50mm f1.2 L - Is it worth it?

[mdr]

Was planning to get the 50mm f1.4 USM. Now the 50mm 1.2 L is out, should I go the extra distance and get L? Is it worth the significant amount of extra money?

[zacwolf]

no

the only reason to get it really is the weathersealing, but you dont have a 1 series so your camera isnt weathersealed anyway

[mrfourcows]

if it can deliver sharp pictures w/o the ca that happens with the f/1.4, why not? especially if you're a portrait photography and will use the f/1.2 aperture.

if not then, i guess most of us don't *need* it.
just like the 85L.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

the only reason to get it really is the weathersealing, but you dont have a 1 series so your camera isnt weathersealed anyway


:lol: :lol: :lol: Way to assure yourself it's ok. That's a joke. :lol:

Here's some things that make it better than the 1.4-

-f/1.2 aperture. Yeah...it's that big. Also, that it's bound to be noticeably sharper wide open than the 1.4 (in my opinion)
-It's built like a tank, as all L's are.
-It has ring USM, which is more accurate and potentially faster than the 1.4.
-It has more, higher quality glass, which will result in even less flare, ghosting, and CA.
-Comes with a hood and lens case (not a biggie, but you can't discount it
-Weathersealing- this is nice no matter what body you have. Less of a chance of getting your lens ruined.
-More things to come when we see some real reviews!

Sure, to some people (stubborn people, those that can't afford it, those that need validation for their past purchases, etc.), it won't be worth a penny more. Those that appreciate quality, build, and a lasting investment, will say it is. So far, I say it is.

[mdr]

Ronald - When are you selling your f1.4 and buying a f1.2?

[morehtml]

Is it worth the significant amount of extra money?

Most lenses of this caliber have a diminishing bang for the buck factor. In other words it won't technically be 5 times better than th 50 1.4 as the price suggests but will no doubt beat the 50 1.4 in probably all departments except weight and price :D If you want a better lens than to 50 1.4 this is going to be it. Should focus faster and be sharper at more apertures with more color contrast, etc. And throw in build quality, hood, weather sealing to boot.

[glowie]

Yep it's worth it..get one now!

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Ronald - When are you selling your f1.4 and buying a f1.2?

As soon as I see a couple of professionally done rave reviews.

[Tyreman]

Depends what specialization it is to you with regard to what you do AND but not least......if you can afford to splurge/sping for one.

[AeroSmith]

Is it really weather sealed? Dang, did you have to tell me that? :rolleyes:

[Olegis]

Boy, that 1.2L has to be at least 20 times better than my 50mm f1.8 II :lol:

Now seriously - questions like "50mm f1.2 L - Is it worth it?" can be only answered by the same person who is asking them. Other people can only refer to themselves and share their experiences. I, for example, love my 50mm f1.8 II and would never pay ~1.5K more to get the 1.2 version - mainly because I don't see myself spending this kind of money for a 50mm prime. The 1.4 version surely looks tempting, but for now I'm satisfied with my 1.8 MkII lens ...

[René Damkot]

Should focus faster
I don't think so. At best it is as fast as the 50/1.4. At least, that is the impression I got at the Photokina.

[cjm]

Here is the real question. Do you really think you will use a 50mm prime that much? Maybe before spending a small fortune on this lens you should buy the f1.4 version or even the respectable 1.8 version and see how much you shoot with it. If you shoot all the time and like its range, then spend the money. If not, stick to the lesser (better on the wallet) versions and spend your money elsewhere.

I did a poll a few months ago asking how many people really use thier 50mm lens and 45% of the people said, "Rarely ever". I'd hate to hear about someone buying a 50 f1.2 L and rarely ever using it.

That might be the best advice you'll ge but you do have one thing going, you have a FF camera so at least a 50mm f1.2 wont be wasted on that as it would on a crop camera. Because 50 is 50 on that camera.

