50mm f/1.4 vs f/1.2 L

[JustinThyme]

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)

[Fast Glass]

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.

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.

[Keith B]

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.

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.

[JustinThyme]

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.

[Rob Gardner]

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

[Jordan]

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?)

[Sheiky]

Please tell me what you think of the photos in general, thanks!

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?

(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?)

If I had a comparison photo, I might see the difference, but I can't tell by looking at it to be fair