need to decide on a 50 mm

I have the 50L and I love it.

As others have already said, nailing focus can be hard due to small movements by the subject. Just be aware of this factor and make sure you plan for it (stopping down when you can and still get the shot you want). However it is a hard lens to beat in a very low light situation.

I'd say if you can swing it, go for it. It is hard to regret buying a great lens.

nightcat wrote in post #16340244
If you absolutely need 1.2 and plan to use the lens at 1.2 the great majority of the time, you get the L. If not, you don't.

Why not. The 50L is sharper at 1.4 than the 1.4 versions

davidfarina wrote in post #16340229
Who says that? My 50L is almost as sharp as my 135L when the focus is right

No. The 50L is fuzzy and hazy at f/1.2 when compared to the 85L and 135L wide open. I've tried 3 copies of the 50L and none of them came close to the other L primes.

If I had to buy a 50mm lens today, I'd probably play the Sigma lottery and hope I'd get a good copy.

On the other hand, I think a new Sigma 50 is just around the corner.

hmm interesting on a new sigma. I did see some comparisons of the sigma and both canon 1.8 and 1.4. I was impressed with the sigma.

I would like to go with the 1.2 b/c it will give the most options. I did read 1 photographer I follow in FB say that the lens is best at 1.2 and not so much at 1.4 , etc. Not sure about the truth of that. I hear a lot of things, some good some bad about this lens, hence my asking and considerations.

And good to know I did figure the "focus problem" would be due to my or subjects movement. I think this might work nicely for my pet work and such. I did try it on a newborn once and liked it.

I think I will go with the L. The sigma is appealing but I dont know that I want to wait it out on a new model and no sense to buy the old one when a new one is coming.

I do know I dont want another 1.4 after the motor issue and I broke 3 of the 1.8 before that.

Are you completely set on 50mm? If not, I'd get the sigma 35 over any of the options listed.

That literally just made me laugh

maverick75 wrote in post #16340005
You don't have to shoot the 1.2 wide open, step it down to 1.4-2.8. Will give you a little extra leeway focus wise while still getting nice bokeh.


(who am I kidding though, if I had that lens I'd just shoot it at 1.2)

Ginga wrote in post #16340390
No. The 50L is fuzzy and hazy at f/1.2 when compared to the 85L and 135L wide open. I've tried 3 copies of the 50L and none of them came close to the other L primes.

I completely agree with this statement here. 50L wide open (and pretty much in MFD) is nowhere near as sharp as 85LII or 135L wide open. I've tried 2 brand new 50Ls before deciding to just settling on the third with lowered sharpness expectations at f/1.2.

I still own and use my 50L quite regularly. Unlike all of my other lenses, I don't pixel peep with my 50L as that is not the main reason for keeping it. It just generates this very unique look (at 50mm distance) and produces amazing quality pictures.

Furinox wrote in post #16341465
Are you completely set on 50mm? If not, I'd get the sigma 35 over any of the options listed.

I would like to have a 50 mm. It was my first lens and the only one I used for like 5 years. Granted I wasnt too serious about photography then but I am just "used to it". I would also like a 35 mm. I do have 1 now the rokinon. I have used it for a lot of nice landscapes but I also need a 35 with AF at some point. Why do you like the sigma 35 so much? I have not researched them too much so just asking.

KeenanRIVALS wrote in post #16341483
That literally just made me laugh

What is so funny? I am just asking b/c I dont know but I do like to shoot around f2 a lot if I dont shoot wide open. Is somethign wrong with it in those ranges.

Skip the Sigma 50 and go straight to the Canon 50L. While none of the 50mm options are perfect, the 50L is the most dependable in both focusing and giving you eye pleasing results the others don't have.

I had a Sigma and it was soft at f/1.4 so I sold it. I don't know if that's the case with all of them or if my lens had misaligned elements. I will just use the pancake or the brick in its place until someone releases a mind-blowing 50mm. Will it be Canon, Sigma, someone else?

Ginga wrote in post #16340390
No. The 50L is fuzzy and hazy at f/1.2 when compared to the 85L and 135L wide open. I've tried 3 copies of the 50L and none of them came close to the other L primes.

+1

People can brag about 1.2 and the dreamy (soft) bokeh, but sharpness is never ever its strong point.

I have shot with my colleague's 50L and no offence it's soft as hell. My Sigma 35 @ f1.4 puts it into shame.

If you are one of those people who isn't going to use the L wide open 99% of the time, do yourself a flavor and just get the 50 1.4 or Sigma.

This is from someone who has used/owned all Canon version and currently own sigmalux and the Zeiss 50 MP.

joonrhee wrote in post #16341576
I completely agree with this statement here. 50L wide open (and pretty much in MFD) is nowhere near as sharp as 85LII or 135L wide open. I've tried 2 brand new 50Ls before deciding to just settling on the third with lowered sharpness expectations at f/1.2.

I still own and use my 50L quite regularly. Unlike all of my other lenses, I don't pixel peep with my 50L as that is not the main reason for keeping it. It just generates this very unique look (at 50mm distance) and produces amazing quality pictures.

gotta agree here

kin2son wrote in post #16341950
+1

People can brag about 1.2 and the dreamy (soft) bokeh, but sharpness is never ever its strong point.

I have shot with my colleague's 50L and no offence it's soft as hell. My Sigma 35 @ f1.4 puts it into shame.

If you are one of those people who isn't going to use the L wide open 99% of the time, do yourself a flavor and just get the 50 1.4 or Sigma.

This is from someone who has used/owned all Canon version and currently own sigmalux and the Zeiss 50 MP.

it's soft if you shoot close, but a little far back, and it's quite good.

ISO3200 F1.2 default lightroom sharpening, and I think the IQ is pretty good for what it is:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …e617/1004019371​3/sizes/o/

Thank you for the replies and as far as alternatives: I have a used 70-200 2.8 IS. I use it for sports. I'm not sure it's not in the best shape but it does fine for that. I debated on a 135 but when my macro died I got the 100L and it's tack sharp and the best thing Ive done. With the 70-200 and an extender and the 100, I dont need anything more in that range.

I do have a 35 MF rokinon. I also have a tamron 28-75. I know it's a cheapo but I honestly like its results enough to keep it. I think for the lower ranges I want to keep primes. I might consider a 35 I guess. I do like really sharp images......

I dont want another 1.4 b/c of the AF motor problems like I had with this one, i do know that...