Canon 50mm f1.2 Owners - Would You Recommend?

The nail in the coffin for me:

Source: http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Soberingly, I could buy 18(!!!) f1.8s for the same price as a single f1.2

How many 85 f1.8s can you buy for an 85L mk2? I bet you cant tell much difference in the sharpness between those two between f2.8 and f8 either.

andym -
If the choice was a 50L or a wife, you would already own a 50L.
Go try it, with a 5D you have nothing to lose.

andym172 wrote in post #2588986
The nail in the coffin for me:

Source: http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Soberingly, I could buy 18(!!!) f1.8s for the same price as a single f1.2

Some reports have also shown that 17-40L is sharper than the more expensive 16-35L.

Some 85 1.8 owners argue that it's as sharp or sharper than the more expensive 85L.

It's widely believed that the 70-200 f4L and 70-200 f2.8L are both sharper than the more expensive 70-200 f2.8L IS.... etc...

Yet people still purchase these "not as sharp, but more expensive lenses" by the droves. There's a lot more to a lens than just absolute sharpness. I've taken shots with the 50L that were so sharp it could cut you good. So I have to question how sharp does a lens have to be before someone is totally satisfied? And even if the 50 1.8 is sharper at certain apertures, is the out of focus blur, color, contrast, aperture design, CA and flare control, AF mechanism and build as good as it's more expensive brothers? Can it stop up to f/1.2? Image quality is not determined by sharpness alone.

But ultimately, you have to be satisfied.

mebailey wrote in post #2584023
Someday I want a 1-series but I dont think I could keep track of 45 AF points. I keep my 5D reduced to center point only for almost all situations.

Just because we have 45 doesn't mean we use them all the time.

I only use one at a time, I really can't think of too many professional applications where you'd use all 45.

Thank you for the replies.

I'm no newbie to this, and know there is more to a lens than sharpness, but when the cheapest lens in Canon's range outperforms what is comparatively speaking one of Canon's most expensive lenses, what's more provides this better sharpness performance in over 50%+ of the lenses range, you have to admit that there is something wrong?

I can only comment on lenses I've owned, or used extensively:

Lord_Malone wrote in post #2589334
Some reports have also shown that 17-40L is sharper than the more expensive 16-35L.

You'll note which one I own, and it's not due to cost

Those 1.8 owners who put forward this argument usually haven't lived with the 85L

Yet people still purchase these "not as sharp, but more expensive lenses" by the droves. There's a lot more to a lens than just absolute sharpness. I've taken shots with the 50L that were so sharp it could cut you good. So I have to question how sharp does a lens have to be before someone is totally satisfied? And even if the 50 1.8 is sharper at certain apertures, is the out of focus blur, color, contrast, aperture design, CA and flare control, AF mechanism and build as good as it's more expensive brothers? Can it stop up to f/1.2? Image quality is not determined by sharpness alone.

But ultimately, you have to be satisfied.

Outright image quality is what makes me buy a lens. I don't mind that those which offer the best performance are usually physically larger, heavier and a lot more costly, but in return I want the absolute best, and I expect it certainly of what is supposed to be the best of what Canon can offer - their 'L' professional grade equipment.

Apologies to the owners of the lens (a group I was ready to join until yesterday), but on quality grounds alone it appears Canon may have released this lens earlier than they should have, and it appears sales are suffering as a result.

When I sat down yesterday to properly research the lens (before putting an order in), I was reading about way too many users who were making performance related sacrifices to use this lens.

- There are those who suffer the lens back focusing when taking photo's with a large aperture of a neary-by subject.

- There are those 1D owners who feel that they can't use all their AF points for fear of the lens not focussing properly.

And now, to be told that Canon's cheapest lens - a lens that can easily be purchased for $70 is outperforming a $1,600 lens from f2.8 through to f8 and on a lens which only goes to f14...! Come on!

It appears this lens is a lens of sacrifices. Not only do you have to put up with the extra weight, and size, but you also have to put up with inferior optical performance. Not only that, you have to pay a premium to do so.

This lens shouldn't be about sacrifices, it should be about providing the absolute best optical performance in all areas, and not leaving the user wanting in any.

When Canon offer such excellent lenses either side of the 50L in the 35L and the 85L, you would have to ask why they appear to have got this one so wrong?

My decision is influenced by the fact that I own the above two lenses, and so it needed for the 50L to be of their level in all aspects for me to feel satisfied () in buying the 50. It appears it isn't, and I won't...

