Canon 50mm: f/1.4 vs f/1.2?

Nikolai

I am really interested in hearing about the hand-on experiecne of comparing the results of these two. Is f/1.2 really *so* much better to justify its - huge - premium? I mean, with the new DigicIII processor in MkIII and 40D, high ISO are more usable than ever...:scratch

sirsloop

I dont remember where I read it... either here, POTN, or a blog somewhere... the results showed that the 50/1.2 was marginally better than the 50/1.4 in some areas. On a 1.6x sensor, I think you'll end up paying for build quality alone. The 1.4 version is sturdy, fast, has a good aperture, and performs very well. I don't have any first hand experience with the L version, but the 1.4 is simply fantastic.

wxwax

I played with it briefly, and it was very, very sweet. Great bokeh.

It's also a lot larger, a lot heavier and a lot more expensive.

All are important considerations. I want one, but I also want a 200 1.8. IOW, very cool, but I don't need it, not even close.

Andy

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2217311

Nikolai

Thanks, guys!
Appreciate it!

Nikolai

Andy wrote:

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2217311

Thanks, Andy!
I guess I'm sold... on f/1.4 :-)

sirsloop

yeh... save your cash for a 35/1.4

Nikolai

sirsloop wrote:

yeh... save your cash for a 35/1.4

saurora

Nikolai wrote:

Thanks, Andy!
I guess I'm sold... on f/1.4 :-)

At least with the f/1.4 (if it doesn't meet your needs), you can easily re-sell it as they are pretty affordable and in demand. I just recently bought one myself....haven't really tested it out yet, but gave a lot of thought to the f/1.2. Just decided I couldn't justify it. I don't think I've ever read anything but high praise for the f/1.4 now that I think about it....everyone seems to love theirs!

Nikolai

saurora wrote:

At least with the f/1.4 (if it doesn't meet your needs), you can easily re-sell it as they are pretty affordable and in demand. I just recently bought one myself....haven't really tested it out yet, but gave a lot of thought to the f/1.2. Just decided I couldn't justify it. I don't think I've ever read anything but high praise for the f/1.4 now that I think about it....everyone seems to love theirs!

Yeah, looks like it. They are going new for $299 free shipping no tax, so it looks like you can get them whenever...

LiquidAir

As an owner of a 5D, it is a no brainer to get the 50/1.4. The reason to want the 1.2 is for that sweet bokeh when shooting portraits, but 50mm isn't a common portrait focal length on a full frame body. On a crop body its tougher because 50mm is such a great portrait focal lengh, but the 50/1.4 bokeh is a bit inconsistant. Sometimes nice, sometimes a bit ragged. I think it varies with aperture, so if you shoot with it a lot you will probably get a feeling for the best apertures to use.

If you are looking for a headshot prime, consider an 85/1.8. On a crop body 85 is a perfectly reasonable focal length for headshots and its bokeh is more consistantly nice than the 50/1.4. You can pick up both the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 for less than the 50L.

Nikolai

LiquidAir wrote:

As an owner of a 5D, it is a no brainer to get the 50/1.4. The reason to want the 1.2 is for that sweet bokeh when shooting portraits, but 50mm isn't a common portrait focal length on a full frame body. On a crop body its tougher because 50mm is such a great portrait focal lengh, but the 50/1.4 bokeh is a bit inconsistant. Sometimes nice, sometimes a bit ragged. I think it varies with aperture, so if you shoot with it a lot you will probably get a feeling for the best apertures to use.

If you are looking for a headshot prime, consider an 85/1.8. On a crop body 85 is a perfectly reasonable focal length for headshots and its bokeh is more consistantly nice than the 50/1.4. You can pick up both the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8 for less than the 50L.

Ken,
I hear ya, good suggestion. Thanks, man!