You can buy the "lesser" lenses used on FM all the time for a good price. Nothing to loose and everything to gain. Best of luck.

[AeroSmith]

Here is the real question. Do you really think you will use a 50mm prime that much? Maybe before spending a small fortune on this lens you should buy the f1.4 version or even the respectable 1.8 version and see how much you shoot with it. If you shoot all the time and like its range, then spend the money. If not, stick to the lesser (better on the wallet) versions and spend your money elsewhere.

I did a poll a few months ago asking how many people really use thier 50mm lens and 45% of the people said, "Rarely ever". I'd hate to hear about someone buying a 50 f1.2 L and rarely ever using it.

That might be the best advice you'll ge but you do have one thing going, you have a FF camera so at least a 50mm f1.2 wont be wasted on that as it would on a crop camera. Because 50 is 50 on that camera.

You can buy the "lesser" lenses used on FM all the time for a good price. Nothing to loose and everything to gain. Best of luck.

That's some good advice....and for the cost of the 50/1.2 you can pick up a 50/1.4 and a 100/2 and have a real nice dinner or two.

[Tee Why]

I think I'd wait for the reviews to see if the extra cost is worth it. Sure it has a better build and maybe better optics, but I'm not sure if it's worht $1200 or so more than the excellent f1.4 version.

[pieq314]

:lol: :lol: :lol: Way to assure yourself it's ok. That's a joke. :lol:

Here's some things that make it better than the 1.4-

-f/1.2 aperture. Yeah...it's that big. Also, that it's bound to be noticeably sharper wide open than the 1.4 (in my opinion)
Actually, it is less sharp when wide open. (To be fair, one is at f/1.2, the other is at f/1.4).

[Visuals]

Was planning to get the 50mm f1.4 USM. Now the 50mm 1.2 L is out, should I go the extra distance and get L? Is it worth the significant amount of extra money?


Unless your going back in time to try and take a photo just before god said "Let there be Light" Then no. Unless your going to be shooting in extremely low light situations of your photography kith requires that pro glass then the 50mm f1.4 will do you Just fine. I love mine;)

Cheers
Visuals

[incendy]

I am sure it is worth it, but I am not sure I can afford it:) Maybe by March after the Christmas shopping and all dies down!

[Madweasel]

...at least a 50mm f1.2 wont be wasted on that as it would on a crop camera. Because 50 is 50 on that camera.
I don't see why you should say the lens would be wasted on a crop camera, except in the sense that you don't use all the image circle. 50 is 50 on a crop camera too, but it will be the 35mm equivalent of having an 80mm f/1.2, perfect for portraits.

To answer the original question, it certainly wouldn't be worth it to me. It's a lot of extra money for a small increase in performance (and we're still waiting to see what the image quality will actually be like). But I'm certain that plenty of people will convince themselves they need it. :)

[KevC]

I want this lens. Why? I want a really really really nice 50mm... since that's the focal length I'm "missing" (in terms of good glass). And I've got nice zooms covering the rest.

I've got the 1.8, but it's buzzy and noisy. Pretty nice images but autofocus isn't too reliable (possibly my camera aswell).

I want the 1.4, mostly for the build quality and better autofocus, but disappointed because it's only microUSM... therefore not as fast as my L zooms. Also, the copy I played with (my friend's) was unacceptably soft from f/1.4 to f/2.8. Might as well use f/2.8 zooms! (which he does, the 24-70 and 70-200 haha).

If the 1.2L is sharp sharp sharp from f/1.4 onwards, and decently sharp from 1.2L I'd be happy =) And ringUSM is supposedly faster, but there is a hunk more glass to move... so it might not be...

[BigBlueDodge]

Is the 85L 1.2 worth approx 5-6x more than the 85 1.8 ? I can't answer that, but I do know that lots of people think so and have one. At this point, it really is too early to tell what its real value is until it hits the public and people start getting the opportunity to use it.

