Canon 50mm f1.2L EF lens

[narikin]

Just a note to those who may care. I've been using the new 50mm 1.2L for a few weeks now, and pretty happy with it, did some quick tests against the 50/ 1.4 and it revealed exactly what you may expect - its dramatically better at wide apertures, 1.4 to 2.4 ish, a little better around f2.8 up to f4 and from there on I could see no difference.

This lens does strictly what it was designed to - very good results at wide open apertures, but I would say there is no meaningful difference from f4 onwards. I remember seeing a review of the Leica Noctilux f1.0 lens (for M series) that said exactly the same thing - great at wide apertures, but does not beat a regular 50mm lens once stopped down.

It's a specialised piece of glass in other words, not an better everyday standard lens.

[Jack Flesher]

I for one would love to see some example shots!

[ronno]

I for one would love to see some example shots!
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Here are some tests

[a href=\"http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm]http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm[/url]

[chris anderson]

I picked one up, and it was no better than my 1.4, i sent it back

[narikin]

I picked one up, and it was no better than my 1.4, i sent it back
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92509\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

well its definitely much better than a 1.4 at WIDE apertures. (1.4 to 2.
it is not better at regular f-stops.

it's a very specialised piece of glass for fast shooting at wide apertures - not an all purpose 50mm lens.

if you buy one thinking your images at f8 will be sharper than the standard 50mm 1.4, then you will be dissapointed.

[X-Re]

My experience is that my 50/1.4 is wicked sharp at f/4 and above, and down to f/2.8 its still very nice. It gets really soft when its open more than f/2.8, which seems to match everyone's experience. I have a had time picturing how you'd improve significantly on its performance above f/2.8, though... I imagine the ring-type USM might make it faster focusing, though, and FTM would go along with it, so... that might be cool, but maybe not worth the upgrade price, for me, if that's all I'm getting...

[narikin]

My experience is that my 50/1.4 is wicked sharp at f/4 and above, and down to f/2.8 its still very nice. It gets really soft when its open more than f/2.8, which seems to match everyone's experience. I have a had time picturing how you'd improve significantly on its performance above f/2.8, though... I imagine the ring-type USM might make it faster focusing, though, and FTM would go along with it, so... that might be cool, but maybe not worth the upgrade price, for me, if that's all I'm getting...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92840\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One always thinks that a lens is really sharp until you try it against something that is undeniably better. A Zeiss Contax 50mm 1.4 (and the 1.7) is far better than the Canon version, at EVERY aperture, though it is manual focus/ aperture when used on an Eos body. It's like night and day when you see the results.

same thing for the Canon 50mm 1.2L version from f1.4 up to (and including) F4. That is what it is designed for, and that is what it does.  if you don't need that or don't shoot at these apertures ever, then its plainly not for you. This applies for me with the super fast and pricey sports telephotos - I'll never need or own one.

[billy]

I have been going back and forth on trading out my 50mm 1.4 for the 50 1.2 L lens. I have seen all the tests, heard all the rumors about the L lens backfosing, etc.

I just bought the 1 Ds mk3 and wondering if now is the time to upgrade the lens. I noticed that Michael tested his 1Ds mk 3 with a 50mm 1.4 lens, not the 1.2 L. Michael, can you explain your reasoning for this? Anyone else?

I shoot fashion/lifestyle mostly, love the wide open apertures, backlit flare etc.

[yodelyo]

I have been going back and forth on trading out my 50mm 1.4 for the 50 1.2 L lens. I have seen all the tests, heard all the rumors about the L lens backfosing, etc.

I just bought the 1 Ds mk3 and wondering if now is the time to upgrade the lens. I noticed that Michael tested his 1Ds mk 3 with a 50mm 1.4 lens, not the 1.2 L. Michael, can you explain your reasoning for this? Anyone else?

I shoot fashion/lifestyle mostly, love the wide open apertures, backlit flare etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162365\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would also like to hear from Michael about why he chose the 50mm 1.4 over the L series 1.2 lens.

[narikin]

I would also like to hear from Michael about why he chose the 50mm 1.4 over the L series 1.2 lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I would doubt its exactly right to say 'chose over' the faster lens, as has been said above the 1.2 Lens is superior at wide apertures, not at everyday smaller ones.

That is what it is designed for, and that is what it delivers. if you want to make a lens test at f5.6, f8 or f11 there is no reason to use the fast lens at all.

[Huib]

I had the 50mm F1.4 and have now the 50mm F1.2. De  50mm F1.2 is over the complete range much better.
But the problem is that you have to find a good copy. I tried 4 copies on 1Ds2 and went several times to the Canon service. THey coudn't get it better then the old F1.4. With the fith I had more luck after a visit to the Canon Service. One corner wasn't sharp. They fixed it and now I am very happy with this copy on a 1Ds3