# Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.2L



## scottsdaleriots (Nov 23, 2011)

I know there's probably a thread or two about each of these lenses, but I want someon'e first hand experience. I don't have a FF camera (I'm unpatiently waiting for the 5D mk III) so I know this lens won't be as good on my 7D, but I've heard so many good things about shooting with a 50mm. I just have difficulty deciding on which to get (budget is a factor of course, I'm a student).

People have said that the 50mm 1.8 is good for it's build quality and price. I read from a lot of people is that their 50mm 1.8 lens will break because of it's inferier build quality (compared to the 1.4 and 1.2). That puts me off. I don't want to buy a lens only to have it break or the glass falls out 2-3yrs later.
So I'm trying to decide between the 1.4 and the 1.2L. At the moment, the 1.2L is winning mainly because it's an L lens which means, better build quality, superior optics, I've heard (slightly) better/higer IQ, DOF, bokeh, etc. And that awesome red ring on the end.

I'm a bokeh girl, I freaken LOVE beautiful smooth bokeh and high contrast a\nd saturation. I would love to get the 1.2L but I've read a _LOT_ of reviews/comments from owners talking about the "*back focussing*" issue. Can someone who owns a 50 1.2L or someone who's tested one please elaborate a bit more about the issue? I've also read that 1/3 shots will be in focus, and that it is difficult for the 1.2L to properly focus in low light/dark surroundings, that the 1.4 outperforms it in that regard. 

When I come to buy the lens I'll definitely ask to test and try out the 1.2L and the 1.4 lenses. But then again there are those in the small minority who say they have had minimal or no "back focussing" issues at all and that then absolutely adore the 1.2L lens and highly recommend it. I love live music/concert photography and would probably buy a 50mm lens before getting a 24-70 (I'm still waiting for it to come out with IS!) and believe it (50mm 1.2L) would take great photos. But I really need help deciding and reading hundreds and hundreds of reviews won't really help me, I need other people's input and first hand experience with these lenses. I can't justify spending almost $AU2000 for an L lens only to return it. Is the back focussing issue more of a 'photographer' error/problem or is it the lens'camera's fault? And can you actually fix the back focussing problem? apologise for rambling, I just really want to understand what this back focussing issue is and why some people don't seem to have a problem with it and a large majority do.


----------



## ghosh9691 (Nov 23, 2011)

The 50 f/1.2L is a fabulous lens, but its a beast that needs to be tamed. It takes beautiful photos with excellent color & contrast rendition along with smooth out of focus backgrounds. There is fall-off at the corners on a full frame, but that can be corrected. Yes, focusing can be a tad slow but the output is well worth it. The 50 f/1.4 (which I own and regularly use) is great at a quarter of the price. A bit slower, but focuses much quicker. I love the color and contrast of this lens. As far as back focus is concerned, its fairly easy to correct by pairing it with your camera's microfocus adjustment.

The short answer is that either one of these 3 fifties will serve you well - suggest you rent the 50 f/1.2L and try it out yourself. I settled for the 1.4 and absolutely love it.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 23, 2011)

ghosh9691 said:


> The 50 f/1.2L is a fabulous lens, but its a beast that needs to be tamed. It takes beautiful photos with excellent color & contrast rendition along with smooth out of focus backgrounds. There is fall-off at the corners on a full frame, but that can be corrected. Yes, focusing can be a tad slow but the output is well worth it. The 50 f/1.4 (which I own and regularly use) is great at a quarter of the price. A bit slower, but focuses much quicker. I love the color and contrast of this lens. As far as back focus is concerned, its fairly easy to correct by pairing it with your camera's microfocus adjustment.
> 
> The short answer is that either one of these 3 fifties will serve you well - suggest you rent the 50 f/1.2L and try it out yourself. I settled for the 1.4 and absolutely love it.



+1 for the 50 f/1.4


----------



## 7enderbender (Nov 23, 2011)

Sounds like you are on the right track with your thought process. I always loved my 50mm lenses, so when I was looking to get a new one to fit my 5DII I went through the same exercise. In short: there isn't a "perfect" solution. All available options for the EF system have their advantages and disadvantages. You'll have to find the right balance (for you) between optical qualities (at different apertures...), build quality and price. But then: none of the options is truly "bad".

I considered these: EF 50 1.4, 50L, Sigma 50 1.4, Zeiss manual focus

I was very familiar with the EF50 1.4 since it is optically exactly the same as my old FD versions of it, so I knew what to expect. The build quality compared to my old ones is significantly worse and there are lots of stories out there that the AF tends to break. The 50L is of course much nicer built but given the price is not perfect either. Plus its optical qualities are only better in some areas but seem to be ever so slightly worse in others (however insignificant that may be in real life).

Sigma had too many stories with respect to quality control (though Canon seems to have issues there also, especially with the 50 1.4 it seems). As much as I prefer manual focus, with a modern DSLR and without decent focusing screens in this day and age it's not really an option for everyday use (though given some recent experiences with concert photography I may revisit this thought). Also: the label reads "Zeiss" but they are not really. Still very good, but not quite what you'd expect given the legacy. Decent price point though for what it is and very nice build quality.

I settled for the 50 1.4. It does what it's supposed to do. I bought it with the hood and leave it on at all times to protect the protruding front element and it's connection to the AF drive. In the meantime I'm saving up and waiting for an updated and improved version of the 50 1.4 or the 50L.

My advice to you would be to get a cheap 50 1.8 and try out if you like using a 50 at all. On your 7D it is more like an 85mm which is also interesting in its own way. If you' re not going "full frame" any time soon you could also get a decent 35mm prime and see how that goes.

Good luck


----------



## Bluesmachine (Nov 23, 2011)

I own the Sigma 50 1.4 and am using it on the 30D & 60D. That thing almost NEVER comes off the camera. I absolutely love the thing, and it's worth every penny. No issues at all with it, and I've even launched it across the room attached to the 60D with no damage at all (thank god!).

I also have the canon 50 1.8 which is a phenomenal lens for the price. I've taken some really nice photos with that, and I may be imagining it but the contrast seems nicer on it too (to my eye).

I've not used a 1.2 but I know a lad who has a 5Dmkii and it never leaves the body. Those photos he takes with it are very very nice. I had a long nerdy chat about these lenses with him and he pretty much mirrored everything you read about the quality and price. At the end of the day, if you have the money, and won't miss it, go or it. Personally I'd have to be very rich to spend Â£1200 on a 50mm lens when you can spend Â£380 on a sigma that's exceptionally good.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I'm a bokeh girl, I freaken LOVE beautiful smooth bokeh and high contrast a\nd saturation.



Then the 50mm f/1.2L is made just for you.  At apertures narrower than f/2, the 50/1.4 is sharper, and narrower than ~f/4, the lowly 50mm f/1.8 is sharper still. That's because Canon's designers gave the 50L intentionally under corrected spherical aberration - that means a small sacrifice in sharpness was traded specifically for that smooth, creamy bokeh the lens is known for.



scottsdaleriots said:


> I would love to get the 1.2L but I've read a _LOT_ of reviews/comments from owners talking about the "*back focussing*" issue.



It's not a back-focusing issue, per se. Technically, the problem is focus shift. I'll paste my previous comments from another thread:

The 50mm f/1.2L is something of a special case. That lens suffers from a particularly bad focus shift (many lenses have some focus shift, especially, fast primes, but usually not enough to notice). Focus shift is when the focal plane of the lens changes when you change the aperture of the lens. All lenses focus with the aperture wide open, then stop down the aperture to your chosen setting as the shot is taken. In the case of the 50mm f/1.2L, if you select an aperture narrower than f/1.2, down to about f/4, focus shift means that the lens will actually focus on a point that's behind your chosen focal plane. At f/4 or a little narrower, the DoF is deep enough to mask the effect, because by then your chosen focal plane is within the DoF. At very close subject distances, the DoF is shallower, and the effect of focus shift is exaggerated (you may need f/5.6 or even f/8 to get a deep enough DoF to mask the shift).

So, what can you do? Here are some options:


Stop down to f/4 or narrower. But, I'm going to assume that shooting at f/8 is not the ideal solution... 
Shoot at f/1.2. There's no shift if you don't stop down.
Use Live View. Granted, that's not a good option with typical 50/1.2 subjects.
Manual focus with the DoF Preview button pressed. You'd almost certainly need the Eg-S focusing screen instead of the stock screen.
More complex AFMA. You could perform an AFMA at f/2, and you'd get different results than wide open - that adjustment would compensate for the focus shift at f/2, but not be applicable at f/1.6 or f/2.8, for example. So, you'd need to have a list of AFMA values, and change the setting to match the aperture you want to shoot at. Might work if you can pick an aperture for a shoot and stay there. (Side note here: the 1D X can store two AFMA settings for a zoom lens, one for the wide end and one for the long end; in theory, Canon could allow multiple, aperture-dependent AFMA settings for the 50L, which would certainly help with this issue.)
Intentionally front focus. Use an AF point over a feature that's a little bit in front of what you _really_ want to focus on.
Tweak on the fly. The 50L has full-time manual focus, so you can use AF get you close, then turn the MF ring slightly to bring the focal plane forward a little. You'd likely want to be using back-button AF for that, and it would take a fair bit of practice to get it working reliably.

The 50L can deliver amazing shots, but due to the focus shift issue it takes some work and practice to get the most from the lens.


----------



## ghosh9691 (Nov 23, 2011)

@neuroanatomist: Thank you for all the knowledge that you share on these forums! I have learnt a lot from just reading your insightful posts. People like you, that are willing to share their knowledge, make this such a pleasant hobby! Once again, thank you very much!


----------



## TheAshleyJones (Nov 23, 2011)

I have owned the 1.8, 1.4 and currently the 1.2L
I also have the 35L, 85LII and 135L as well as a few other lenses less relevant to this discussion.

I shoot on a 5DII but also use a 60D from time to time.

I loved the 1.8, so bought the 1.4 which I loved even more. The 1.4 I had was super sharp at F1.4 and I would recommend it in a heartbeat. I tried lots of 50 1.2Ls before I actually bought one. The main thing I had to do with the 1.2L was to stop testing and start shooting. I would say that it is my least favourite out of the 35, 50 and 85 and I only use it when I can't get far enough away with the 85II which is far and away my favourite lens.

