Canon 50mm f/1.2

Hi,

Do any of you own a Canon 50mm f/1.2? If so:

What are your opinions on it?
How would you compare it to the 1.4 (if you used to own one)
What's the sharpness like?
Would you give it back?
Was it worth the price?

Thanks,

Tim

Tim Armes said:

What are your opinions on it?
How would you compare it to the 1.4 (if you used to own one)
What's the sharpness like?

Click to expand...

I don't own it, but there is something you'd better be aware of in advance. Other than that, it looks like a very competent lens although a lot more expensive than the f/1.4 version. Smaller than f/2.8 resolution is almost identical to the f/1.4, but at 2.8 and wider apertures, it shines. Flare resistance is said to be better than of the f/1.4, but I'll leave that to those with first hand experience ...

Bart

Tim Armes said:

Hi,

Do any of you own a Canon 50mm f/1.2? If so:

What are your opinions on it?
How would you compare it to the 1.4 (if you used to own one)
What's the sharpness like?
Would you give it back?
Was it worth the price?

Click to expand...

Hi Tim,

This is my marvelous lens and since I have it, the only lens I put on my 5D unless I do macro. I have not used my 24-105 L IS since I purchased the lens approx 6 months ago.

This is a perfect lens for portraits wide open and for fashion (with a 70-200 2.8 L IS on a 1DII as the longer lens).

The 50 1.4 is a very good lens too but has sometimes a (? birefringence) purple line between the very high contrast areas of dark next to white in bright sun. The 50 2.5 Macro is a wonderful portrait lens with almost no artifact that occurs with the 50 1.4. This is the best 50mm lens built for Canon Eos cameras in the reasonable price range.

The 50 1.2 is a different beast and is for your heart.

I'd buy it again in a hollywood moment!

It is very sharp so that's no issue.

I have noticed no issues of any importance to take away from this super low light special purpose portrait and street photography and available light lens!

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

I don't own it, but there is something you'd better be aware of in advance. Other than that, it looks like a very competent lens although a lot more expensive than the f/1.4 version. Smaller than f/2.8 resolution is almost identical to the f/1.4, but at 2.8 and wider apertures, it shines. Flare resistance is said to be better than of the f/1.4, but I'll leave that to those with first hand experience ...

Click to expand...

Flare resistance is amazing!

I see no negative for the pphotography purposes of this lens.

Asher

Hmmmm... what to do?

Looking at all the tests that I can find, the differences between the 1.4 and the 1.2 are minimal, and the price difference is huge.

But I suspect that when your heart wants a 1.2, the 1.4 will always be a disappointment...

Hi Tim,

Having a perfect portrait ruined by a purple line is enough for me. Anyway, I like to do availble light photography. This is photography Nirvana. With the 1DIII light sensitivity in a new 5D Mark II this will be simply heaven on eartht! I might get the 1DIII just because the new 5D version has deluded by search for information. I like the 5D in that it is smaller than the 1D series.

Asher

I have tested the 50/1.2 but don't own it -- at least yet

One thing Asher isn't saying, IMO is the look from the 50/1.2 is distinctly more "L" flavor than it is from the 50/1.4. Just like in comparisons of the 85/1.2 and 85/1.8, both are excellent, but while the slightly slower ef versions of both lenses are very good especially for what they cost, these two super-speed L lenses are nothing short of exceptional. And it isn't just resolution, but includes other subtle differences in the way they render images; color, saturation, smoothness and tonal separation. Hard to explain withought comparing them directly, but you know it if you see it and for some of us makes them worth the extra expense.

Cheers,

I am a fan

I have that lens too. I bought the 5d for full frame shots and this one on it is beautiful. I also have the 50 2.5 Macro and while they're both 50mm and you can get some nice bokeh, they really do produce a different feel. I will have to take some shots of the same thing with both cameras and show you.

I did the first one handheld at night from a moving ship in Istanbul



And she is in Cavtat, Dubrovnik, Croatia.

Kathy Rappaport said:

I have that lens too. I bought the 5d for full frame shots and this one on it is beautiful. I also have the 50 2.5 Macro and while they're both 50mm and you can get some nice bokeh, they really do produce a different feel. I will have to take some shots of the same thing with both cameras and show you.

Click to expand...

Hi Kathy,

Nice shots, especially the nun. The fall off in background blur is almost dreamy - that's the look I want.