My 50 1.4 is one of my most used lenses. I love that little thing, but even I have to admit that it it needs to be shot 1 or 2 stops down to be in its prime sharpness range. At f/1.4 its too soft to be usable without a lot of USM. This is not just a problem with mine, as I know there are tons of people out there that have the same issue. I think that it is a function of the design (I mean, it is only a $300 lens after all).

I would expect that part of the premium of the 50L 1.2 will be that it is noticeable sharp wide open. You shouldn't have to stop it down 1-2 stops to get sharp images like you do on the 50 1.4.

[Tom W]

no

the only reason to get it really is the weathersealing, but you dont have a 1 series so your camera isnt weathersealed anyway

Until it's tested and makes the rounds among a few people, it's impossible to tell if it's worth it or not. And, you have to apply it's capabilities to your needs/desires as well.

I have a 50/1.4 and I like it, but I also respect that it could be a good deal better wide-open and could have better build quality. It is no match for the 35/1.4. If this 50/1.2 is similar in performance to the 35/1.4, then I will be getting one. If not, I'll keep what I've got. I'm not unhappy, but I prefer better if it's available.

The 50/1.4 is a very respectable lens. Like all lenses, it has weaknesses. But like all lenses, it also has strengths.

[cdifoto]

To me, it's not worth it. To you, it might be. That's all there is to say.

[mdr]

Cheers to all for your replies. I'm not going for the 50mm f1.2L even though I can afford it and love a quality piece of engineering.

I'll be getting a 50mm f1.4 in the short term to fill the gap between the 17-40mm f4L and the 70-200mm f4L IS (which I'm about to buy). Depending on how often I use it and on how the reviews of the 50mm 1.2L turn out, I'll be selling or upgrading.

I guess I'll be using it a lot though, as I am no stranger to a 50mm f1.4. I still use my trusty Nikon FE and 50mm f1.4 AIS lens loaded with Velvia at times.

Then again, there is also the 50mm f1.0L. Aperture Photographic is selling a second hand one for only £2,490.

[Lord_Malone]

Was planning to get the 50mm f1.4 USM. Now the 50mm 1.2 L is out, should I go the extra distance and get L? Is it worth the significant amount of extra money?

As Ron stated, you're paying extra for more than just the added speed. Unfortunately, speed and build quality cost money. Lots of it. For some the extra cost is justified. For others it's not. I cringe at the thought of paying that much for a "standard" lens, but it'll be the last lens in that range I'll ever have to buy. Hopefully. And the thought of being able to use the lens effectively in dimly lit environments makes this lens very appealing for me. I fell in love with the max aperture of 1.2 when I had the 85L. I didn't use the max aperture setting very often, but it was nice to have it readily available if needed. Ultimately, is it worth it you?

[shaunknee]

Over at DP-R there are a lot of posts slamming the new 50L (even before its release).

I have been holding off buying a 35L in hope that the 50L is as sharp wide open. My 50 1.4 is a dog wide open.

I know the 35L is a great lens; however it is quite dated (film). I'm hoping the 50L may perform better on DLSRs.

[Tom W]

Over at DPR, there are a lot of people slamming everything! There may be 1 or 2 posters over there that actually touched a 50/1.2. The rest is speculation.

[PetKal]

Those that appreciate quality, build, and a lasting investment, will say it is.

"Lasting" in your case meaning something like....hmmm.....2 months ?;)

Seriously, lens worth is hardly a subject that could be dealt with objectively.

The lens looks very promising. Many of Canon's standard and WA prime lenses show their age. The new quality standard prime has been asked for by many photographers over the years.

I trust the lens will be a very good performer optically and will have sufficiently fast AF. The other upgraded features like the build/finish are a given for an L designated lens.

[Tom W]

A pattern is emerging. The 85/1.2, the 50/1.2. The 135/2 and 35/1.4 are top-notch already. Hopefully, the 24/1.4 will be next for some serious rejuvination. It's needed.

