your next lens... If you need to alter bokeh on your f/1.8 you can probably smooth it out a bit it post using a feathered selection and a touch of Gaussian blur. That said, my L lenses all work great on my crop body, you just end up cropping out large areas of what the glass can do and in most cases this isn't ideal.

I'd agree with the advice of switching to a full frame first if your intent is to spend thousands on a collection of super high-end primes. For a long while I thought the versatility of Crop + FF sounded great on paper as your lenses do different things on both, so long as your Crop bodies resolution is equal or greater than your FF's res... I don't think I'll ever buy a crop body again, they are best suited for Telephoto and Macro and even still I suspect that the same images taken on a full frame will have much more character. With a 5DIII, I suspect I would have no personal qualms about heavily cropping any image to sorta/somewhat match a crop and still have a fine, printable image. 

I have an old used 5D classic and a 7D. The 5D I have can't do video, while the 7D can, and the 7D's resolution is greater than the 5Dc so there is no realistic way to crop a 5Dc image anything close to a straight 7D shot and still have the same detail/resolution in place. It gives me a backup having both but to be honest I wouldn't re-buy the crop if I could do it over, I would however get the 5Dc again in a heartbeat but the price of a used 5Dc was not reasonable back when I bought the 7D and I was at the time more concerned with video until I fell in love with stills. Unless you are doing a lot of f/8-f/16+ shots with a large DOF you are losing a ton of built in character on a crop body, and to me it's an utter waste and a big dent in your photography. 

In a year or two if work treats me decently I'll probably upgrade to a 5DIII, the camera hit about 99.9% of everything I wanted it to be, and if I could afford it (fat chance), I'd seriously consider switching to Lieca after thorough test driving, it appears to suit my style better for photo only purposes, I've looked into just about every other system in the same range, and nothing else does it for me.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jun 12, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Both lenses are superb on crop. I use both alot on my 7D because I may need alittle extra reach so my 50mm 1.2L becomes a 85mm, which is a awesome portrait length.



Remember, a 50mm lens on a 1.6 might be about 85mm, but you still have the 50mm perspective.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 12, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Both lenses are superb on crop. I use both alot on my 7D because I may need alittle extra reach so my 50mm 1.2L becomes a 85mm, which is a awesome portrait length.
> ...



Never the less, crop gives me what I need when I need it. It does a fine job at it also.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 12, 2012)

actually its 80mm


----------



## nightbreath (Jun 12, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Remember, a 50mm lens on a 1.6 might be about 85mm, but you still have the 50mm perspective.
> ...



I believe that "compression" is what was meant there. Yes, you can compose approximately the same frame with crop + 50mm and fullframe + 85mm, but with 85mm distant objects will be 1.6 times closer than with 50mm.


----------



## sandymandy (Jun 12, 2012)

Jettatore said:


> In a year or two if work treats me decently I'll probably upgrade to a 5DIII, the camera hit about 99.9% of everything I wanted it to be, and if I could afford it (fat chance), I'd seriously consider switching to Lieca after thorough test driving, it appears to suit my style better for photo only purposes, I've looked into just about every other system in the same range, and nothing else does it for me.



Yeah i also wish i had a Leica. M9 monochrome to be exact  Its just too damn expensive for me. Probably I could save for a M9 Body but oh well then i gotta pay the same price or even more for a lens 

Well my conclusion is....no changes in the near future.

35mm f/2.0 lens is any good? Probably the only other lens i will buy before going fullframe. Just remember i like to shoot at wide open usually. Maybe 35mm 1.4L makes more sense?


----------



## koolman (Jun 12, 2012)

Sandy:

I have experienced the same dilemma. I have a t2i - but lusted for quality glass.

True, by using a FF lens on a crop you are "wasting" the sides of the lens. On the other hand you are utilizing the "sweet spot" of the center of the lens. The newer crops such as the t2i, 60d, 7d have awesome resolution, and you will easily see the difference between L glass and consumer glass.

In your post you asked about the 24L and the 50L. Again theoretically you are "wasting" the whole idea of the 24L as being a wide angle on a FF, and are "only" getting a 38mm lens. On the other hand, 38mm is a nice walk around focal length, and the 24L can work as that.

The 50L could work as an awesome portrait lens, with the working distance of an 85mm on FF.

In short, you could benefit from the L glass as far as IQ. If you want to spend the money.

I personally have the 35L on my crop, and the IQ is awesome, much better then say the 35f/2 which I also have.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 12, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> Daniel Flather said:
> 
> 
> > Remember, a 50mm lens on a 1.6 might be about 85mm, but you still have the 50mm perspective.
> ...



