50mm f1.2 L - Is it worth it?

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2096185
Way to assure yourself it's ok. That's a joke.

Here's some things that make it better than the 1.4-

-f/1.2 aperture. Yeah...it's that big. Also, that it's bound to be noticeably sharper wide open than the 1.4 (in my opinion)

Actually, it is less sharp when wide open. (To be fair, one is at f/1.2, the other is at f/1.4).

mdr wrote in post #2096097
Was planning to get the 50mm f1.4 USM. Now the 50mm 1.2 L is out, should I go the extra distance and get L? Is it worth the significant amount of extra money?

Unless your going back in time to try and take a photo just before god said "Let there be Light" Then no. Unless your going to be shooting in extremely low light situations of your photography kith requires that pro glass then the 50mm f1.4 will do you Just fine. I love mine

Cheers
Visuals

I am sure it is worth it, but I am not sure I can afford it Maybe by March after the Christmas shopping and all dies down!

cjm wrote in post #2097008
...at least a 50mm f1.2 wont be wasted on that as it would on a crop camera. Because 50 is 50 on that camera.

I don't see why you should say the lens would be wasted on a crop camera, except in the sense that you don't use all the image circle. 50 is 50 on a crop camera too, but it will be the 35mm equivalent of having an 80mm f/1.2, perfect for portraits.

To answer the original question, it certainly wouldn't be worth it to me. It's a lot of extra money for a small increase in performance (and we're still waiting to see what the image quality will actually be like). But I'm certain that plenty of people will convince themselves they need it.

I want this lens. Why? I want a really really really nice 50mm... since that's the focal length I'm "missing" (in terms of good glass). And I've got nice zooms covering the rest.

I've got the 1.8, but it's buzzy and noisy. Pretty nice images but autofocus isn't too reliable (possibly my camera aswell).

I want the 1.4, mostly for the build quality and better autofocus, but disappointed because it's only microUSM... therefore not as fast as my L zooms. Also, the copy I played with (my friend's) was unacceptably soft from f/1.4 to f/2.8. Might as well use f/2.8 zooms! (which he does, the 24-70 and 70-200 haha).

If the 1.2L is sharp sharp sharp from f/1.4 onwards, and decently sharp from 1.2L I'd be happy =) And ringUSM is supposedly faster, but there is a hunk more glass to move... so it might not be...

Is the 85L 1.2 worth approx 5-6x more than the 85 1.8 ? I can't answer that, but I do know that lots of people think so and have one. At this point, it really is too early to tell what its real value is until it hits the public and people start getting the opportunity to use it.

My 50 1.4 is one of my most used lenses. I love that little thing, but even I have to admit that it it needs to be shot 1 or 2 stops down to be in its prime sharpness range. At f/1.4 its too soft to be usable without a lot of USM. This is not just a problem with mine, as I know there are tons of people out there that have the same issue. I think that it is a function of the design (I mean, it is only a $300 lens after all).

I would expect that part of the premium of the 50L 1.2 will be that it is noticeable sharp wide open. You shouldn't have to stop it down 1-2 stops to get sharp images like you do on the 50 1.4.

zacwolf wrote in post #2096116
no

the only reason to get it really is the weathersealing, but you dont have a 1 series so your camera isnt weathersealed anyway

Until it's tested and makes the rounds among a few people, it's impossible to tell if it's worth it or not. And, you have to apply it's capabilities to your needs/desires as well.

I have a 50/1.4 and I like it, but I also respect that it could be a good deal better wide-open and could have better build quality. It is no match for the 35/1.4. If this 50/1.2 is similar in performance to the 35/1.4, then I will be getting one. If not, I'll keep what I've got. I'm not unhappy, but I prefer better if it's available.

The 50/1.4 is a very respectable lens. Like all lenses, it has weaknesses. But like all lenses, it also has strengths.

To me, it's not worth it. To you, it might be. That's all there is to say.

Cheers to all for your replies. I'm not going for the 50mm f1.2L even though I can afford it and love a quality piece of engineering.

I'll be getting a 50mm f1.4 in the short term to fill the gap between the 17-40mm f4L and the 70-200mm f4L IS (which I'm about to buy). Depending on how often I use it and on how the reviews of the 50mm 1.2L turn out, I'll be selling or upgrading.

I guess I'll be using it a lot though, as I am no stranger to a 50mm f1.4. I still use my trusty Nikon FE and 50mm f1.4 AIS lens loaded with Velvia at times.

Then again, there is also the 50mm f1.0L. Aperture Photographic is selling a second hand one for only £2,490.

mdr wrote in post #2096097
Was planning to get the 50mm f1.4 USM. Now the 50mm 1.2 L is out, should I go the extra distance and get L? Is it worth the significant amount of extra money?

As Ron stated, you're paying extra for more than just the added speed. Unfortunately, speed and build quality cost money. Lots of it. For some the extra cost is justified. For others it's not. I cringe at the thought of paying that much for a "standard" lens, but it'll be the last lens in that range I'll ever have to buy. Hopefully. And the thought of being able to use the lens effectively in dimly lit environments makes this lens very appealing for me. I fell in love with the max aperture of 1.2 when I had the 85L. I didn't use the max aperture setting very often, but it was nice to have it readily available if needed. Ultimately, is it worth it you?

Over at DP-R there are a lot of posts slamming the new 50L (even before its release).

I have been holding off buying a 35L in hope that the 50L is as sharp wide open. My 50 1.4 is a dog wide open.

I know the 35L is a great lens; however it is quite dated (film). I'm hoping the 50L may perform better on DLSRs.

Over at DPR, there are a lot of people slamming everything! There may be 1 or 2 posters over there that actually touched a 50/1.2. The rest is speculation.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2096185
Those that appreciate quality, build, and a lasting investment, will say it is.

"Lasting" in your case meaning something like....hmmm.....2 months ?

Seriously, lens worth is hardly a subject that could be dealt with objectively.

The lens looks very promising. Many of Canon's standard and WA prime lenses show their age. The new quality standard prime has been asked for by many photographers over the years.

I trust the lens will be a very good performer optically and will have sufficiently fast AF. The other upgraded features like the build/finish are a given for an L designated lens.

A pattern is emerging. The 85/1.2, the 50/1.2. The 135/2 and 35/1.4 are top-notch already. Hopefully, the 24/1.4 will be next for some serious rejuvination. It's needed.

Tom W wrote in post #2101113
A pattern is emerging. The 85/1.2, the 50/1.2. The 135/2 and 35/1.4 are top-notch already. Hopefully, the 24/1.4 will be next for some serious rejuvination. It's needed.

Tommy, did you step barefoot on a stingray this morning or something ?
I am in shock.