Question For A Prime Lens.

If you look at my signature you will see the lenses I have, but I want to also buy a 50 mm prime and am in between the EF 50 1.4 or the EF 50 1.2 L, is the L worth it for that much more money? Thanks

I'll say no, others may say yes.

I have the 1.4 and it does perfectly fine for me.
I shoot everything from portraits (strobes) to sports/action with it. Works fine!

I guess if you don't want to ever be able to say, "I should get a better lens," then go for the 1.2

not to me it wasn't.

The 50 1.2L is a staple of wedding photographers. If that's what you'll use it for then yes, it's worth it. Otherwise, not to so much. I went with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 which I compared with the Canon 50mm 1.4 and found it to be better than the Canon.

jayadeff wrote in post #14187194
The 50 1.2L is a staple of wedding photographers. If that's what you'll use it for then yes, it's worth it. Otherwise, not to so much. I went with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 which I compared with the Canon 50mm 1.4 and found it to be better than the Canon.

The Sigma 50 f/1.4 is a bargain once you learn how to use/handle it at the wider apertures. At first I thought I needed to micro adjust mine or send it in to have it checked for front focusing issues. But after putting the camera/lens on a tripod and taking some test shots I discovered it was my movement causing the issues. So I practiced a different stance and way to hold the camera while shooting and my keepers went way up at f/1.8 to f/2. Shooting at f/1.4 is still a challenge when the subjects are very close and without a tripod though.

Folks generally fail to recognize that most fast lenses were traditionally designed to permit the pro photojournalist 'to get the image when there is simply not enough light'. That meant that light gathering was generally accomplished with sacrifice in other IQ aspects. Photozone.de describes the 50mm f/1.2 as "However, when looking at the whole image frame the results are generally less than thrilling. The border resolution as well as the vignetting is rather poor from f/1.2 till f/2. "

The 50mm f/1.2 has lower Center MTF than the 50mm f/1.4 lens at similar apertures, and this is even more true at the Edges. And comparing 'wide open' on each lens, the f/1.2 has considerably lower MTF than the 50mm f/1.4 wide open.

Ok thanks everyone, so the 1.4 is sharper than the 1.2? I also heard that the 1.4 has faster AF.

My 1.4 wasnt a very sharp creature and it hunted in lowlight like mad, the 1.2 is sharp at 1.2 if you nail focus, which is very difficult, but it hands in sharp results on f/2> all the time. It's also very good at finding the needed contrast in darkness to fire off, no hunting.
I know people say it isnt sharp at 1.2, and i also thought so, until i finally got a sharp one. But the difference is in the general rendering, the small simple nyances.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/the_warlock/6​835627832/

I split the difference and went with the Sigma - yeah, I know, I know, the whole
"focus lottery" thing, however, both the 50 and the 85 were (and still are!) spot on out of the box. Just another option.

Regards,
Eric

SpartanWarrior wrote in post #14187542
Ok thanks everyone, so the 1.4 is sharper than the 1.2? I also heard that the 1.4 has faster AF.

No, and especially not in low light.

I own the 50L specifically for the USM, as the 'fake' USM on the 50/1.4 gave me nothing but fits in low light. The lens would give up and hunt for focus in light levels where my 24-105L was still going strong and locking on.

The 50L focuses like a ring USM - reasonably fast (this one is indeed one of the slower ring-USMs but not like the 85L or anything) and capable of locking on and being accurate in low light.

The 50/1.4 (for me) was just the king of near misses and hunting comparatively.

For IQ....they are pretty close. I personally think the 50L is better below f/2 but it's close enough to not matter. The 50L is better about flare and it is capable of a better background blur in a situation where you really catch something busy and contrasty in the background.

Thanks everyone I will see which way I go

One thing I never understood was how a certain lens will hunt more than another, the body does the focusing. Once the body figures out what is focus it stops. Now I can see some being slower or noisier, but how does a prime lens, which is wide open during focus, give a body more fits than a 2.8 lens. Prime is letting in more light so focus should be easier.

mike_311 wrote in post #14190122
One thing I never understood was how a certain lens will hunt more than another, the body does the focusing. Once the body figures out what is focus it stops. Now I can see some being slower or noisier, but how does a prime lens, which is wide open during focus, give a body more fits than a 2.8 lens. Prime is letting in more light so focus should be easier.

You'd think so, but that simply is not how things are. Some fast Canon lenses suck at focusing.

In general, the Canon ring USM equipped lenses will allow the body to focus down to lower light levels along with the expected benefits of being faster, quieter and more accurate.