# Help. 50mm 1.2 ?



## RoaVision (Oct 29, 2013)

Hi I'm stuck deciding if I should upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.2 or go with the 1.4, I've done some research and read that the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 1.4. If you have had any of these lens any advice would be great to help me make my decision.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 29, 2013)

If you plan to shoot from f1.2 to f2, 50L is your lens – not to mention, better contrast, color and build quality.

If you plan to shoot from f2 to f2.8, then there is no point getting 50L.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 29, 2013)

I've owned both and it really depends on your needs. the 50 1.4 is a great lens, but isn't really sharp and contrasty until f/2. The 1.2 is contrasty at 1.2, and sharp by 1.4 or so, but the 1.4 is actually sharper beyond f/4. The 1.2 resists flare much better if you plan to shoot into the sun or shoot a lot of backlit stuff. The AF is better on the 1.2 but not was fast as other USM lenses, but it is more durable than the micro-USM on the 1.4. Distortion and CA are pretty close, but the 1.2 has a lot of LoCA between f/1.2 and 2.8. The build quality of the 1.2 is MUCH better if toughness is a concern. The bokeh on the 1.2 is quite a bit better too, and at 1.2 it's pretty amazing. Is it that much better than the 1.4? Dollar for dollar, no, but if you use it a lot and those differences are meaningful, yes.

Okay, now I wish I hadn't sold my copy of 1.2 :'(


----------



## surapon (Oct 29, 2013)

RoaVision said:


> Hi I'm stuck deciding if I should upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.2 or go with the 1.4, I've done some research and read that the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 1.4. If you have had any of these lens any advice would be great to help me make my decision.



Dear Mr. RoaVision.
Per the Link below, If Open Wide at F = 1.4, Yes The Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 is sharper than Canon EF 50 MM. F/ 1.4.
But From my eyes ( Old Eyes), When I adjust ( in the Program Below) At Above F = 2.0, Both lens are Great Sharp and Equal Sharp in my Eyes.
Yes, That Why I make decision to buy Sigma 50 mm. F/ 1.4 ( Cost me $ 50 More Dollars than Canon 50 mm F/ 1.4)---Just for the Wide open F. Stop. Sorry, I do not get Canon 50 MM F/ 1.2 L because I already have EF 85 MM , F/ 1.2 L MK II
Just My Idea, and My Poor Eyes.
Surapon

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=473&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Surapon

PS.
Dear Friends.
Yesterday, I went to the local Camera shop, an try Canon EF 50 mm. F/ 1.2 L, and I fell in love with that big Babe. BUT, When I come home and open the Internet , to compare with my Sigma 50 mm F/ 1. 4 Again---Set up both lens at F= 1.4-----What wrong with my eyes---I see on the chart that Sigma Lens at F = 1.4 is sharper than Canon 1.2 L at same F= 1.4------ Please tell me that My eyes/ Old Eyes is not good any more.
Thanks.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=473&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 29, 2013)

I've used the Sigma for a few years and have been really happy. I just got the 1.2 on Friday and so far it's so close to the Sigma that I'm not sure what I spent the extra money on. I plan to do a full comparison in the near future though. Here are two shots taken wide open. The Sigma is a bit shorter than 50mm, but not as much as these images would suggest. I believe I was a little further back with the Sigma.

My initial impression is that the Canon is definitely better. I'm not convinced that it's 4x the price better.

Both are definitely a step up from the Canon 1.4 when shooting wide open.

EDIT: replacing attachments with larger versions:
SIGMA:


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 29, 2013)

Canon 1.2


----------



## surapon (Oct 29, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> I've used the Sigma for a few years and have been really happy. I just got the 1.2 on Friday and so far it's so close to the Sigma that I'm not sure what I spent the extra money on. I plan to do a full comparison in the near future though. Here are two shots taken wide open. The Sigma is a bit shorter than 50mm, but not as much as these images would suggest. I believe I was a little further back with the Sigma.
> 
> My initial impression is that the Canon is definitely better. I'm not convinced that it's 4x the price better.
> 
> Both are definitely a step up from the Canon 1.4 when shooting wide open.