I hope Canon rectify any problems with this lens soon, as I'd love to purchase one, but right now I'm not willing to make the sacrifice.

You've fallen victim to internet demonization. Suit yourself.

You lost me when you stated this...

Now tell me Mister "I'm not a newbie to this", what is it about the 50 1.8 that's optically superior to the 50L? Sharpness? What else?

*cricket* *cricket*

Well, if that's it, I hardly think that qualifies this lens as being "optically superior". Because it damn sure doesn't come close to the 50L in terms of other image quality attributes such as color, contrast, CA control, flare control, OOF blur... And let me tell you that this lens is sharp. Let me say that again just in case you didn't understand the first time. This lens is sharp. And if sharpness is the only thing that makes this lens optically superior, then maybe you need to reevaluate how you assess "outright image quality". I'd like to see if you could honestly determine that the 50 1.8 is sharper than the 50L without resorting to pixel peeping. Go ahead. Try it.

And every other argument you made is really just pointless to say the least. You see, there's a difference between those guys whining about their perceived issues and you. They actually bought the lens and used it. They have experience. They've ran tests. They shot real world subjects. Have you done any of the above?

*cricket* *cricket*

My point is you can't determine whether or not this lens is garbage or not because you never used it. You never even attempted to use it. I'm willing to bet you didn't even go down to your local camera store, mounted it on your body and tried it out for yourself. So basically, you're argument is so full of holes it's causing you to sink, and your opinions about this lens aren't worth the price of the box your 50 1.8 came in.

Food for thought: The 24-105L was crucified when it was first introduced due to it's widely reported issues. Now the lens is held in the most highest regard and people are lining up to buy a copy. Marinate in that sauce while you patch up your holes. I'm going to bed. 'Night!

I'm the opposite here - despite all the talk of issues with this lens, I still have a burning desire to put one in my bag for weddings. If it's even close to the shatteringly good 85L then it'll be there by the start of the season for me, late March.

As Lord Malone says above, sharpness is not the be all and end all, particularly in some areas of photography. I'm more interested in colour and contrast, OOF rendition, resistance to flare and maximising available light. The 50L seems to tick those boxes just as well as the 35, 85 and 135L's.

Lord_Malone wrote in post #2590803
You've fallen victim to internet demonization. Suit yourself.

You lost me when you stated this...

Thankfully I never 'had' you in the first place. Cricket, cricket?

If you're happy with your lens, great, but remind me; did you not vote 'no' to purchasing the lens in the poll? Cricket, cricket!

Sharpness is one of the constituents of optical performance. The 50 1.8 has been tested to be sharper in a wide range of apertures, and is therefore has partially superior optical performance, and given that the 50 1.8 isn't a particularly sharp lens in the first place...

Sleep well cricket, and get out of bed on the other side tomorrow

andym172 wrote in post #2590872
Thankfully I never 'had' you in the first place. Cricket, cricket?

If you're happy with your lens, great, but remind me; did you not vote 'no' to purchasing the lens in the poll? Cricket, cricket!

Sharpness is one of the constituents of optical performance. The 50 1.8 has been tested to be sharper in a wide range of apertures, and is therefore has partially superior optical performance, and given that the 50 1.8 isn't a particularly sharp lens in the first place...

Sleep well cricket, and get out of bed on the other side tomorrow

*yawn*

*rubs eyes*

*blink* *blink*

Well! Top of the mornin' to ya, Andy! Care for a cup of tea?

I have to really laugh in the face of people who whine about a lens having to be so sharp that it'll make your eyes bleed if you stare at the picture. Why must a lens be so sharp? There are times when a razor sharp lens serves a purpose. Macro photography is a good example. Telephoto lenses that have a large max aperture to really seperate the main subject from the background and make the images "pop". (God, I love that term) Or when shooting products for commercial use, etc...

But then, there are amazing lenses like the 135mm softfocus, or even cheap lens babies that create a specific effect, and sort of softens the edges to give it a more smooth and dreamy effect. This effect is often immitated in image editing software by adding gaussian blur, diffusing and layering an image. We've all seen those portraits of people whose faces sort of "glow", which is characterized by softened, diffused, smooth, bright, saturated, and blemish free skin. Absolute sharpness is not even considered a factor. Those "Glamour Shot" studios that were once so popular at the malls immediately come to mind. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a time for absolutely sharpness, and it's always good to have nice sharp lenses in your bag, but is it always the most important attribute? And remember that you can now sharpen an image to the point of absurdity during post processing nowadays.

