Canon 50mm f/1.2 L series vs Canon 50m f/1.4

Hey all... I am looking into purchasing the 50mm f/1.2 L Series. I currently have the "nifty fifty" a.k.a inexpensive 50mm f/1.4. All of my other lenses are L series...which I love. SO wanted all opinions on the difference between 50mm f/1.2 L and the 50mm f/1.4.
Thanks

A lot creamer background and sharper

off topic here and sorry if I thread hi-jacked

but i believe the nifty fifty refers to the 50mm F/1.8?

and yeah what he said =)

Try a search this topic is discussed many times ( unfortunately with pretty much no conclusion )

Here is what you will pretty much get
50 1.4 - great value, great lens after 1.8 with a micro USM focus so its a bit wonky at times. Known to break easily ( I had mine for 5 years and never had an issue, others will disagree )

Sigma 50 1.4 - another great value, close to Canon L but known to has issues with focus. ( I never tried one )

Canon 50 L - Best Bokeh, useable at 1.2 but has focus shift and is very expensive.( IMO the best 50mm lens you can buy but you will be frustrated at times. I find I miss most often with this lens but when I hit its amazing. FWIW, I probably miss about 10% more with this lens then I do with any other )

Even though I love the 50L its hard to not go with the Canon 50 1.4 which in my experience seemed sharper.

macky112 wrote in post #12733964
off topic here and sorry if I thread hi-jacked

but i believe the nifty fifty refers to the 50mm F/1.8?

and yeah what he said =)

the fifty 1.8 is better described as a thrifty 50 as the 1.4 is by no means a thrifty buy but is more nifty.

but yea as mentioned the 1.2 is going to be sharper and have smoother looking bokeh most likely

The biggest difference IMO is the focus. The ring USM on the 50L makes the lens more accurate, a problem that I encountered with the 50/1.4. I also felt that the 50/1.4 would give up and hunt for focus in light conditions that most lenses could tolerate. The 50L is one of the best lenses for focus in low light.

Finally - the 50L is a little sharper below f/2.8 and has better looking background blur. But be careful with the optical differences - they are not huge. IMO the focus motors are a bigger deal.

I have not used a Canon 50 1.2 so sorry if this is a little off track. I have used and enjoy a Nikkor AIS 50 1.2 on an EOS body. This professional lens was about $350 purchased used. Of course manual focus and manual aperture settings mean less automation.

Below is an example, probably between 1.8 and 2.8. Vignette was added with post processing.

Man. The 50L is f1.2.


Its almost sensuous to shoot at f1.2.


I mean really. It's worth it.

Sell the 1.4 and get the 1.2 to match the rest of the L collection.

Brian_R wrote in post #12734021
the fifty 1.8 is better described as a thrifty 50 as the 1.4 is by no means a thrifty buy but is more nifty.

The 50 1.8 was always the nifty fifty AND the thrifty fifty to some.

Of the 2, if you have the money, and need a specialist lens, the 50 1.2, if not, or you just want a general purpose lens then neither; the sigma 50 1.4 is better than the canon 50 1.4, so get that one instead.

i've had a canon 50 1.4 - now a sigma 50 1.4 (got it for the same price)

- I like how the canon behaves with lens flares (pretty big)
- canons af is very fragile (had to send it to canon)
- sigma wins buildwise
- sigma wins wide open
- sigma is heavier

Like the sigma much more... but you cant go wrong with the canon either