50mm 1.2L vs 1.4

plasticmotif wrote in post #9977390
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=844197

Check that post. Props to Depth.

Well that settles it. And those Summilux, Summicron, and Noctilux users sure have duds too. And my 50mm CT* Distagon is a waste of glass.

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.

Who is acting elitist? You certainly are.

I've seen pictures from both. I've shot with probably 15 different 50mm's in the past year. Which did I like best? Cost: 50 1.8. It's damned sharp and cheap. Picture quality: 50L. You're paying for it too marginally increases. The Sigma is the merger of the two. Sure it's comparable to the L.

DrPablo wrote in post #9977419
Well that settles it. And those Summilux, Summicron, and Noctilux users sure have duds too. And my 50mm CT* Distagon is a waste of glass.

I don't understand how people can get so pissy so easily.

plasticmotif wrote in post #9977436
I don't understand how people can get so pissy so easily.

The combination of ignorance and elitism tends to rub me the wrong way.

plasticmotif wrote in post #9977402
K.

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

Dude, read your own link before you make yourself look like an idiot.

From YOUR link:

And if you haven't convinced yourself, then read these too.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/b​okeh.shtml
http://toothwalker.org​/optics/spherical.html

I think you two need to take a break. Come on guys, walk away.

cristphoto wrote in post #9973421
What is the work around for the 50L?

plasticmotif wrote in post #9977344
The work around is to manually focus when you're shooting at close focal lengths. Some copies are worse than others.

The workaround is not manually focusing, unless you know the precise amoung of shift. The workarounds are 1. stop down to verify focus (then MF if needed), or 2. use an outer AF point.

For the record, bokeh has more to do with lens design than number of aperture blades.

I too would pay more for a good Canon 50mm 1.4. Here's a wild request, I paid a hefty price for my 1D MK IV, I would like a 50mm lens designed around the APS-H sensor. A nice heavy lens with 77mm filter and several aspherical elements. I'll give Canon their $1,000.00. I'll even take a 35mm.

kimnmarc wrote in post #9980882
I too would pay more for a good Canon 50mm 1.4. Here's a wild request, I paid a hefty price for my 1D MK IV, I would like a 50mm lens designed around the APS-H sensor. A nice heavy lens with 77mm filter and several aspherical elements. I'll give Canon their $1,000.00. I'll even take a 35mm.

Have you tried the Sigma 30mm 1.4? it seems to work on APS-H sensors. Actually, whats wrong with the 35L (besides that it is expensive)?

ilumo wrote in post #9908620
...the 50L has the 1/2 stop advantage and thats a BIG advantage...

forthewinwin wrote in post #9908730
...with the 50L you get a full 1/2 stop of light...

The 50L is 1/3 stop faster than the 1.4. Perhaps not that big a deal? I think the real advantages are image quality, bokeh, additional DOF control, and build quality.

IMO, there's a 50mm lens for everyone. None are good or bad, they just have their advantages or disadvantages. Best thing to do is rent the lenses you're interested in and try them out.

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

For me, the work around is to use the outer AF points. I almost never use the center AF point, so this "work around" doesn't really change the way I shoot

There is nothing wrong with the 35 L, in fact, I had updated my signature line before I saw your post and have it on my "To buy" list. I bought my 1D MK IV because I did not want the 5D MK II. I want the dual DIGIC 4 image processors. So, I am patiently waiting for the 5D MK II replacement. Then, I plan to get the full frame camera and use it with a 50mm as my walk around camera/lens combo. Who knows, since I will have the 35L next month, I may use it instead, but for now, the 50 is still my favorite.

"The knock on the Canon 50L 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. "

What is the focussing distance in which focus shift is noticeable?

I had the 50 1.4 and went to the 50 1.2. I loved my 50 1.4, the 50 1.2 is not a huge upgrade IMHO. It comes down to money in my mind, the 50 1.4 AF motor is so so but the pic quality is not that much better. If you can afford it yes, if you need the money for other things no. I wont sell my 50 1.2 but don't think the upgrade is a huge as the price upgrade.