ChatKat

Nik, you can try mine out
Hey, Nik -

I have the 50 1.2 if you want to run a few test shots at Starbucks. There are a number of shots that I don't think I'd have gotten - hand held in almost dark spaces - without that lens. My 2.8's definitely would not have worked. I thought you have the 50 1.4 or did you sell it?

That said, I wouldn't mind a fantastic plastic to have for travel...light and cheap and makes the camera not look too pricey.

I love 50mm portraits. I did a series yesterday with it. My next lens will probably be the 135 2.0...

Nikolai

ChatKat wrote:

Hey, Nik -

I have the 50 1.2 if you want to run a few test shots at Starbucks. There are a number of shots that I don't think I'd have gotten - hand held in almost dark spaces - without that lens. My 2.8's definitely would not have worked. I thought you have the 50 1.4 or did you sell it?

That said, I wouldn't mind a fantastic plastic to have for travel...light and cheap and makes the camera not look too pricey.

I love 50mm portraits. I did a series yesterday with it. My next lens will probably be the 135 2.0...

No, I only have f/1.8. I think about f/1.4. But maybe I need to get a few paid gigs with the existing equipment first..:-)

DavidTO

Nikolai wrote:

No, I only have f/1.8. I think about f/1.4. But maybe I need to get a few paid gigs with the existing equipment first..:-)

Nik,

You could always borrow my 1.4 if you wanted to test it out...

Nikolai

DavidTO wrote:

Nik, You could always borrow my 1.4 if you wanted to test it out...

Wow what a neighbours!
Looks like I can get both 1.2 and 1.4 and compare them to my meager 1.8

Thanks, guys, I may take you up on this!

borrowlenses.com

Nikolai wrote:

Wow what a neighbours!
Looks like I can get both 1.2 and 1.4 and compare them to my meager 1.8

Thanks, guys, I may take you up on this!

I can tell you from experience of a rental company, most of our customers were much happier with the 50 1.2. The shallow DOF, the L glass and the overall better construction made customers happier. Of course, until it was time to buy the sucker...then they got really sad really fast

Nikolai

borrowlenses.com wrote:

I can tell you from experience of a rental company, most of our customers were much happier with the 50 1.2. The shallow DOF, the L glass and the overall better construction made customers happier. Of course, until it was time to buy the sucker...then they got really sad really fast

Thanks for pitching in:-)
Yeah, I sure understand the L quality and such, but my, is it expensive...:cry

borrowlenses.com

Nikolai wrote:

Thanks for pitching in:-)
Yeah, I sure understand the L quality and such, but my, is it expensive...:cry

Well that's why you rent the darn thing, instead of buying it

claudermilk

No agenda there at all!

wxwax

borrowlenses.com wrote:

Well that's why you rent the darn thing, instead of buying it

borrowlenses.com

claudermilk wrote:

No agenda there at all!

Am I that transparent?

borrowlenses.com

wxwax wrote:

Smiling at my comment doesn't equate to renting a lens - OK I'll stop now, I promise

KRFamiliar

Nikolai wrote:

I am really interested in hearing about the hand-on experiecne of comparing the results of these two. Is f/1.2 really *so* much better to justify its - huge - premium? I mean, with the new DigicIII processor in MkIII and 40D, high ISO are more usable than ever...

Its not low light shooting, its depth of field, and even then, sometimes you need a half stop over the 50 f/1.4, and higher quality glass, so i hear. the thing is, if you really have to ask if the 50 f/1.2 is worth it compared to the f/1.4, you probably dont need it.

Nikolai

KRFamiliar wrote:

Its not low light shooting, its depth of field, and even then, sometimes you need a half stop over the 50 f/1.4, and higher quality glass, so i hear. the thing is, if you really have to ask if the 50 f/1.2 is worth it compared to the f/1.4, you probably dont need it.

Can you elaborate please? With 50mm as a portrait, shooting from a few feet, even with f/1.4 if you have a nose in focus you won't get the eyes, and vice versa. f/1.2 would be total overkill, no?