Canon 50mm 1.2L II?

There is no reliable rumor of a 50mm f/1.2L II. There's plenty of speculation though... and there has been for years.

All the present rumors are now on the theme of "well, it's one of the few lenses they haven't updated yet". Well, so what? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Canon don't OWE anyone a Mk2 and the price of the original lens is now quite low. You just know that any future release will be much more expensive.

Canon don't need to release a Mk2 in my opinion. The existing lens is a good one. It performs exactly as it should. That f/1.2 aperture is quite useful over the f/1.4 ... and the tough construction and weather resistant sealing goes a long way to sell it. Until Canon drop a hint that there's a Mk2 on the way you should pay little attention to fanboy rumors. They'll always be floating around. Besides, the only patent lodged by Canon for a 50mm lens recently turned out to be a 50mm f/1.4 STM lens... designed to kill off any interest in the Sigma alternative with an outrageously low price tag of just $349.

I really like the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens. I've been shooting with it for a few years now and it's one of my two favorite lenses. On a full frame camera, it's actually a decent walkabout lens. But if shooting portraits of people or pets, or when shooting products or nature... it produces a lot of very "luminous" images for me and most are keepers.

If you are OK to pay next to double from price of existing lens (it seems to be pricing pattern with primes and Ls), wait and get no good pictures without it while waiting of something unknown and not scheduled.

Reworking 1.2 lens optically is very different and much more difficult R&D task comaring to 1.4, 1.8 primes. I doubt Canon have enough reasons to do it.
Adding IS for video and making price double, yes.

Comparing to 70-200L or even 100L it is more walkable lens for sure and on FF camera it gives classic pictures if you take it for a walk.
I even walked with it on film Rebel, which adds almost no extra weight for the lens.

If you're anxious or have the need to purchase the 50L now. I would recommend that you "buy" it with the intent to enjoy it. If you're not satisfied with the lens, you should return it.

I was in the same predicament a few weeks ago. However, I opted for the much more affordable and sharper 50Art, instead of, buying the 50L. And, I couldn't be any happier.

If Canon releases a 50L II anytime soon. I'll strongly consider purchasing it, IF it's noticeable better than my copy of the 50Art. But until then.....I'm enjoying the 50Art.

The 50mm f/1.2L no longer appears on the Canon website for current lenses:

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ts/cameras/ef_l​ens_lineup

You will find it on the page linked to the Product Lineup button, and it can be ordered right now from Canon. B&H also has it.

(Likewise the 70-200 f/4L IS no longer appears as a current lens. As with the 50 f/1.2L, it can be ordered right now.)

mathogre wrote in post #17698937
The 50mm f/1.2L no longer appears on the Canon website for current lenses:

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …ts/cameras/ef_l​ens_lineup

You will find it on the page linked to the Product Lineup button, and it can be ordered right now from Canon. B&H also has it.

(Likewise the 70-200 f/4L IS no longer appears as a current lens. As with the 50 f/1.2L, it can be ordered right now.)

that happens quite often...i think it's yet to signify anything though...

on the fred Miranda user reviews the 50L has the worst rating of any canon L prime. in fact the 1.4 fares better and I believe the 1.8 does too. hardly undeserved. the design is flawed. rumor has it that canon is working on a new 50L and they really need to

Thanks Dre and ed! Makes sense.

Thank you all for your opinion.. I will be purchasing the 50mm 1.2L by this week!

It sounds like you have made a decision already, but if you haven't purchased yet, perhaps you should consider renting the 50L before taking the plunge. I'm not trying to deter you from purchasing, rather trying to save you some time and possible headaches if you end up not liking the sort of image and nuances that the lens brings to the table.

I didn't like the 50L at first, and in fact returned it promptly after purchase because it didn't stack up to my 35L+85L. After a few days/weeks, and looking over the shots I took w/ it, I started to really warm up to the old chunk 'o glass. I then waited until a Refurb sale and got it for an excellent price, and haven't parted with it since. Conversely, the 35+85L are long since history, if that says anything. The 50L is my favorite lens these days, even after 5 years Sometimes the lens spits out some lousy photos, but that's usually a result of either poor lighting/composition and me being lazy with it haha On the other hand, put in the work with it, and it'll make some phenomenal photos!