I'd really appreciate that comparison with the 1.4 if you do get a chance.

Thanks,

Tim

Jack_Flesher said:

I have tested the 50/1.2 but don't own it -- at least yet

One thing Asher isn't saying, IMO is the look from the 50/1.2 is distinctly more "L" flavor than it is from the 50/1.4. Just like in comparisons of the 85/1.2 and 85/1.8, both are excellent, but while the slightly slower ef versions of both lenses are very good especially for what they cost, these two super-speed L lenses are nothing short of exceptional. And it isn't just resolution, but includes other subtle differences in the way they render images; color, saturation, smoothness and tonal separation. Hard to explain withought comparing them directly, but you know it if you see it and for some of us makes them worth the extra expense.

Cheers,

Click to expand...

Hi Jack,

Interesting commentry. I haven't really seen any comparisons that go that far. Those I have seen have tested for sharpeness, and the general consensus is that the 1.2 is sharper up to f/2.8, the 1.4 is sharper at f/4 and f/5.6, and from f/8 upwards they are very similar. So the 1.2 is justified for those who like wide apertures (guilty as charged).

Are the other differences that you mention not easy to achieve with a little post-processing anyhow? In other words, is the 1.2 far enough ahead that a few adjustments in Lightroom still wouldn't be enough to achieve the same look when using the 1.4?

Can anyone offer some concrete examples?

Tim

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

I don't own it, but there is something you'd better be aware of in advance. Other than that, it looks like a very competent lens although a lot more expensive than the f/1.4 version. Smaller than f/2.8 resolution is almost identical to the f/1.4, but at 2.8 and wider apertures, it shines. Flare resistance is said to be better than of the f/1.4, but I'll leave that to those with first hand experience ...

Bart

Click to expand...

Thanks bart. I wasn't aware of that. Good to know that there's a workaround though.

Asher Kelman said:

This is my marvelous lens and since I have it, the only lens I put on my 5D unless I do macro. I have not used my 24-105 L IS since I purchased the lens approx 6 months ago.

Click to expand...

I can understand that.

I've decided to move to full frame, which means buying equivalents for my 10-22 and 17-85 f/2.8. The exact equivalents would be the 16-35 and the 24-70, however I'm seriously considering the 50mm over the 24-70. This would give me focal lengths of 16-35, 50, 85 and 135. I think that I might be disappointed with the 24-70.

On the other hand, maybe the 24-70 with the 50mm f/1.4 would be a good option too.

The 50 1.4 is a very good lens too but has sometimes a (? birefringence) purple line between the very high contrast areas of dark next to white in bright sun.

Click to expand...

Purple fringing is also a problem with the 1.2. There are lots of tests that mention this point. Fortunately, it's easy to correct in Lightroom.

You don't mention vignetting; does this cause you a problem?

24-105 Vignettes

I have the 24-70 - that is my favorite lens for many purposes

The 24-105 vignettes but I don't find that with the 24-70 (I have both - I take the 24-105 to travel or do outdoors when I need a bit longer) but for me the 24-70 shines. I like to shoot wide open - another reason I bought the 50 1.2 over the 50 2.5 - the focus on the 2.5 is much slower. I'd sell the 2.5 but it's not going to fetch enough to buy something else - I am thinking I want the 135 2.0 or the 85 1.2, or the 16-35....too many choices and I haven't won the lottery.

Kathy Rappaport said:

I have the 24-70 - that is my favorite lens for many purposes

The 24-105 vignettes but I don't find that with the 24-70 (I have both - I take the 24-105 to travel or do outdoors when I need a bit longer) but for me the 24-70 shines.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree the 24-70 is a very good and versatile lens for FF use. On a 'cropped' sensor array the 24-105 can be nice, a lot of reach with IS and all, but the vignetting for FF use is too much for my taste. Software can only compensate for so much underexposure in the corners before it becomes noticable.
In comparison, a 50mm fixed focal length lens (f/1.4 or f/1.2) will be better than the 24-70@50 but less versatile. As always, it's a trade-off depending on the specific use.

Bart

Tim Armes said:

In other words, is the 1.2 far enough ahead that a few adjustments in Lightroom still wouldn't be enough to achieve the same look when using the 1.4?

Click to expand...

