50mm 1.2 - is it worth it?

Tried them all. My personal experience

50 1.4-

Pros
Sharp @ F2.8, colors similar to 50L, cheap

Cons
Horrible build, soft wide open (F/1.4-F/1.8),horrible in focusing under low/dim light, harsh bokeh.

50 1.2

Pros
Professional build, weather sealing,ethereal bokeh! sharper than Canon 50 1.4 in wider apertures

Cons
Expensive, not as sharp compared to other primes (35 1.4, 85 1.2 and 24L i.4II)

Sigma 50 1.4

Pros
Great build, nice color (warmer than Canon) cheap but nice very optics, great bokeh

Cons

AF issue. Focus shift.

Rittrato wrote in post #14765401
50 1.2

Pros
Professional build, weather sealing,ethereal bokeh! sharper than Canon 50 1.4 in wider apertures

Puzzling observation, when photozone.de tests of both lenses on FF cameras showed that the 50 f/1.2 never has as high MTF scores at any aperture, compared to the 50 f/1.4 lens!

In most cases the 50L is "just" sharp enough.

If you "hate" your sigma you'll hate the 50L in some way or another. At least the 50L will consistently be sharp. If you shoot up close in the 5foot or less range you may see the evil focus shift. If you shoot beyond 5 feet you'll have less issues since the dof grows as you increase your distance.

The 50mm sigmadud just loves random dumb AF which is why I still cant believe they are selling the duds around the world. Your experience echoes amongst users yet some rare people swear by it.

I find the 50mm to be an interesting FL. I find it to be too long in many cases. However some rare occasions its perfect. I even find the 35L to be long in many cases.

I'd explore other FL rather than limiting yourself to a 50mm dedicated "only" lens.

BTBeilke wrote in post #14765222
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

dumb question, but how do you get that info?

jackinavox wrote in post #14765540
dumb question, but how do you get that info?

I've been using Google Chrome as my primary browser lately and I found a great EXIF extension aptly named "EXIF Viewer". Once the extension is installed, you just have to right-click on a photo and pick "Show EXIF Data". (It should be noted that not all photos contain EXIF data. Intentionally or not, many people strip that info before posting images. If I'm not mistaken the "Save for Web" option in Photoshop can strip the EXIF data.)

Wilt wrote in post #14765485
Puzzling observation, when photozone.de tests of both lenses on FF cameras showed that the 50 f/1.2 never has as high MTF scores at any aperture, compared to the 50 f/1.4 lens!

Possibly copy variation with mine? My 50 1.4 is definitely softer than my 50 1.2 @ F /1.4-F/1.8. At F/2.2 the 50 1.4 catches up.

BTBeilke wrote in post #14765692
I've been using Google Chrome as my primary browser lately and I found a great EXIF extension aptly named "EXIF Viewer". Once the extension is installed, you just have to right-click on a photo and pick "Show EXIF Data". (It should be noted that not all photos contain EXIF data. Intentionally or not, many people strip that info before posting images. If I'm not mistaken the "Save for Web" option in Photoshop can strip the EXIF data.)

I just googled : firefox plugin exif and was able to find one for firefox as well, nice tip.

cheers for the advice guys!

Just to clarify, its not that I dislike my sigma 50mm, its that.... It my most used lens (75% of camera time is with that attached) and its without a doubt my worst lens too.

When I compare it to say the 24mmL or the 135mmL its just not in their league, as far as build, AF, sharpness go. But, 50mm just looks right, and in most situations I find its perfect.

I think though, Ill stick with the Sigma, at F2 its is 95% perfect, with im sure (fingers crossed) that Canon will be updating there 50mm 1.4 (btw, used to own the canon one and hated it!) at some point.

yalemba wrote in post #14763590
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 agree with this simply because I got a "good copy" of the 1.4. When I first started using it I got photos that were spot on and magnificent at f/1.4. It still works like a charm on my 40D but needs lots of tweeking on the 5D Mark II. I don't know why that is. If I buy a f/1.2 then the f/1.4 I have will become the master lens for the 40D I guess. Never a bad thing to have 2 50mm lenses.

I have the 50L, and used to have the Sigma 50mm too.

The 50L is not very sharp, but the image quality is unique, with incomparable bokeh.

It makes incredible pictures shot wide open, I much prefer it to the Sigma I used to have.

As much as I like the 50L no lens needs an update more then 50. I would love a 50 with the 24L II image quality, build, focus etc or even a non L with USM and a decent build.

50L @1.2, focus is at the eye

That's pretty sharp to me nice squrel pic I think the 50mm 1.2 will be my first L lens I just love the 1.2 and how it renders everything...

pkilla wrote in post #14767983
That's pretty sharp to me nice squrel pic I think the 50mm 1.2 will be my first L lens I just love the 1.2 and how it renders everything...

The benefit of f/1.2 DOF is far less than you think! Using 20/20 human visual acuity,...

• at a subject distance of 5m (16'), the difference in DOF zone is 0.16m (at f/1.2) vs. 0.19m (at f/1.4),
  or 0.03m or 1.18" shallower DOF
  
• at a subject distance of 1000cm (39"), the difference in DOF zone is 0.6cm (at f/1.2) vs. 0.7cm (at f/1.4),
  or 0.1cm or 0.042" shallower DOF
  
• at a subject distance of 15m (49'), the difference in DOF zone is 1.44m (at f/1.2) vs. 1.68m (at f/1.4),
  or 0.24m or 9.45" shallower DOF

Wilt wrote in post #14768038
The benefit of f/1.2 DOF is far less than you think! Using 20/20 human visual acuity,...

• at a subject distance of 5m (16'), the difference in DOF zone is 0.16m (at f/1.2) vs. 0.19m (at f/1.4),
  or 0.03m or 1.18" shallower DOF
  
• at a subject distance of 1000cm (39"), the difference in DOF zone is 0.6cm (at f/1.2) vs. 0.7cm (at f/1.4),
  or 0.1cm or 0.042" shallower DOF
  
• at a subject distance of 15m (49'), the difference in DOF zone is 1.44m (at f/1.2) vs. 1.68m (at f/1.4),
  or 0.24m or 9.45" shallower DOF

...for $1200 difference in MSRP

If it is just a matter of background blur from diameter of the aperture, I did some quick 4 banger calculator equivalents:

Diameter of 50mm F 1.2=41.6 approx.

Divided into 85mm=F 2 approx. Do-able with 85mm F 1.8 lens

Divided into 100mm=F 2.4 approx.. Do-able with 100mm F 2.0, 105mm F 2.5 Nikkor

Divided into 135mm=F 3.24 approx. Do-able with 135mm F 2.8 SF or 135mm F 2.0 L or any decent 135mm manual focus F 2.8 you care to adapt

Divided into 200mm =F 4.8 approx. Do-able with 200mm F 2.8 L, any of the 70-200mm F 4.0 or 2.8 zooms.

With the exception of the 70-200mm F 2.8 L IS II, all of these other options are less expensive than the 50mm F 1.2 L.