Does anybody have an opinion on this? I mean sure, an L lens is an L lens, but has anybody messed with the both of these lenses to find a huge difference in quality?

Should I really toss $1000 extra dollars for the F-Stop difference and the red line?

Your thoughts....

I have the 1.4 with no complaints. Couldn't justify the extra $$ for 1.2...maybe someday though.

I was wondering the same thing. I tried the 1.4 today and loved it.

when you own the 50 1.2, you'll understand.

yeah, 1.2 all the way.

She speaks the truth! The 50mm F1.2 is killer! You will be sorry if you cheap out.

I have the 1.4 and like it, have used the 1.2 as a loaner and liked it better.

totally unrelated...Jim Cook that avatar just about made me pee my pants! Is she getting ready to field dress a moose?

kate

Kate, what did you like better about the 1.2? Noticeably smoother bokeh, sharper or more reliable focus, anything specific you could share? I can't speak for the OP, but while I believe the folks saying the L series is better, I'm interested in a bit more substantial of a comparison so I know just what that extra $1K would be getting me other than the reassurance that I'm using the best glass available.

Haven't shot with one myself (that's my disclaimer)

The learning curve on the 1.2 is a bit different; I've heard that you get many shots OOF, but when in focus... you die for want of staring at the images forever. I've also heard that the bokeh is practically like watercolor painting by pushing a shutter. The DOF on the lens is awesome (think tip of nose in focus, rest of face out of focus). Not to mention the fast aperture (ISO 1600-3200 -- yes it goes higher, but I have a 30D, so that's where it stops -- with a 1.2 aperture anyone?). Build quality is different; there's a LOT of glass in the 1.2.

That said, on the alternative side, it's my understanding that the 1.4 focuses faster.

But if I had the $$ I'd get the 1.2 and be done with it. Portraits, bridals, dark environments all the way.

i asked the same question about this lens - it was either the 85 1.2L or the 50 1.2L - i went with the 50 and i am glad i did.


its very fast and an unbelievable portrait lens. i owned the 50 1.4 and stopped using it when i got my 85, now i am using my 50 1.2 and my 85 is gathering dust

and yes, its THAT noticeable of a difference. now, i didnt go into debt buying it - but if you can afford it, i recommend it.

tami if that 85 is gathering dust i wouldnt mind cleaning it up, if your thinking of selling it ive been torn with these 1.2 lenses and im just pining for one good one - either the 85 or the 50 1.2 - the 85 is just a tad bit too far for me, and id probably get a 135 2.0 for the sharpness. lenses lenses lenses... grr

no, field dress a donkey.

Thanks for all of the great replies! 1.2 it is

If you want a pretty thorough review then go here:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm

It's a pretty nice breakdown with side by side image comparisons at various aperatures.

One of the things that stood out to me was the improvement of lens flare. It helps when you are trying to back light a subject without losing all the nce contrast on their faces.

Interesting... according to those tests, the 1.2 slightly outperformed the 1.4 but I didn't see enough difference in those tests to justify 5x in the price.

Thanks for adding the link to that review, Matthew! I've been looking to upgrade my 50/1.8. I can't justify the cost for the 1.2. I think the 1.4 is the right version for me.

I have not used the 1.2 but I will say this for the 1.4... I tested the focus on all my lenses with my mkIII bodies last night and against all my lenses (70-200 f2.8L IS, 24-70 f2.8L, 17-40 f4L) the 50mm 1.4 was the sharpest lens in my bag. It cost the least and is the sharpest... go figure. I don't use primes all that much but this lens is SHARP!

Plus if you care, I happen to know that it weighs tons less than the 1.2 lens!

This is a 100% crop of my 70-200 and 50 1.4 side by side. for what it is worth

mind you the 50 is the only prime lense in your bag to compare against. i have the same lenses as you except for the 17-40 which i dont have. ive recently had the decision between upgrading to a 50 1.2 or 85, or getting a 50 1.2 and 85 1.8 but in the end i decided to get the 85 1.2 and keep the 50 1.4 due to the sheer sharpness and toning from the 85 with bokeh.

I'm looking to replace my 50 1.4. Here are my reasons: 1) the bokeh is only good, not great, 2) the mechanical system they use on the 50 1.4 is not great - mine will be going in for another overhaul soon and this is completely normal with the 50 1.4 - it starts to hunt for focus rather than snapping into focus about every other year, and 3) it is my most used lens (in combination with the 24 1.4), so I want my most used lens to be excellent.

Now I'm a little torn because I want the 50 1.2, but I was talking to someone that has the new Sigma 50 1.4 ($500) and the 50 1.2 ($1400) and he was telling me that sharpness is a wash, bokeh is a wash, contrast is better with the 1.2, af is better with the sigma (wow!), and color is better with the 1.2.