Position alone does NOT determine perspective. Focal length has a major impact on the relative size of FG and BG ojbects (AOV). Using a lens on a crop camera is like taking scissors to a print and enlarging it back to the original size. It does not change the perspective or ratio of near/far objects. That is why short telephotos are recommended for portraiture -- wide angles tend to empahasize features closer to the camera (i.e. nose).


----------



## sandymandy (Jun 12, 2012)

could u please discuss that elsewhere?


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 13, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> could u please discuss that elsewhere?



I think a small discussion on perspective with different length lens is relevent. Just not to turn it into a long debate


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 13, 2012)

the 50mm is still going to have a focal length of 50mm 
the angle of view of the lens doesnt change either 
the 1.6 crop sensor only takes in the light from the sweet spot in the center of the lens
which will give and APPARENT focal length of 80mm and a percieved change in angle of view 
the depth of field does not change per the characteristic of the lens

say we put a 50 1.2 on a FF and a crop side by side and then framed the exact same shot so the composition was essentially identical in both view finders 

the crop sensor camera would obviously be further away from the subject than the FF camera it would be in a similar position that a FF camera with an 85mm lens might be

it is because the FF camera is closer to the subject that it will have a much narrower Depth of field than the crop camera with the exact same lens. 
Sometimes you might hear people say that a certain aperture lens behaves more live a narrower aperture, this is refering to the DoF not the light gathering capability with regards to shutter speed and iso for exposure purposes.

If we take the above example and now stop down the FF camera and leave the Crop camera at f1.2 we might have to stop the FF camera down to perhaps 1.8 to give that camera an equivalent Depth of field (not the actual number I just picked an aperture there for the example.

Neuro actually did a series of shots which he previously posted quite a while ago that shows all this very well maybe he still has them and could post again

while 50mm dont particularly apply any distortion to the image it will not have the same focal characteristics of an 85mm on FF just as a 35 on a crop wont mimic the 50 on a FF they will be similar but there will be subtle differences.

None of this makes these lenses bad on a crop at all in fact great lenses get added benefits of the sweet spot effect where because of the crop the image is actually only taken from the best part of the glass. they will just have DIFFERENT look not a worse look

hope that makes sense


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 13, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> While your DoF explanation is right, the focal length does not change hence "angle of view of the lens doesnt change either" doesn't make any sense.
> 
> What is focal length? Focal length alone doesn't dictate angle of view. Focal length + frame format dictate angle of view. (Simple trigonometry: half angle of view = atan(half frame length / focal length)). When you "crop", you change angle of view.
> 
> ...



Focal length is a property of the lens. For example, the 14L has a 114 degree angle of view diagonally. The 50L has a 46 degree angle of view. To get an object to be the same size with the 14mm lens, you have to be a lot closer, but the angle is still 114 deg. Try it for yourself. Take photos of the same object at two different focal lengths and fill the image with the object. You will see a lot more background with the wider lens due to its angle of view.


----------



## nightbreath (Jul 3, 2012)

BozillaNZ said:


> nightbreath said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that "compression" is what was meant there. Yes, you can compose approximately the same frame with crop + 50mm and fullframe + 85mm, but with 85mm distant objects will be 1.6 times closer than with 50mm.
> ...



Got it now. Thank you for your emphasize on this


----------



## n0iZe (Jul 5, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> I only got the 50mm 1.8 II. Perhaps i will just buy the 35mm f/2.0 (is it any good?) and then leave it like that until i buy a fullframe camera. I dont need a tele lens.
> 
> I just wonder if Canon will release another fullframe body. The 5D Mark 3 is waaay more expensive than the 5D MK 2. Nearly 1500 Euro difference. And its a difference for me to save up money like that. Was the 5D mk2 also that damn expensive when it was released?! Im not going fullframe soon, so im 99,9% sure mk2 will be sold out everywhere when i wanna upgrade.



Thought I'd throw in my two cents as well.

If you have a 50mm f/1.8 II already, you really shouldn't go for the 50mm f/1.2L.
Reason is that the 50mm f/1.2L is only slighty sharper at f/1.8 than the 50mm wide open (also at f/1.8). What you really pay all that extra cash for (extra cash you could easily buy a used 1Ds Mark II or maybe also a used 5D Mark II) is build quality. The f/1.8 (I'm tired of writing 50mm all the time - damnit I did it again!) is optically great, only build quality is nothing special. It's plastic, but so what. It will deliver almost as good pictures as the 15 times more expensive f/1.2L - actually I'm pretty sure you couldn't tell the difference on the 1100D, seriously.

If you're really into primes, that's a good thing. Canon primes are reasonably priced yet they're great - even the non L lenses.
If I were you for a tele I'd get a 100mm f/2 (or the macro 100mm f/2.8L which is reasonably priced for being an L lens) and for something wider you could go with the 35mm f/2 or the 28mm f/1.8 USM.