If you fo go full frame, the 85 1.8 is a superb lens and I found it perfect when I first went to FF; I only upgraded to the 85 II because I got a great price on it (mind you I would buy another one if I lost my current one because I have grown to love it so much). 

If I was shopping on a budget I would say get the 50 F/1.4. I don't really feel I *need* the F1.2 and the F1.4 served me brilliantly.


----------



## branden (Nov 23, 2011)

I had the same 50mm dilemma ... but to keep the story short, I've ended up with the Zeiss 2/50 Makro-planar, and haven't looked back. Great for everything (landscapes, portraits, architecture, detail, products, etc) except events.


----------



## jcns (Nov 23, 2011)

I borrowed a 50mm 1.8 from a friend and I loved it. EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THIS LENS even if it's for a crop sensor camera. It's not expensive and it's one of the best bang for the buck lens out there.
My girlfriend eventually surprised me one x-mas with a 50mm 1.4. I LOVE THIS LENS. It's about 3.5-4 times more expensive(I think). For indoor, no flash, night time shooting it's fantastic. Although on a crop sensor, it's the equivalent of 80mm so it has its set of challenges.
If budget is tight, get the 1.8. Buy a used one and if you don't like it, you can sell it for the same price.
I eventually bought a 35mm L 1.4 for indoor night time shooting. FANTASTIC!!! On a crop sensor it's a little over 50mm.


----------



## dougkerr (Nov 23, 2011)

Hi, n,



neuroanatomist said:


> The 50mm f/1.2L is something of a special case. That lens suffers from a particularly bad focus shift (many lenses have some focus shift, especially, fast primes, but usually not enough to notice). Focus shift is when the focal plane of the lens changes when you change the aperture of the lens.


As I'm sure you know, this is often largely a result of uncorrected spherical aberration.

In fact, the Canon AF system has specific provisions (sometimes rather primitive) to (somewhat) compensate for this.

Best regards,

Doug


----------



## dougkerr (Nov 23, 2011)

Hi, s,

I have one comment about the EF 50 mm f/1.4 USM. The manual focus arrangement on it is dreadful.

It is the only Canon EF lens with non-ring USM that has full-time manual focusing. The unique mechanism used to do that is full of "play", so manual focus is very difficult to do.

Other than that, it is a nice bottle.

Best regards,

Doug


----------



## daveheinzel (Nov 23, 2011)

You owe it to yourself to just buy a 50mm 1.8. It's cheap, yes, and it feels cheap. It feels horribly cheap like some plastic toy that doesn't deserve to be on your camera. The manual focusing ring is horrible. The auto-focus motor is slow. You'll have instant buyers' remorse as soon as you feel its low build quality. BUT... that said, it produces some fantastic photos. I used mine reluctantly at first, but when I'd go back and edit a session, I'd find that 80% of the keepers were from that lens. It won me over in the best kind of way - with surprisingly beautiful images.

I was using mine on a video when it got hit and destroyed by a frisbee disc (those hard ones). It was sad, but it was $100. Life moves on. I used it for years before that, so my investment was a good one.

I have not owned or used the other 2 Canon 50mm lenses. I own the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 ZE, and I love it. I mainly use it for video though.

Here's an album I took years ago with my 50mm 1.8 right after I got it: http://www.daveheinzel.com/photos/?year=2007&gallery=81&pic=1386

Bottom line - buy the 50mm 1.8 and shoot with that for a long time before upgrading. Don't think of it as wasting $100 that you could have put towards a better lens. I never did.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 23, 2011)

From a bit of reading here and there, I gathered that the Zeiss 50mm f/2 (lenses?) is (are?) better than the f1.4 variant.

The 50mm f/1.4 would be perfect,
if it were sharper at f/1.4, especially in the corners;
if it had IS (heh);
if it had a nicer shape to out of focus areas when stopped down;
and if it had a better focus ring. The 50mm offers the worst focus ring on any of my lenses, barring kit zooms - though I have been somewhat spoiled by good to amazing focus rings since I got additional lenses. Works well enough to focus in magnified Live View, though.
I had "if it didn't slightly overexpose" in that list, but I realized that if my copy indeed does, it doesn't bother me. That's something The Digital Picture's author noticed on his copy. At roughly 1/3 a stop, it would be fairly easy to handle in post, however.

If you can stop the 50mm f/1.4 down a bit, though, it performs wonderfully. It's as sharp as anything I have at f/8.

If I had the 50mm f/1.2 I would use manual focus as much as possible. I am mainly worried about the CAs - some of the Photozone shots just don't work where the f/1.4 would have been a contender.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 23, 2011)

I have a 24-70 f/2.8 L

I've used the 50mm f/1.4 and liked it, but is there really that much of a reason in getting one, instead of using the few hundred it costs towards a f/1.2 purchase instead? I figure the only thing it offers me is the 2 stop advantage, and I hear (but have never seen it) that the f/1.2 is even faster and preforms better at these larger stops. I just figure, wait, save and if it's needed at all get the Lspensive one.??


----------



## branden (Nov 23, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> From a bit of reading here and there, I gathered that the Zeiss 50mm f/2 (lenses?) is (are?) better than the f1.4 variant.


I don't know about better; I think it's just a matter of priorities. The Zeiss 1.4/50's priorities are around portraiture: good bokeh and very fast apertures. The Zeiss 2/50's priorities are not people-based, so factors such as minimum focus distance, lack of distortion, flat focal planes, and extreme sharpness have much more influence on the design. 

Although I shoot everything, my true love is landscape photography, so the 2/50 is what I chose.


----------



## Zuuyi (Nov 23, 2011)

I suggest going with the 50/1.8 on your 7D. If you like the distance of shot get the 85L once you go to the 5d3. If you want it wider get the 50L; if you want it tighter I suggest the 100/2.8 Macro.

Because most people like the 50 on a Crop but when you go to Full Frame it will feel too wide and that's why most have the 85L or up on Full Frame.


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 23, 2011)

I ended up going with the 50 1.4 Its a great lens, small, ligtht, compact, everything all my other lenses are not
I was also considering the 1.2 at 4 times the price, and 1kg all the reviews didnt give it enough of an edge over the 1.4 so i saveed some money and went with it, its a great lens. Now having said that i got a Nikon 50 f1.4G at the same time and I have to say canon need to step up their game for about the same price the nikon absolutely kills the canon 1.4 in every aspect build, AF speed sharpness center and corner, the nikon has a 9 blade aperture and has perfect bokeh and ultra smooth blur, sometimes I wonder if it would have been better to sell all my canon gear and switch to only nikon rather than the other way round. 

I think canon need to bring in a Mk2 version of the 1.4 to match the Nikon they will sell like crazy

Also I absolutely love the angle of view of the 50mm on the 5Dmk2 its a great light walk around combo 

If i had to decide between the 50 1.2 and the 1.4 again I think i would still get the 1.4 I just dont think the 1.2 gives the value for the added price and more importantly the weight my bags heavy enough

As an extra aside I've tried the 50 1.4 with my Kenko TC and its a pretty nice combo at f2 and narrower 
f2.8 is very nice with this combo especially for ligth weight tighter portrait shots can just keep the TC in a pocket when walking around


----------



## pwp (Nov 24, 2011)

Great! Another_ "which 50?_" thread. It's often discussed and always relevant.

I had the Canon EF 50 f/1.4 and it was kind of OK, emergency use only at F/1.4, getting good at f/2 and quite acceptable from f/2.8 through to f/8. Never stellar.

This was replaced earlier this year with the well reviewed Sigma 50 f/1.4. What an odd lens. It's been carefully calibrated to my bodies but delivers erratic results. It's a bit like the girl in the children's nursery rhyme..."and when she was good she was very very good, but when she was bad she was horrid..."

Between f/1.4 and f/2.8 which is where I use this lens, the results can abruptly vary from unbelievably good to unusably soft. This is on projects where care is taken with focus, shutter speed is high enough to discount shake or motion blur...it's just erratic when it comes to focus.

A bit of reading online seems to confirm this as a characteristic of the Sigma 50 f/1.4. Grrrrr. 

Most likely I'll take a hit on this lens and try another Canon 50 f/1.4. Just give me a good copy this time!

Paul Wright


----------



## Harley (Nov 24, 2011)

Another option for the budget-minded is to find an old Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 and get the Ed Mika adapter (there's plenty of info about that here on the Forum) to make it EOS compatible. It's a fully manual lens but the adapter enables AF confirmation and EXIF. It's a great focal length on a crop: 88mm FF equivalent. Crazy bokeh. It's not a lens for everybody but it's worth a look to see if it's a lens for you. It is my favorite lens, hands down.
...and it's f/1.2...!


----------



## stohmax (Nov 24, 2011)

i bought the 50 1,8 II for my 400d a few years ago. The IQ and BQ are good for the price. even after 4 years of use its still working. when i bought my 5d2 i realized that the lens is too short for portrait so i bought the ef 85 1.8 with is superb for the price. a half year ago i made pictures of my sisters children and the 85 1.8 was to long and the 50 1.8 ii focus was slow and wide open not really sharp. So i bought the ef 50 1.4, in my opinion its much better than the 1,8 ii because the af is faster, the image quality is better. i had good results even at 1,4 at 2,0 ist very sharp. i was also thinking about the 50 1.2 but i decided to save the money to replace the samyang 35 1.4 with the ef 35 1.4 L incause of the autofocus.


----------



## Jamesy (Nov 24, 2011)

*Re: Battle of the 50mm's - 1.8, 1.4 and 1.L*



pwp said:


> I had the Canon EF 50 f/1.4 and it was kind of OK, emergency use only at F/1.4, getting good at f/2 and quite acceptable from f/2.8 through to f/8. Never stellar.
> 
> Most likely I'll take a hit on this lens and try another Canon 50 f/1.4. Just give me a good copy this time!



I had a 50 1.4 and feel exactly the same way, I sold it after a month of so. I have had the 50 1.8 for years and only use it occasionally as the AF is so-so and it is a tad noisy too. After 2.0 my copy is pretty decent.