Dear Sir, Mr. bchernicoff
Please take a shots and Compare Between Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 and The EF 50 mm F/ 1.2 L for us to see and Compare. Special at F = 1.4 both of the Lenses, Yes, Sir, I want to know/ to see For the REAL Shots from you, Not from the Lab.
Thanks you, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## skullyspice (Oct 29, 2013)

if you can afford the 1.2 get it, its a fantastic lens.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 29, 2013)

RoaVision said:


> Hi I'm stuck deciding if I should upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.2 or go with the 1.4, I've done some research and read that the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 1.4. If you have had any of these lens any advice would be great to help me make my decision.



I rented the Canon 50 f/1.2 a month ago...mostly for a video shoot, but I played with it for stills too.

It has moved to the top of my list of lenses to get next.

I'm about to pick up a rental of the canon 85mm f/1.2 today for shooting Voodoo Fest in New Orleans this weekend. I'm guessing this will become my #2 lens to get on the list next.



But that 50 is wonderful....I'd recommend it.

cayenne


----------



## Boyer U. Klum-Cey (Oct 29, 2013)

Another positive vote for the 1.2L, my only prime. Excellent for video, and stills at midnight.


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 29, 2013)

My 50mm f1.2 is one of my most beloved primes. It is great for both shallow depth of field and low light shots. Depending a bit on circumstances color rendering on this lens can be especially nice.

But there is a dependency regarding autofocus capability:
You will need a camera body with really good autofocus such as a 5D Mark III or a 1D-series body to make best use of this lens. Even if you shoot with something like a 7D you will have to work for good f1.2 shots with this lens. AFMA doesn't eliminate this difference.

May I ask the OP what camera body do you use?


----------



## RoaVision (Oct 29, 2013)

Thank you everyone for the advice on this decision. I'm going to just wait and buy the 1.2.


----------



## Standard (Oct 29, 2013)

> But there is a dependency regarding autofocus capability:
> You will need a camera body with really good autofocus such as a 5D Mark III or a 1D-series body to make best use of this lens. Even if you shoot with something like a 7D you will have to work for good f1.2 shots with this lens. AFMA doesn't eliminate this difference.



You don't need the Mark III in order to nail focus at f/1.2. I've taken plenty of photos with the Mark II and the results are crystal clear.


----------



## Pi (Oct 29, 2013)

Standard said:


> You don't need the Mark III in order to nail focus at f/1.2. I've taken plenty of photos with the Mark II and the results are crystal clear.



Agree. I used three copies, they needed different MA (the current one needs none). They all focus very well on my 5D2, no complaints at all. I can focus well even with the outer AF points, unless it is really dark. 

To the OP - the 50L is an excellent lens. Sharp enough wide open, with some loss of contrast with backlit scenes wide open (well, avoid them), excellent color rendering, great potential for good bokeh.


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> Agree. I used three copies, they needed different MA (the current one needs none). They all focus very well on my 5D2, no complaints at all. I can focus well even with the outer AF points, unless it is really dark.
> 
> To the OP - the 50L is an excellent lens. Sharp enough wide open, with some loss of contrast with backlit scenes wide open (well, avoid them), excellent color rendering, great potential for good bokeh.



My 5D2 AF with the 50L was hit or miss (mostly miss) at the outer points. Center point AF was good. With 5D3, AF with non-center points is almost as good as the center column.


----------



## drjlo (Oct 30, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> Canon 1.2



So the sigma was shot at f/1.4 and Canon shot at f/1.2? 
Even if the shooter moved a little, there seems like a huge difference in focal length


----------



## Pi (Oct 30, 2013)

You can see the different perspective.


----------



## Triggyman (Oct 30, 2013)

I'm in the same boat as the OP. I am rebuilding my set of primes (non-L's) and I'm taking a good look at the 1.2L.

I have a strong desire to get a good 50mm soon and it's an agony to wait for the 50mm f1.8?/1.4? IS USM, which has a CR1 rating:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/10/a-new-50-coming-soon-cr1/

I want to see first how the new 50mm will be, before making a decision between that and the 1.2L. $1700 + tax
(even minus the rebate of $180) is a boat load of money.