[PetKal]

A pattern is emerging. The 85/1.2, the 50/1.2. The 135/2 and 35/1.4 are top-notch already. Hopefully, the 24/1.4 will be next for some serious rejuvination. It's needed.


:shock: :shock: :shock: Tommy, did you step barefoot on a stingray this morning or something ?
I am in shock.:cry:

[Tom W]

[/B]


:shock: :shock: :shock: Tommy, did you step barefoot on a stingray this morning or something ?
I am in shock.:cry:

Heh Heh - I sold mine 4 months ago. It's not a horrible lens, but on full-frame, the corners go poopey-soft with some serious CA unless stopped down. Frankly, I didn't need an ultrawide, ultrafast lens, and my 24-70 is very competitive from f/4 on.

Could have been my copy, though. Bought it used so there's no telling if it was typical or not.

[PetKal]

Heh Heh - I sold mine 4 months ago. It's not a horrible lens, but on full-frame, the corners go poopey-soft with some serious CA unless stopped down. Frankly, I didn't need an ultrawide, ultrafast lens, and my 24-70 is very competitive from f/4 on.

Could have been my copy, though. Bought it used so there's no telling if it was typical or not.

Well, hard to tell which way individual copies go, but I'll tell ya, my copy of the 24L is significantly better than my copy of the 35L, and that's on 1.6 and 1.3 cameras. Do not know about FF yet.

[Tom W]

Well, hard to tell which way individual copies go, but I'll tell ya, my copy of the 24L is significantly better than my copy of the 35L, and that's on 1.6 and 1.3 cameras. Do not know about FF yet.

Wow! Probably was my copy then. CA was very significant towards the edges and corners, whereas on my 35, it is very minor. My 35 really outshines my 50/1.4 as well (which is why this 50/1.2 might be of interest). My suspicions are that the original owner decided to pawn it off (on me) due to its weaknesses.

If I get the urge to go fast and wide again (except for the Sigma 20/1.8 I just ordered), I may give the 24/1.4 another shot.

[PetKal]

[quote=Tom W;2101266]Wow! Probably was my copy then. CA was very significant towards the edges and corners, whereas on my 35, it is very minor. My 35 really outshines my 50/1.4 as well (which is why this 50/1.2 might be of interest). My suspicions are that the original owner decided to pawn it off (on me) due to its weaknesses.

If I get the urge to go fast and wide again (except for the Sigma 20/1.8 I just ordered),

Based on lens reviews, I had some reservations about the 24L. Plus, I already had the 24 f/2.8...a good lens too, I might add. Finally, decided to take some risk...ordered a new one from B&H. Ever since, every shot with it brings smiles.

Now I am in a similar situation with the 14L....however, I am still nowhere near wanting to buy it......still very much unconvinced ! Plus, got the 15 fisheye and happy with it (for the money, that is.)

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I'll tell ya, my copy of the 24L is significantly better than my copy of the 35L

Ouch...sounds like a 35 in need of calibration. My 35 blows the 24 out of the water. Maybe I had a bad 24, huh? Seems like from what I've seen, the 35 has the edge in IQ. Not by a lot, but enough.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

...the Sigma 20/1.8 I just ordered...

Very nice little lens. I was up by the lake yesterday, and got some outstanding shots with it. It's my reason for not thinking about the 24L.

[Mr. Clean]

I dunno - Some of the uber high price L primes turn me off a bit. Is the 1.2 REALLY going to perform that much better than the 1.4? Is better build REALLY worth 900 dollars? Are you going to get more keepers because you can shoot at 1.2 instead of 1.4?
Personally, I would say no, no, and no. But that's just me.
A "L" 50mm 1.4 would be neat though, keep it cheap.
BUT, if I was rich I'd buy it!

[Ronald S. Jr.]

