Comments on: Canon 50mm f/1.2L versus the EF 50mm f/1.4

By: NightAngel

NightAngel — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:09:00 +0000

I tried the three lens 50mm (1.8, 1.4 & 1.2) but I haven’t found big differences in terms of rendering. OK I recognize that rendering of the 50mm f/1.8 is lower than the other two models. However I see no difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2. A huge price difference between these two models for rendering very close (if not identical). The construction quality is very different : bad on f/1.8, correct on f/1.4 and excellent on the f/1.2. I think the price difference is justified between f/1.8 and f/1.4, which isn’t the case between f/1.4 and f/1.2. According to different readings, the f/1.2 isn’t fundamentally better than the f/1.4 as focal lengths, apertures, etc. The f/1.2 is a very nice toy but with a price totally unjustified. If you have been psychologically capable of taking this step: congratulations!

By: Joeri

Joeri — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:53:39 +0000

It has already been mentioned, but the 50/1.2 seems to be the only reliable 50mm made by canon. I’ve had the 1.4 for over two years now and for my wedding photography it is used for 80% of the images, often at 2.0 or wider. Optically its just fine, or even good, but mechanically it’s a disaster. I broke mine twice even though I didn’t drop it. The AF just fails every now and then and since trying to mf with this thing is nearly impossible, it becomes unusable. So, if you’re a pro, get the 1.2, if you don’t and don’t care about reliablity, get the 1.4. If you like to focus manually, get the 1.2 as well, but you’ll have to change your standard focussing screen to the one optimized for mf.

By: Calin C

Calin C — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 23:11:12 +0000

Come on guys….
The difference between f 1.2 and 1.4 is… 4-500 ms. this is all that matter.
One thing is to shoot it at 1/30 and … when realistic is to shoot it at 1/500. Low light, moving subjects…

This is the way canon asked thoose money. It means no photo to be taken apart from thoose with fast lenses…

My 2c opinion: keep the best zoom lenses (f2-f4) and wait for a better low light sensor. like ISO 1 milion…

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:16:19 +0000

I am at this cross-roads and must make a decission soon. I want the 50mm for street photography and to reduce the profile of my 5d for this purpose. But I have heard nightmare stories about the 1.4′s AF failing. This would be no good to me as I only carry one lens with me when shooting candids for lightness, and work within that focal range. The thought of carrying a back-up lens is defeating the object of travelling light. The 1.2 over the 1.4 seems to have a lot more going for it other than just identical imaging above f2 and I wonder if that should also be a consideration when buying a lens? Resale values are also better and one could almost get their money back if they needed to. Another point is flare. This is a problem with the 1.4 being designed for film use and not digital. Reflection from the AA filter, even if using an oversized coffee-mug hood (used on the 1.4) won’t fully protect the user from this anomally either. I don’t think the 1.2 is worth the money being asked for, but surely it is a better investment overall? It certainly isn’t in the same league as Leica or Carl Zeiss glass to warrant the price. I’m hoping we will see it drop rapidly in price as the credit crunch starts to bite hard on these overpriced items of luxury in the coming year.

By: a fashion shooter » Blog Archive » the Canon 50mm 1.2 L lens

a fashion shooter » Blog Archive » the Canon 50mm 1.2 L lens — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:16:45 +0000

[...] http://www.jimarnold.org/blog/2008/02/canon-50mm-f12l-versus-the-ef-50mm-f14/ Here is a test gallery which someone posted, and i think it shows some cool images shot wide open: http://www.markuspuustinen.com/galleriat/08/02/pictures_with_canon_50mm_f_1_2_l/ Of course I won’t be getting rid of my cheaper 50mm lenses, because I love the flare that they produce, and while the 1.2 lens looks great, it produces much less flare. And flair, at times, is just what I am looking for: [...]

By: jim

jim — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:24:35 +0000

I cannot say for certain in most of the shots. In the “Exit only” photos I do know that I was center focused in the middle of the “X” on the word exit. The EF 1.4 nailed it but the 1.2 missed the focus.

By: Milan Kolarovic

Milan Kolarovic — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:04:00 +0000

Nice rewiew, thanks.

Having heard so much of focus-issues relating to the 50mm 1.2L lens, I opted for the 85mm 1.2L in the end of last year when acquiring new gear – eventhough its almost twise as expensive as the 50mm 1.2L. Still, having and keeping my old faithful 50mm 1.4 along the side.

The 50mm 1.4 only drawback is that its autofocus breaks too darn easily IF the lens is dropped. Mine dropped from about 30cm (~1feet) to the ground and broke. I managed to fix the autofocus (bend plastic element inside the lens) at first, but soon after that the autofocus motor apparently gave up and had to send the lens to be fixed which resulted in ~250 euros (380-390 dollars) repair bill (it’s still cheaper than buying a new one in Northern Europe, plus the insurance helped out).

p.s. I don’t know if anyone else noted it, but in almost all of the test shots the F1.2 versions have their focus point a bit more to the back than the ones in the 1.4 versions.. is it just a pure coinsidence + the result of unscientific testing methods, or could this actually be another prove to the widely reported “back-focus” issues?

By: MS

MS — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:11:49 +0000

Appreciate the 50L vs. 50 1.4 tests. I had similar results as far as image quality. The difference between the two was negligible (and my 50 1.4 is consistently sharper from wide open on up).

I would have kept the 50L for build quality alone despite the lack of difference except that it missed focus in a number of real-world images that it shouldn’t have.

Looking forward to the 35L comparison.

By: jim

jim — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:07:47 +0000

Thanks for the comments. I said in my 4th paragraph that this is not a scientific test, so take it as such. I did take some photos with both lenses while using a tripod but did not include them in the test shots. I don’t use a tripod while out photographing in the real world so that’s how I wanted to test these lenses. I’m not sure I find photographing newspapers on the wall all that informative to taking real photos.

After a week with the 50L I came away with a great sense of the strengths and weaknesses of this lens.

I just finished a week photographing with the 35L and the EF35. If you look at images taken on a tripod with both lenses at f2 and f2.8, in a controlled test, the L lens is clearly better. In the real world the EF35/2 is still a much better lens than I had come to believe based on things I had read. Both of these 35mm lenses have their strengths and weaknesses and I may write something up about them once I get some time.

By: M

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:08:02 +0000

I’ve noticed that the exposure is different on many of your shots. You might notice a difference in focus if you shoot them with manual settings, rather than Av or Tv. Your two f/1.4 fence shots, for instance, are taken at 1/1250 and 1/1600 second exposures. Even real-world, that’s hardly scientific. Also, it would be better if you put your camera on a tripod, so the composition doesn’t change, when you change lenses. The angle at which you are photographing, can change your perspective of whether or not something is in focus, when you work with such shallow depths of field.