I have had my eye on the Sigmalux 50 1.4 for over a year but am leery based on the reasons cited by PWP - these are well documented online.

Perhaps the Canon 50 1.4 Mk.II will knock it out of the park


----------



## willrobb (Nov 24, 2011)

I used to use 50mm F1.4 lenses with film bodies and then a 30D. It was a great lens, light weight, cheap, great for portraits, but with heavy use a lot of dust got inside an that affected image quality. 

I sold my primes and went through a zoom phase for a while, was vey happy wig my 24-70mm f2.8L but soon realised I needed a 50mm prime for portraits again and after much debate I got the 50mm 1.2L and I am really happy with my buy. I find back focusing not to be a problem unless you are at the minimal focus distance, otherwise it's not been a fine.

For beautiful bokeh, the 1.2L is just what you want. The 1.4 is a good lens, but it's not as well built or weather proofed as the 1.2L. It's a good investment.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Nov 24, 2011)

I use the sigma 50mm f/1.4. It is excellent and has better centre sharpness at wider apertures than the canon. As I use my prime lenses almost exclusively at their widest apertures (with exceptions) - this was particularly valuable to me. It also comes with a hood and is built better.

I have not felt the need for f/1.2 as the depth of field gets _too_ shallow for my uses. I have also used the f/1.8 when I first got a dslr and it is an excellent lens and should be bought by anyone who only has the kit lens. I didn't like it's bokeh however at all. Too few aperture blades produced hexagons in the background.


----------



## pwp (Nov 24, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> I use the sigma 50mm f/1.4. It is excellent and has better centre sharpness at wider apertures than the canon. As I use my prime lenses almost exclusively at their widest apertures....



Yes I agree, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has great centre sharpness. When mine nails it it really is faultless, way better than anything my old EF 50mm f/1.4 could deliver. But the AF inconsistencies mean I just can't risk using it on fast moving commissioned work. 

Does your copy deliver _consistent _results or does it suffer from the well documented "on again/off again" AF issues?

Paul Wright


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Nov 29, 2011)

I the 1.2L is 10 years old, wouldn't that kinda warrant it for a mkII being in the works? 
These current rebates are tempting me to buy one, but I still can't decide. Thanks for everyone's input/advice. Curse Canon's marketing team - I want another L lens!!


----------



## candyman (Nov 29, 2011)

pwp said:


> Does your copy deliver _consistent _results or does it suffer from the well documented "on again/off again" AF issues?
> 
> Paul Wright



I also use a Sigma 50mm f1.4. I don't have the on / off AF issues
Though especially in cloudy / dark environment it took me some time to handle this lens when using hand-held aperture 1.4. I now manage that very well.


----------



## DJL329 (Nov 29, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I the 1.2L is 10 years old, wouldn't that kinda warrant it for a mkII being in the works?
> These current rebates are tempting me to buy one, but I still can't decide. Thanks for everyone's input/advice. Curse Canon's marketing team - I want another L lens!!



Actually, the 50mm f/1.2L is only 5 years old. It was released at the end of 2006, so I wouldn't worry about a "Mark II" coming out soon. Since there aren't any "perfect" lenses, each decision comes down to a trade-off. Decide which feature(s) you want most and go with that one.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 29, 2011)

I borrowed the 1.2L from canon and the 1.4 from canon before I made my purchase... I love the build and durability and USM of the 1.2L, but when it came down to practice, to me, even after MA, even after a lot of playing with it, it isn't that reliable.... On my cameras, my AF struggled with it for whatever reason... some photos would be spot on focus, and others (even after focus confirmation on) the photos were off... It kinda gave me a weird "warmup" period where if i let the camera sit for a few moments and pick it up and start firing... the first 5-10 shots, the AF would be horrid... but once the camera and lens got warmed up the focus would target on and nail shot after shot after shot... This was on my 7D. I would be swayed in ruling a problem with MA if it wasn't for the fact that once it warmed up and had shots fired, it would eventually nail focus and be consistent from that point on... I also experienced problems with live view and manual focus showing focus and then taking the picture, the focus would be off... The lens just had too many quirks... the 1.4 is a lot older, archaic, clunky, sometimes hit and miss even with the halation, but it is a lot more consistent shot to shot and I frankly cant afford such a temperamental lens if I'm going to be plunking down that much money... I just feel canon whiffed on this lens even though i really did truely want to love this lens.


----------



## photophreek (Nov 29, 2011)

I've been on the fence about the 50 1.2L for some time now. I come from the film world where 50mm was the standard lens and I thought I should have one. I read all the reviews, looked at lots of images and almost had myself convinced, but not quite there. Then I read _awinphoto_ post about the 50 1.2L and all my concerns about this lens were detailed in this post and confirmed my fears that the 50 1.2L is not for me. 

I recently purchased the famed 85 1.2L II and expected the 50 1.2L to be the same, but it's not. It's too bad Canon didn't stuff the 85mm f1.2L II into a 50mm focal length. I'd buy that lens, but not the 50mm f1.2L.


----------



## awinphoto (Nov 29, 2011)

Please understand this was my experience with my copy i received of the lens and sometimes, it did produce incredibly sharp images, however to be fair, i would almost have to shoot a few duds to get the great focus shot... My 7D never has had problems with focus on any lens 17-40, 50mm macro, 50mm 1.4, 24-70 and 24-105, 70-200's, etc... but this one my camera gave me fits... I dont know if it's the AF focus motor that was weak or needs to be warmed up, but in the professional world, I need my gear to work when i need it to work and cant afford to miss that shot because my lens isn't warmed up.


----------



## Cregg Annarino (Nov 29, 2011)

I own all three of these lenses. The 1.2 is hands down the winner. It's size, construction, focus and weather sealing kill the other 2. The 1.8 is built like a toy, it works and really isn't bad for the price but it doesn't come with the hood. 

The 1.4 focuses well, is better construction than the 1.8 but the 1.2 kills it, both the other two are small in comparison to the 1.2. The 1.4 is a great lens though for the price. 

They basically have a lens for all budgets. The 1.2 is a monster and is basically for if you are using it to make money, and your job is photography and use your equipment on a daily basis, and you want the lens that can keep up with that with high quality construction. Low light performance is spectacular and for things like low light wedding receptions or photos at night where you would want to use that 1.2 to bring in as much light as you can it's amazing. 

If your just a lover of photography, do it for fun or a hobby then the 1.8 or 1.4 would be perfect for you, but if you have a large budget, like to buy the best and want it the 1.2 is totally worth every penny! 

The L lenses and the 1/X series are basically for people who use their gear as their job and need something extremely well built that is going to handle rigorous daily use and various weather conditions. 

The 1.2 is dead accurate and sharp as a tack, I can totally rely on it. You have to be right on though at 1.2 since the focus plane is very small. I usually shoot this lens wide open most of the time, usually going only to f2 or f4 the most at times if I want my bokeh areas a little less blurred.

I should also say that out of all my lenses the 50 1.2 is hands down my favorite to use, and my most used lens. I started with the 1.4 and used it for years, it really is a great lens. But when the focusing motor died and I had to have it replaced, I upgraded to the 1.2, both for the construction and the 1.2 which I love. I realized I loved 50mm and used it so much at weddings and portrait shoots that it was a no brainer to upgrade to the 1.2.


----------



## CalBoy87 (Nov 29, 2011)

I tried probably most of the options on 50 - I had Zuiko OM 50/1.4 with adapter, 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 plus the Sigma. Here are my $0.02. Sigma was very nice, well built, sharp. Problem was getting it to focus properly, many missed shots. Also I like the Canon's colors much better than Sigma. OM Zuiko was cute, small light and on FF MF was no problem especially with better focusing screen. But Olympus was less sharp than even 50/1.8 so it was gone. 50/1.8, you got what you paid for, about 80$ worth of plastic with glass in it. Good beginner lens on very stringent budget. 50/1.2 I got this lens and it is excellent lens. Very well built, feels solid, focusing ring is moving very nice. Bokeh to kill for, color and contrast also top notch. Is by far the best 50, but...Focusing is very hard, at 1.2 DOF is very shallow, so there are many OOF pictures. AF wasn't that good, maybe it was my camera, but 50/1.4 was much more consistent here. Than, confirmed here by neuroanatomist, 50/1.4 seems a bit sharper than 50L, which was the reason 50L is gone. I returned happily to 50/1.4 and now consider it the best for me. That said, if I have plenty of money to spend and all other lenses in my bag, I would like to get 50L again, bokeh, colors and contrast all really above the other 50 I tried


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Dec 4, 2011)

I think I am leaning slightly more towards to 50mm 1.4, one of the main reasons (besides costing an arm) is from some of the review I've read the 1.2L isn't for the 'amatuer' photographer. That you really need to know about exposure and what to do with a razor thin DOF. I think the 1.4 will suffice for me. I don't need a 50mm for my purposes but I do want one. I also read that the 50mm (I can't remember which, it's either the 1.2L or 1.4 or maybe even both) is quite similar in image quality to the 50mm focal length on a 70-200mm lens. 