Of course in the end it's up to you, but I'd highly suggest you to not waste your money on expensive L lenses which will just slow you down on getting to the FF camera. Lenses are important, don't get me wrong. But you don't have to get the very best lenses for the beginner-DSLR of Canon - it's a waste.
Lenses mentioned above won't be bad on a FF camera and if you really really need to get something better, then you didn't lose a lot of money. While if you'd realize that you do not really need the L lens but could've stayed with a smaller priced non-L lens without losing anything - well that hurts. A lot.

Just think it over, lenses won't run away. Maybe you could even go and rent a lens before you buy it, or test it in the store - should be possible in a good store. Customer is always king, or should be at least.

Hope this helped,
n0iZe


----------



## robbymack (Jul 6, 2012)

If you got the money to burn on these two pieces of glass then more power to you. I am sure you will love them regardless of the crop vs ff debate. That being said I'd echo a few other comments regarding the need for the 50L when you already have the 1.8. Yes the 1.8 is plastic and cheap, but if you drop it and crack it, no worries, $100 gets you a new one. And the 50L does not IMHO produce 15 times better images than the 1.8 as price should dictate. The 24L is a different animal, there really isn't competition in the canon prime line up in this general focal range, the 28 1.8 is probably the closest option, but at $500 it's 3 times less expensive and I actually think the 24L is probably worth the price difference here and is close to 3 times better. So maybe keep the 1.8, get the 24L and look to a prime in the telephoto range, the 85 1.8 is excellent for the price or the 135L which may be the best canon prime made today. In fact you could get the 24L, 135L, 85 1.8, and throw in a 50 1.4 (if you feel the need to upgrade from the plastic) for about what you'd spend on the 24L and 50L combined.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 6, 2012)

robbymack said:


> If you got the money to burn on these two pieces of glass then more power to you. I am sure you will love them regardless of the crop vs ff debate. That being said I'd echo a few other comments regarding the need for the 50L when you already have the 1.8. Yes the 1.8 is plastic and cheap, but if you drop it and crack it, no worries, $100 gets you a new one. And the 50L does not IMHO produce 15 times better images than the 1.8 as price should dictate. The 24L is a different animal, there really isn't competition in the canon prime line up in this general focal range, the 28 1.8 is probably the closest option, but at $500 it's 3 times less expensive and I actually think the 24L is probably worth the price difference here and is close to 3 times better. So maybe keep the 1.8, get the 24L and look to a prime in the telephoto range, the 85 1.8 is excellent for the price or the 135L which may be the best canon prime made today. In fact you could get the 24L, 135L, 85 1.8, and throw in a 50 1.4 (if you feel the need to upgrade from the plastic) for about what you'd spend on the 24L and 50L combined.



I would suggest the 50 f/1.8 is no more than a fallback/budget lens as the bokeh is terrible. I would be very tempted to skip the 50's and go for the shorty forty on the crop.

PS There are far better primes than the 135, albeit the 135 is very good and a very good price point. A 24-70II might be better than multiple primes


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 7, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> robbymack said:
> 
> 
> > If you got the money to burn on these two pieces of glass then more power to you. I am sure you will love them regardless of the crop vs ff debate. That being said I'd echo a few other comments regarding the need for the 50L when you already have the 1.8. Yes the 1.8 is plastic and cheap, but if you drop it and crack it, no worries, $100 gets you a new one. And the 50L does not IMHO produce 15 times better images than the 1.8 as price should dictate. The 24L is a different animal, there really isn't competition in the canon prime line up in this general focal range, the 28 1.8 is probably the closest option, but at $500 it's 3 times less expensive and I actually think the 24L is probably worth the price difference here and is close to 3 times better. So maybe keep the 1.8, get the 24L and look to a prime in the telephoto range, the 85 1.8 is excellent for the price or the 135L which may be the best canon prime made today. In fact you could get the 24L, 135L, 85 1.8, and throw in a 50 1.4 (if you feel the need to upgrade from the plastic) for about what you'd spend on the 24L and 50L combined.
> ...



I'm thinking the 24-70L II will be better than the 35L, and probably the 50's, as far as edge to edge sharpness. The 24-70L I already is sharper stopped down than the 35L.


----------



## Bosman (Jul 9, 2012)

No one can tell me it is a shame to put my 24L on a 1dm3. It is the perfect focal length for candids, just a bit wider than 35mm on a crop body so it really helps when shooting weddings to have that extra 5mm. Basically on any body you buy it will be like pure gold to your images. You want lenses get them. You can use a FF later but enjoy the amazing bokeh and sharpness of the 24L & 50L on your images. The 50L is on the 5dm3 most the time and the 24L is on the 1dm3 most the time, sometimes i swap them but always end up with blissful images.


----------

