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

Lord_Malone wrote in post #2589334
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.

fantasic post, man. i wish more people shared this mentality. i'm so effing tired of hearing about sharpness.

andym172 wrote in post #2591738
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?


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

But we were arguing! But in a good way. Arguing is good. Arguing is fun and exciting! But if you prefer, we'll call it a "debate" or "a heathy discussion" .

Yeah, my colloquialisms suck. Sadly, I do need to work on that.

*opens dictionary to find out what the hell colloquialisms means*

Lord_Malone wrote in post #2589334
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.

I'd say it's worth it, but 'worth' is a somewhat subjective term. Lord Malone put it best in his previous post, and I agree. Image quality is more about 'wide open sharpness', it's about many more factors. Build quality is another important consideration. While I like the image quality from my current 50 f/1.4, I find the build quality and focusing system design to be wanting. For that reason, it will be replaced with the 50 f/1.2. Those factors might not be 'worth' it to some, but to others they are.

ayotnoms wrote in post #2591650
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

chancellor wrote in post #2591628
Yo Lord, 50 f/1.2 sucks, man!

Indeed it does! I like things when they suck. Women especially.

Oops. Did I say that out loud?

Lord_Malone wrote in post #2575984
I'm convinced that I have a good copy. Opitical quality is comparable to both the 35L and 85L if you ask me. I've previously owned both. Color, contrast, OOF blur, and AF speed are all on the level. AF is not as fast as the 35L, but quicker than the 85L MK I. After extensive shooting, I found it to be not quite as "razor" sharp as the 35L or 85L, but it's still sharp. I used a filter the whole time I shot with it in Africa, so that may have degraded optical quality somewhat. Knowing what I know right now with the focusing issues, I'd hold off on buying this lens for the time being. With more and more people coming out of wood work claiming they're having focusing issues, including those who said they have a good copy and are now claiming otherwise, there very well may be a problem with this lens. It could also be paranoia or buyers remorse for some of these guys. When you pay this much for lens, you expect it to be completely trouble free and I don't really blame them for painstakingly testing their lens to point where they finally do find something wrong. I'm monitoring the situation closely.

For the most part, I just take pictures with mine. Though it appears to work as advertised, I'm now constantly on the look out for the dreaded back-focus monster. It should strike any day now...

With that said, I voted Canon should address the issue. I know I'd feel a lot better about it.

I'll have to agree with Malone on the 50L.

Steiglitz wrote in post #2594272
I'll have to agree with Malone on the 50L.

Did yours arrive? How is it?

mebailey wrote in post #2594327
Did yours arrive? How is it?

Yes last Friday...it is very nice, but not at the level of 35L and 85L...but very very close....really my biggest issue is wide open sharpness..it is sharp but not like the 35L at F1.4 nor like the 85L at F1.2....color and contrast are very good; like the 35L and 85L. My thoughts are pretty much like Lord_Malone's.

Steiglitz wrote in post #2594355
Yes last Friday...it is very nice, but not at the level of 35L and 85L...but very very close....really my biggest issue is wide open sharpness..it is sharp but not like the 35L at F1.4 nor like the 85L at F1.2....color and contrast are very good; like the 35L and 85L. My thoughts are pretty much like Lord_Malone's.

I can't wait to see some sample shots, Steiglitz. Post some up when you get a chance.

andym172 wrote in post #2590872
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...

Actually the problem of that lens is that its design is brutally optimized for sharpness.
That, unfortunately, is rather bad for bokeh.

My advice ... I respect your decision not to get the 50/1.2L at this point in time ... after all, it has been just introduced and often it pays off to wait a bit until a new product has been cured of its possible 'childhood diseases'. But I also would not start slandering the lens without any actual knowledge of it.

Best regards,
Andy (who will be happy a lot longer with his 50/1.4)

I don't know if this link: http://www.lens-scape.com …0mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm is useful or not, but posting it anyway.

chancellor wrote in post #2607305
I don't know if this link: http://www.lens-scape.com …0mm-12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm is useful or not, but posting it anyway.

I watched as Wee Keng Hor put that comparison together. It is useful, as is William Castleman's test here:
http://wlcastleman.com …views/50mm_1.2L​/index.htm

Lord_Malone wrote in post #2579080
There aren't enough 50L users on this forum.

I think that'll change once the lens starts shipping over the rest of the world.

I'm still waiting for the copy I ordered in early December. :/

I picked up a 50/1.2L today and typically enough the day here is grey and drab. So I resorted to annoying one of my cats for much of the afternoon....

I bought the 1.2 for shooting behind the basket , it outshines the 1.4 greatly. The sharpness it superior. The 1.2 has greater light gathering abilities at the same setting then the 1.4 allowing me to shoot at a higher shutter speed. I would shoot my 1.4 at 1.8 320 iso 1250, using the same fstop and iso the internal meter says I can shoot the 1.2 at 400. I shoot the 1.2 at 1.6 400 iso 1000 now and have pumped about 5000 images thru it shooting bball. My 30D cannot handle the AF of aiservo at fastest fps of either the 1.4 or 1.2, meaning that most of the shots in the burst would be out of focus, but shooting it on my 1d2n , except for the first couple of shots as the gears start turning
the rest of the shots will be perfectly in focus unless operator error or someone stealing focus. I find that the 1.2 will focus slightly faster, not much difference however the sharpnss of the 1.2 is dramatically better. The 1.4 were good and fairly clear but the 1.2 is razor sharp and makes the pictures pop out at you. I dont use flash and I shoot in those dungeons called High School Gyms.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Or Sample 1 is the 1.2 at 1.6,400,1000
Sample 2 is 1.4 at 1.8,320,1250

Image quality is degraded after chopping them down to fit on forum