50mm 1.2L or 50mm 1.4 - Are either worth it?

i went for the canon 35 f/1.4L
and left the range 50mm
the 35L fast and great and the colors better than the 50 f/1.4

I love throwing the 50 1.2 on my 1D, I use it around 2.0/2.2 when I'm photographing Crossfit, and it does a pretty great job.

I love the 50mm focal range. I have owned 3 50mm's, the nifty fifty 1.8, the sigma 1.4, and the 1.2L. The 1.8 was the gateway drug to bokeh and a great lens for the price. The Sigma 1.4 was great when it focused correctly. Unfortunately after three trips to Sigma for focusing issues, I gave up. The 1.2L is fantastic. Maybe I am lucky but I havent had any of the issues that are brought up regarding this lens. I love this lens and often use it as my walk around lens when I want to chalenge myself and put more thought into my shots. That being said, I owned the 85mm 1.2L for about two weeks and that lens was something incredibly special.

Ryski wrote in post #16055693
I owned the 1.8 and now own the 1.4 and definitely feel the upgrade was well worth it. I really don't feel the need to upgrade to the 1.2 at all. It seems like such a huge price increase for not that much of an upgrade.

I use to feel that way about the 1.4 until I tried the 1.2, sold the 1.4

K Soze wrote in post #16056734
I use to feel that way about the 1.4 until I tried the 1.2, sold the 1.4

I am going to repeat to myself daily, " l am happy with my 1.4, I am happy with my 1.4..."

snake0ape wrote in post #16056866
I am going to repeat to myself daily, " l am happy with my 1.4, I am happy with my 1.4..."

I can hear the 50L calling you now... "Buy me, buy me, buy me..."

f/1.2 is very sharp. It's soft at MFD due to its non floating element design - but super sharp at about 2m+

The 50L is the little brother of the 85L, and is the 35L on steroids

Very versatile:

Portraits @ f/1.2:

BadHorsie wrote in post #16047686
Thanks, the Sigma sounds good but the fact that there are so many terrible reviews on Amazon about the focusing doesn't exactly give me confidence to buy one...

http://www.amazon.co.u​k …dOneStar&showVi​ewpoints=0

Well, the internet usually only brings out negative reviews, if something works well, a person is far less likely to go review it and say "it works great" than they are if it doesnt.


I know I take every opportunity I get to bash on the hasselblad CFV39 back for stranding me in a photo shoot with 12 people!


both the 50mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.4 are great buys at their price points! The 50L is really superfluous(yea I love mine, and yes I love being superfluous).

stopped down, you cant tell them apart in sharpness or color. people telling you that you CAN... well, lets just be polite to them (smile and nod)

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16039492
As I said, to each his own, 50mm gets you some of 35 and some of 85 (just as a perception, obviously perspective is never going to be the same), but if you want a true portraiture lens, you need 85mm, if you want a slightly wider lens, you need 35mm. 50mm is great when you are going somewhere and you can carry one lens.

I use 85mm on my FF ... but looking for a backup lens should the 85mm go down on me sometime.

Since I like a crop for my 2nd camera, it seemed the 50mm would be the perfect portrait lens for a spare. Hence, why I'm reading various threads involving the Sigma 50mm 1.4

From what I see of the bokeh here and on Youtube, I'm inclined to suspect the Sigma may be the best alternative short of the Canon 50mm 1.2 ..

smorter wrote in post #16057333
f/1.2 is very sharp. It's soft at MFD due to its non floating element design - but super sharp at about 2m+

The 50L is the little brother of the 85L, and is the 35L on steroids

Very versatile:

Portraits @ f/1.2:

Shwing!

Have extensive use with BOTH the 50mm 1.2L and 1.4, and have not noticed any visible difference, nothing worth caring about anyway. 50L is deadly fast in low-light for autofocus. Both equally capable, and incredible lenses.

It's all about whos using it man, not other people say about them. 50mm is a must have on full-frame, they make for gorgeous portrait shots.

thedcmule2 wrote in post #16338097
Have extensive use with BOTH the 50mm 1.2L and 1.4, and have not noticed any visible difference, nothing worth caring about anyway. 50L is deadly fast in low-light for autofocus. Both equally capable, and incredible lenses.

It's all about whos using it man, not other people say about them. 50mm is a must have on full-frame, they make for gorgeous portrait shots.

There is a definite bokeh difference between the Canon 1.4 and Canon 1.2. Also there is a huge difference in build quality, even though the Canon 1.4 may be about 1/4th the cost of the L, you would undoubtedly need to buy 4 of them over the course of many years for the one L lens.

My vote is for the Sigma. I have tested (and rebuilt) several Canon 1.4s, and even though I had to first send my Sigma to Sigma for AF correction, it has been best when tested against the Canon 1.4s.

some people are comfortable walking all day with just a 35, but I'm in the camp of comfortable walking all day with just the 50. It forces me to shoot from slightly longer distances to produce less distorted images. Price is very hard to justify for the 50L, kinda soft, focus and pretty good (not excellent).

only went this route because the C50F1.4 broke on me, without any abuse.....

For what its worth, I always thought my Sigma 50 was OK. Sent it back twice for calibration but never was overly confident in its consistency. I was impressed when it did focus but didn't use it a whole lot, so changing or upgrading it was a low priority to me. I just recently added a 5D mkIII an holy crap! this is a completely different lens on this body compared to mounted on my 7D. On one hand, I prefer a slightly longer focal length (50 on a crop, 85 on a FF) but I have found some love in this combo now. They seem to be working great together! Now I'm not so sure how much I can justify that 85mm since its close to 50mm and I'm not so ready to part with this combo...

With the recent addition of a 6D, I decided a 50mm lens and a 24-70 f/2.8 range lens were necessary. With a total budget of around $1,400, I kicked around buying a 24-70L v1 and a 50mm 1.4 to replace the Canon 35mm 1.4L and Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC that I used on my 7D, which has now been regulated to racetrack-duty only.

But then I did a query of my photo library and found the 50mm (equivalent) focal length is one that I use on 1,000's of photo's a year, and I don't see that changing. Therefore, I decided to put my money where my usage was, and bought a used 50L, and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for when I need the zoom.

I realize many would have chosen the opposite of me, but really, it all comes down to what's on the camera being used and what's in your bag "just in case".