Hi Tim:

Simply stated, probably not from a color, contrast and saturation PoV... However, I think the main benefit of the L lens besides the obvious availability of more shallow DoF with the wider aperture, is how they render the oof areas. For example, in Kathy's Nun shot it would be difficult to replicate the oof rendering with processing and the 50/1.4.

I think the real question folks need to ask themselves is, is that difference enough to justify the added expense AND carrying weight of the bigger L's?

While I've owned bth of these bigger L lenses, I found the weight prevented me form carrying them a lot of the time. By contrast, the lighter weight EF 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are BOTH in my bag ALL the time. The 85 L was almost NEVER in my bag unless I knew I was going to shoot with it. (My 50/1.2 back-focused significantly, so I returned it and have not replaced it yet, but will when a confirmed good focuser comes available.) However, that said, I respect the added "edge" the look from the two big L's imparts to the image -- that was the main point I was trying to make above...

Cheers,

On a more mundane note, I use this lens for shooting high school basketball and other indoor sports in dark gyms. Its AF performance is head and shoulders above the f/1.4 and even superior to the much-touted-and-relied-upon-in-this-context 85 f/1.8. I'm very happy with it.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

I love my 1.2 50mm. Technically there's maybe only a small difference between the 1.4 and the 1.2 but the 1.2 fits perfectly with the 35L and the 85L. They share the same image feel re. Sharpness/softness/contrast/colors, which I love. I do shoot very frequently with the 24-70 and wish for IS (my dream would be 35-90 IS 2.8 or 2.0) but for manual focusing in a darker studio or critical focus (wider than 4-5.6) I prefer the fixed focus lenses. Right now I’m working on a high profile PR project where I shoot in a dark photo studio while the main Ad image is being shot and those 3 super bright lenses do come in handy.
One of my assistants tested it against the 1.4 and thought it wasn’t much of a difference optically, but to me it feels like a pro lens and is pretty flare resistant. If money is an object I could see settling with the 1.4 (as well as the 1.8/85mm) but coming from Medium and large format I still consider those lens prices as justified. I personally don’t need to have every lens Canon sells, I have my favorite focal lengths and stick with those, so they better be the best out there.
My strategy is to have the zoom as a backup in case my primes are lost (or vice versa) and besides those lenses I have the tilt-shift series and that’s it, although I’m thinking hard to get the 24-105IS for longer reach and the IS part for travel, available light and as a backup for a second camera kit.
Best
Mark

Jack_Flesher said:

Hi Tim:

Simply stated, probably not from a color, contrast and saturation PoV... However, I think the main benefit of the L lens besides the obvious availability of more shallow DoF with the wider aperture, is how they render the oof areas. For example, in Kathy's Nun shot it would be difficult to replicate the oof rendering with processing and the 50/1.4.

Click to expand...

Hi Jack,

This is an important point. I'd really like to get some feedback on this from other users too. Do any of you have any other examples of this "dreamy" look that demonstrate the 1.2's mastery of bokeh compared to the 1.4? I find it hard to believe that there's that much difference - however if there is then I don't need look any further....

Tim

Jack_Flesher said:

However, I think the main benefit of the L lens besides the obvious availability of more shallow DoF with the wider aperture, is how they render the oof areas. For example, in Kathy's Nun shot it would be difficult to replicate the oof rendering with processing and the 50/1.4.

Click to expand...

I've heard that argument used before, but I have not seen a good side-by-side comparison. Is there anyone that either knows about such a comparison, or is able and willing to conduct it?
Is the 'bokeh' of the 1.2 really that much better than that of the 1.4 at equal apertures, or is it wishful thinking?

Bart

1.2 and 2.5 50 mm

I will try to run off a few shots this weekend of the same subject comparing the 1.2 and 2.5 - since I don't own the 1.4 or 1.8 50's. unless Asher or Will have them and want to join me - or anyone else in LA area.

Bart_van_der_Wolf said:

I've heard that argument used before, but I have not seen a good side-by-side comparison. Is there anyone that either knows about such a comparison, or is able and willing to conduct it?
Is the 'bokeh' of the 1.2 really that much better than that of the 1.4 at equal apertures, or is it wishful thinking?
Bart

Click to expand...

That's 2 of us who'd like to see this.

There are several sites that attempt to compare bokeh, but they aren't doing it as I'd like to see it done. For example, wlcastleman has a good comparison, and the bokeh seems identical between the two lenses. On the other hand, the subject is a long way from the background, and so i'd expect this really.

