I am a happy owner of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and a Canon 7D. I
Printable View
I am a happy owner of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and a Canon 7D. I
The additional light is minimal (the half-stop of light will be much less benefit than the better ISO noise of a FF camera). The 50/1.4 does have FTM, I think - it's got micromotor USM, not ring USM, but there's a clutch in there so you can MF without switching to MF (that's a unique design, and might be one reason for some of the reported AF issues with the lens).
Mostly, what you're paying for with the 50L is the creamy bokeh the lens can produce. If that's something you want in your portraits, then it's a great lens.
Since you
Yes, that
I think John is exactly right- the deal with the 50 1.2 is the bokeh. The build quality is better and it is a little faster, but IMO these differences alone are not worth the extra money. It is the bokeh that sets the f/1.2L apart from the f/1.4 and the f/1.8. There is a dramatic demonstration of this in Bryan
This is one of the best comparisons I
My advice is to stick with the 50 1.4. I tried the 50 1.2 and didnt care for it at all. The IQ was better than the 50 1.4 by just a tad up to f2 but after that the 50 1.4 was sharper and past 2.8 even the plastic fantastic 50 1.8 was sharper. The bokeh of the 1.2 and 1.4 isnt all that different and can only really be noticed if you have lights or other well lit round objects in the background,without these objects in the background its not too noticeable and is only pronounced when shot wide open . Other than that you cant really tell the difference. So if you plan to use it just to shoot at f2 or wider then It performs well. Personally while I find a narrow DOF pleasing on some images at the focal length I dont shoot with the aperture that narrow at that focal length very often. If you want a real winner go a little longer and get the 85 1.2L. For some reason Canon cant seem to get the 50L right. They failed miserably with the 50 1.0L and not doing any better with the 1.2 IMO. On the upswing if you do get it and it gets phased out as quickly as the 1.0 did it will be a collectable just due to rarity. I see more 50 1.2Ls get bought on used boards then resold in less than a week. Im guessing those folks liked the glass about as much as I did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinThyme
I agree that getting the 50 f/1.2 for sharpness is probably a mistake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinThyme
Different scenarios give different results, and I haven't done my own comparison between the two under controlled conditions. But I was pretty impressed by the comparison in Bryan's review. That comparison makes it seem like the bokeh is very different.
The bokeh is different but only noticeable wide open and under certain conditions like the lights, reflections of lights or round objects. Now there is a world of difference when comparing to the 6 blade aperture of the 50 1.8.
Bryan
I think you were expecting the 50mm L to live up to it's reputation and it wasn't quite what you expected in terms of bokeh. You also don't have to have have a light source in the bokeh to stress out the lenses bokeh ablities, a busy background can be as bad or worse as a light source in the background. To me bokeh is very important in portriats and the differance is definitely worth it if you are being paid for a wedding. It's a tougher call if it's just a hobby, you have to justify how much you will use it, how much it would benefit your photographs and if it's worth the price for you.
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinThyme
I've never used the 50L, but comparing an analogous pair - the 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II and the 85mm f/1.8 - there is a differnce in bokeh at the same aperture, evident even though I wasn't trying to show it in this comparison. Unlike the 50L, the 85L isn't optimized for better bokeh, but still wins over the 85/1.8 in that area.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4122/...aef2de35_z.jpg
FWIW, the 50/1.8 II has five aperture blades, not six.
I stand corrected it is 5 blades.
Yes you can see the difference in extremely cropped areas, but now look at the intended full image and honestly can you spot the difference? Most of the time you will not. I went through this once before with both on another forum with a poll and didnt disclose which was which. The correct answers were as expected about 50%. when shot at the same aperture. and only providing an 800x600 to view so no one could open the original and pixel peep. Beleive me Im as anal as they come and do a lot of pixel peeping. I take the 85L over the 85 1.8 but no so with the 50L over the 50 1.4.
I dont shoot weddings so I cant speak for that avenue, Wedding photogs in the NYC metro area are a dime a dozen, literally thousands so either you get lucky and get in and make a little money at it or you do like most do and starve trying to make a living at it. I do lots of potraits though, mostly senior packages and sportraits and the 50L is still not a lens of choice. When shooting potraits I generally have 3 lenses with me. The 85L, the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 200 f2L.. On occasion and venue related Ill also sneak a 35L, 50 1.4 and 24-70 in the bag.