I've done a lot of research for UV filters and the right lens hood (for the 1.4, as it look lioke I'll probably buy that). Has anyone had experience with B+W/Tiffin filters? I read that B+W were hands down the best (with a Hellipan(?) coming a close second). I have very limited experience with filters, I've only got one (hoya) which is on my 70-200mm.
http://www.amazon.com/58mm-Clear-Haze-Multi-Resistant-Coating/dp/B0000BZL68/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1322979104&sr=1-3 - B+W 58mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (010M) 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/574271-REG/Hoya_XHD58UV_58mm_Ultraviolet_UV_Haze.html/mode/edu - Hoya 58mm Ultraviolet UV Haze HD (High Density) Digital Glass Filter 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/622099-REG/B_W_65_013861_65_013861_58mm_Digital_Pro.html/mode/edu - B+W 58mm Digital Pro Ultraviolet (UVa) 010 Filter 
http://www.amazon.com/Hoya-58mm-HD-UV-Filter/dp/B001G7PMM2/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1322979541&sr=1-1 - Hoya 58mm HD UV Filter 
http://www.amazon.com/58mm-Clear-Haze-Multi-Resistant-Coating/dp/B0000BZL68/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1322980925&sr=1-1 - B+W 58mm Clear UV Haze with Multi-Resistant Coating (010M) 

Here are the lens hood options as the 50mm 1.4 doesnt come with one. Canon have the famous black felt lined on the inside of the hood which 3rd party lens hoods don't have. Does the felt make such a big difference? Generic lens hoods are great because of the price, and Canon products are (generally) quality.
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Dedicated-Bayonet-Canon-ES-71II/dp/B002K42W4Q/ref=pd_sim_e_2 - Fotodiox Dedicated (Bayonet) Lens Hood, for Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens as Canon ES-71II, ES-71 II 
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-ES71II-Lens-Hood-50mm/dp/B00013MSUQ/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top - Canon ES71II Lens Hood for EF 50mm f/1.4 SLR Lens 
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-ES-71II-Lens-Hood-Canon/dp/B002MY4VDO/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1322995526&sr=1-1 - Opteka ES-71II Lens Hood for Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM SLR Lens

I was going to ask about the 50mm f2.5 macro lens but a review I read said it isn't as good as the other three 50's.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 4, 2011)

For the filter, there's essentially no difference between the B+W MRC UV, B+W MRC Clear, and Hoya HD UV - just get the cheapest of those. The B+W without MRC isn't as good, nor are lower end Hoya (SHMC is harder to clean).

As for hoods, I've only bought Canon brand. Others will do the job, some lack the flocking on the inside to reduce reflections, etc.


----------



## Apple Tree Studios (Dec 4, 2011)

I love my Canon 50 1.4. I would like the 1.2L, but after six years of faithful service at a ton of weddings I will hang onto it for a while to come. Shot this wide open and loved that I could loose the background.
www.appletreeweddings.com


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 4, 2011)

The real question, for street shooter like me, is how do they compare at f/2.8?


----------



## shermanstank (Dec 4, 2011)

I absolutely love my 50 1.2L--- King of low light


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 5, 2011)

Personally from my experience Canon really stinks it up with their 50mm line.

The Canon 50/1.8 is a good buy for the money, but from what I have heard the Nikon 50/1.8 is far better and costs only a bit more.

I have the 50/1.4. The focus ring on it majorly sucks. I have had it for several years because it is small and inexpensive, but I plan to put it up for sale soon.

I have never used the 50/1.2, but I know several who have. It seems to be a love or hate lens. Everyone I know who has this lens either absolutely loves it or returned it for a refund (for the record I know 4 people who have or had it)

Personally I plan to eventually replace my 50/1.4 with the Zeiss 50/2 macro. Zeiss also makes a 50/1.4 that I know little about but for me the macro capabilities of the 50/2 outweigh the 1.4 vs 2 aperture.


----------



## archangelrichard (Dec 5, 2011)

1. No lens is any good unless it is used-- unless you really want a paper weight

2. The F 1.8 is light for a reason - it means you are much more likely to carry it around as a secondary lens; than the much heavier 1.4 or 1.2

3. ignore the f-stop. Any good photographer wil tell you that lenses are designed to be used primarily at the middle f-stops (f 8 - 11) - in fact there is a professional organization called the F 8's for this reason

4. The f 1.4 has a much heavier feel because of the build materials / build quality; the f 1.2 even more so - none of which makes a difference if you take care of your equipment (there are F 1.8's that have been around for 20+ years)

You didn't think of the 50mm F 2.5 Macro (some use it for their 50mm lens as well)

For that matter, I use a M42 / canon adapter and both a Mamiya/Sekor or a Asahi Pentax 50mm F 1.4 (you must shoot manual but the optically superior mamiya / adapter combo was less than $100 and very smooth, sharp, the pentax very close) whenever I am going to be on a tripod - these lenses date back to the late 60's and have never been surpassed in optical quality and I do take care of my equipment; I have used all the 4 Canon 50mm's and find I could not cost-justify the 1.4 or 1.2 - just not enough use for the price once I had the 2.5 Macro and the 1.8

So that's the deal; buy what you intend to USE, not a name or price point or ..... like many people do; if you are not going to use it, it becomes just another fake-status device


----------



## shermanstank (Dec 5, 2011)

I bought mine a couple of months ago--- circa 2011. I heard that the focusing issues were corrected after mid-2010.
Here's another shot coming from my baby 50 1.2L. It's just an amazing lens. You gotta know how and when to use it. No lens is perfect. But this 50L is one special piece of glass.


----------



## kirispupis (Dec 5, 2011)

Although I agree that most lenses are best between F8-F11, I do not agree with ignoring the F-stop. The best lenses are made to be used wide open. For Canon L lenses are designed to be very sharp wide open - unlike the kit lenses which tend to be extremely soft. I use most of my lenses wide open a high percentage of the time.

If you take Sears portrait style shots, then yes the f-stop of the lens won't be as important because you will not be shooting wide open very often. However for more artistic style shots I find the nice bokeh from a wide open shot far more appealing.

The other thing is I have noticed that you do get what you pay for with most lenses - as long as you truly need it. If you are just posting on Facebook and FlickR you really don't need that ultra sharp lens with minimal distortion and color fringing.

I gather from the original poster that he actually intends to USE his 50mm lens. He is just trying to figure out which one is the best for his needs. In terms of that matter I would put the 50mm lenses into two categories.

Macro 50's - Canon 2.5 and Zeiss 2. The Zeiss is basically superior in every category, but unfortunately also in price. 

Portrait 50's - Canon's 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2. You can probably also add Sigma's 1.4. In terms of which works best that depends on your needs. If you're on a super budget get the 1.8. I know several people who's 1.8's have fallen apart though, so if you have the money the 1.4 is the much better choice. Yes, if you take care of the 1.8 that can be less of an issue but the fact is if this lens is being regularly used it will get banged up.

I have heard that the Sigma is better than the Canon 1.4, but I have a hard time trusting the quality of Sigma. For the record Zeiss also makes a 1.4 for Canon.

In terms of the 1.2, if you have the budget for it rent it and try it out. From using this lens for the weekend you'll have a very good idea whether this is a lens you'll love or hate.


----------



## shermanstank (Dec 5, 2011)

Yes. You need to try the lens out and make sure that the lens and body are calibrated accordingly. I guess I got lucky with the purchase and I do test my lens. Focusing is a must and the 50L nails it. Bokeh and rendition of colors are more important than ultra-sharpness in the overall image quality. The 50L in my experience is very sharp wide open but I love it for the bokeh and colors... Enough for me to justify the purchase price. Here's another one from the nifty-fifty L---- sorry for the duct tape ;D


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 5, 2011)

Here's a solid vote for the Sigma 50 f/1.4. It's optically better at wide apertures than even the f/1.2L (check the TDP ISO crops). It is built very well with a true ring sonic motor. (Though it's not weather sealed. If you need that the L is the only option.) And it has absolutely amazing bokeh.

The Canon f/1.8 and f/1.4 50's are only usable wide open in an emergency. The Sigma is very good and usable wide open, excellent at f/2, and stunning at f/2.8. 20" and 30" portrait prints from a 7D and the Sigma are no problem.

The focus issues are exaggerated IMHO. Every fast 50 has "focus issues" because nailing focus at f/2 and wider is difficult. FYI I found the 50 f/1.8 to be far less precise and reliable in terms of focus than the Sigma 50 f/1.4.

If you're really worried, go to a good local shop and test a few samples before buying.

Fast lenses shot wide open challenge an AF system. When I'm working really close, I use spot AF. At other distances I use single point AF. I also use AI Servo with this lens even when shooting still subjects. I find that holding AF and waiting for the lens to "settle" gives me a higher keeper rate. It doesn't take very long, but it seems like one shot AF decides on focus just a fraction of a second too soon with this lens.


----------



## llenuts (Dec 5, 2011)

I'll just leave this here...


----------



## shermanstank (Dec 5, 2011)

I see that the right most lens is the 50 1.0L not a 1.2 but a 1.0----- The 1.0L is older and costs at least 2x with that of the 1.2L. The problem with the 1.0L is that the image softness ,wide open is unacceptable. Here's another shot from the 50 1.2L


----------



## llenuts (Dec 5, 2011)

shermanstank said:


> The problem with the 1.0L is that the image softness ,wide open is unacceptable.



You know this from personal experience, or just from reviews you have read online?


----------



## shermanstank (Dec 5, 2011)

Yes I have tried the 50mm 1.0L-- It is way too heavy and focuses very slow. Wide open it is just too soft compared with the 1.2L. There is a reason why they made the 50 1.2L to address these issues. Now if you have the 50 1.0L, and have money to keep it, then it has its place for creativity ( bokeh) , but the 1.2L easily outperforms the 1.0L in most practical applications.


Here's another one from el 50 1.2L. So if anyone is on the fence from buying one, just go ahead and snag one for as long as the date code starts with "UZ" == circa 2011. I am very happy with mine ;D


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 5, 2011)

Another issue with the 50mm f/1L is that it reportedly is no longer being serviced - if your focus unit breaks, you won't be able to even manually focus, from the report I read.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 5, 2011)

shermanstank was that shot at 1.2? what were the other settings? what body did you use
it does look good currently i have the 1.4 i like the small size I wish they would do a smaller better built 1.4L
the 1.2 is tempting but i think i would go for an 85mm f1.2 before trading in my 50 1.4 for a 1.2


----------



## shermanstank (Dec 5, 2011)

WICKIDWOMBAT---I took this shot using my professional 35mm film camera 1V-HS using KODAK PORTA 400. I used ISO 400 and +1/3 EV compensation. Center-weighted metering. I had to shoot it wide open @ 1.2 to get as much light as possible. If you are thinking of purchasing the 85 1.2L II buy one that has a date code "UZ" == circa 2011. I had a lens fever and bought both the 50L and 85L at the same time this year. Did I regret it? Not at all. Are they perfect lenses? No. cause if they were then there will be no updates in the future! =) But regardless of any updates, if you decide to buy a particular lens, just remember that you are doing it for the love of photography. Will I sell my 50 1.2l if the mark II comes out? No. why? Because the lens for me produces beautiful images. Proper technique/lighting has a more profound effect on image quality/impact than sharpness alone. the 50L is sharp, but the colors and bokeh are truly magical. 