A comparison showing the gradual fall in bokeh would be invaluable. Something like the first photo in this thread (the one by Brian Potts) taken with the 1.2 and the 1.4 would be be great.

Tim

Tim Armes said:

There are several sites that attempt to compare bokeh, but they aren't doing it as I'd like to see it done. For example, wlcastleman has a good comparison, and the bokeh seems identical between the two lenses.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. Actually, I agree with the reviewer's observations. The 1.2 has very slightly smoother bokeh than the 1.4, and shows slightly rounder aperture blades in blurred highlights up to about f/2.8. His bokeh test also has text cards at different distances behind the lens, and at the wider apertures they look a little more pleasant, less "edgy".

So when the wider open apertures are most important for one's shooting style, the 1.2 has the edge.

Bart

I think this is a case where the EF versions of these two lenses combined with proper processing will give you around 90% of the imaging capability of their larger L brethren -- and at about 22-1/2% the cost. So this does make the EF lenses relative 'super-bargains'. But, (BUT) if you want or need that extra 10% for your photographic style, there is only one way to get it...

Cheers,

Jack_Flesher said:

I have tested the 50/1.2 but don't own it -- at least yet

One thing Asher isn't saying, IMO is the look from the 50/1.2 is distinctly more "L" flavor than it is from the 50/1.4. Just like in comparisons of the 85/1.2 and 85/1.8, both are excellent, but while the slightly slower ef versions of both lenses are very good especially for what they cost, these two super-speed L lenses are nothing short of exceptional. And it isn't just resolution, but includes other subtle differences in the way they render images; color, saturation, smoothness and tonal separation. Hard to explain withought comparing them directly, but you know it if you see it and for some of us makes them worth the extra expense.

Cheers,

Click to expand...

Hello Jack,

I couldn't agree more with what you say about the 85L and have just done 70 portraits over the last 3 months using version 1. An exceptional lens when you have a specific purpose in mind, but not something to have in one's bag at all times, because of the weight. Quite recently I discussed the 50L with my local dealer (the largest Canon dealership in France), and he sought to dissuade me from getting this lens saying that it did not have a comparable rendering as the 85L (features of which you enumerate) and was not in the same league. Focusing issue apart, when a dealer tries to discourage acquisition, it makes you wonder..... Your and Asher's observations, as well as the comments of others, now of course makes me wonder in the opposite direction! I guess that I shall have to do some test shooting to have a clearer idea.

Hi,

I thought I'd chime in (this is a pretty old thread). I just acquired this lens, and thus far, I think it is a special, exceptional lens - but one that will be very difficult to use. I must say, even on my 1D MkIIN - on which the lens' size and weight feels absolutely perfect - compact, yet substantial - autofocus seems to be quite unreliable. I am not sure if it is a fault of the lens, or whether one is simply asking too much of the autofocus system to accurately position a f/1.2 lens this wide, but I now fully understand all the hysteria on the net of this lens "not being sharp", etc. Mis-focusing even the tiniest bit will cause a soft image - a very soft one.

However, autofocus aside (I need to do a lot more testing) - this lens, combined with the Ec-S cross split prism focusing screen, is a manual focus dream, and I seem to be able to do better than the camera every time (but, with great difficulty sometimes). And when you nail the focus, my copy seems absolutely, exceptionally sharp even at f/1.2. You cannot even compare it to the 50mm f/1.4. It draws images beautifully.

So, I do have my autofocus concerns (not that I want to use AF on this lens most of the time, in anyway) but in all other respects, this seems to be a truly exceptional lens. Build quality is very, very good - seems a bit better then 16-35L. Not in the league of the all-metal 28-300L, of course (which is truly built like a piece of military equipment) but it feels exceptionally tight, it mounts to the camera solidly (you can't even jiggle it the tiniest bit when it's in place) and I like the focus ring.

I fear that, to use this lens, I will need to spend a lot of time practicing my technique, this is no point-and-shooter, and it's much more difficult to focus than an 85L (because the plane of focus is much more difficult to see in the viewfinder - and thus, maybe also for the AF sensors?). Simple testing (taking photographs at night of streetlamps) shows quite incredible flare resistance, though I have not shot into the sun yet.

At f/1.2, chromatic aberration will definitely by more of a problem than on either my 16-35L, 28-300L and 100 Macro.

