Aside from the obvious aperture difference, is the image quality significantly better on the canon 1.2 vs. the canon 1.4? I use my 1.8 a lot and am considering if its worth the upgrade and which one would be better. I generally shoot portraiture and NILMDTS.
I think a reasonable summary is that the 1.4 is worth it for sure, and the 1.2 is possibly worth it for the atmosphere you can create - but only if the considerable extra cost does not keep you from having other things that are more important for your photography.
Now you can read through the lengthy discussions that Sunny linked.
I owned both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L for about two years. I sold the 50/1.4 because it doesn't do f/1.2, which is what I like. If I don't want to shoot at f/1.2, I generally perfer to use my 24-70/2.8L II.
Also, build quality and focusing speed is considerably better in the 50L. The 50/1.4 is the only current Canon lens to use the tiny, under-powered Micro USM focusing motor -- prone to breakage more than any other motor. The lens itself is very good, image-wise, but lacks the charm and atmosphere of the f/1.2.
I rank the Canon 50s like this (IQ, build, focus accuracy):
50L
50/2.5 Macro
50/1.4
50/1.8
50/1.8 II
In your position, my choice would be between the 50L or the 50 Macro. (I own both. )
Both lenses are optically very good. The difference is not so much in the IQ but more how the lenses behave in AF performance and how they are built. Main well known issue of the 50/1.4 is the likelihood of having a stuck AF at some point - it tends to happen easily if the front part of the 50/1.4 lens is not protected well by the lens hood. I carried my 50/1.4 once in a camera bag and put something on top of it - not too heavy, but afterwards the AF was stuck. I was able to initiate the AF again by shaking the lens a few times.
The 50/1.2 is extremely well built and also the AF works a lot more reliable at fast apertures with my 5D MkII camera. f/1.2 provides nice creamy background effects. I cannot tell the difference in photos taken by both lenses at f/1.4 other that the bokeh is a tiny bit smoother with the 50/1.2 lens.
The 50/1.2 is my favorite walk-around lens on full frame, but I also keep the 50/1.4 since it is less heavy and fits easily in every camera bag if weight is limited.
I would go with the "if you need the look or aperture then get it" crowd. 50mm lenses have followed a very basic optical scheme for decades and stopping down any of the Canon EF series 50mm lenses will look very similar from what I've heard. Granted the 1.8 has the least number of aperture blades for stopped down smooth bokeh. The functional differences are, as others have mentioned as well, include:
50mm 1.2, 8-circular blades, proper USM w/FTM
50mm 1.4, 8-blades, micro USM w/FTM
50mm 1.8, 5-blades, CSM (chainsaw motor )
Not sure what your camera body is, but I feel like a FF body benefits most from the L. Also, have you thought about the Sigma?
Gunzorro wrote:
Also, build quality and focusing speed is considerably better in the 50L. The 50/1.4 is the only current Canon lens to use the tiny, under-powered Micro USM focusing motor -- prone to breakage more than any other motor. The lens itself is very good, image-wise, but lacks the charm and atmosphere of the f/1.2.
I rank the Canon 50s like this (IQ, build, focus accuracy):
50L
50/2.5 Macro
50/1.4
50/1.8
50/1.8 II
In your position, my choice would be between the 50L or the 50 Macro. (I own both. )
Ditto for your ranking!
I too tried them all and ended up with the 50 1.2L and 50 2.5 CM. I must say the 50 1.4 USM was the most disappointing prime I've owned in terms of IQ and AF: barrel distortion was so bad at 1 to 2 meters it looked like a fisheye! And by far the worse AF of any lens I've owned. Useless in low light. My F4 zooms focus far better in low light.
The 50 2.5 is one of the sharpest and distortion free optics I've ever had in my bag. The best of the Canon 50s if you judge by sharpness alone. It's so good it's my only remaining lens from the early 1990s. But the lens I enjoy using the most is the 50 1.2L: best AF among the 50s, dreamy bokeh and F1.2.
The 50 1.4 is kind of "dreamy" (low contrast/apparent sharpness) when shot wide open. By F2 it is very good. The 50 1.2 has more contrast when used at 1.2 or 1.4 and imparts a very special look that can't be duplicated by any other lens.