You will love the 85 1.2L II. It is an amazing piece of glass. It focuses slowly because of the amount of glass to move but if you have the skill and PATIENCE to nail the shot.. then you have a lot of keepers when you upload the images to your computer. I love shooting film. My two 1V-HS 35mm SLRs perform flawlessly and they are cheaper than most DSLRs. They make you think deliberately before you take the shot. ( one click costs $$) -- thus making you a better photographer =)

Cheers,

Sherwin


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 5, 2011)

cool thanks for the info thats a very clean film shot, do you use manual focus often? I am considering getting the S focus screen for my 5D mk2 and was hoping this would assist with manual focus particularly in low light
also with a lens this bright I would imagine manual should be ok for stationary subjects


----------



## shermanstank (Dec 5, 2011)

WICKIDWOMBAT--- Thank you!  No I use autofocus a lot for low light with a manually selected CENTER focusing point ( most sensitive focusing point) . If there is sufficient ambient light I then select the left or right offset focusing points --- to follow rule of thirds. ---- It would be too boring if the subjects are placed at the dead center all the time ;D

The only time I manually focus is for MACRO shots ( obviously) and for when the subject is stationary/ not moving too much ( posed). In addition if there are surrounding subjects/objects that are very close, most especially just right in front of the subject/object I want to isolate , and I CANNOT GET CLOSER I would then MANUALLY focus.--- It is easier to focus. isolate subjects/objects when you are in an ideal subject to camera focusing distance.

I believe that no matter how fast your lens is... if you have insufficient lighting, the scene is not worth taking a picture of. BEAUTIFUL SUBJECT + BAD LIGHT === BAD PICTURE NOT SO BEAUTIFUL SUBJECT + GOOD LIGHT ===== GREAT PICTURE! 

My 2 cents.

Cheers,

Sherwin


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Dec 5, 2011)

*How would you properly test out a 'fast 50mm' in a store in say less than 5mins with bad/insufficient lighting? Are there some of of 'tests' that you could do, e.g. focussing (both AF/M, there's going to be insufficient light meaning the lens will have trouble trying to focus.*

I mean ideally you'd like to spend as much time as you can with the lens before you buy it (not renting). As I've heard some people get good copies and there are some duds in a btach of lenses. That's why I want to test out the copy I'm going to buy. I reaosn I say <5mins is because some of the camera stores here don't allow you to use/test out the lens that much as if something happens and you break the lens well, that's one less lens that they could've sold (lost $$$). I know it sounds silly but it's true not to mention they watch you like a hawk even if it's a plastic cheapo lens.

ATM I'm currently thinking of using the 50mm lens (don't know which one yet) for live music (concert photography) as that's what I really want to use the 50mm lens for - if I'm able to obtain a media pass and get in front of the performers/band, in front of the crowd where the security guys are, my 70-200 is just plain too long. My kit lens (which is only f/3.5-5.6) most likely wouldn't be able to handle the low light situation (as the concert will probably be inside a stadium/arena or late at night outdoor arena with the only light source being the stage lights, spot lights, etc. Obviously the 50 is a nice portraiture lens but I want to know if it's great for live music outdoors.

Excuse the lengthy posts I am just trying to decipher and work out _which 50 is the best for me_ - I"m not a professional but I probably will be in the future. I don't like having to upgrade to newer/better gear because to me (in my straight-thinking logic) thinks that is just wasting money; plain and simple. There are pro's and con's to doing it that way, I know. *I certainly don't want buyer's regret a couple of days after I buy my 50mm lens.* I want to try out the sigma and other 3rd party brands since some people say they're better than Canon, etc. But I'm afraid on the off-chance it will stuff up my camera.

Also someone posted in here http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,2269.0.html (reply #4) that the rebates aren't as good deals as they're meant to be. Is that true? I don't live in the US so I don't have a clue I just know that camera gear here is way too overpriced and it's cheaper to buy overseas - but you can't actually test it out before hand and the major deterrent of the shipping fees costing an arm and a leg.


----------



## niccyboy (Dec 5, 2011)

I love my 1.2.... permanently attached to one of my 5d2s.


----------



## dtaylor (Dec 5, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> *How would you properly test out a 'fast 50mm' in a store in say less than 5mins with bad/insufficient lighting? Are there some of of 'tests' that you could do, e.g. focussing (both AF/M, there's going to be insufficient light meaning the lens will have trouble trying to focus.*



I actually bought my Sigma used and spent less then 5 minutes testing it. I simply focused on various objects, in good light, shot, and checked the results. The results were reasonable for f/1.4. Most were in focus and those which were not I could get in focus with a slight variation on AF mode or technique. I own other fast lenses so I knew what to expect here.

If you lack confidence in your ability to judge on the fly like this, take a focus adjustment chart, set it up, and shoot it, then judge the results at maximum magnification on the LCD. Manually defocus, AF, and shoot, then repeat several times, and do so at a couple different distances. I wouldn't expect perfection. Any fast lens I've ever tried this with will be a bit off 1 or 2 times out of 10. But if it's good for most shots, or is good after a quick MFA, then you're good. If it's all over the place, then check another copy. And, again, I would actually try AI Servo and shooting after the AF has "settled". I actually like this technique for any fast prime, though it seems to make a larger difference with the Sigma (and maybe the other 50's?).

This can be done in 5 minutes.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Dec 6, 2011)

I tested out both the 1.2L and 1.4 today in like 5 or minutes - really bad time constraints and there was really bad lighting in the store. I wanted to test out the sigma version but they didnt have it in store : ha. They didnt have a chart so I couldnt do that ^ test.

I think I would need to spent more time testing these lenses.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Dec 11, 2011)

What about getting one of the *Nikon* 50mm lenses and using a lens adapter? It's cheaper and I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area so I thought I'd just throw the idea out there. I was looking up videos of 7d's with the 50mm 1.4 lens (video footage of the combo not images/photos) on youtube and found that someone have used a nikon 50mm and adapted it to their 7d. Another person used a FD or something adapter to adapter some 50mm - I can't remember what it was.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Dec 11, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> *How would you properly test out a 'fast 50mm' in a store in say less than 5mins with bad/insufficient lighting?*


Very tentatively; don't try to read more into the results than you should.

Poor lighting conditions present the perfect opportunity to test out a "fast" 50mm prime - at least for the wide aperture performance. I would make sure I could take some f/8 shots as well, though, to test out absolute sharpness (put it on a countertop for that).


scottsdaleriots said:


> What about getting one of the *Nikon* 50mm lenses and using a lens adapter? It's cheaper and I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area so I thought I'd just throw the idea out there. I was looking up videos of 7d's with the 50mm 1.4 lens (video footage of the combo not images/photos) on youtube and found that someone have used a nikon 50mm and adapted it to their 7d. Another person used a FD or something adapter to adapter some 50mm - I can't remember what it was.


This strikes me as a good idea, if you are OK with manual focus. I've actually been considering getting an F-mount-to-EF adapter and a f/1.2 AI (or AI-s, but for that price you might as well get the Canon lens and keep the AF) sometime to play with. Nikon also made a fast 55mm lens, apparently, so check that out too.

Not sure about sharpness on these, so buyer beware.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 11, 2011)

shermanstank said:


> So if anyone is on the fence from buying one, just go ahead and snag one for as long as the date code starts with "UZ" == circa 2011.





shermanstank said:


> If you are thinking of purchasing the 85 1.2L II buy one that has a date code "UZ" == circa 2011.



Sherwin, you mention this on two occasions. Are you aware of some stealth modifications or other changes that make the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II lenses produced in 2011 better than older copies? If so, what changes, and what's your source for the information?

Thanks!


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Dec 12, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> shermanstank said:
> 
> 
> > So if anyone is on the fence from buying one, just go ahead and snag one for as long as the date code starts with "UZ" == circa 2011.
> ...


I've also heard that they've fixed the "back focussin"/focussing issue with the 50mm 1.2L in 'newer' copies. That still doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence to go and out spend a lot of money on the 50 prime. I've read other people say it in comments on other forums and on like review videos on youtube. Like on DigitalRev's one video testing out the 50's he says (in a short sentence) that the issues seem to be fixed. I'd love to know if it actujally has or not since I'm considering on buying a 50mm (thus far it looks like the 1.4 is prevailing by a bit).



Edwin Herdman said:


> scottsdaleriots said:
> 
> 
> > *How would you properly test out a 'fast 50mm' in a store in say less than 5mins with bad/insufficient lighting?*
> ...


I'm not really good with manual focus - when I think it's in focus it's not as sharp as I want it to be lol


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> shermanstank said:
> 
> 
> > If you are thinking of purchasing the 85 1.2L II buy one that has a date code "UZ" == circa 2011.
> ...


I've also heard that they've fixed the "back focussin"/focussing issue with the 50mm 1.2L in 'newer' copies.
[/quote]

The 50mm f/1.2L doesn't have a back focusing issue, it has focus shift that results in back-focusing with close subjects at wide apertures (except wide open). That focus shift is due to the lens design, which is optimized for bokeh. So if they 'fixed' the focus shift, they also negatively impacted the bokeh for which the lens is known...somehow, I doubt they did that.


----------



## michael6liu (Dec 14, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I tested out both the 1.2L and 1.4 today in like 5 or minutes - really bad time constraints and there was really bad lighting in the store. I wanted to test out the sigma version but they didnt have it in store : ha. They didnt have a chart so I couldnt do that ^ test.
> 
> I think I would need to spent more time testing these lenses.



Thanks to anyone who have contributed to this thread as I am also evaluating my options when it comes to 50mm & 85mm lenses. 

As for the chart, you can print and bring one yourself. Just google "back focusing" (I know 50L doesn't have a back focusing problem as neuro already stressed many times...) and you'll find tons of info that provide you with the chart and how to test lenses. Good luck!


