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

Petkal wrote in post #2101131
Tommy, did you step barefoot on a stingray this morning or something ?
I am in shock.

Heh Heh - I sold mine 4 months ago. It's not a horrible lens, but on full-frame, the corners go poopey-soft with some serious CA unless stopped down. Frankly, I didn't need an ultrawide, ultrafast lens, and my 24-70 is very competitive from f/4 on.

Could have been my copy, though. Bought it used so there's no telling if it was typical or not.

Tom W wrote in post #2101192
Heh Heh - I sold mine 4 months ago. It's not a horrible lens, but on full-frame, the corners go poopey-soft with some serious CA unless stopped down. Frankly, I didn't need an ultrawide, ultrafast lens, and my 24-70 is very competitive from f/4 on.

Could have been my copy, though. Bought it used so there's no telling if it was typical or not.

Well, hard to tell which way individual copies go, but I'll tell ya, my copy of the 24L is significantly better than my copy of the 35L, and that's on 1.6 and 1.3 cameras. Do not know about FF yet.

Petkal wrote in post #2101216
Well, hard to tell which way individual copies go, but I'll tell ya, my copy of the 24L is significantly better than my copy of the 35L, and that's on 1.6 and 1.3 cameras. Do not know about FF yet.

Wow! Probably was my copy then. CA was very significant towards the edges and corners, whereas on my 35, it is very minor. My 35 really outshines my 50/1.4 as well (which is why this 50/1.2 might be of interest). My suspicions are that the original owner decided to pawn it off (on me) due to its weaknesses.

If I get the urge to go fast and wide again (except for the Sigma 20/1.8 I just ordered), I may give the 24/1.4 another shot.

[QUOTE=Tom W;2101266]Wow! Probably was my copy then. CA was very significant towards the edges and corners, whereas on my 35, it is very minor. My 35 really outshines my 50/1.4 as well (which is why this 50/1.2 might be of interest). My suspicions are that the original owner decided to pawn it off (on me) due to its weaknesses.

If I get the urge to go fast and wide again (except for the Sigma 20/1.8 I just ordered),

Based on lens reviews, I had some reservations about the 24L. Plus, I already had the 24 f/2.8...a good lens too, I might add. Finally, decided to take some risk...ordered a new one from B&H. Ever since, every shot with it brings smiles.

Now I am in a similar situation with the 14L....however, I am still nowhere near wanting to buy it......still very much unconvinced ! Plus, got the 15 fisheye and happy with it (for the money, that is.)

Petkal wrote in post #2101216
I'll tell ya, my copy of the 24L is significantly better than my copy of the 35L

Ouch...sounds like a 35 in need of calibration. My 35 blows the 24 out of the water. Maybe I had a bad 24, huh? Seems like from what I've seen, the 35 has the edge in IQ. Not by a lot, but enough.

Petkal wrote in post #2101339
...the Sigma 20/1.8 I just ordered...

Very nice little lens. I was up by the lake yesterday, and got some outstanding shots with it. It's my reason for not thinking about the 24L.

I dunno - Some of the uber high price L primes turn me off a bit. Is the 1.2 REALLY going to perform that much better than the 1.4? Is better build REALLY worth 900 dollars? Are you going to get more keepers because you can shoot at 1.2 instead of 1.4?
Personally, I would say no, no, and no. But that's just me.
A "L" 50mm 1.4 would be neat though, keep it cheap.
BUT, if I was rich I'd buy it!

"L" and "cheap" are not synonymous. The build alone is worth a good few hundred extra to me. The ring USM and better (constructed) optics are worth another couple hundred. The bag and hood are a good $50. The fact that it'll share filters with another of my lenses is nice. Weathersealing is very nice, as I'm planning to add a 1-series to my bag again fairly soon (sshh!).

Looks like the 2nd hand 50mm f1.0L at Aperture sold for £2,490! So the 50mm f1.2L is cheap in comparison.

mdr wrote in post #2101449
Looks like the 2nd hand 50mm f1.0L at Aperture sold for £2,490! So the 50mm f1.2L is cheap in comparison.

Pricewise, we must not compare rare collectibles against mass produced photography tools.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2101368
Very nice little lens. I was up by the lake yesterday, and got some outstanding shots with it. It's my reason for not thinking about the 24L.

I've seen a few shots with the 20/1.8 on full-frame and I think it'll fill my needs. Distortion is pretty low. I hear that QC is a bit spotty so when I get mine, I intend to run it through a battery of tests (including the battery test).

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2101374
I dunno - Some of the uber high price L primes turn me off a bit. Is the 1.2 REALLY going to perform that much better than the 1.4? Is better build REALLY worth 900 dollars? Are you going to get more keepers because you can shoot at 1.2 instead of 1.4?
Personally, I would say no, no, and no. But that's just me.
A "L" 50mm 1.4 would be neat though, keep it cheap.
BUT, if I was rich I'd buy it!

If the only difference turns out to be the ability to go to f/1.2 instead of f/1.4, then I don't see a reason to buy the new 50.

But I suspect that there's much more. The 50/1.4 isn't all that sharp wide-open, and presents a bit of barrel distortion. It's alleged to be a bit spotty on AF accuracy as well, according to some users. Correct those problems and present wide-aperture performance similar to the 35/1.4 and the lens will be a winner. Not a high-volume sales winner, but a top-notch performance winner.

Tom W wrote in post #2101828
If the only difference turns out to be the ability to go to f/1.2 instead of f/1.4, then I don't see a reason to buy the new 50.

But I suspect that there's much more. The 50/1.4 isn't all that sharp wide-open, and presents a bit of barrel distortion. It's alleged to be a bit spotty on AF accuracy as well, according to some users. Correct those problems and present wide-aperture performance similar to the 35/1.4 and the lens will be a winner. Not a high-volume sales winner, but a top-notch performance winner.

The 50 1.4 is presented as having .438% barrel distortion while the 35L has .486%. Not really enough to even see unless you're at a serious pixel peeping level. I haven't heard of focus issues but one or two times here and there, which could be expected from any lens. Even wide open the 1.4 performs VERY well.
I'm just wondering how much more performance any photographer really needs from the 1.4, how many really need that better build and weathersealing because they've dropped their lenses many times before and they bounced into a mud puddle. If one can justify the purchase and honestly state that it's worth 900 dollars more and that it makes them a better photographer then that's fine but I'd be willing to bet most of it is just buying it to have it.

Both Tommy and Mr.Clean seem to be well educated and thoughtful photographers. They both make valid points.

The new L packaged lenses have some operational advantages over their "common" EF brethren.....such as smoother and grippier focus and zoom rings, more rugged build, better weather sealing.

However, the contribution of L lens packaging to the lens IQ is very small.
In the end, one hopes that a lion's share of the lens price can be justified by its performance.

Thus, all niceties and L folklore aside, if the new 50 f/1.2 does not have a requisite IQ when wide open and close to it, then it ain't gonna be worth much more than the 50 f/1.4 in my mind.

Currently use the 50mm 1.8 about 75% of the time when shooting people, use the 85mm 1.8 the other 25%.

Can't decide if I want to get the 50 1.2 for use as a short portait lens on the 20D or to sale the 20D and get a 5d and use the 85 1.8 as my short portait lens

Mike