Asher, I can see why this is your favourite lens! (It might just become mine too). But I can see that it will take some dedication to use it properly. But really - I can recommend combining it with the Ec-S screen, it made a world of difference for me.

Somehow, you can take a 50mm f/1.4, or 100mm f/2.8 Macro, point it at something, AF, and shoot, and the image is virtually guaranteed to come out "correct". This does nto seem to be the case here, it seems to require a bit more dedication from the photographer. Whether it is (as so many have said) a design flaw, or just the inherent character of this type of lens - who knows.

David,

I feel a kindred spirit to you in your appreciation of the lens. Here's the frame of mind: this is almost like LF photography when used wide open! The lens deserves care, passion, needs and hopes. This is a lens that grows on you!

I have become so enthralled with the "look" that I'm totally drifting towards getting a LF setup with a soft portrait lens! I'll write much more on that I promise.

I have not used the Ec-S cross split prism focusing screen. How does this change focus with other lenses and in poor light?

Asher

Trying to use it as my main lens

I love that lens too..but it does have it's learning curve for certain. A while back, Asher posted that he was using it as his street lens on the 5D. I play with it for awhile and then go back to the 24-70 or 24-105....I do LOVE that lens, but, I have to be very careful that I don't stop down too much with it or else....

Asher Kelman said:

this is almost like LF photography when used wide open! The lens deserves care, passion, needs and hopes. This is a lens that grows on you!

Click to expand...

Well said, Asher. I find this to be true. Before getting this lens, I waded through the literally hundreds of pages of panic, arguments, etc. around this lens on the Fred Miranda forums, and, from a technical standpoint, they do have a point: One cannot apply one's "usual" expectations of a canon L-lens to this - in terms of usability. I do, in fact, find it's ability to focus on, and track (AI Servo) small moving objects very very good - but it is definitely not reliable for close-up objects. But this lens really is not made for haphazard autofocus shots in a situation like that. I am sure canon will still make a statement around the "autofocus issues" with this lens, but what I want to know, is: How good and accurate was the AF with the old 50mm 1.0L? If it was better, then they may have a point - but I am, thus far, quite happy with the AF.

I am slowly getting to know the character of the lens, but (although being a tad slower) this lens compares very favourably to the famed, mystical, worshipped Leica Noctilux f/1.0 - in many respects the 50L seems superior: sharpness wide open, FAR less vignetting, and better bokeh, and at least comparing well in terms of flare-resistance. (Disclaimer: I don't own a noctilux, but have used one once or twice, and I have studied many images produced with it). Only somewhat weaker aspect is the visible chromatic aberration wide open.

To answer your question, the cross split prism is a great screen for lenses down to f/4 - although even at f/2.8, it is a tad "distracting" if you're not used to it (regardless of the great focusing accuracy it enables). Somehow, with a f/1.2 lens, the split prism just "melts" into the image - it is absolutely non-distracting, and very subtle and effective. A massive improvement over an f/4 lens. I do still also want to try out some other screens, though.

So, unless you have to put on lenses slower than f/4, it's a great screen to keep in. Unfortunately, one of my other favourites (as you all know by now...) is the 38-300L, and that gets to f/5.6 on the long end, so I do have to change screens when I know I'm going to use that lens a lot. However, my "compact/people/general photography in bad light/etc" kit now consists of 50L, 16-35L, and 100mm Macro - all f/2.8 or faster, so I am happy.

At least it's a snap (no pun intended) to change Focusing screens on the 1DIIN. But now, I need to get back to my day job But I look forward to intensely exploring this lens, and I already know it's going to stay glued to my camera. I have not pixel-peeped much, but so far, I am very, very happy with what I see. It is remarkably good wide open (what I bought it for) - IF you focus accurately. I have 20/20 eyesight, but I still find this very challenging.

The guys shooting a Noctilux on a rangefinder *really* need a well-calibrated setup for this sort of aperture, or a lot of luck!

The 50 f1.0 is slow like a slug. So slow that it had two focus ranges.

Sold the one I had, glad I did. The 50 f1.2 is much faster.

oops

Did I say stop down...I meant open up....

Thanks Dawid on the Ec-S cross split prism focusing screen as I am thinking of trying that. I do a lot of manual focussing with my Distagon lenses and would like toi see how that compares with the Brightscreen screen I use. I havent changed mine from my 5D as I it was calibrated with shims. I just have to have a go at changing it.

Asher