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 14, 2011)

well the sigma 85 f1.4 is definately worth a look i've never tried the 50 but i have been pretty happy with the canon 50 f1.4 for the size and cost


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Dec 14, 2011)

I was considering the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 (canon of course), but then it's more expensive than the canon 1.2L 50mm. But I read that the Zeiss suffers from the same problem as the canon (50 1.2L) with the whole focus shift thing. Then I also read in one of the comments and reviews that it can be "easily" fixed by pressing the DOF button on the camera everytime you take a photo. That, to me, is a bit finicky. Can I just say that I find it a bit weird that a company/store (e.g. B&H) sells the canon 1.4 cheaper than the sigma 1.4. Yet here where I live (at least one store) is selling the sigma 1.4 cheaper than the canon 1.4. What's up with that? :-\ I am tempted to get the sigma in that regard and other factors that I've read from reviews than sigma 50mm 1.4 is better than canon 50mm 1.4.

As I've said I'm leaning towards the 50mm 1.4 (price is a big factor) but I don't understand how the filter would attach to the lens as the front bit extends about 1cm? Wouldn't the front part of the lens extending _prevent_ the filter from being attached??


----------



## plam_1980 (Dec 14, 2011)

What about the 50mm 2.5 Compact Macro? I've read several reviews that is is much sharper than both 1.4 and 1.8 (at the expense of the smaller aperture of course). I own the 1.8, do you believe an upgrade to 1.4 is worhwile,since I do mostly indoor low-light shooting (mostly portraits, not sports or fast moving objects), but 1.4 is generally considered soft until 2.0-2.2


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 14, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I was considering the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 (canon of course), but then it's more expensive than the canon 1.2L 50mm. But I read that the Zeiss suffers from the same problem as the canon (50 1.2L) with the whole focus shift thing. Then I also read in one of the comments and reviews that it can be "easily" fixed by pressing the DOF button on the camera everytime you take a photo. That, to me, is a bit finicky. Can I just say that I find it a bit weird that a company/store (e.g. B&H) sells the canon 1.4 cheaper than the sigma 1.4. Yet here where I live (at least one store) is selling the sigma 1.4 cheaper than the canon 1.4. What's up with that? :-\ I am tempted to get the sigma in that regard and other factors that I've read from reviews than sigma 50mm 1.4 is better than canon 50mm 1.4.
> 
> As I've said I'm leaning towards the 50mm 1.4 (price is a big factor) but I don't understand how the filter would attach to the lens as the front bit extends about 1cm? Wouldn't the front part of the lens extending _prevent_ the filter from being attached??



on the canon 50 the filter threads are on the part that extends, I got one of the cheap ebay hoods for it for about 3 bucks or something and a little neoprene bag to keep it in the lens just fits in the bag then i put the hood over the bag and it is barely bigger than the lens alone but very well protected


----------



## Viggo (Dec 14, 2011)

Focus shift of the 50 L isn't a problem unless you use it between 2,8 and 5,6. I'm so tired of trying to get people that say it's way overpriced to actually use it where it's clearly best, widest of apertures. The bokeh is in another league compared to any other 50 on the market. Resistance to flare is in another leauge, same with color and contrast, plus it's the fastest most accurate AF. Best build BY FAR, weathersealed. I mean, to say it's overpriced and not worth it compared to the 50 f,14 is wrong on so many levels. A friend of mine said it best "The people dogging the 50L tend to only shoot rulers and testcharts, I shoot people with it, and at that, it can't be beat"

There is no fantastic 50mm on the planet, I mean, compare them in every aspect to the 35's and 85's and both are clearly better, but the 50 focal is just fantastic so we all love them and buy them. and the 50 L is the best.


----------



## branden (Dec 14, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I was considering the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 (canon of course), but then it's more expensive than the canon 1.2L 50mm. But I read that the Zeiss suffers from the same problem as the canon (50 1.2L) with the whole focus shift thing. Then I also read in one of the comments and reviews that it can be "easily" fixed by pressing the DOF button on the camera everytime you take a photo. That, to me, is a bit finicky. Can I just say that I find it a bit weird that a company/store (e.g. B&H) sells the canon 1.4 cheaper than the sigma 1.4. Yet here where I live (at least one store) is selling the sigma 1.4 cheaper than the canon 1.4. What's up with that? :-\ I am tempted to get the sigma in that regard and other factors that I've read from reviews than sigma 50mm 1.4 is better than canon 50mm 1.4.
> 
> As I've said I'm leaning towards the 50mm 1.4 (price is a big factor) but I don't understand how the filter would attach to the lens as the front bit extends about 1cm? Wouldn't the front part of the lens extending _prevent_ the filter from being attached??


I am confused by your post... 

First off, the Zeiss 1.4/50 currently retails for $725 on B&H, whereas the Canon 50mm f/1.2L retails for $1,358. So the Zeiss is not more expensive.

Second, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is retailing for $339, and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for $499. If you are getting prices significantly lower than those from a local camera store, then they are selling them at a major discount.

Third, none of the 50mm lenses have front elements that extend in front of the lens body. On all of them, the frontmost piece is always the filter ring, no matter where the lens is focused, so there are never any issues attaching filters to any of them.

Hopefully this clears some things up


----------



## Fish_shooter (Dec 14, 2011)

plam_1980 said:


> What about the 50mm 2.5 Compact Macro? I've read several reviews that is is much sharper than both 1.4 and 1.8 (at the expense of the smaller aperture of course). I own the 1.8, do you believe an upgrade to 1.4 is worhwile,since I do mostly indoor low-light shooting (mostly portraits, not sports or fast moving objects), but 1.4 is generally considered soft until 2.0-2.2



I have the 50/2.5. It is quite sharp. Its main problem is the "toy motor" focusing. It needs an AF upgrade as well as weather sealing. I have looked into a 50/1.4 or 1.2, but would like focusing to at least one foot to make the lens more general purpose in nature.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 14, 2011)

i'm pretty sure the 50 f1.4 will focus at a foot


----------



## Fish_shooter (Dec 15, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> i'm pretty sure the 50 f1.4 will focus at a foot



Nope, 1.5 feet.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 15, 2011)

when are you guys going to get a real system of measurement anyway?


----------



## shermanstank (Dec 15, 2011)

NEUROANATOMIST --


> Sherwin, you mention this on two occasions. Are you aware of some stealth modifications or other changes that make the 50/1.2L and 85/1.2L II lenses produced in 2011 better than older copies? If so, what changes, and what's your source for the information?
> 
> Thanks!




I purchased both the 50 1.2L and 85 1.2L II from information I gathered from one of the CANON 50L FLICKR group. I have been salivating to buy both primes ( for a very long time) and was just waiting for the green signal to finally try them out and when I read that the focusing issues (50L) were resolved after mid 2010--- I decided to place an order from B&H.. (9/14/11) which by the way has an excellent return policy. So I figured I had nothing to lose. When both lenses arrived, I took them out for a spin and boy, I was just amazed on how well they focused and their image sharpness ( wide open). I really have no complaints from both purchases. I took a risk and I was rewarded with instant gratification ..Maybe pure luck ?? =D


Now, here's my POV, if you are an amateur photographer like me who would like to shoot weddings professionally then buying the best lenses (which are not perfect lenses) makes sense-- The best lenses are usuallly excellent low light performers, excellent in color rendition and have very pleasing bokeh. The 50L and 85L are very robust and can withstand abuse. If I were getting paid thousands of dollars to cover a wedding, I want reliable lenses and camera bodies (weather sealed, etc). I cannot afford failure or embarrassment of not getting the shot. 

So far, both lenses have met my expectations and I am very happy I got them.



Cheers,

Sherwin


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 15, 2011)

when I tested the 85 f1.2 II against the Sigma 85f1.4 side by side I felt that for weddings the AF might be a bit slow compared to the sigma. 

Anyway got a wedding tomorrow so i get to test the sigma out in the field to put it through its paces


----------



## Caps18 (Dec 17, 2011)

I get to try out the 50mm f/1.2 over the weekend to see how it does against the 16-35mm and 85mm f/1.8.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Dec 17, 2011)

*So it's been confirmed that Canon have filed a patent for the 50mm 1.4 (along with a bunch of other lenses). Do I buy now (within the next 6months) or wait for the new one?*

I would like to wait for the mkII but it could be another 12-24 months before Canon release it


----------



## akiskev (Jul 2, 2012)

Zeiss 50mm 1.4 with M42 to EOS adapter. 




Little Prince of the field


----------



## EOBeav (Jul 3, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I would like to wait for the mkII but it could be another 12-24 months before Canon release it



That's a long time to not have a 50mm, just because you're waiting for the new version. The current model holds it's value pretty well, so you can always sell it if/when the mkII hits the market. In the meantime, you've got a lens with an outstanding price/performance ratio.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 3, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> I get to try out the 50mm f/1.2 over the weekend to see how it does against the 16-35mm and 85mm f/1.8.



I bet you anything it will outperform the other two lenses at 50mm


----------



## RuneL (Jul 3, 2012)

I regularly use the 50 1.2. And I love that thing, it isn't as sharp as the 70-200 for instance, but that creamy nice borkeh is just awesome. But as others have said, it requires that you get used to and tame it, and that's wonderful, I think. 

I had the 50 1.8 a long time ago and was pretty satisfied with it (image quality and borkeeeh is fine too), the AF is terrible, the build quality is worse, manual focus is next to impossible because of the tiny and loose focus ring. I've never tried the sigma or the 1.4. But I'd say the gain you get from the 1.2 compared to the 1.4?? Well.. I'm not sure, but I can tell you I wouldn't trade mine in for a 1.4.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 3, 2012)

The Canon 50L is my favorite 50mm design I've ever used. It has a unique rendering that looks similar to the Planar 80mm f/2.8 I've used on my MF hasselblad 501CM.

