50 1.2L vs 50 1.4

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.

35mm isn't 50mm. It's fine that you personally prefer a 35mm prime, but that doesn't make the Sigma 35mm a good choice for a person who is looking for a 50mm prime.

I once owned 35-85-135 primes, partly because people talked about the 'holy trininty' and that these were the 'right' ones to own. For me they are not. Ideal for me is 24-50-100.

Anyway - to the OP I suggest the 50L if you can afford it. There are indeed differences, but you have to decide which ones matter to you.

For me the key difference is that the 50L autofocus is much better than the 50/1.4. When I had the 50/1.4 I found it to be a nervous performer, and it could be maddening in low light where it would hunt and miss.

Other differences:

Flare - 50L is much more resistant to flare

Bokeh - 50L is much smoother. The 50/1.4 is actually one of the worst EF lenses for bokeh. Then again, I rarely had shots with the 50/1.4 where I thought the bokeh was really objectionable.

Color - better on the 50L, but not a big deal IMO

Contrast - better on the 50L

I own, have used, and consider both the 50 1.2L and the 50 1.4 great lenses. From my real world experience, the L has better bokeh, color/contrast at all apertures, and better build quality. The auto focus accuracy/consistency of the L is much better than the non-L wider than f2.8 (as good as my other L primes), and they are about the same smaller than f2.8. The non-L focuses insignificantly faster in good light. The L’s low light auto focusing ability is extraordinary. Better than any of my other fast L primes. It will literally snap into focus in a dark room where other lenses just hunt and fail. It’s downright difficult to make the L flare. Both lenses are sharp. The L is slightly but noticeably sharper wider than f2, somewhere between f2 and f2.8 they become the same, and I can’t see a difference smaller than f2.8.

If the 50L’s only marginally sharper, color/contrast can usually be fixed in post, and bokeh is in the eye of the beholder, why is the L worth it? The difference in focus accuracy is noticeable, and while there is not much of a difference in the FOV between f1.2 and f1.4, it can make a big difference in what lighting conditions you can shoot in. So if you’ve ever missed that perfect smile, perfect moment, or perfect light because the picture was not in perfect focus, then you will understand why the 1.2L is worth it over the 1.4 version.

You can’t fix an out of focus picture in post and there are rarely “do overs” in photography. When the moment is gone, it’s gone.

Hope this helps and good Luck with your decision.

I too rented the 1.2L a couple of times. The first time I rented it from BorrowLenses.com and the lens was terrible. I rented it for a wedding I was doing that weekend and received it on Thursday so I could check it and make sure it worked OK. It had terrible CA all the way to f/4. I stopped closing the aperture after that because I assumed the lens was faulty. But BL told me that is typical with these lenses which really turned me off. I sent it back, they said they checked it and it was fine according to them.

About 4 months later I rented another one from Aperturent.com. This one was a perfect copy. Nice clear images with spectacular Bokeh... I didn't want to send it back. I was completely in love with this lens. One day I will be able to buy one and when I do, my daughter will get my 1.4.

IMHO, buy the 50mm F/1.4 and pick up a second lens with the 1100$ difference.

iCatchU wrote in post #15850823
Colour rendition of 50L is the best amongest L primes. IMHO, yes, it is worth.

Yes, amazing color tones that cannot be achieved in any other way outside of shooting with it.

I'll also say that the 50L almost MUST be paired with a newer body with advanced AF system.

7Ddame wrote in post #15850927
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.

Don't forget that your camera focuses with the lens wide open, so a 1.2 lens should find focus a lot easier in dark conditions.

pixel_junkie wrote in post #15851468
Yes, amazing color tones that cannot be achieved in any other way outside of shooting with it.

I'll also say that the 50L almost MUST be paired with a newer body with advanced AF system.

I got my 50L about one month ago and it is paired with a 5DIII. Unfortunately, I haven't had a lot of time to spend with it. But the first day I got it, I was shooting at nothing but 1.2 just for kicks and grins because I have never had a lens this fast. Frankly, I am absolutely astounded by my first test shots. Color, bokeh, and sharpness are outstanding. I took some very "busy" pics in the woods with lots of leaves and vines, and you really need to zoom in at 100% in order to appreciate the clarity of the focus point. AF is spot on. Someone said this is not a good lens for "real world" situations. I disagree, if only based on my first test shots. So far I love it, and can't wait to spend more time with it.

Test shot from first day, cloudy and rainy, sooc, just cropped a little and exported from Lightroom. You really need to zoom in at 100% on the original to appreciate it.

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.

This should be considered. Running around a bit wider than 50 years ago can pay off today. You have 20+ Megapixels so you can always crop back to 50mm. The Sigma 35mm is really good. The 50mm lenses all have something stupid going on.

manderson wrote in post #15852879
I got my 50L about one month ago and it is paired with a 5DIII. Unfortunately, I haven't had a lot of time to spend with it. But the first day I got it, I was shooting at nothing but 1.2 just for kicks and grins because I have never had a lens this fast. Frankly, I am absolutely astounded by my first test shots. Color, bokeh, and sharpness are outstanding. I took some very "busy" pics in the woods with lots of leaves and vines, and you really need to zoom in at 100% in order to appreciate the clarity of the focus point. AF is spot on. Someone said this is not a good lens for "real world" situations. I disagree, if only based on my first test shots. So far I love it, and can't wait to spend more time with it.