If you could hold on a little bit more, maybe you could save at least 800-900 bucks. But that's still months away.

For now I'll try to get most out of my new 35mm IS (if I can).


----------



## Pi (Oct 30, 2013)

Triggyman said:


> I want to see first how the new 50mm will be, before making a decision between that and the 1.2L. $1700 + tax
> (even minus the rebate of $180) is a boat load of money.



The 50L is available now from the major vendors for $1,439 (you have to put it in your cart to see that price). After the rebate and 4% BH credit, the effective price is $1,201!


----------



## mwh1964 (Oct 30, 2013)

So much regretting selling my 50L. Come back.....


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 30, 2013)

Yes, the Sigma was shot at 1.4 and the Canon at 1.2. I will shoot some direct comparison images and post today.


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 30, 2013)

Canon 50mm 1.2L @ f/1.4


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 30, 2013)

Sigma 50mm 1.4 @ f/1.4


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 30, 2013)

Sigma 85mm 1.4 @f/1.4

All three were taken from the same spot.


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 30, 2013)

A couple of comments on the above images...

Lightroom default processing of RAW files from a 5D Mk III... no tweaks.

I don't think I hit critical focus in the image from the Canon. I haven't done any focus calibration with that lens yet, but it should have been as sharp as the Sigma 50mm. Live view manual focusing shows similar sharpness. The Sigma 85mm is the sharpest lens of the three. When you step back so that it frames the same as either of the 50's, the images from the Sigma 85mm are much sharper at all apertures.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 30, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> Canon 50mm 1.2L @ f/1.4



Thanks bchernicoff for the comparison.

The Sigma seems to be sharper. 50L has better color and contrast - better background.


----------



## Pi (Oct 30, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> A couple of comments on the above images...
> 
> Lightroom default processing of RAW files from a 5D Mk III... no tweaks.
> 
> I don't think I hit critical focus in the image from the Canon. I haven't done any focus calibration with that lens yet, but it should have been as sharp as the Sigma 50mm. Live view manual focusing shows similar sharpness. The Sigma 85mm is the sharpest lens of the three. When you step back so that it frames the same as either of the 50's, the images from the Sigma 85mm are much sharper at all apertures.



The 50L is front focused. It seems longer?

Is the WB set to the same number?


----------



## sdsr (Oct 31, 2013)

RoaVision said:


> Hi I'm stuck deciding if I should upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.2 or go with the 1.4, I've done some research and read that the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 1.4. If you have had any of these lens any advice would be great to help me make my decision.



Since no-one else seems to have done so yet, I might as well give the obligatory warning re the Sigma, i.e. that you should be prepared to try several copies - this lens seems more prone to sample variations than most. The copy I bought was so terrible in every way (it didn't seem to want to focus on anything, not even the wrong thing) that I found it annoying; I decided to stay with my Canon 1.4 (which is just fine) and not seek a better copy. 

What do you want the lens for? The 1.2 would likely be overkill (or even pointless) unless you're into very shallow focus effects. If you're not, the Canon 1.4 is a very good lens - though it might be worth waiting a bit to see whether rumors of a new Canon 50mm IS or an upgraded Sigma 1.4 pan out.


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 31, 2013)

Pi said:


> The 50L is front focused. It seems longer?



The Sigma is more like a 46mm. At least that's what I've read on this forum and others.


----------



## surapon (Oct 31, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> Sigma 85mm 1.4 @f/1.4
> 
> All three were taken from the same spot.



Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.
From your Test at F= 1.4 both lens, My decision is to keep My Dear Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 and Not spend my money $ 1619 US Dollars for That Beautiful Canon 50 mm F/ 1.2 L.
No, Sir, Not worth 4 time of the cost of my old Sigma, just one stop faster and better Contrast/ Better Colors that my Old yes could not see the difference.
Thanks again, Sir for your great Job.
Surapon


----------



## bchernicoff (Oct 31, 2013)

surapon said:


> Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.
> From your Test at F= 1.4 both lens, My decision is to keep My Dear Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 and Not spend my money $ 1619 US Dollars for That Beautiful Canon 50 mm F/ 1.2 L.
> No, Sir, Not worth 4 time of the cost of my old Sigma, just one stop faster and better Contrast/ Better Colors that my Old yes could not see the difference.
> Thanks again, Sir for your great Job.
> Surapon



You're welcome! Also 1.2 is only a half stop faster than 1.4.


