50mm f/1.4 vs f/1.2 L

[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

[Fast Glass]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

The bokeh is different but only noticeable wide open and under certain conditions like the lights, reflections of lights or round objects.

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.

[wickerprints]

FWIW, the 50/1.8 II has five aperture blades, not six.

[JustinThyme]

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.

[Jordan]

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 &amp; 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

[Fast Glass]

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.

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.