Should I pick up the Canon 50mm f/1.2L?

I am a wedding second shooter. I have the 'Plastic Fantastic,' the 50mm F/1.8 II that I haven't used at a wedding before. Its got some crap inside it anyway. In the same focal range, I also have a 24-70 f/4L IS. This lens I shoot about 60% of the time with at a wedding (say 30% with the 70-200mm f/4L IS and 10% with the 16-35 and 10% with the 85mm f/1.8). I just visited a venue I'm going to shoot soon and it seems pretty dark inside. I'm pretty pleased with the results of ISO 8,000 up to 12,800 when shooting the zoom in the 35-50mm focal lengths at f/4 on my 6D.However this place is pushing it with the dim light and a fast shutter speed. part of me is also paranoid that depth of field will be so shallow shooting below f/2.0 that instead of focus and recompose with the center point, it would be better to use the peripheral focus points on 6d, which are not cross type points. I'm wondering if its "safer" to use the 50mm f/1.2L or 85mm f/1.2L on the 5dIII or 1Dx where a cross type auto focus point can be selected. I don't yet have a Mark III, but it is on my wish list.

I think the better choice if possible is to spend the money on an off camera lighting setup if you are only getting the lens for the low light part of it. You could even rent if it is just for one venue.

Edit: to clarify - your lens set up is pretty decent. Lighting might be the best option considering what you have. However it is always more "fun" to buy lenses haha.

The 6d may only have the one cross type AF point but that one point is better in low light than any on the 5d3. So if you're okay with focusing and recomposing it will be ok. As for the 50mm question, I shoot with a 50L on the 6d and while it is a fantastic combo, the better value for sure is the 50/1.4, especially if you're second shooting.

I'd say get that and invest in a couple solid speedlites if you don't have that already.

You should be aiming to get a good prime at some point anyway, so I'd definitely be looking to upgrade your 50mm 1.8. It's just a question of what prime.

I guess it depends on how much money you have, and what focal length suits you. The 85mm 1.2 is amazing, and will repay you with much better quality images than anything you currently own, regardless of the light.

As far as being worried about missing focus under 2.0 - I'd be far more concerned about shooting at 8000+ ISO, which is what you say you've been using. From my experience, that's pushing the limits of getting a decent quality image. I personally avoid anything over 4000. I can't speak for the 50mm, but I use the 85 1.2 for at least half of my shots on any given day. I focus and recompose at around 1.4 at receptions all the time, often without lighting. The 85 1.2 is very accurate, and produces excellent low-light images (far better than your current 24-70, or your 70-200).

Also consider the sigma 85mm 1.4. I hear good things about it, it's cheap, and once again it's going to give you more pleasing images than anything else in your kit.

Personally, I'd get the sigma 35 and 85 and throw your zooms in the river. (ok, sell them)

vanmidd wrote in post #17566734
As far as being worried about missing focus under 2.0 - I'd be far more concerned about shooting at 8000+ ISO, which is what you say you've been using. From my experience, that's pushing the limits of getting a decent quality image. I personally avoid anything over 4000. I can't speak for the 50mm, but I use the 85 1.2 for at least half of my shots on any given day. I focus and recompose at around 1.4 at receptions all the time, often without lighting. The 85 1.2 is very accurate, and produces excellent low-light images (far better than your current 24-70, or your 70-200).

Having shot weddings for 2 years with the 6D, I'd have to agree.. shooting ISO 8000+ is definitely pushing it, even using all the tricks (ETTR etc) the images are not that great, I stuck to ISO 4000 or in a pinch 5000 with the 6D to get acceptable results (acceptable meaning, reasonable image and reasonable time spent PP image to remove noise, yes I could have spent 2x as long doing NR but that is silly)

I like the 50 f1.2 though, i'd be inclined to try the Sigma ART and save a hundred or so bucks (Used 50L pricing vs new 50 ART)... You've got to start somewhere and as long as the 50mm focal length suits your style, you can't go wrong with either the 1.2 canon or the 1.4 ART.

dcnats wrote in post #17566593
The 6d may only have the one cross type AF point but that one point is better in low light than any on the 5d3. So if you're okay with focusing and recomposing it will be ok. As for the 50mm question, I shoot with a 50L on the 6d and while it is a fantastic combo, the better value for sure is the 50/1.4, especially if you're second shooting.

