50L still worth the premium?

Yes it is an expensive lens, but well worth it in my view.

I have a few of the current Canon "wonder lenses." The 50f1.2L, the 85f1.2L, and the 200f2L. Each of these lenses I find very hard to use, yet when I get them right, they are magic. It's almost as if the challenge of learning how to use them is part of the allure. It's quite possible that other lenses offer more, but it's OK to "fall in love" with these lenses. I drive a Porsche, and it's not the "best" car by most measures...other than the measure I fell for: it's a driver's car, and I want to drive one. The crazy, problematic Canon lenses fall into that category...for me.
I have the wonderful Sigma 35f1.4, but it's just one of many lenses. I may one day try the surprising Sigma 50f1.4. Or not...

on the fred Miranda user reviews the 50L scores lower than the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 I. it does pip the 50 1.8 II by .1.

in fact I doubt that any of the current L lenses score as low as the 50L which at an 8.7 out of 10 rates more like a mediocre non-L lens.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …t/305/sort/7/ca​t/2/page/2

I've never owned or used the 50L but FM is where I begin my research when researching lenses

ed rader wrote in post #16925836
on the fred Miranda user reviews the 50L scores lower than the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 I. it does pip the 50 1.8 II by .1.

in fact I doubt that any of the current L lenses score as low as the 50L which at an 8.7 out of 10 rates more like a mediocre non-L lens.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …t/305/sort/7/ca​t/2/page/2

I've never owned or used the 50L but FM is where I begin my research when researching lenses

It's interesting, but I do think it's difficult to gauge based solely on someone's ability to pick a number 1-10. If you're talking value, yeah, it's probably not there. It costs a ton and doesn't offer much on paper that far cheaper lenses do. But like the many who love this lens (as much as one can "love" a lens) say, it's got special qualities to it that the others can't offer you. I've seen samples, lots of them, and the people who come to understand how to cook with this lens' secret sauce produce some truly breathtaking images. Maybe I'm caught up in that allure but after doing this photography thing for awhile I've come to learn that sharpness is overrated, and you can get sharp results from lots of lenses at a fraction of the cost. Like many things, photography can be about the pursuit. I don't make a living doing this, I just enjoy it, pure and simple.

Why not buy a used copy?

Recently picked up a used 50L and it has blown me away, it definitely has a "magical" quality that most other lenses don't have. I often shoot wider focal lengths, so I was not sure I would find this lens useful so I bought it used. Appears I got a good copy. In any case, I will be holding on to this lens just for the look it is capable of producing.

ed rader wrote in post #16925836
on the fred Miranda user reviews the 50L scores lower than the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 I. it does pip the 50 1.8 II by .1.

in fact I doubt that any of the current L lenses score as low as the 50L which at an 8.7 out of 10 rates more like a mediocre non-L lens.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …t/305/sort/7/ca​t/2/page/2

I've never owned or used the 50L but FM is where I begin my research when researching lenses

That's mainly because people buy the lens, shoot at f/1.2, claim they have "focus shift" or "the lens is soft," sell it, and write a lousy review. It seriously takes time to use a 50L or 85L with good results. My first try at the 85L and 50L wide open were awful, but now I know their characteristics and can use that to my advantage, rather than badmouth the tool.

Hehe, well there is that aspect of the negative reviews, and it's certainly not limited to the 50L. Lots of lenses get written off because of bad first impressions. And I'm not completely unsympathetic toward them. It's all about expectations. Some people think if they drop over $1000 for a shiny new lens that it should just work with no fuss. I get it.

I liked my nifty fifty while it remained in one piece, but there was no mystery to it. It did what it did unapologetically. It was sharp enough, but lacked any character. I want the character. I want the melt-away bokeh, the angelic fall-off, the colors. I want my lenses to have personality and not mind getting to know them. There's plenty of lenses that are smarter buys, and are plenty sharp, and their brand name often doesn't begin with the letter "C". But that's not my cup of tea. I'm not in it for MTF charts or shooting brick walls. I'm in it for those rare occasions I get things just right, and hang 'er on the wall.

Staszek wrote in post #16925941
That's mainly because people buy the lens, shoot at f/1.2, claim they have "focus shift" or "the lens is soft," sell it, and write a lousy review. It seriously takes time to use a 50L or 85L with good results. My first try at the 85L and 50L wide open were awful, but now I know their characteristics and can use that to my advantage, rather than badmouth the tool.

well, technically it does and is. I do agree though, that one must know how to manage a lens at 1.2. Otherwise the results are not going to be appealing.

To the original poster, why not rent one for a few days from lensrentals and see how it feels. When i rented the 50L, i had a weekend to play with it and while i really enjoyed it, I rarely had a use for 1.2, so i just couldnt justify the premium.

I think the 50L is a stellar lens. I had a chance to use it and I was happy at the results. It is an excellent lens, but is it worth the premium? Not at that price. There are so many alternatives out there that gives you much more value for the money. The minor difference in "image quality and creamy bokeh" can easily be compensated for skill and vision.

XxDJCyberLoverxX wrote in post #16926014
I think the 50L is a stellar lens. I had a chance to use it and I was happy at the results. It is an excellent lens, but is it worth the premium? Not at that price. There are so many alternatives out there that gives you much more value for the money. The minor difference in "image quality and creamy bokeh" can easily be compensated for skill and vision.

pretty much all photography gear is judged in such a manner. I'de argue that the jump from 50 1.4 to 50 1.2 is even greater than 85 1.8 to 85 1.2.

sure the lens focus shifts, but I've yet to experience it. I mean who the heck buys this lens and stops it down

actually the ratings for that lens is funny. It rates extremely high with those who love it, and extremely low with those who hate it, hardly any in between. Those that hate it, hate it for the focus shift..... not sure why they bought a fast prime in the first place.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16925368
Yeah, I have pretty much sold myself on it. I'm in the process of making gear changes and I'm being really picky about what I want. Sounds silly, but I'm after the "magical" lenses lol. Ya' know, the one's that have those special characteristics to them. You mentioned the 135L, and that's another one I'm interested in, but a 50 takes priority for me.

I had the 24-70II, and subject separation and colors and contrast were pretty magical, I just didn't care for the bulk, and I also don't care much for zooms. Good lens, not for me.

I'm looking at 50L, 135L, maybe the 100L? I'd love the 85L but holy crap I don't want to spend that much!

You should add the 200L f/2 to your list. It's pricy and you didn't want to buy the 85L so you probably won't get it, but it can be the most magical of them all.

The new 50mm Art is a better buy IMO.

And your sensor doesn't really get any more light from an f1.2 anyway.

Here are some ideas of what to do with the 50mm L....

Im very surprised by all the responses about the 50L vs the 50 art. I thought many people would suggest the sigma over the canon.

That kind of shows that the 50L has its own pros. Its not all about sharpness when it comes to that sweet lens.

I have been through all three of Canon's current 50mm primes, and the 50L is the only one I have liked. I love the images it creates, and the AF has been excellent for me - no problems with focus **** the way I use it. I have been getting rid of some of my primes since transitioning from crop to full frame, and the 50L and 135L (plus the compact 40mm pancake) are the only ones I have kept.