Since my wish list for improvement is better af and better bokeh, color can be fixed in LR, the canon L micro-contrast would be nice, but it's supposed to be better on the Sigma than on my 1.4 canon, so why don't I go for the Sigma? Because, I wanted him to justify my lust for another L prime, not to save me money!

I second that... 1.2 or nothing for me... and I have both so my opinion counts.

Jim, U sexy in that ALL American Bikini!!

Oh yes... the issue at hand... my $0.02:

So far my 1.4 bites the dust EVERY year like clockwork... so ya might as well invest in the 1.2 which is SOOO much less squeaky!

I didn't read all of the replies, but the shocking thing about the 50 1.4 to me has been the COLOR. It reproduces such rich color compared to the 1.4.


Oh and Liana...FANCY avatar with the changing you!

I have a 50 1.4 and personally love it. Freaking beautiful images from it. Razor sharp at 1.4 (atleast my copy). I dropped it on concrete little over a year ago and has never showed any sign of fail.

I have never used the 50 1.2 before so I can't say anything for it or against it.

exactly. unless you have owned or have used the 1.2 you wont see the difference.

I had the 50 1.4 and sold it for the 1.2. For me, it was a reliability (in terms of AF) and build quality. The 50 1.4 would hunt badly in the dark and I hated this at weddings. The 1.2 is a total gem and I'm glad I have it. The color beats the 1.4 hands down, too.

The 50mm 1.4 is a great lens. If you are on a budget and cannot see yourself affording the 1.2 in the next year or so then I would say get the 1.4.

If you can afford the 1.2 then there is no reason it shouldn't be in your bag. It's a kick ass lens and 1.2 lets in a lot of light. Think of all the low light possibilities with that lens!

Now if you can find one.. the 1.0 is just about the craziest lens in existence. Here's one at 1.0 straight outta the camera just converted to a 640x480 jpeg no other editing.
Click to view attachment

How about the Zeiss Planar 50 f1.4 which has just been announced for Canon:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/revie...ss_for_eos.html

I'm very curious about this lens.

I think the 1.2 is well worth it, if you like that focal length.

This is gonna be my next 50mm: http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_s...enses/5915.html

Just need to sell my 50/1.2 to afford it and an M6 ... might sell my kidney, too. $11k is a bit steep for a 50mm, but mmm. Leica.

can i have your 1.0 ?????

Thanks for all the insight guys...I don't either lens and have gone back and forth on whether to save up for the 1.2 or go for the 1.4 and it's discussions like these that are really helpful in the decision-making process!

This is really a matter of what do you need most in your business. Do you already have the other required lenses such as the 70-200 2.8 IS? Do you have a good marketing strategy and branding etc....? If you are starting up, the 50 1.4 is a great lens. I noticed a huge improvement over my 50 1.8 II. I can't compare with the 50 1.2 yet, but my 1.4 has excellent sharpness and focuses fine as of now. I will eventually get the 1.2 down the road, but you need to think to yourself where is the best place to put $1000 right now in your business. If a 50 1.2 is what will bring your business to the next level, then grab it. If not, consider getting a 1.4 and some other stuff.

My .02.

I agree with Chris that as I build my biz and gather the other necessary things, the 50 1.4 has been a great lens for me without busting my bank. (I bought it around the time I got my 5D and a bunch of other essentials so I was bleeding a bit of money at the time.) I still wonder though what else I could be doing if I had the 1.2.

My hesitation on the 50 1.2 is how slow it is to focus. (Am I right?) I think it would be great for seniors (I don't do weddings) but I worry that it wouldn't be able to keep up with faster moving kids or babies. Thoughts on that?

PS I'm such a thread killer, though it is Saturday and most everybody is probably at a wedding. ; )

i just used mine yesterday and it rarely came off my camera. i am a MF kinda girl though so i wouldnt know about the slowness.

Couldn't have said it better. I started out with the 1.4 and loved it... then bought the 1.2 for low light weddings and haven't used my 1.4 since!!! I keep it as a backup but the 1.2 is just amazing! It's by far my favorite!!!

for your soul bwahahhaaaa

It's the 85 1.2 that's slow to focus. The 50 1.2 is super fast and it tracks beautifully. My 50 1.4 just broke and I bought the 50 1.2 after having rented it and used a friend's a lot. Yay! I am now ALL L series primes and I couldn't be happier....until I get my 5D Mark II...and a wife...and own a condo...in Manhattan...and Obama is president...oh, babies would be nice.

The 50 1.2 is my most used lens, and I have no issues with it focusing slow or back focusing. The thing is tack sharp on my 1DMKIII and I could not live without it!