I'd say get that and invest in a couple solid speedlites if you don't have that already.

I have three YN 560-IVs, a TX, and a 430exII. Stands, clamps, and mono with triflash mount.

Thanks

I wound up buying it and got it for $900 (USD). I'm pretty sure I can hock it for $1,000 easily if necessary. This copy doesn't seem to back focus much, was free from internal dust (thank you, UV filter) and focuses quite well with the peripheral focus points.

The key to this seems to be practice. I appreciate people joining the discussion but by going out and actually trying it out I think I'm going to confidently use the peripheral auto focus points rather than focus-and-recompose the center point at the risk of swinging the DOF too far off the focal plane.

Maid & Mom shot at f/1.6. Got lucky eyes were on the same focal plane. Table shot at f/1.2 + ISO 4,000. I think I like this lens

vanmidd wrote in post #17566734
Personally, I'd get the sigma 35 and 85 and throw your zooms in the river. (ok, sell them)

I say that kind of stuff all the time.

To really nerd it up, go with Star Trek: "... & chuck it out the nearest air lock!"

One does not just Pick Up a 50mm 1.2.......It is an awesome lens, my walk around lens.

Silver-Halide wrote in post #17567245
I wound up buying it and got it for $900 (USD). I'm pretty sure I can hock it for $1,000 easily if necessary. This copy doesn't seem to back focus much, was free from internal dust (thank you, UV filter) and focuses quite well with the peripheral focus points.

The key to this seems to be practice. I appreciate people joining the discussion but by going out and actually trying it out I think I'm going to confidently use the peripheral auto focus points rather than focus-and-recompose the center point at the risk of swinging the DOF too far off the focal plane.

Maid & Mom shot at f/1.6. Got lucky eyes were on the same focal plane. Table shot at f/1.2 + ISO 4,000. I think I like this lens

Nice photos.

Off point a little bit here but curious, would you give that second photo of the group to the client? Reason I am asking is we used to try and catch those candid's (still do on occasion) or at least somewhat candid's because you have to think a few people at the table know they are being taken, but we now don't waste the clicks. We found doing this the way you shot it, on occasion we would get the backs of heads as you did, which can be a great photo in some cases, but some guys hate showing off the lose of hair or even women on occasion so why even take it or give it out.

We started asking the bride and groom if they want table shots of everyone at each individual table, all together and looking at the lens and they always say yes please do it. They actually enjoy putting their arms around each other and crunching up and having fun. We actually have a great time coming up to the table and getting them to pose for a shot. Everyone for the most part loves to get their photo taken. In some cases you can get some of the folks having fun, which turn in to great shots.

We find we can position, adjust someone if needed (hair in the face or something else, even move a glass or bottle) and get great shots and everyone is happy. That second photo of the guy wiping his mouth, is a perfect example. A beautiful photo, light and focus is perfect, looks amazing, taken perfectly, but will it really go anywhere with him and his hands over his face.? Not sure I would even give it to the client. We just find it saves clicks and we get the perfect shot by just asking everyone to pose.

The other question and we are getting this a lot lately, is can you fix us up a little bit. For us, the price determines that but we do make minor adjustments that will just make whoever look a little better. Let's face it, when I look in the mirror I am thinking I see Jeff Bridges or look as good as him but I really don't but I want to. I might have taken that first photo and used the patch tool under the eyes and then back it off to 0 on opacity and then move it up to around 30 to 50 percent, until it looked a little more pleasing.

I know I know, its what they look like, and in most cases we don't even tell them what we did, but they seem to really like the finished product we present them and the referrals keep coming in.

Thanks!
Absolutely. Granted if you could see the guy picking asparagus out of his teeth with a credit card the shot would likely have wound up in the trash. One of the bigger complaints in my parts is a lack of table shots during the reception. Personally, I prefer this candid nature as opposed to interrupting the whole table and asking them to move their chairs to form a half circle so I can get every mug in the photo without having to go to 16mm and a few unfortunate souls at the edge of the frame wind up with 5" noses.

24-70 gets it every time for us. And I do like the candid's also and if the shot is right, can look fantastic. We both know the best photos often are when the subject does not know they are being photographed. We are just finding the clients like the idea and want it so we honor their wishes. We often have had the bride or groom sneak over and get in the shot which is a lot of fun.