Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 vs. f/1.4

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but I haven't found it, so I'll ask for myself now. It looks like there's about a $1K price difference between the two lenses (50mm f/1.2 and f/1.4). Quality-wise, what do you guys think. I'm mainly looking for a good portrait lens (though a general purpose, high-speed lens is always nice to have as well).

I'm certainly not an expert, but I'd consider myself a serious amateur. I bought the EF 85mm f/1.8 awhile back for a wedding, because that's what I would have used back in the day with my old film camera. I completely forgot to take into account the crop factor, and although I'm really happy with that lens, I'm now thinking that I'd prefer a 50mm to cover what I had planned for that lens.

50 1.4: worse build, POOR bokeh, softish wide open, very sharp stopped down a bit, not real ring USM.
50 1.2: superb build with weather sealing, lovely bokeh, better wide open (but from what I've seen nowhere near 85L quality), focus shift problem, real ring USM.

The hunt for a good 50mm AF EF mount prime is the most frustrating thing....

You know Perry, I just think the 50L is a different lens in terms of its wide open qualities from the 85L (from what I've seen of the 85L wide open shots here).

Not "worse"- just a very different "look" to it.

I'm not convinced they should be compared in terms of better/worse.

To me, it was definitely worth it as my shooting style is based around a few primes - 50mm is a focal length I use every shoot and I was never 100% happy with the 1.4 so the 50L was a natural choice.

However, unless you already have all the other lenses and equipment you need, there are probably a hundred better ways to spend $1k.

50mm f/1.4 is a very good lens. "Bokeh" is fine.

Ob Com wrote in post #7420336
You know Perry, I just think the 50L is a different lens in terms of its wide open qualities from the 85L (from what I've seen of the 85L wide open shots here).

Not "worse"- just a very different "look" to it.

I'm not convinced they should be compared in terms of better/worse.

Oh absolutely, I was referring only to resolution since I started with "softish" as the initial adjective for the 50 1.4.

And don't get me wrong, I want a 50L. Notice the Sigma for sale in my sig.

IMO the 50 1.4 is unusable wide open, the 50L is usable wide open

madhatter04 wrote in post #7420355
50mm f/1.4 is a very good lens. "Bokeh" is fine.

I have to respectfully disagree. It has the worst bokeh of any AF prime I've owned (well aside from the 50 1.8), but that aside I absolutely agree that it is a VERY GOOD lens. The 24-105 has crap bokeh, but I have one in my bag because it's a great lens.

perryge wrote in post #7420364
Oh absolutely, I was referring only to resolution since I started with "softish" as the initial adjective for the 50 1.4.

And don't get me wrong, I want a 50L. Notice the Sigma for sale in my sig.

Do it Perry. I managed to find a 50L that works perfectly on my second attempt. A UX01 date code.

If it focus shifts (which I gues it must, being inherant etc) I dont notice it, and I shoot up real close with wide appertures all the time.

Amazing lens. Totally "class of its own" look to the images it produces, even with my weird stuff.

First copy was flakey though. In addition to bad shift, there was a lot of noise in the camera if you underexposed even a tad. Forget +/- 2 stops lattitude in RAW, this first one was giving noise at a third stop under. Really weird. NO IDEA what was going on there.

But the second copy is a "my cold, dead hands" lens

I want one. The ones I've tried all shifted badly in areas that I would actually use. But if I find a good one with manageable shift, I will snap it up.

i love my 50L i shoot all day long with it wide open.. no problems.. just beautiful photos..

scot079 wrote in post #7420372
IMO the 50 1.4 is unusable wide open, the 50L is usable wide open

I must disagree. The 50 / 1.4 is most certainly "usable" wide open:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/5014_on_a_5d

but I prefer the 50 / 1.2L:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/50l_gallery

because it is "more usable" wide open, and feel it is worth the price premium. What I mean by that is that it is more consistent and delivers "higher IQ". But to say that the 50 / 1.4 is not "usable" wide open implies that the wide open pics in the link above are either worthless or rare examples of when I got lucky.

That said, it may be that the Sigma 50 / 1.4 is better than either (there is much talk about AF consistency, however), or, at least, a better choice for many.

Yeah my 50 1.4 was perfectly usable wide open. Not particularly impressive, but definitely usable.

joe mama wrote in post #7420581
But to say that the 50 / 1.4 is not "usable" wide open implies that the wide open pics in the link above are either worthless or rare examples of when I got lucky.

No those look good, great job. My wide open shots were no where near that sharp w/ the 50 1.4. So I don't have any to show you, they've all been deleted and so has the 50 1.4

scot079 wrote in post #7420613
No those look good, great job. My wide open shots were no where near that sharp w/ the 50 1.4. So I don't have any to show you, they've all been deleted and so has the 50 1.4

Kind of you to say! The thing is, when shooting at ultra shallow DOFs, by far the most important factor in a technical sense is critically accurate AF. The 50 / 1.4, with its non-ring USM motor, may struggle in that regard compared to it's other non-L counterparts, the 85 / 1.8 and 100 / 2. So while the 50 / 1.4 most certainly can deliver decent IQ wide open, the question, as always, is will it deliver, and on that point, I found that it delivers less than the 50 / 1.2L -- enough less to make the 50 / 1.2L worth the money for wide open shooting.

On the other hand, at f/2 and above, I found the 50 / 1.4 to be an amazing performer. So much so, that I would have difficulty justifying the 50 / 1.2L over the 50 / 1.4 if you never shot below f/2. That's not to say that I still don't prefer the 50 / 1.2L, but rather that the performance differential shrinks enough to where the price differential begins to matter a lot more.