Avoiding a busy background is a primary rule regardless of what glass is used and at what aperture. An example is like at soccer games. I do whatever it is I have to to keep the folks on the sidelines out of the frame. Even shooting a premium lens with a narrow DOF they can still ruin a perfectly good image.
Im usually the first one that will stand up and push L glass and usually get scolded with...."Well everyone cant afford that".
Just not in the case of the 50L. The 50 1.4 is the only non L glass I own.
Thanks for all your input folks! Yeah, I really am looking for an excuse to get the 50L, but in reality, I figure there is little need for it. In fact, other than weddings, I feel there is NO need for it. I'm just trying to see if I start doing weddings, if it's something worth upgrading to. I WISH I had the 200 f/2 Justin. I have used it before (there is a photo on my site of a football player hiking the ball... that was with a 7D, 200 f/2 and 2x converter) but I've found the 70-200 f/2.8 with a 1.4x does fine for sports, and without the converter for most portraits (see photo below, 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM & 1.4x converter on a 7D). I have the 85mm f/1.4 (Zeiss) for portraits, but being manual focus it's hard for moving people and not great for when I NEED the shot. I think I'll stick with the 50mm f/1.4 for now, as I know that's a more than capable lens. I need to start making money with the photography.. before I go buy more toys! The only thing I really NEED right now is a FF camera... and it would be nice to have a wider fast prime... like the 35mm f/1.4 L. Soon I hope! :)
[View:http://freshpics.smugmug.com/Other/PORTFOLIO/16128507_KAPYd#1210931677_jcf56-M-LB:550:0]
freshpics.smugmug.com
freshphotography.us
freshphotoblog.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinThyme
Why only 600x800 pix? You don't view an image that small even an your computer. Youshould usesomething more like 1600 pix wide for a comparison, a typical resolution for the average moniter. When I view an image on my comupter Ifill up the whole screan or 90% ofit, not a tiny portion.In a 8x10 the diferances should be clear as well.
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
Agreed. Or in a 24x30" gallery wrap...which is how some wedding potraits will likely end up.
While budgets are budgets and the justifying of certain expenses by use aside...
The third of a stop is obviously not the selling point of this lens. That said, the 50 1.2
Good to hear from you Keith! Were you able to pick up the 135mm f/2.0 yet? I remember it being on your short list. If so, what are your thoughts? When do you find yourself grabbing it instead of the 85mm f/1.2?
Hey Mark
Thanks! Yeah I have been ridiculously busy lately so I haven
Keeth you have some valid points. My intention is not to totally deiscredit the glass. If you have that specialty need, much like Bryan posted in his review its a respectable choice. I dont have the need to shoot at f2 or wider very often and as stated before when I do the 85L is right there. As for colors and contrast I did notice a slight difference but found that bumping up saturation and contrast a notch put that to rest.
Im not referring to blowing up at full resolution on a 24 inch screen and pixel peeping either. Reference was to an 8X10 print, which is the norm max size for portriats, and viewing the prints side by side you would have to break out a loupe to see any difference and shot at f 2.8 to f 5.6 you will nottice the difference in sharpness with the 50 1.4 taking a lead and any perceived bokeh difference would be a moot point IMO. Eyes are drawn more to the in focus subject and if thats not defined........moving right along. to the next shot.
In not going even for a mniute going to dispute the superior build quality as with all L glass. I dont need weather sealing with shorter glass as when Im in the predicamnet its usally on a field with a super tele and have the approprite rain gear. Dont have but 3 lenes with me at that point, 70-200 2.8, 200 f2, 400 2.8.
Theres a lot that weighs into the decision. For me, in the end, the lack of sharpness past f2 was the deciding factor even weighing in that I could replace the 50 1.4 3 times and still have change should I breach the weather sealing or drop it. If I do it more than 3 times I need to put the gear up for sale as I have obviously gotten too old for it. ;o)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinThyme
As you said you would need a loupe to see any significant differance in sharpness between the two in a 8x10, probobly would be very small even in a larger print. You don't need a large print to appreciate bokeh, there will situations that would make them hard to tell apart the more often than not it's the other way around. In a wedding for example there is a lot going on the the background at 50mm whether on a full-frame or 1.6. The differance would be clear in almost every single shot. If you do moreoutdoors type shots with a simpler background the differance would be less and you would have a harder time telling them apart.