"L" and "cheap" are not synonymous. The build alone is worth a good few hundred extra to me. The ring USM and better (constructed) optics are worth another couple hundred. The bag and hood are a good $50. The fact that it'll share filters with another of my lenses is nice. Weathersealing is very nice, as I'm planning to add a 1-series to my bag again fairly soon (sshh!).

[mdr]

Looks like the 2nd hand 50mm f1.0L at Aperture sold for £2,490! So the 50mm f1.2L is cheap in comparison.

[PetKal]

Looks like the 2nd hand 50mm f1.0L at Aperture sold for £2,490! So the 50mm f1.2L is cheap in comparison.

Pricewise, we must not compare rare collectibles against mass produced photography tools.

[Tom W]

Very nice little lens. I was up by the lake yesterday, and got some outstanding shots with it. It's my reason for not thinking about the 24L.


I've seen a few shots with the 20/1.8 on full-frame and I think it'll fill my needs. Distortion is pretty low. I hear that QC is a bit spotty so when I get mine, I intend to run it through a battery of tests (including the battery test). :)

[Tom W]

I dunno - Some of the uber high price L primes turn me off a bit. Is the 1.2 REALLY going to perform that much better than the 1.4? Is better build REALLY worth 900 dollars? Are you going to get more keepers because you can shoot at 1.2 instead of 1.4?
Personally, I would say no, no, and no. But that's just me.
A "L" 50mm 1.4 would be neat though, keep it cheap.
BUT, if I was rich I'd buy it!

If the only difference turns out to be the ability to go to f/1.2 instead of f/1.4, then I don't see a reason to buy the new 50.

But I suspect that there's much more. The 50/1.4 isn't all that sharp wide-open, and presents a bit of barrel distortion. It's alleged to be a bit spotty on AF accuracy as well, according to some users. Correct those problems and present wide-aperture performance similar to the 35/1.4 and the lens will be a winner. Not a high-volume sales winner, but a top-notch performance winner.

[Mr. Clean]

If the only difference turns out to be the ability to go to f/1.2 instead of f/1.4, then I don't see a reason to buy the new 50.

But I suspect that there's much more. The 50/1.4 isn't all that sharp wide-open, and presents a bit of barrel distortion. It's alleged to be a bit spotty on AF accuracy as well, according to some users. Correct those problems and present wide-aperture performance similar to the 35/1.4 and the lens will be a winner. Not a high-volume sales winner, but a top-notch performance winner.
The 50 1.4 is presented as having .438% barrel distortion while the 35L has .486%. Not really enough to even see unless you're at a serious pixel peeping level. I haven't heard of focus issues but one or two times here and there, which could be expected from any lens. Even wide open the 1.4 performs VERY well.
I'm just wondering how much more performance any photographer really needs from the 1.4, how many really need that better build and weathersealing because they've dropped their lenses many times before and they bounced into a mud puddle. If one can justify the purchase and honestly state that it's worth 900 dollars more and that it makes them a better photographer then that's fine but I'd be willing to bet most of it is just buying it to have it.

[PetKal]

Both Tommy and Mr.Clean seem to be well educated and thoughtful photographers. They both make valid points.

The new L packaged lenses have some operational advantages over their "common" EF brethren.....such as smoother and grippier focus and zoom rings, more rugged build, better weather sealing.

However, the contribution of L lens packaging to the lens IQ is very small.
In the end, one hopes that a lion's share of the lens price can be justified by its performance.

Thus, all niceties and L folklore aside, if the new 50 f/1.2 does not have a requisite IQ when wide open and close to it, then it ain't gonna be worth much more than the 50 f/1.4 in my mind.

[Mcary]

Currently use the 50mm 1.8 about 75% of the time when shooting people, use the 85mm 1.8 the other 25%.

Can't decide if I want to get the 50 1.2 for use as a short portait lens on the 20D or to sale the 20D and get a 5d and use the 85 1.8 as my short portait lens

Mike

[grego]

For any portrait users on 1.6 crop, who liked the 85L but thought it was too long, here comes the shorter version. So its worth it to the people who would consider the 85L.