Anna Yu compared the optical quality of the 50L to that of her 200 f1.8L, which is generally regarded as Canon's sharpest telephoto ever. That's making a pretty bold claim! But one look at some of her photos and you can see why she said that. This lens does not disappoint from an image quality stand point.

Image quality aside, I did vote that Canon should start looking into the quality control issues. Not due to poor image quality mind you, but possible focusing issues. There might not even be an issue considering users of the 5D or other bodies aren't reporting problems like the 1D users are. A simple firmware update could probably fix the problem in these cases. Since I'm using a 1D and a 1D2N, I'd like to see Canon take a look into this. That's why I'm continuing to monitor the situation closely. That's why I voted the way I voted. And since I have experience with this lens, I would like to think that my opinions hold more value than someone sitting on the sidelines speculating.

And if you ever want to win in an argument with someone, never use something that they've already used for godsake! *cricket* *cricket* That's just lame. Come up with your own material!

Cheerio!

Yo Lord, 50 f/1.2 sucks, man!

Early AM here on the westcoast. I was awakened by a strange sucking sound. Groggy yet curious, I went downstairs to find that it was my 50L.

Evidently it sucks 24/7

Would you lot pack it in.

I'm doing my best to resist the lure of this lens and you're not helping.

Lord_Malone wrote in post #2591443
*yawn*

*rubs eyes*

*blink* *blink*

Well! Top of the mornin' to ya, Andy! Care for a cup of tea?

I have to really laugh in the face of people who whine about a lens having to be so sharp that it'll make your eyes bleed if you stare at the picture. Why must a lens be so sharp? There are times when a razor sharp lens serves a purpose. Macro photography is a good example. Telephoto lenses that have a large max aperture to really seperate the main subject from the background and make the images "pop". (God, I love that term) Or when shooting products for commercial use, etc...

But then, there are amazing lenses like the 135mm softfocus, or even cheap lens babies that create a specific effect, and sort of softens the edges to give it a more smooth and dreamy effect. This effect is often immitated in image editing software by adding gaussian blur, diffusing and layering an image. We've all seen those portraits of people whose faces sort of "glow", which is characterized by softened, diffused, smooth, bright, saturated, and blemish free skin. Absolute sharpness is not even considered a factor. Those "Glamour Shot" studios that were once so popular at the malls immediately come to mind. The point I'm trying to make is that there is a time for absolutely sharpness, and it's always good to have nice sharp lenses in your bag, but is it always the most important attribute? And remember that you can now sharpen an image to the point of absurdity during post processing nowadays.

Anna Yu compared the optical quality of the 50L to that of her 200 f1.8L, which is generally regarded as Canon's sharpest telephoto ever. That's making a pretty bold claim! But one look at some of her photos and you can see why she said that. This lens does not disappoint from an image quality stand point.

Image quality aside, I did vote that Canon should start looking into the quality control issues. Not due to poor image quality mind you, but possible focusing issues. There might not even be an issue considering users of the 5D or other bodies aren't reporting problems like the 1D users are. A simple firmware update could probably fix the problem in these cases. Since I'm using a 1D and a 1D2N, I'd like to see Canon take a look into this. That's why I'm continuing to monitor the situation closely. That's why I voted the way I voted. And since I have experience with this lens, I would like to think that my opinions hold more value than someone sitting on the sidelines speculating.

As it happens, I have a nice cup of tea sitting beside me right now

Ed, if you're happy with your lens, then great. At the end of the day, that's all that matters.

You'll note that I own a Lensbaby, you can make your own conclusions...

Here's the difference between you and I. I'm not trying to 'win' anything, I didn't even know I was in an argument?

Have fun with the 50. I shall remain on the sidelines observing for now

p.s. you really need to check on those colloquialisms!

radiohead wrote in post #2590843
sharpness is not the be all and end all, particularly in some areas of photography. I'm more interested in colour and contrast, OOF rendition, resistance to flare and maximising available light. The 50L seems to tick those boxes just as well as the 35, 85 and 135L's.

And that's why you pay the extra $$$ .. look at the Castleman review comparing backlight situations with the 50 1.4 and the 1.2 .. the 1.2 clearly has better control of flare and superior contrast & color in difficult backlit situations.

And to most pros $1,500 for a lens is pretty standard costing.
Mike