Just love it. 8)


----------



## @!ex (Jul 3, 2012)

I just switched to canon and full frame a couple months ago and one of my first purchases was the 50mm 1.2L. I never realized why 50mm lenses were so commonplace in the age of 35mm film, but now I do. To me it is the perfect focal range to capture what the eye sees, and keeping it on my camera most of the time has really expanded my creative eye (even though it is a standard focal length, it somehow make me more unstandard in my captures). The extreme speed and the buttery melting bokeh give it a unique character only rivaled by some of the best lenses I've seen from the past. When you shoot with it wide open the color, bokeh, razor thin DOF and vignette make for a unique and beautiful combination that really can't be matched by the 1.4 (in fact it is so unique that I can now pick out shots in magazines and on the web that have been done with this lens). If you get things just right wide open you can even get this one of a kind 3D effect that I have only seen from the .95 noctilux before (and the 1.0f 50mm). To get its full benefit it would need to be used on a full frame IMO, but once you get used to the focus on this beast you won't be let down. Here are a couple shots I've taken over the month or two since I got it showcasing the versatility of the lens from a super fast portrait lens to a stopped down tack sharp landscape lens...




Bugging Out by @!ex, on Flickr




Into the Sun by @!ex, on Flickr




Available Light... by @!ex, on Flickr




My Hood by @!ex, on Flickr




The Edge of America by @!ex, on Flickr




Through the Cracks… by @!ex, on Flickr




A Night @ Red Rocks by @!ex, on Flickr




Japanese Bokeh Garden by @!ex, on Flickr




Spring in Boulder by @!ex, on Flickr




The Edge of the Rockies by @!ex, on Flickr




Spring by @!ex, on Flickr




Baby Soren by @!ex, on Flickr




Skitzo by @!ex, on Flickr




Canvas by @!ex, on Flickr


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 3, 2012)

@lex. Through the cracks is an awsome shot! I thought that was impossible without some serious time in photoshop. I have the Canon 1.4 myself, and I just got it back from the shop today, and I am posting a shot I took earlier today with it. I love it, but I would buy a 1.2 if I could afford. (shot with a 5D II, @ auto iso, and F2.0

Gerhard.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 3, 2012)

here is the picture...


----------



## @!ex (Jul 3, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> @lex. Through the cracks is an awsome shot! I thought that was impossible without some serious time in photoshop. I have the Canon 1.4 myself, and I just got it back from the shop today, and I am posting a shot I took earlier today with it. I love it, but I would buy a 1.2 if I could afford. (shot with a 5D II, @ auto iso, and F2.0
> 
> Gerhard.



Very nice striking portrait. Looks Hemingwayesque.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 3, 2012)

@!ex said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > @lex. Through the cracks is an awsome shot! I thought that was impossible without some serious time in photoshop. I have the Canon 1.4 myself, and I just got it back from the shop today, and I am posting a shot I took earlier today with it. I love it, but I would buy a 1.2 if I could afford. (shot with a 5D II, @ auto iso, and F2.0
> ...



Thank you

how did you do the through the cracks shot? is it possible to get the sharp image in the water with the superthin dof of the 1.2????


----------



## lopicma (Jul 3, 2012)

I am happy with my 50mm f/1.8 as well. I use it more for indoor shooting to compensate for the _Rebel XS_'s low ISO range, and it serves me well.

I have a bunch of shots I took at a WWII re-inactor event with it.
https://picasaweb.google.com/118123760856646560072/TributeToTheFewAirborneAllTheWay


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 3, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> @!ex said:
> 
> 
> > Quasimodo said:
> ...



Um yeah, don't set the aperture to 1.2.


----------



## mememe (Jul 3, 2012)

Yeah, 50 isnt really easy with canon...

the 1.8 feels cheap and has a lack of aperture blades
the 1.4 gets f*ck*d up if it gets pressure on its front when turned fully "in"
the 1.2 is often said to be soft (but its only an issue when u view the full image)

What i really hated at the 1.2 version was the focus shift (focus jumps away when stopping down). I didnt expect that from such an expensive lens... 
The 1.4 also has that Problem.
The 1.8 doesnt have it (looks like for me).

I ended up with the 1.4. If you know about the shift u can work around. And leave the sunshade on it and the focus a bit out while in ur bag...


Or get the shorty fourty


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 3, 2012)

mememe said:


> Yeah, 50 isnt really easy with canon...
> 
> the 1.8 feels cheap and has a lack of aperture blades
> the 1.4 gets f*ck*d up if it gets pressure on its front when turned fully "in"
> ...



Never experienced the famous 50L shift. Dated Stamped 2010. 8)


----------



## mememe (Jul 3, 2012)

Interesting.... Try focus on something 0.5m away. Set to mf. Make picture on 1.2/1.4 and so on. I cant believe


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Jul 3, 2012)

I just have a Canon 50mm 1.8 II which is very good and has helped capture some of my favorite photos, I am thinking about selling it and getting a Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX DG HSM because I would like to be able to stop down my lens, stopping down on the Canon just makes the bokeh look terrible, the Sigma has 9 rounded blades vs 5 non rounded, it also has an aspherical element, something that the Canon 1.4 does not have. 
Here are some shots that it took on either my T1i or my old XSI with the Canon 50mm 1.8 II.











































































The last photo shows the CA that sometime happens with the 1.8 and shows how you can't shoot at anything other then 1.8 if there is anything out of focus in the background.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 3, 2012)

mememe said:


> Interesting.... Try focus on something 0.5m away. Set to mf. Make picture on 1.2/1.4 and so on. I cant believe



Believe. 8)


----------



## @!ex (Jul 3, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > @!ex said:
> ...



Um no, it was definitely at 1.2 (I leave this lens there most of the time). The exif is: ISO 50, f1.2, 1/800. I just used careful focus on the reflection in the water which was very still at the time, in fact the first time I did it on accident, then realized what a genius idea it was Here is a version taken just after with focus on the rocks (still at 1.2).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 3, 2012)

Good god nobody said it WASN'T at 1.2. The poster expressed concerns about thin DOF and so the easiest and most obvious answer is stop it down, if that is a problem in a particular shot. For you to nail that shot that you did requires a great amount of skill.

By the way that is some great work on your website, I really like the HDR work.


----------



## @!ex (Jul 3, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Good god nobody said it WASN'T at 1.2. The poster expressed concerns about thin DOF and so the easiest and most obvious answer is stop it down, if that is a problem in a particular shot. For you to nail that shot that you did requires a great amount of skill.
> 
> By the way that is some great work on your website, I really like the HDR work.



Fair enough, but if you read what he wrote and what you wrote again you will see where the confusion came from. He was asking if it was possible to take the shot at f1.2 and you answered, ya stop it down. I see the joke you were making but the context was a bit off, as it is most definitely possible.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 3, 2012)

@!ex said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Good god nobody said it WASN'T at 1.2. The poster expressed concerns about thin DOF and so the easiest and most obvious answer is stop it down, if that is a problem in a particular shot. For you to nail that shot that you did requires a great amount of skill.
> ...



You're right, I didn't read the whole thing and I see the confusion now. My apologies.


----------



## mememe (Jul 4, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Believe. 8)



But this is at 1.2 isnt it? It can be good there but when stopping down the focus moves. (you can see this in the photozone tests where he focusses on the milimeter-chart and stops down. Focus moves away and at some point its even possible that the point that was sharp at wide open isnt in the DOF when stopped down)

And thats i guess why so many 1.4 (and even 1.2) canons are a bit "soft" (not 100% in focus) at 1.4. Cause they have to make a compromise for focus accuracy stopped down and wiede open. If wide open hits it 100% even in close distance, stopping down will go bad.

I once made the mistake of making a microadjust for near conditions on my 1.4 canon wide open and then taking (important) Pictures of people 2m away stopped down to f4... Focus started most times somewhere a little bit behind the ears...

I sold that microadjustment camera cause it makes me crazy trying to get the perfect result and there are so many things to keep in mind for not making it perfectly wrong


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 4, 2012)

@!ex said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > Good god nobody said it WASN'T at 1.2. The poster expressed concerns about thin DOF and so the easiest and most obvious answer is stop it down, if that is a problem in a particular shot. For you to nail that shot that you did requires a great amount of skill.
> ...



@lex. Thanks for letting me know. I will borrow the 1.2 lens again, and try to duplicate your shot (not to steal it, but rather to learn). Your pictures are inspirational


----------



## archangelrichard (Jul 4, 2012)

I have a "Soligor" 500 f 8 mirror and a "Cambron" 500 f8 (non-mirror) - both are t mount, one has a thin T to pentax M42 adapter (which goes into a M42 to canon ef with af beep when in focus circuit) while the other has a thicker T to canon EF which is much stronger for the 500mm lens's weight (but I can switch them. One thing about pentax mount and t mount lenses - certain sizes like 40 f 6.3, 500 f 8, etc. had ONE manufacturer that would change the silkscreened bands with the numbers - depth of field and distance, and the name ring in the front - by the vendor (Vivitar, Soligor, Cambron, Spiratone, Kenko, etc; 20,to 30 different names but only 1 manufacturer (like tamron, Tokina, Olympus, Cosina, Kiron, Ozone Optical, Komine, Makinon, Asanuma, Bauer, Perkin Elmer, Chinon, Hoya, Polar and more so the name isn't important - the bigger manufacturers like Nikon, Canon, Asahi (Pentax) Mamiya, Tomioka (Yashica), Minolta etc. had their own factories), the mirrors pretty much the same but some of the main camera makers did not do mirrors - they bought someone else's too. Not sure if Nikon ever made a mirror or it was outside manufacturer but likely - they were not as big as canon (only Mamiya was as big because they made every type of camera: from press graphic, through 8 x 10, 4 x 5, 6 x 7, 6 x 45, 35mm, 16mm, 8mm - everything buy 126) - Nikon probably didn't have the bucks to make mirror lenses

One difference is a mirror has a fixed aperture - F 8 while the long lens is F - to F 22 so you can ne a bit creative and in very good light go for more depth of field (note that when you add a "tele-extender to go 2 x 500 or 3 x 500 it also muktiplies the f stop by the same factor, stealing your light), another is that the generic lenses are mostly pre-sets - you set the apertur eyou want and focus wide open then turning the aperture ring to the desired aperture (it locks you out of smaller apertures)

any long lens like this should be on a tripod but the mirror is so much smaller and lighter you can use it hand held (I recommend you find a tree or something to lean against to help steady your arms). I've gotten great images out of both (one trick is with the pentax adapter I can add a 2x or 3x adapter for much more reach) - I;m a reach fanatic because you are out of range of the target - can take real candids

Nowadays you can get this range with the smaller semi-slr "superzooms" - up to 36 x zoom usually gets you at least 500mm equivalent, likely with similar sharpness on a digital camera (the Canon Sx 40 HS with 35x zoom gets 24 - 840 equivalent with Image Stabilization (dp review claims 4.5 fstops) and 12 MP,l has a digic 5 and HS noise reduction, (the lens is 150.5mm real longest so its very compact), good aperture range (f 2.7 to f 8 at wide angle, F 5.8 to F 8 at the 840mm equiv max ---- probably a better alternative for the casual shooter


----------



## serendipidy (Jul 4, 2012)

"Through the cracks"...very nice and great composition. The depth of field is greater in the first shot since it is focused on a point farther away (the trees reflected in the water) than in the second shot (the stones and water surface).


