50 1.2L vs 50 1.4

Is the 1.2L worth it over the 1.4 version? I'm looking for this lens to be my main lens on my new 5D3.

imho:
If you can fork the $$$, Do it

Yes, it's worth it.

I'd consider the Sigma 35mm.

35mm is the new 50mm, I find it better as a general lens than 50mm.

If you want a solidly built 50mm with AF then there is no better lens out there. Do check out for focus shifts. Unfortunately most fast lenses will but obviously you need to check ones with the least focus shift. Mine shift ever so slightly at f1.6 and very good elsewhere.

kin2son wrote in post #15850514
I'd consider the Sigma 35mm.

35mm is the new 50mm, I find it better as a general lens than 50mm.

It's a better general lens, but the 50 is a better people lens.

Is it worth it? Well, technically. It's worth it because the resale value is there, but differences are subtle.... sometimes subtle costs a lot.

I have the 1.4 and rented the 1.2 as I had to know if it was that much better.
Physically the L is a beast of a lens. It literally draws attention when your out in public.
Image wise, yes it handles CA so much better and the colours and contrast are stunning. But the copy I rented was quite a bit softer than the 1.4, even at f2.
I found with a bit of work in RAW conversion I could bring the 1.4 up to the L. It's just a bit more work to acheive similar result.
I seriously recommend renting it to see if it's worth it to you to upgrade to the L.

^^ color rendition of the 50L is amazing. The 1.4 is similar to the 85 1.8 in color. A tad bit muted, correctable in post... kind of. I can spot the color differences on print.

Just to illustrate the color rendition of the 50L taken few years back with 5D2

I've tried out all of them, 50 1.8, 1.4, and 1.2. 1.8 is best bang for the buck, but it's literally crap compared to the other 2. Takes good photos for a $100 lens, but nowhere near as good as other.

With aperture, there's not much difference between 1.2 and 1.4. Can hardly tell the difference with bokeh, it'll allow just slightly a faster shutter speed. 1.4 still takes amazing photos. The 1.2 has subtle advantages in almost all categories, but IMO, not worth the much higher price tag. If you use and abuse your lens constantly, the L lens has the build quality of a tank and will last longer than multiple 1.4's.

I would suggest the 1.4 as a good bang for the buck. Good IQ overall.

The 1.2 is just sexy looking though :P

If you can afford it then grab it. It's a great lens and renders great color compare to the 1.4 IMO.

Colour rendition of 50L is the best amongest L primes. IMHO, yes, it is worth.

I just had the 1.2 on my camera at NAB, big mistake on my part. It is a much better lens. I have been obsessing over it for two weeks now.

IMHO the bokeh is better with 1.2 and had I look I much preferred over the 1.4 that I own.

Personally, I practically never leave my photos alone to be sooc so the color rendition doesn't matter to me much...Plus, I couldn't really tell a difference with some test shots I took at a camera shop the other day. The bokeh was nice of course, at 1.2! The gentleman behind the desk was trying to talk me out of the 50L by saying it was unpractical for any real use "When will you ever be shooting at f/1.2 in a real world situation?" made me think about it.. I'd probably have it stopped down to 2.0 or so unless I was trying to get a specific effect.

But the pros and cons get weighed out so much. Could you spend that extra 1k towards something else you are going to use more than the 50mm? If something is going to be as important as a main lens it might be worth it, and more expensive glass holds it's resale value. I am facing the same challenging question myself! good luck

the L is a step up in IQ, build, and bokeh