Trying to justify Canon 50mm f1.2 L

AtticusFinch · 28 Oct 2010 at 16:03

I am considering this to replace my busted f1.8 which was dropped by a friend's child.

I was wondering if anyone's got and whether you are able to comment on the results of the 1.2 lens cf the midrange f1.4 - simply other than build quality, are the results markedly different than from the "lesser" f1.4

Thanks for any thoughts you may have.

Razor-BladE · 28 Oct 2010 at 16:17

Haven't used either, but i've heard that the 1.4 is optically better than the 1.2, but the bokeh given by the 1.2 is something to die for.

AtticusFinch · 28 Oct 2010 at 16:19

Looks like buttah in the few samples I've seen which is what's making me think about it.

glitch · 28 Oct 2010 at 16:23

If you can afford one, and I assume you can otherwise you wouldn't be asking, it's a fantastic little lens. I've used both the 1.4 and the 1.2 and I'm pretty sure I can see that the L-series lens produces images that have a certain special something about them.

However, it's really not that much different from the 1.4 to justify the extra cost unless you're really working your kit hard. Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference when faced with two images produced by the two lenses under the same circumstances.

If you're fortunate enough to be in a position where you're making money from your photography and you really need the extra touch of quality in your images that the 1.2 affords, go for it. Otherwise go for the 1.4 and put the spare £900 towards something else you need.

AtticusFinch · 28 Oct 2010 at 16:41

Thanks for the views - money's not a problem, although I don't want to waste it. I just love prime lenses and especially those with gorgeous bokeh.

Still love my minolta md 85mm f2 on my minolta bodies (still a fan of film too).

Phate · 28 Oct 2010 at 16:50

I would go for the 50mm 1.4 personally, I used the 50mm 1.2L and wasn't impressed with it...

The 85mm 1.2L on the other hand

Tiny image I know but its just awesome.

mangobreeder · 28 Oct 2010 at 16:54

Phate said:
I would go for the 50mm 1.4 personally, I used the 50mm 1.2L and wasn't impressed with it...

The 85mm 1.2L on the other hand

<snip>

Tiny image I know but its just awesome.

nice, where did you steal the pic from

)

Phate · 28 Oct 2010 at 17:02

mangobreeder said:
nice, where did you steal the pic from )

I took it at a wedding I did with Mark using his 85mm 1.2 on my camera

Adrianr · 28 Oct 2010 at 17:32

AtticusFinch said:
Thanks for the views - money's not a problem, although I don't want to waste it. I just love prime lenses and especially those with gorgeous bokeh.

Still love my minolta md 85mm f2 on my minolta bodies (still a fan of film too).

The 50mm 1.2L is unfortunately one of Canon's more 'troubled' L lenses. It's not particularly amazing at anything, can suffer from focus shift, and unfortunately has to live in the shadow of the truly awesome 85mm 1.2L.

If you're using full frame and like prime lenses's it's just got to be the holy trinity. 35mm 1.4L, 85.. 1.2L and 135mm f/2L. I know that lot costs a little more than just the 50 but they're all lenses you just never wan't to take off your camera.

Tachyon · 28 Oct 2010 at 17:57

Quite a few folks rate the Sigma 1.4 although have read varying reports about needing calibrated out of tthe box.

Stuff · 28 Oct 2010 at 20:40

I've got the 50 1.4 and love it, really nice bokeh from it. From the comments above, I don't think an extra £800 can be justified.

dowie · 28 Oct 2010 at 20:40

Tachyon said:
Quite a few folks rate the Sigma 1.4 although have read varying reports about needing calibrated out of tthe box.

Was about to post this too - Sigma 50 1.4 seems to be better than the canon 50 1.4

Dunks · 28 Oct 2010 at 20:51

dowie said:
Was about to post this too - Sigma 50 1.4 seems to be better than the canon 50 1.4

Really? I've been looking into this for a while and it seems while the Sigma is built better and also larger, it seems to be plagued with front/back focussing. Although you're onto a winner if you get a copy that's bang on

Paul11 · 28 Oct 2010 at 20:53

ive also got the 50mm 1.4 and think its great

i cant see how to justify the extra cash for the 1.2 personally

Raymond Lin · 28 Oct 2010 at 21:01

Adrianr said:
The 50mm 1.2L is unfortunately one of Canon's more 'troubled' L lenses. It's not particularly amazing at anything, can suffer from focus shift, and unfortunately has to live in the shadow of the truly awesome 85mm 1.2L.

If you're using full frame and like prime lenses's it's just got to be the holy trinity. 35mm 1.4L, 85.. 1.2L and 135mm f/2L. I know that lot costs a little more than just the 50 but they're all lenses you just never wan't to take off your camera.

Just one short.........

Adrianr · 28 Oct 2010 at 21:49

Raymond Lin said:
Just one short.........

Same

mrthingyx · 29 Oct 2010 at 11:40

Sigma 1.4 here - awesome lens (I've used a good copy).

The Canon 1.2 just seems a bit too hit and miss for a £1100 piece of kit.

cokecan · 29 Oct 2010 at 13:13

Canon 50mm 1.4 here too, VERY happy with the quality of the images and the bokeh

It's probably my favourite lens that I either own or have tried

33L · 29 Oct 2010 at 13:24

here is how i see your situation and many of mine from experience.

If you are struggeling to justify the expense, its not worth it to you. Not saying the lens is not worth it, maybe like me your skill level might not be their to appreciate some lenses. Focusing accuratley at f/1.2 is not easy. Get the 1.4 from either sigma or canon and if you need the extra performance then trade up. I dont mean offence, i recently got the 135 L f/2 and i am still getting used to it and how it handles.

AtticusFinch · 29 Oct 2010 at 16:36

Thanks for the thoughts, I'll order the Canon and Sigma 1.4 lenses and try them both out and decide which one to return once I've had the chance to play with them both to se if I'm happy with the results.

Want to find something that gives me bokeh like my 58mm f/1.2 Rokkor-PG on my X-1 Minolta!