Test shot from first day, cloudy and rainy, sooc, just cropped a little and exported from Lightroom. You really need to zoom in at 100% on the original to appreciate it.

I hear you. The lens got a lot of bad rep before (including from me) and it was all justified. I used more than one copy on a 5D II and I would say it was the most erratic behaving lens I've used. I had all kinds of issues with it - spotty AF wide open, soft images from close up, spotty AF under certain types indoor lighting. Once I switched to a 5D III, I could not believe the difference in AF performance. I use mainly the center focus point with the 50L and I would say, the 85L mirrors the sharpness of the 85 at f/1.2 (which I did not think is possible). Clearly it has everything to do with the camera's vastly improved autofocus system. I'm ecstatic about it. The 50L is my dream travel lens and I finally can use it confidently and get the shots I've struggled to get so much with my old camera. It is truly fantastic.

On another note, for those comparing the 50L to the 50 1.4 and questioning if the price difference is worth it - build aside (there's no comparison between the two in that department), if you only look at colors and bokeh, there are times when both lenses will produce very similar results. So similar that would be difficult to tell them apart. BUT! For the majority of the shots, the 50L produces some of the richest, most beautiful colors. Match that with perfect contrast and fantastic looking bokeh and you clearly have a winner in the 50L. The fact that is built like a tank, weather sealed, has internal focus is a bonus.

The 50L and the 50 f/1.4 comparison remind me of the 85L and the 85 f/1.8 - people always aks the same question for those two. Yes, the little 85 is a very capable lens and will give you some beautiful images that will be close to what the 85L can deliver. But the 85L has a signature look and if you want that look consistently, you have to go to the 85L for it.

If the better focus motor, weather sealing, 1/3 stop, better color, better contrast, better bokeh, and the red ring are worth $1000 to you, then I would recommend getting the 1.2L.

I won´t say the 50mm f/1.2 has really better bokeh than the f/1.4.
It has bigger bokeh for sure - this results sometimes in much better bqackground rendering.

But the illumination distribution in the bokeh area is probably not much better, and in some situations much worse - because of the aspherical element and the onion rings that could create.

See more here in the Battle of the Fifities.

No non-photographer is going to look at a good photo and think, "if only he/she had used the 50L instead." Only you will know what je ne se quois your photos might lack when taken with the 50 1.4. If you must have the best possible bokeh and/or wide open performance in a 50mm, the 50L is your lens. To me the 50L is not worth the cost over the 50 1.4. This is coming from someone who does believe the 85L is worth it over the 85 1.8. YMMV

LostArk wrote in post #15865180
No non-photographer is going to look at a good photo and think, "if only he/she had used the 50L instead." ...

Not that way, but there are several non photographers who told me my pictures have something "special" they like - but I don´t have the 50mm/1.2L (but a Minolta Rokkor 58mm/1.2).

JeffreyG wrote in post #15851064
35mm isn't 50mm. It's fine that you personally prefer a 35mm prime, but that doesn't make the Sigma 35mm a good choice for a person who is looking for a 50mm prime.

I once owned 35-85-135 primes, partly because people talked about the 'holy trininty' and that these were the 'right' ones to own. For me they are not. Ideal for me is 24-50-100.

Agreed. 35 and 50 are close in terms of 'reach', but very different in terms of perspective. 35 is a wide angle, exaggerated perspective. Great for environmental portraits, but not a flattering perspective for tightly framed shots, as it will exaggerate facial features in a non-flattering way. 50 is a normal perspective. I'd say 50 is THE normal perspective. It's a perspective that captures images in a way that's true to life, without exaggeration. I also wouldn't hesitate to tightly frame a portrait at 50mm.

To the OP, what stands out between the 50 1.2 and 1.4 is the bokeh. Out of focus areas on the 50 1.4 are extremely erratic. 50 1.2 is extremely smooth. As others mentioned, contrast color transmission, and overall 'smoothness' of the image quality are significantly better on the 1.2 as well.

LostArk wrote in post #15865180
No non-photographer is going to look at a good photo and think, "if only he/she had used the 50L instead." Only you will know what je ne se quois your photos might lack when taken with the 50 1.4. If you must have the best possible bokeh and/or wide open performance in a 50mm, the 50L is your lens. To me the 50L is not worth the cost over the 50 1.4. This is coming from someone who does believe the 85L is worth it over the 85 1.8. YMMV

This gets argued over and over because as you say some people can't see the difference, some don't care and some do.

Being and engineer I understand getting caught up int he technical aspects of the gear, and I do enjoy that part... to much. However what it comes down to is all this technology is a craftsman's tool. For me the faster more consistent focusing as well as much better white field uniformity and bokeh of the 1.2 made it my choice to create the images I want to.