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 31, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.
> ...


I think the 50 1.2 is a great lens, but I don't think it's as good as Canon's other L primes, and ultimately not worth the money unless you need the things I mentioned previously. If you shoot at 50mm a lot and need great performance from f/1.2-2, I would buy it, but if it will see limited use, you're better off putting that money into another lens and getting the 1.4. Another thing to throw out is the that the 24-70 f/2.8 II is as sharp as both primes from f/2.8 on and is only a bit worse on CA and vignetting.


----------



## surapon (Oct 31, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff.
> ...



Thanks you again, Sir, Dear Mr. bchernicoff
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Oct 31, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > surapon said:
> ...



Thousand Thanks, Sir, Dear Mr. mackguyver.
Now, at this time ( past 2 months), I just fell in love with my Canon TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II , For Local Scenery shots. I not use my 50 mm Sigma past 5 months, Just 1 time ti test the Shallow DOF at F/ 1.4 only.
Yes, Sir, Thanks for your Great Comments--Yes, My Next Lens = Canon 24 -70 MM F/ 2.8 L II, And I will Give my Trustfully Old 24-70 L 2.8 to my son.
Thanks again , Sir.
Surapon


----------



## wickidwombat (Nov 1, 2013)

RoaVision said:


> Hi I'm stuck deciding if I should upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.2 or go with the 1.4, I've done some research and read that the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 1.4. If you have had any of these lens any advice would be great to help me make my decision.



i would do nothing and wait to see what the new 50mm comes out with and keep using your 1.8 in the mean time


----------



## Menace (Nov 4, 2013)

surapon said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > bchernicoff said:
> ...



You'll love the 24-70 II and your son will be extremely happy with the original version. Happy family


----------



## Menace (Nov 4, 2013)

RoaVision said:


> Hi I'm stuck deciding if I should upgrade my 50mm 1.8 to a 1.2 or go with the 1.4, I've done some research and read that the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the Canon 1.4. If you have had any of these lens any advice would be great to help me make my decision.



As others have said, if you'll be shooting from 1.2 to 2.0, get the 50 1.2 otherwise get the 1.4 and save a lot of money.

Personally, i love my 50 1.2


----------



## Twostones (Nov 4, 2013)

As others have said, wait for the new 50 that should be out soon. If you can't wait get the 50mm 1.4. I have the 1.4 and it is really a very good lens, so good in fact I see no need to upgrade to the expensive 1.2. The 50 1.4 is also really inexpensive. You can use the $1000 you didn't spend on something else.


----------



## RoaVision (Nov 6, 2013)

Thanks everybody for the comments and advice. I'm considering going with the 1.4 and just waiting to see if any new 50mm come out. Now just debating if I should go with Sigma or Canon I'm hearing positive and negative things about both. Or just go with a 85mm f1.8 and continue to keep my 50mm f1.8


----------



## Rat (Nov 6, 2013)

The 85/1.8 has terrible CA in high contrast shots. I hardly use it at all, because I like high contrast...


----------



## RoaVision (Nov 6, 2013)

Rat said:


> The 85/1.8 has terrible CA in high contrast shots. I hardly use it at all, because I like high contrast...



so you would recommend going with the 50mm 1.4 ?


----------



## Rat (Nov 6, 2013)

Can't comment on that, sorry, I never worked with that. I'm just warning you that if you like contrast, the 85/1.8 is not for you


----------



## RoaVision (Nov 7, 2013)

Thank you everyone. I decided to get the 50mm 1.4

now just time to enjoy it and ill post some shots once I use it. thank you once again


----------



## Rat (Nov 7, 2013)

Sigma or Canon?


----------