But worth it is only relative of course. Is anything in photography worth it? That's for you to decide.

[AeroSmith]

Not quite a review but interesting nontheless:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[PetKal]

Not quite a review but interesting nontheless:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

So is the 100+ page FM thread on the 50 f/1.2.
Voluminous.
Well, if that's not enough for ya, try their 300 page unofficial Photokina rumour thread...singlehandedly written by a physician, three IT techs, and an ambulance chaser.:lol:
(Oops, now I see that Porschah- your avatar, hope you are not one of them MDs:confused: )


Either way, the real lens assessments are unfortunately still pending.

[Tom W]

Well, if that's not enough for ya, try their 300 page unofficial Photokina rumour thread...singlehandedly written by a physician, three IT techs, and an ambulance chaser.:lol:

I'm no physician but I may have helped with the writing a bit. ;)

Either way, the real lens assessments are unfortunately still pending.

Yep.

[Lord_Malone]

But worth it is only relative of course. Is anything in photography worth it? That's for you to decide.

What? You mean people I've never met on an internet forum shouldn't decide or dictate my photographic needs for me? I've been ill advised. :(

;)

[PetKal]

I'm no physician but I may have helped with the writing a bit. ;)


So you did, and so did I.:lol: However...our contributions were more......reasoned, shall we say.;)

[Tom W]

The 50 1.4 is presented as having .438% barrel distortion while the 35L has .486%. Not really enough to even see unless you're at a serious pixel peeping level.

Start shooting interiors or archetecture and it will stand out quite prominently. Otherwise, it's not really a problem.
BTW, just curious as to where you found those particular figures on distortion.

I haven't heard of focus issues but one or two times here and there, which could be expected from any lens. Even wide open the 1.4 performs VERY well.

Haven't had any focus issues of my own (other than being a bit slow for sports), but there's plenty of banter about the 'net about people having inconsistent focus with the 50/1.4. Could be the shallow DOF throwing them off a bit, though. Lots of newbies in the SLR world.

I'm just wondering how much more performance any photographer really needs from the 1.4, how many really need that better build and weathersealing because they've dropped their lenses many times before and they bounced into a mud puddle. If one can justify the purchase and honestly state that it's worth 900 dollars more and that it makes them a better photographer then that's fine but I'd be willing to bet most of it is just buying it to have it.

Time will tell just how much people are willing to make the move to the 1.2. It's not cheap, that's for certain. And it won't be extremely popular in terms of sales. As for the buyers, it's really irrelevent as to their motive for doing so - after all, it's their money. Will it improve their product? Depends on the product and their shooting situations.

[PetKal]

What? You mean people I've never met on an internet forum shouldn't decide or dictate my photographic needs for me? I've been ill advised. :(

;)

Never you mind Grego, brutha, that boy is a 120-300 shooter.:rolleyes: Nuff said.

[Lord_Malone]

Never you mind Grego, brutha, that boy is a 120-300 shooter.:rolleyes: Nuff said.

Yes. And I truly honestly suck at everything I do. Really. :(

[Mr. Clean]

Start shooting interiors or archetecture and it will stand out quite prominently. Otherwise, it's not really a problem.
BTW, just curious as to where you found those particular figures on distortion.
Haven't had any focus issues of my own (other than being a bit slow for sports), but there's plenty of banter about the 'net about people having inconsistent focus with the 50/1.4. Could be the shallow DOF throwing them off a bit, though. Lots of newbies in the SLR world.
Time will tell just how much people are willing to make the move to the 1.2. It's not cheap, that's for certain. And it won't be extremely popular in terms of sales. As for the buyers, it's really irrelevent as to their motive for doing so - after all, it's their money. Will it improve their product? Depends on the product and their shooting situations.
Photozone translates the barrell distortion to a percentage. NOW - that is something to be taken with a grain of salt seeing how the percentage is just ONE lens sample and not historical data of the lens that has been averaged. Still, solid info to go off of!
Personally I think it's the DOF issue. Some samples of potential mis focus have been of canvas type material. You really need to pixel peep to find what threading is OOF! Of a potrait, focus on the nose and wonder why the eyes aren't in focus.
I don't think it will improve their end product...But it's all assumptions really. Perhaps the 50 1.2 will launch with similar distortion numbers, maybe it will be slower to focus, who know! All in all, it's not my place to suggest how people should spend their money. However, the thread does pose the question "is it worth it" :D