----------



## @!ex (Jul 4, 2012)

serendipidy said:


> "Through the cracks"...very nice and great composition. The depth of field is greater in the first shot since it is focused on a point farther away (the trees reflected in the water) than in the second shot (the stones and water surface).



Thanks, I was actually only showing the second picture, with the focus on the rock instead of the tree reflection for illustrative purposes.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 4, 2012)

mememe said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Believe. 8)
> ...



Actually F/1.6 and Nope, Still haven't seen the shift and i've used lots of 50mm's.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 4, 2012)

I have the 50 1.2L, 50 1.4, and 50 1.8 II (nifty fifty) and I haven't noticed any focus problems on my 1.2L. I bought it refurbished by Canon, on the refurb site and it hasn't disappointed me at all. I tested it out on a 5D Mark III at indoor basketball and focus hit pretty much everytime. The camera/lens combo seems okay to me. Stopped down outside I like the 1.4 colors better, but that's nothing that can't be fixed in Camera Raw or LR.


----------



## drjlo (Jul 4, 2012)

Andy_Hodapp said:


> The last photo shows the CA that sometime happens with the 1.8 and shows how you can't shoot at anything other then 1.8 if there is anything out of focus in the background.



Those 50 1.8 photos are very nice, but I think the above 2 examples shows how much better they could have been if the busy background was creamier (a la 1.2). 5 blades just aren't going to deliver that, which is why I am still hoping Canon releases 50 f/1.8 Mk III with rounded 9 blades. (Listening, Canon?)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 4, 2012)

They won't do that. It'll be 1.4 Mk II or 1.2 Mk II. Which is okay with me! Let's get a 50mm lens from Canon that can do it ALL, like the 35L and 85L!


----------



## Otter (Jul 4, 2012)

scottsdaleriots said:


> I know there's probably a thread or two about each of these lenses, but I want someon'e first hand experience. I don't have a FF camera (I'm unpatiently waiting for the 5D mk III) so I know this lens won't be as good on my 7D, but I've heard so many good things about shooting with a 50mm. I just have difficulty deciding on which to get (budget is a factor of course, I'm a student).
> 
> People have said that the 50mm 1.8 is good for it's build quality and price. I read from a lot of people is that their 50mm 1.8 lens will break because of it's inferier build quality (compared to the 1.4 and 1.2). That puts me off. I don't want to buy a lens only to have it break or the glass falls out 2-3yrs later.
> So I'm trying to decide between the 1.4 and the 1.2L. At the moment, the 1.2L is winning mainly because it's an L lens which means, better build quality, superior optics, I've heard (slightly) better/higer IQ, DOF, bokeh, etc. And that awesome red ring on the end.
> ...



Get the 1.2L, you won't be sorry you did. I borrowed my friends 1.4 for a month. I was still on the fence. Went into the store and tried a couple of 1.2's. Never looked back, they don't compare in my opinion. It's a sweet lens.
I do suggest not buying one online though. The only pain in the ass is there are sharpness discrepancies between lenses, so you should try a few out and use a focus chart and see which is sharper by zooming in. It took me 4 until I was happy.
When you find that one though, it's creamy Bokeh madness!!!!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 4, 2012)

Here's my rules of the 50mm lens:

1. If you need to shoot f/1.2 to f/2, get the 50L
2. If you shoot stopped down a ton, get the 1.4. It's sharper stopped down.
3. If you don't care, get the nifty fifty.
4. If you are a 50mm nut like myself and RLPhoto, get all 3


----------



## drjlo (Jul 4, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Here's my rules of the 50mm lens:
> 
> 1. If you need to shoot f/1.2 to f/2, get the 50L
> 2. If you shoot stopped down a ton, get the 1.4. It's sharper stopped down.
> ...



LOL. And if you are really a crazy 50mm nut, add the Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 with EdMika adapter like me. 




DZ3C3796 by drjlo1, on Flickr




DZ3C3795 by drjlo1, on Flickr


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 4, 2012)

Holy crap! ;D


----------



## @!ex (Jul 4, 2012)

While we are on the subject, I've been dying to know how the older 50mm f1.0 L fairs on the new 5D mk3 body. Also does canon have vignette and CA corrections built in for this monster? I know that the focus on my 1.2L is pretty damn good on the mk3 (I have read all about the problems) and I'm wondering if some of the demons of the older 1.0 L might be mitigated by the new 5D (or 1Dx for that matter).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 4, 2012)

My guess is that would not be a very good lens. One guy I knew shot it wide open and he said IQ was awful. It would probably be much worse on FF. However, I don't really know for sure. Maybe there is someone out there who has that lens and a 5D Mark III.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 4, 2012)

@!ex said:


> While we are on the subject, I've been dying to know how the older 50mm f1.0 L fairs on the new 5D mk3 body. Also does canon have vignette and CA corrections built in for this monster? I know that the focus on my 1.2L is pretty damn good on the mk3 (I have read all about the problems) and I'm wondering if some of the demons of the older 1.0 L might be mitigated by the new 5D (or 1Dx for that matter).



The 50 F/1L was a terrible lens. It was never very sharp at any aperture and stupendously expensive.

Since no one bought it, its price has stayed at the same ridiculous level ever since its introduction.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 4, 2012)

@!ex said:


> While we are on the subject, I've been dying to know how the older 50mm f1.0 L fairs on the new 5D mk3 body. Also does canon have vignette and CA corrections built in for this monster? I know that the focus on my 1.2L is pretty damn good on the mk3 (I have read all about the problems) and I'm wondering if some of the demons of the older 1.0 L might be mitigated by the new 5D (or 1Dx for that matter).



LR4 is awesome for sorting out CA just drag the slider till its gone uit works wonders on my 600f.45 FD which gets quite a bit of CA wide open with alot of contrast


----------



## Mika (Jul 5, 2012)

For @lex: I like your wide open portrait shots! They are inspirational really!

What it comes to the rest of fifties, it's weird, my 50/1.0L actually outperforms my 50/1.4 and quite noticeably at that. My sample wide open is slightly better than 50/1.4 wide open, and at F/1.4 there is no comparison. Maybe my 50/1.4 is out of whack? But then again, I'm not the only one who is saying this, and if I recall correctly, this is also the expected behavior of the nominal designs (unless looking close to the boundaries of the image). I have not used 50/1.2L yet, so I can't say anything about it.

Additionally, I think the AF hit rate is better with 1.0L compared to 1.4, provided that only a slow moving or stationary target is photographed. 1.0L has relatively slow AF, but that's understandable given the circumstances. 1.0L does have a learning curve. The reason why I have both of them is that I can move relatively carelessly with 50/1.4 outside in the -25 C temperatures, whereas I certainly wouldn't take the 50/1.0L there!

I'd be interested to know also whether there is vignetting correction coming up for this one in 5D3.


----------



## Jon Gilchrist (Jul 5, 2012)

drjlo said:


> LOL. And if you are really a crazy 50mm nut, add the Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 with EdMika adapter like me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have one of these and *LOVE* it. I've got two more sitting here waiting to be converted.


----------



## @!ex (Jul 5, 2012)

Jon Gilchrist said:


> drjlo said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. And if you are really a crazy 50mm nut, add the Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 with EdMika adapter like me.
> ...



manual focus I presuppose. Does the conversion give you focus confirm beep?


----------



## Jon Gilchrist (Jul 5, 2012)

Yes, the 55/1.2 FL conversion is manual focus and manual aperture. The chip gives you focus confirmation beep but does not autofocus.


----------



## @!ex (Jul 5, 2012)

Jon Gilchrist said:


> Yes, the 55/1.2 FL conversion is manual focus and manual aperture. The chip gives you focus confirmation beep but does not autofocus.



Can you post some of your favorite pictures using it?


----------



## Gennadiy (Jul 9, 2012)

I would also like to see some examples with the converted 55 f1.2

As for me, I love the 50mm perspective. I have the 50 1.8 that I got a few years back, however after getting a 5dmarkII I have decided to get a nicer 50. I went into a store prepared to buy the 50L... the store also had an 85LII in stock, and I compared the 2 lenses. I ended up getting the 85... I just felt it was a better lens. I figured in 3/4 of the shots with this lens I would be able to take 3 steps back and get the shot i want and haven't really been disappointed. Having said that, I would definitely like something smaller to walk around with. Like a lot of people here I am waiting for the new 50 1.4, but the 55 1.2 does sound intriguing. I don't mind manual focus in general.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 9, 2012)

If I want to get close to an item to photograph it, the 50L would never be my main choice. It's focus shift under 1m is well noted...although it's only a problem if you stop down. Wide open, my copy is pretty spot on. but it's not the sharpest of the L primes in that zone (close to MFD wide open) and it's noticably sharper at infinity or stopped down. It's not a soft lens per-se but it's not in the same league as a 35L or an 85IIL. 
I prefer the 35L's wider view when shooting up close, I like it's rendering and angle of view. But neither lens performs as well as the ef 100mm L IS macro. That lens is quite increadible, maybe one of Canon's sharpest designs. 
I've had every version of the Canon 50mm lenses, including the macro version and the best of the bunch is definatly the 50mm f1.2 L. It's far from perfect, but it's flare control, sharpness, contrast and build quality are as good as it gets (across all the brands). But not everyone needs these features, which is why it's expensive and Pro-oriented. It also underlines just how good the 50mm f1.4 USM is.


----------

