Review: Canon 50mm f/1.2L

DavidTO

Andy wrote:

Rant: It's amazing to me that Canon spent such a fortune on making this lens, when it's clearly not $1300 better than it's cousin. For years, many years, folks have been begging Canon to make a sharp wide angle prime. Instead they give us a doorstop. :uhoh

Andy's mad! :splat

Time to speak with your wallet, my friend. Sell all your Canon gear and switch to Nikon. But please, give me first dibs on making an offer!

Mongrel

Prophecy...
this lens will drop below $1000 before June 2007....

illuminati919

It will drop for sure, but still isn't worth it. That's how all lenses are, I dont ever understandy why someone would want to buy the lens as soon as it comes out, theyr'e always overpriced and you know the price will drop sometime in the very near future.

DavidTO

illuminati919 wrote:

I dont ever understandy why someone would want to buy the lens as soon as it comes out, theyr'e always overpriced and you know the price will drop sometime in the very near future.

Andy will have to explain that one to you.

Tee Why

Canon really should have spent the time to upgrade it's 100-400L. With it's first or second generation IS and the push pull design, I think they missed the boat.

Stan

Tee Why wrote:

Hey, I noticed a comparison to the 50mm f1.4. Thanks.
I'm impressed, the f1.2L seems sharper than the f1.4 lens both at f1.2 and f1.4.

If the shots are unprocessed without sharpening or contrast added, I don't think the difference would not be noticable after post processing but unlike the 50mm f1.0L that Canon made in the past that was too soft, this lens seems very sharp.

I still don't think it's worth the money though.

Yeah but.... you get a lens hood for free with the 1.2 but is it worth, (in the UK) £851 extra? that's another L lens.

Stan

illuminati919

DavidTO wrote:

Andy will have to explain that one to you.

Cough cough Andy ?????

Andy

illuminati919 wrote:

Cough cough Andy ?????

What?

LiquidAir

Bummer. I was hoping the 50/1.2L would be sharper than the 50/1.4 but it doesn't look like that is the case. Canon has posted the MTF charts and they confirm your results: there isn't much difference in sharpness between the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.2L either wide open or at f/8. I was hoping for a lens that would be in the class of the 35L, but no such luck. I'd spend $600 for the better build and superior bokeh of the 50/1.2L, but not $1600.

Manfr3d

Andy wrote:

Bokeh: It's delish. Smooth and creamy. Out of focus areas disappear into dreamy nothing-ness. There are reports on the net about the lens, at f/1.2, producing "cat-eye" specular highlights, when you'd expect them to be rounded. The answer to this is, "yes, it can/does." At f/1.2, there can be these shapes. There can also be round shapes. Here's an example. I suppose it has to do with the shape of the object, the way the light reflects from that object and is received/processed by the lens. It's not unheard of in these types of optics, here's an 85 f/1.8 @ f/1.8, showing both round and "cat-eye" shaped out of focus specular highlights.

I enjoyed reading your review. Its really great!

I'd like to add something about the cat eye effect. Its not because of
the shape of the object, its basicaly because the light passing trough
this wide aperature lens has a shorter way trough the middle of the
lens than it has through the edges of your visible frame. This is called
optical vignetting and the main reason for the cats eye effect. If
one stops the lens down less light is gathered from the sides of the
lens and the effect dissapears.

This guy has a more detailed (and better worded) explanation:
http://www.pinnipedia.org/optics/vignetting.html

Andy

Manfr3d wrote:

I enjoyed reading your review. Its really great!

I'd like to add something about the cat eye effect. Its not because of
the shape of the object, its basicaly because the light passing trough
this wide aperature lens has a shorter way trough the middle of the
lens than it has through the edges of your visible frame. This is called
optical vignetting and the main reason for the cats eye effect. If
one stops the lens down less light is gathered from the sides of the
lens and the effect dissapears.

This guy has a more detailed (and better worded) explanation:
http://www.pinnipedia.org/optics/vignetting.html

Thanks

ChrisRPhoto

Andy wrote:

Thanks

Thanks for the review Andy, I have a 50mm 1.8 mk1 version that I have been using for years but now is getting a little tired but still woking fine.

I do a lot of lifestyle stock library work where I use the 50mm virtually wide open in bright to low light to create the OOF effect.
IYHO would you suggest I plump for the 1.4 or go fro the 1.2L, I will be using this lens for a lot of years to come so don't mind investing in a good marque lens

Chris

Andy

Pretty good side by side with the 50 f/1.4 here:
http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm

ChrisRPhoto

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the link it's very interesting looking at the results from yourself and the one given below. The 1.4 does hold its own exceptionally well in all circumstances, however, the 1.2L is that bit better and have to agree with you that it is not $1000 better.

In any event each of the lenses are going to be a marked improvement on
my old 50mm 1.8 mk1 so it's down to the old budget now

Chris

Andy wrote:

Pretty good side by side with the 50 f/1.4 here:
http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm

System

Andy, for low ambient light work (w/o flash) would you say the 85mm L is a better lens than this 50mm L or are they both not worth the $?

ChrisRPhoto

Here is a comparison between the 85 1.2L and 50mm 1.2L that someone posted recently on Rob Galbraith website, hopefully this will help you decide.

It depends on what sort of work you have in mind for the lens in question,
the 85mm is quite a bit more telephoto then the 50mm so it's horses for courses really.

Chris

truth wrote:

Andy, for low ambient light work (w/o flash) would you say the 85mm L is a better lens than this 50mm L or are they both not worth the $?

Andy

truth wrote:

Andy, for low ambient light work (w/o flash) would you say the 85mm L is a better lens than this 50mm L or are they both not worth the $?

Different lenses for different jobs.
The 85 f/1.2L is better for portraits, a more useful FL for portraits.

ChrisRPhoto

Well after all the reading of forums tests etc, I decided to bite the bullet so to speak and purchase the 50mm 1.2L

All I can say that it is a superb lens to use, the biggest difference is not so much the sharpness, but the gorgeous tones, colour, contrast and feel it gives especially under 2.8 oh and the Bokeh is so creamy it knocks the spots of double whipped cream!!

Indeed I did some tests between the standard 1.8 and my new 1.2L and even in a studio with a white background at f5.6 there is a big difference, the 1.8's colours look muddy and flat where as the 1.2L is crisp and clean.

The only drawback of this lens or the one I have is you have to get the focussing spot on, if you are slightly out it really shows, the lens tends to focus just slightly behind the autofocus spot from my 1DmkII, I have seen tests online that have had a similar problem on other cameras.

Anyway, below is a sample taken at f1.6 and for me it just shows how clean and natural looking the colours are.

Chris

pathfinder

B&H has it for $1,259 now.

It is getting more appealing every day:D

roentarre

I love 50L very much and I often use it when I got nothing else planned to shoot in life.

My 50L gallery

http://www.roentarre.com/Gallery.aspx?id=1&lid=3