[AeroSmith]

(Oops, now I see that Porschah- your avatar, hope you are not one of them MDs:confused: )


No worries...just a humble portfolio manager working out of his garage. :)

[Tom W]

Photozone translates the barrell distortion to a percentage. NOW - that is something to be taken with a grain of salt seeing how the percentage is just ONE lens sample and not historical data of the lens that has been averaged. Still, solid info to go off of!

Just a note - Photozone's tests are done on a 350D, meaning that the results are valid for 1.6X cameras, but not necessarily for full-frame cameras. The extremes of the image circle are more prone to showing distortions.

Personally I think it's the DOF issue. Some samples of potential mis focus have been of canvas type material. You really need to pixel peep to find what threading is OOF! Of a potrait, focus on the nose and wonder why the eyes aren't in focus.

That can be a real issue with any lens, but with a very shallow depth-of-field, technique is essential. The smaller viewfinders on many DSLR cameras doesn't help in selecting the desired focus plane manually.

I don't think it will improve their end product...But it's all assumptions really. Perhaps the 50 1.2 will launch with similar distortion numbers, maybe it will be slower to focus, who know! All in all, it's not my place to suggest how people should spend their money. However, the thread does pose the question "is it worth it" :D

Yes, that is the question. And the only answer will come when the lens really gets circulated and tested. Canon may have geared this lens to the portrait photographer like the 85/1.2, or it may be an all-purpose low-light "standard" lens with good AF speed, low distortion, good corner sharpness, good bokeh, and good contrast. At any rate, I would expect it to outperform the 50/1.4. If it doesn't, I won't buy it.

[PetKal]

No worries...just a humble portfolio manager working out of his garage. :)

No worry Smithy, just joking...;)

[AeroSmith]

So the question remains....when will this lens be available?

[Ronald S. Jr.]

End of this month, they say.

[Double Negative]

If you have a crop body (1.6x especially but 1.3x also) then the 35mm f/1.4L would make a better, more usable lens IMO.

On full frame bodies, the 50mm f/1.2L would similarly represent "the ultimate standard lens."

How far you want to go is something only you can decide.

[grego]

Never you mind Grego, brutha, that boy is a 120-300 shooter.:rolleyes: Nuff said.

Best 300 2.8 i can get for a great deal. I got mine for 1775(final price). Tough to beat that., especially on a college students budget.

But as of now, I'll have

2 bodies (30D + 1DMKII)
16-35 2.8L
50 1.4
70-200 2.8 IS
120-300 2.8.

In 2 years work with lack of consistent job. :cool:

I'd buy the 50 1.2 if it was going to be my workhorse lens though. It's worth it then.

If you have a crop body (1.6x especially but 1.3x also) then the 35mm f/1.4L would make a better, more usable lens IMO.

On full frame bodies, the 50mm f/1.2L would similarly represent "the ultimate standard lens."

How far you want to go is something only you can decide.

The biggest thing about the 50 1.2L is that its the 85L 1.2(on full frame), basically. The 1.6 crop user would have a very long high quality lens. The 50 1.2 gives some more flexibility if you do portrait stuff. So if it is a quality lens like the 85L, then it fits a niche, as a lot of ppl use a 1.6 crop camera.