50mm 1.2L vs 1.4

plasticmotif wrote in post #9971830
The 50L is one of the best 50mm lenses ever made.

That's a bold statement, the world has seen a lot of great 50mm lenses!

plasticmotif wrote in post #9971830
It's color and contrast are amazing.

As they are on the Sigma 50 f/1.4. What color and contrast does this lens lack that is worth an extra $800?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

DrPablo wrote in post #9973464
That's a bold statement, the world has seen a lot of great 50mm lenses!


As they are on the Sigma 50 f/1.4. What color and contrast does this lens lack that is worth an extra $800?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

I dont even think that the 50L color contrast bokeh etc are better than te siggy. only thing that is better imo is the 1/3 stop in speed. is that worth 800 bucks? up to you.

plasticmotif wrote in post #9910251
At this point, I don't think they care. The Sigma has eaten into their sales of new 50 1.4s. It's also probably one of the most problematic lenses for them to service.

A new 50/1.4 at or near the same price point of the Sigma wouldn't hurt the people who've already bought the 50L.

It's time for a 50 1.2 with a floating element to remove the focus shift issue anyway.

But I forecast a new 50/1.4 will cost more. First of all, you're throwing in a better USM motor. Better IQ and Bokeh. Now assuming Canon gets this all done, they will easily mark up the new lens price. You think it's gonna just replace the old 50 like that?

Your lens is nice, your baby is beautiful

I don't care if it's a little more expensive as long as it's better

Darkwand wrote in post #9976224
I don't care if it's a little more expensive as long as it's better

May as well go for the gusto and get the f/1. I've seen a few in mint condition lately up for sale.

With a new non-"L" series 50 in production, I would wait and see what the new offering is. If Canon makes the 50mm f/1.4 better, then I will buy it. 50mm is my favorite lens.

DrPablo wrote in post #9973464
That's a bold statement, the world has seen a lot of great 50mm lenses!


As they are on the Sigma 50 f/1.4. What color and contrast does this lens lack that is worth an extra $800?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

While that's a cute picture, it could've been taken with any lens.

cristphoto wrote in post #9973421
What is the work around for the 50L? I'm considering getting one but since I get "acceptable" results with my 1.4 I'm procrastinating. I would use it firstly for the great L lens color and contrast quality and secondly for the 1.2 aperture. In other words general usage - not simply wide open. Also has the focus issue been fixed by a running change or do the latest lenses still exhibit this problem? All the internet complaining about this lens is worrysome. Thanks. Steve

The work around is to manually focus when you're shooting at close focal lengths. Some copies are worse than others.

http://www.seriouscomp​acts.com …rical-aberration-and.html

The Canon 50mm f/1.2L is a remarkable lens. I won't go on and on about it since I'm not a lens expert. However, in my unqualified opinion, the 50/1.2L has to be one of the all-time great 50mm lenses in 35mm photography. The knock on the Canon 50L (besides it being somewhat "uncool" to be a Canon in a Canon-dominated world) is that it suffers a noticeable degree of focus shift. That is to say that at close focus distances, the focal plane at higher f-numbers (smaller apertures) is closer than the focal plane at f/1.2. Since the camera focuses each lens at full aperture, the result is that close range images at higher f-numbers end up out of focus (back focused). Apparently this degree of focus shift is the result of uncorrected spherical aberration. I assume the same uncorrected spherical aberration helps explain the excellent job this lens does with rendering out-of-focus background elements. With its modern C-Sonnar T* 1,5/50 ZM (the early version of which HCB used on his Leica M bodies), Zeiss describes focus shift more as a feature than a shortcoming. Click here to see a good demonstration of focus shift from the Sonnar. However, those who complain about the Canon 50mm f/1.2L suggest that Canon ought to have used a floating lens element to correct for near focus performance, just as they did with the 35mm f/1.4L and 85mm f/1.2L.
An alternate solution for the 50L focus shift - that Canon address it with a firmware update - was proposed some time ago by Joe Mama in the DPReview forums. At the time, I thought it was an excellent idea; but I wasn't convinced that it could be done. Lately I've been reading more about older film cameras and came across some interesting information about a relatively inexpensive autofocus film camera, the Konica Hexar AF (http://www.camerapedia​.org/wiki/Konica_Hexar). The Hexar had a built-in 35mm f/2 lens that is said by some to have equalled or surpassed the best Leica had to offer at this focal length. Konica decided to leave a fair amount of uncorrected spherical aberration in this lens, which apparently contributed both to sharpness wide open and extremely good handling of bokeh at the expense of significant focus shift (http://wiki.silvergrai​n.org/wiki/index.php/K​onica_Hexar). Their solution for the focus shift was to simply have the on-board computer adjust the AF in an aperture-specific manner.
Adding a floating lens element to correct for near focus would likely add to the cost, and potentially also the size, of the 50L. Seems to me that in this era of autofocus, the software route is even more elegant than the optical fix. Konica did this in 1993. Fifteen years later, I think Joe had it right. Canon should be able to manage this with a firmware update.