I shoot a 1D mk III and a 1D mk IV. In doing further research, I've read some lenses do not work as well on these bodies. I thought about the sigma, however, my husband bought the sigma 30mm 1.4 and it wasn't recommended for the 1D series and now I'm having to sell it.
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a DC lens, which is the Sigma terminology for EF-S
- it is a 1.6x crop lens designed for APS-C sensors, and is not designed for APS-H or full frame sensors
The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is a good lens that works with all sensor sizes - I'd rank it above the Canon 50mm 1.4, and below the 1.2
Except that the sigma is know to have inconsistent focus unless you find a good one the first time. It took me 3 copies. Even when I got a good one, I still sold it and got the 50L
The bokeh on the 50 1.4 wide open is fugly with specular highlights. This problem does not exist with the 1.2 at either 1.2 or 1.4. Shame really as the rendition of the 1.4 wide open with a bright but diffused scene is actually really nice IMO.
Both of the above are the 50mm 1.4 shot wide open. With the right kind of lighting it's gorgeous. I have the 50mm 1.2 now though, it bigger and a lot more expensive but I don't have to worry about the lighting as to whether I can use the lens wide open any more.
That said, for the latter 6 years of weddings I shot, the 50mm 1.4 was my main go to lens. I never used it wider open than f1.8 where IMO it shines with a nice rendition and bokeh and from f2.8 it killed every single one of my L zooms. At f4-5.6 it was more than spectacular. I never had the AF motor break though I had a friend who managed to kill the AF on his 3 times in a year till he bought the 50L at the same time as me. He's more clumsy than me though I kept a hood on mine, cheap ebay job, at all times and the sensitive front part was always protected. Yes the AF motor is rather archaic but other than at f1.4 where it is sensitive of the light, I found it to be a serious workhorse of a lens and at the price you can afford two to be honest. I miss it eventhough I have the L.
Since there is a lot of discussion here... I could have sworn that I had read the 50L also had kind of janky autofocus. Can anyone clear that up for me?
I used the 50/1.8 for about 2 years, when my copy broke I got the 50/1.4 and have been using that for almost 10 years, having had it repaired about 4 years ago.
The AF on the 50/1.4 drives me batty sometimes, although it is way better with the 5D3 I have now.. but I had never considered the 50/1.2L as I could have sworn I'd read it's AF was not stellar either.. no way I'm going to spend an extra $1000 to upgrade unless the L AF is amazing. I've been considering getting the 35/1.4L instead as that seems to be universally praised in every way...
In terms of "good AF", I also have the 17-40 f/4L, 24-105 f/4L, 28/1.8, 85/1.8, and 300/1.4L IS, all of those have "great" AF...
50 is my favorite FL, and I have or had every Canon and Sigma model. The late Yakim Peled and I both conducted numerous tests and compared our results, which we agreed showed that as far as 1.2 and 1.4 were concerned, the Sigma was best wide open as far as resolution, the 1.2 had the best colors. All were roughly equal at 2.8, if anything the 1.4 holding the resolution advantage. The Sigma's Achilles heel was focus at close distances. These were tests conducted with older bodies, around 4 years ago.
The best of all in terms of resolution and distortion was easily the 2.5 CM. It and the EF 1.4 are now my only 50's, the copy of the 1.4 I have now is superb, even at WFO. By 2.8 I have no lens that is appreciably sharper, and many less sharp.
bboule wrote:
Since there is a lot of discussion here... I could have sworn that I had read the 50L also had kind of janky autofocus. Can anyone clear that up for me?
Yes. Somebody posted a good amount of tests with the 50L here a few months back which explained the AF difficulties due to lens curvature. I have trouble with the 50L on my 5D II when using the outer AF spots, they rarely work with this lens for some reason. Center focus is edge on after microfocus adjustment. I don't have this problem with outer AF spots with any of my other EF lenses.
What about Servo AF? That is where the 50/1.4 seems to fall flat... I tend to want to use Servo AF because if you're shooting at f/1.4-f/2.0 you need to get a person to hold very still to use single-shot AF.
My 85/1.8 has even less DoF and seems to have no trouble with Servo AF.
)
)
I kept a hood on mine, cheap ebay job, at all times and the sensitive front part was always protected. Yes the AF motor is rather archaic but other than at f1.4 where it is sensitive of the light, I found it to be a serious workhorse of a lens and at the price you can afford two to be honest. I miss it eventhough I have the L.