I agree that it's not scientific, but I do find it helpful so see side by side comparisons of these lenses with everyday pictures (not in a controlled setting).
As a side note, I'm a minimalist and prefer to shoot with 2 primes most of the time. The 85/1.2 is perfect for me on the long end. But the 35/1.4 is a bit too wide, and the 50s are a bit too long. My ideal on the shorter end would be something like Pentax's excellent 43/1.7. Perfect focal length for me: right between 35 and 50. And that lens has a unique character that is quite recognizable. I did pick up the 40/2.8 and enjoy it, but I'd still prefer a 43mm and faster aperture.
I'm virtually certain that will never happen, so for now I work with what I've got.
badlydrawnboy wrote:
I've used the Canon 50/1.2, 50/1.4 and 50/1.8, as well as the Sigma 50/1.4. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and I think it is difficult to tell the difference between them in everyday shots.
I am still trying to decide myself between the 50/1.2 and 50/1.4. 50mm is my most-used focal length by far, so I really wish the 50/1.2 was at the same level as the 35L and 85L II (both of which I have). In my opinion, it's not. It is more consistent wide open than the 50/1.4, and of course lets in a little more light, but my copy of the 50/1.4 is actually sharper wide open than my 50/1.2. I also like the smaller weight and size of the 50/1.4.
As for the proposed "magic quality" of the 50/1.2, I just don't see it. I've made shots with both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 that people have assigned this quality to, and I think it depends a lot more on light, color, composition and processing than any special quality of the lens.
I may end up going with the 50/1.2 for the consistency, build quality, and slightly wider aperture. But I don't think it's worth >$1,000 than the 50/1.4 – not by a long shot. In contrast, I've never once regretted the absurd amount of money I spent on the 85L....Show more →
I'm the opposite, the 50mm focal range was always more natural/useful to me than the 85LmkII i had briefly.. but, do you find the 50L to be generally more consistent with AF than the 50 1.4? I've used the Canon 50 1.4 a little bit in the past, but I tested it mostly alongside the Sigma 50 1.4, which was sharper/better tonally but also maddeningly inconsistent.. I sold the Canon 50 1.4 to use the Sigma 50, but after a few mths that drove me nuts & I "settled" on the 50L despite the price tag - haven't really looked back, but some days I wonder if I could not miss a single step by "downgrading" to the 50 1.4..
I like the 50L's build quality a ton more, the feeling of reassurance is important to me & I've heard too many stories of Canon 50 1.4's breaking down randomly to really trust it the same way I do the 50L.
I will say my chitty little 50/1.4 is better behaved (focus wise) on 5D3 that it has been on anything else - much less spastic and it's reliable now. It has actually suprised me, in a pleasant way.
Half way decent at f/2 under artificial lighting... And most of the set that I took was sharp right on the anthers and stigma.
My 50/1.4 focuses just as consistently as my 50/1.2, if not more so. (And I have sent the 50/1.2 to Canon, which improved it by leaps and bounds, so I'm pretty sure it's as good as it can get.)
badlydrawnboy wrote:
My 50/1.4 focuses just as consistently as my 50/1.2, if not more so. (And I have sent the 50/1.2 to Canon, which improved it by leaps and bounds, so I'm pretty sure it's as good as it can get.)
thanks, my 50L's been to CPS & back as well - found the tolerances a little tighter for sure, but is still by no means perfect (esp compared to Canon's other star primes)
that said, i LOVE the 50L from f/1.6 to f/2 - one of my bread & butter lenses for sure, even with the "personality" that it has
I've always loved my 1.4, and for the price I can't justify the 1.2 (especially since I mostly shoot wildlife and the 50 is not much good for that for a number of reasons). Here is a shot from my 1DIII with the 50 f/1.4 that shows why I'm still in love with the lens. It's of my good friend and pro photographer, Wayde Carroll ( www.waydecarroll.com ). Sometimes it's the only lens I will take on a trip if I need to go light and I'm not planning on shooting wildlife.
I finally gave up on 50mm. The 50L was just too big of an investment and 2 different 1.4s never seem to focus well wide open. There were so many horror stories (generally off set by positive reviews) of the Sigma that I just didn't want to get involved. I've finally put a 35L on a 1.3 crop and have gotten, I think, a better set of results than I would have from a 50mm. No way to prove it of course, but to my eye it works so that's what I'm going with.
OntheRez wrote:
I finally gave up on 50mm. The 50L was just too big of an investment and 2 different 1.4s never seem to focus well wide open. There were so many horror stories (generally off set by positive reviews) of the Sigma that I just didn't want to get involved. I've finally put a 35L on a 1.3 crop and have gotten, I think, a better set of results than I would have from a 50mm. No way to prove it of course, but to my eye it works so that's what I'm going with.
Rober
Sigh. That's pretty much where I've come to, but I have a full-frame body and I love the 50mm field of view. I'm really hoping Canon updates the 50/1.4 as they've done with the wider-angle primes, and they make it sharper and more consistent at wider apertures. I could care less about IS, but considering the trend, I imagine it will have it.
I'd be willing to pay $700-$800 for a high quality, compact 50/1.4.
In the meantime, I'm learning to see better with the 35mm. In some ways it has changed the way I shoot, and I'm enjoying the new perspective.
I'm also considering getting an OM-D + the Panasonic/Leica 25/1.4 which is highly regarded.