plasticmotif wrote in post #9977330
While that's a cute picture, it could've been taken with any lens.

You don't know that because I didn't take it with multiple lenses for comparison. You made a statement about the superlative colors and contrast of the 50 f/1.2L, without taking into account that its major competitor from Sigma gives it a run for its money in colors, contrast, sharpness, and background blur.

But you make a good point -- compose your picture well, have good lighting, and expose it correctly, and you'll take good pictures. I think it's doubtful whether dropping an extra $1000 on this lens for a 50L instead would have made this (or any other) picture of mine better.

dmo580 wrote in post #9975180
But I forecast a new 50/1.4 will cost more. First of all, you're throwing in a better USM motor. Better IQ and Bokeh. Now assuming Canon gets this all done, they will easily mark up the new lens price. You think it's gonna just replace the old 50 like that?

The bokeh won't change. They won't add more aperture blades. The 50 1.4 II has been a long time coming. It's got to be the most problematic lens they currently make. Lots of people have it. It breaks regularly. The current version is 335ish. The sigma is 500. I'd gladly pay 600 for the 50 1.4 II.

DrPablo wrote in post #9977360
You don't know that because I didn't take it with multiple lenses for comparison. You made a statement about the superlative colors and contrast of the 50 f/1.2L, without taking into account that its major competitor from Sigma gives it a run for its money in colors, contrast, sharpness, and background blur.

But you make a good point -- compose your picture well, have good lighting, and expose it correctly, and you'll take good pictures. I think it's doubtful whether dropping an extra $1000 on this lens for a 50L instead would have made this (or any other) picture of mine better.

I said that because nothing in that picture shows of anything in the way of amazing colors or contrast.

plasticmotif wrote in post #9977361
The bokeh won't change. They won't add more aperture blades.

Aperture blades have almost nothing to do with bokeh, and they have literally nothing to do with bokeh when the lens is wide open. Great bokeh is primarily a function of undercorrected spherical aberrations. Why does this bizarre myth about aperture blades persist?

plasticmotif wrote in post #9977364
I said that because nothing in that picture shows of anything in the way of amazing colors or contrast.

You're right. It may as well be a picture of a gray card. But if I told you I'd shot it with the 50 f/1.2L you'd have a stiffy. Go peruse the sample threads for both lenses. They both have great color, they both have great contrast, but only one has a team of elitists.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=844197

Check that post. Props to Depth.

DrPablo wrote in post #9977377
Aperture blades have almost nothing to do with bokeh, and they have literally nothing to do with bokeh when the lens is wide open. Great bokeh is primarily a function of undercorrected spherical aberrations. Why does this bizarre myth about aperture blades persist?


You're right. It may as well be a picture of a gray card. But if I told you I'd shot it with the 50 f/1.2L you'd have a stiffy. Go peruse the sample threads for both lenses. They both have great color, they both have great contrast, but only one has a team of elitists.

K.

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …aphy/technical/​bokeh.html