50mm f/1.4 vs f/1.2 L

[Jordan]

I am a happy owner of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and a Canon 7D. I

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[Sean Setters]

Since you

[Jordan]

Yes, that

[Jon Ruyle]

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

[Chuck Lee]

This is one of the best comparisons I

[JustinThyme]

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.

[Jon Ruyle]

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.

I agree that getting the 50 f/1.2 for sharpness is probably a mistake.

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 .

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.

[JustinThyme]

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.

[Jon Ruyle]

Bryan