I'd say definitely rent, with intent to definitely buy. Check out LensRentals.com

The 50L sat without much use for a couple of years, now it's glued to my 5D3.

I considered the 50L for a very long time. I've seen some impressive real-world examples from it, as well as lots of independent test results that show it to be a less-than-stellar performer by most standard metrics. But it renders background pretty well. In the end, the test photos that ultimately made me cross the 50L off my wishlist were these:

http://www.cameralabs.​com …vs_Canon_50mm_b​okeh.shtml

I've heard people say the Sigma's bokeh is not as nice, but that's not exactly what I'm seeing in these shots. What it looks like to me is that the Sigma could possibly be rounding up to their f/1.4 nominal aperture, as the Sigma at f/1.4 seems to have about the same size bokeh balls as the Canons and Nikons at f/1.8. (Note that the example photo for the bokeh of the Sigma at f/2.8 in this article appears to be a duplicate of the f/2.0 photo, a mistake). But I prefer the near-perfect roundness of the OOF highlights from the Sigma to those of either Canon. I especially dislike the clipped highlights that the 50L delivers at f/1.2 and f/1.4. My 85L does this also, because of how the electrical contacts of the EF mount actually obscure part of the rear element of the lens, and I'm mindful of not shooting the 85L wide open when there are strong OOF highlights in the background.

I'm getting by with my lowly 50 STM for right now, which is not great wide open, but quite good from f/2.5 and up, and remarkable for the price tag. But if 50mm were a focal length I used more often, such that replacing my 50 were a priority, I'd go with the Sigma if I had to choose from the current options.

The bokeh is nice and creamy with the 50L.

absplastic wrote in post #17763793
In the end, the test photos that ultimately made me cross the 50L off my wishlist were these:

http://www.cameralabs.​com …vs_Canon_50mm_b​okeh.shtml

I don't understand how anyone could make a decision based on those photos. 'Don't mean to be harsh but there's not a single decent shot among them. How can one judge how well these lenses handle portraits or landscapes or architectural work without seeing some credible examples of those genres?

Blobs and bokeh balls are nice but it's so hard to extrapolate from that to real world photos.

FTb wrote in post #17763960
I don't understand how anyone could make a decision based on those photos. 'Don't mean to be harsh but there's not a single decent shot among them. How can one judge how well these lenses handle portraits or landscapes or architectural work without seeing some credible examples of those genres?

Blobs and bokeh balls are nice but it's so hard to extrapolate from that to real world photos.

I wasn't making a decision based solely on these photos, this was more the final straw. My decision is based mostly on nearly a year of examining countless examples shot with each of these lenses on 500px and Flickr, and reading/watching all the reviews I could find on review sites and youtube. But it was these test shots that made me realize just how outdated the Canon 50s are (the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2) in terms of corrective element technology--and really just because these examples visually back up what all the charts at photozone, dxomark, etc. and reviewers are all saying. The wide-open performance of the Sigma is just well ahead of both Canons.

We know Canon can do much better. We've seen this with the 35mm f/1.4 II, which destroys its predecessor. This is true of most of the newest mkII L zooms lenses also (24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 100-400, etc.) My overall conclusion was that right now, the 50L is not the best bang for the buck at its $1400 price point. If it were brought down to ~$800-$900 to be competitive with the latest rivals, it would still be in the running.

absplastic wrote in post #17763984
We know Canon can do much better. We've seen this with the 35mm f/1.4 II, which destroys its predecessor.

Sure Canon can do better and I'm sure they eventually will. But there's often more to what makes a lens appropriate for a particular application than sharpness. I looked at the new 35mm but opted against it because while sharpness and contrast have increased, the bokeh, which can be very important in portraits, has actually gotten worse.

I have and like the 50mm f1.2 and while I'd love to have one that performs more like the 85mm f1.2 or Zeiss 135 f2 wide open, most of the sharper alternatives are worse in their handling of out of focus elements and they are lacking much of the fairy dust character the 50mm f1.2 often displays.