50mm 1.2 - is it worth it?

So...I have these two lenses - the sigma 50mm (my most used lens) and the Sigma 85mm (which I have not used in months). If I sell both it would cover the cost (more or less) of the Canon 50mm 1.2.

The sigma 50mm is a real love/hate lens, its image quality is very good, but at 1.4 its AF is 50% of the time off and Im wondering if life with the Canon 50mm 1.2 would be any better?

Does anyone have any experience with the Canon and Sigma 50mm who could offer any thoughts?

I tried 3 copies of the Sigma, none were any good. I was reading in another thread that someone else here tried 4, apparently his threshold for pain is higher than mine. I really liked the look and feel of the Sigma, it's a nice lens to look at.

The 50L would be a step up, but its not without its warts either. Sharpness is fine from 2.0 up, its a bit dicey below that. When it nails it, its golden. But there is also some that are just plain off with my 5D2. Maybe it'd be a bit more accurate on the 5D 3. The gaussian optics give a very pleasing bokeh... very nice and the key to why people pay what they do for this. However, to achieve this, there is no floating rear element, so as in other similar lenses, focus shift does come into play as well. One thing I recently found, using a neutral density filter in bright sunlight does help when using larger aperatures. I'm thinking the focus sensors are getting blown out even though its within "range". I can open it up and get more keepers that way, or so it seems from my initial findings.

I've had the Canon 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2, and now I have the Sigma 1.4.... The Siggy has always been sharp for me at all distances.. the color and contrast is amazing... there's really nothing I don't like about it. With the 50L, Focus was hit and miss(Focus Shift), the purple fringing wide open was atrocious, and it just wasn't worth the $$$$ as far as I was concerned.

People have different views on it, but that was my experience.

if you want the best AF 50 then the L is definitely the way to go but IMO the jump from the Sigma 50 f1.4 is not worth it just for the extra 1/3 stop unless you make a living off you photos.

I rarely shoot at f1.4 on the Sigma as it is, most of the time at f2

if you ask about 50L, mostly you either get 1. it sucks 2. its awesome. 50L is very tricky lens to use, you either love it or leave it.
One more thing regarding about back focus issue. If you shoot < 3 feet from your subject, back focus will be noticeable. If you shoot > 3 feet, the problem is not there. Here is a cropped image that took > 3

robert61 wrote in post #14761961
One thing I recently found, using a neutral density filter in bright sunlight does help when using larger aperatures. I'm thinking the focus sensors are getting blown out even though its within "range". I can open it up and get more keepers that way, or so it seems from my initial findings.

Interesting. Got to try this out on the Sigma 50.

robert61 wrote in post #14761961
One thing I recently found, using a neutral density filter in bright sunlight does help when using larger aperatures. I'm thinking the focus sensors are getting blown out even though its within "range". I can open it up and get more keepers that way, or so it seems from my initial findings.

Funny about the ND, I notice the same thing. There is a rumor of a new 50 1.4 coming so maybe worth while to wait a bit.

I do like mine and overall I am happy with it.

Why not just get canon 50mm 1.4 instead if you have AF issues with Sigma.
At least for me, the price difference of 50mm 1.2 doesn't justify getting it unless you make a living off of using that lens.

the canon 50 f/1.4 has a somewhat dated USM design and is prone to jamming at the focusing ring...i've sent mine back for fixes at least 3 times in the five years I've owned it.

MattD wrote in post #14761135
So...Im wondering if life with the Canon 50mm 1.2 would be any better? ... Does anyone have any experience with the Canon and Sigma 50mm who could offer any thoughts?

As I mentioned in earlier to someone else, if you can afford 50L, don't think twice. Otherwise, 50 f/1.4 is a pretty decent lens...

I have the Canon 50L, 50 1.4 and Sigma 50 1.4

I'm probably very silly for keeping them all but I can't get myself to get rid of the Sigma, I think i was lucky with this copy and i'm very happy with the results from it.

I'd say get the 50L if you plan to shoot at 1.2 - which I do a lot.

I don't have the exif but I think this was shot at 1.2

Folks neglect to consider that really fast aperture lenses were designed with the intention of letting the photographer GET THE SHOT, when a slower aperture lens simply would not do the job sufficiently. The cost of that capability is lower IQ, compared to more moderate apertures like f/1.4

That is a truism that has pretty much applied during the history of photography, and the faster the aperture the lower the IQ, including the legendary f/0.95 lenses.

So is the 50L f/1.2 'worth it'? If you simply otherwise cannot get the shot, YES! If you think that you are paying for better IQ, NO!!!

jackinavox wrote in post #14765149
...
I don't have the exif but I think this was shot at 1.2

Date Time Original: 2012:04:15 15:10:28
Exposure Time: 1/125
F Number: f / 2.80
Exposure Program: Manual
ISO Speed Ratings: 100
Metering Mode: Pattern
Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length: 50mm
White Balance: Auto white balance
Make: Canon
Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark II
LensInfo: 50/1 50/1 0/0 0/0
Lens: EF50mm f/1.2L USM

A lens I want for sure. The photos you see when the focus is spot on... delicious!