I just looked at the contrast and vigeneting in the Bryans ISO 112233 charts and the contrast and claritydifferance is very bigespecially in the mid frame and corners, I tried uping them in DXO and DPP and they just didn't look the same.There isjust a hazinessthat contrastcouldn'tfix.I think what Kieth has said is a valid point also.
John.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Glass
Compensating for contrast in post will never be the same as the contrast through the lens. All post contrast does is fill in shadow and blow out whites. Even tweaking the shadow and highlights will give some odd effects. Contrast through the lens is letting the sensor achieve it's best possible dynamic range by maintaining shadow detail and retaining highlights while having amazing midtones, which in my opinion, the 1.2 does amazingly well.
Wasnt referring to post proicess, was referring to in camera settings if using in camera jpeg(which I nver do) or in ACR.
The loupe reference was for bokeh. I can see the sharpness difference with the naked eye.
In a perfect world with every image taken it is preferable to not have to do any post process. I love nothing more than to convert from raw for final output and leave it at that.
Bottom line is if you have the need for the lens at wider than f2 its marginally better IMO. Past F2 it becomes weaker.
I use others reviews as a reference prior to making a purchase but make my own deductions after the fact. My deduction is the 50 1.2L when compared to other L glass, 35 1.4 on the wider and 85 1.2 on the other end it doesnt come close to producing the same results from my personal observations. If it works for you then hey, stick with what works for you. My personal observation was disappointment from a Canon L in the 50mm FL once again.
I have to agree with the comments by Justin and others. Having owned both 50 1.4 and 50 1.2 (and 85 1.8 and 85 1.2 for that matter) I
Hey guys! I'm updating my post here... So since this thread was started I haven't bought a 50mm f/1.2 OR FF camera... BUT... I rented a FF camera (5DMkII) this past weekend for a wedding on Sat and for a birthday party on Sunday.
First of all, I WANTED to rent the 50mm f/1.2 as well (since it was only $40 for the weekend to rent) but the deposit was too much for me. I went ahead and used the 5DMkII on my EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and I must say, the photos are very nice. I think that I answered my own question just by testing it out. I have used the 1.2 (on my 7D) and it's a great lens, but I really don't think it's worth the price difference. Yes it gives a shallower DOF, but so does my very same lens when used on a FF camera (duh! something I didn't take into consideration before!)
Please tell me what you think of the photos in general, thanks!
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/5850.20110924_2D00_WED_2D00_freshphotoblog_2D00_19 2.jpg[/img]
5DMkII & 50mm f/1.4, ISO 100 f/1.6 @ 1/1250sec (light edits in Lightroom 3)
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/4572.20110924_2D00_WED_2D00_freshphotoblog_2D00_38 5.jpg[/img]
5DMkII & 50mm f/1.4, ISO 100 f/1.6 @ 1/400sec (light edits in Lightroom 3)
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/2502.20110925_2D00_Sofia_2D00_421.jpg[/img]
5DMkII & 50mm f/1.4, ISO 100 f/1.8 @ 1/160sec, 580EXII bounced off the ceiling (no editing)
http://www.freshphotoblog.com
(the FIRST photo on my portfolio of the family was shot on my 7D with the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, just FYI)
shot at ISO 320 (I don't know why!) f/2, 1/2000sec using natural light
(the second photo on my portfolio of the kid running was shot on a Rebel of some kind with a 50mm f/1.8. you can tell from looking at it that it's the nifty-fifty yeah?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan
Great! I must say that you've got some balls shooting a wedding ceremony and unstaged photos at f1.6! Or maybe I'm too much of a pixel-freak ;) I really like one with the woman and the girl.
If the 50mm f1.2L is worth it, I'll leave that in the middle. I've seen shots with it, that are so buttery smooth, really cool. But indeed the price difference is hard to ignore. On the other hand, I think the 7D is a piece with too much annoying technical thingies which can(and will in my case) screw up your photos(I know, I'm probably the only one thinking that on this forum ^^). How did you like the 5D?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordan
If I had a comparison photo, I might see the difference, but I can't tell by looking at it to be fair :)