Canon 50mm
Sep 17, 2019 22:34:00 #
Is a Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens worth $1200.00 more than a Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 USM Lens for Canon that seems to be quite a lot money.
Sep 17, 2019 23:11:13 #
The 50L is a wonderful lens at every aperture. It's rather 'artistic' between f/1.2 and f/2 due to the shallow depth of field. The 50L is also heavy and rugged along with expensive. If you just want a 50mm lens, the f/1.8 lens is everywhere as good as both the more expensive lenses from f/2.8 onward. Saving $1000 with the f/1.4 still gives a solid lens, and much more sturdy than the f/1.8. Consider your "true" needs in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range as the f/1.8 is an excellent lens, and don't let it's price fool you into thinking you need to spend more unless your need for f/1.2 to f/2.8 is the reason to spend more.
I've also used the Zeiss Makro-Planar T50 f/2 ZE. It's a manual focus lens, but does give a focus confirmation. It has an excellent image quality at f/2 onward, both colors and sharpness. It's heavy too being all metal and glass. The unique image characteristics, again in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range, would be reasons to choose one of the more expensive options over the EF 50 f/1.8.
I've also used the Zeiss Makro-Planar T50 f/2 ZE. It's a manual focus lens, but does give a focus confirmation. It has an excellent image quality at f/2 onward, both colors and sharpness. It's heavy too being all metal and glass. The unique image characteristics, again in the f/1.2 to f/2.8 range, would be reasons to choose one of the more expensive options over the EF 50 f/1.8.
Sep 17, 2019 23:46:10 #
Also consider the older design 50mm f2.5 Macro - a super sharp lens at a bargain price ($225-250 refurbished) that is also capable as a 1:2 Macro lens. If you don’t need the speed of the 1.4 or 1.8, this lens is worth considering. I learned about it from the food photographer from our newspaper who uses it for all her work.
Sep 18, 2019 00:47:01 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
poortrucker4838 wrote:
Is a Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens worth $1200.00 more than a Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 USM Lens for Canon. That seems to be quite a lot money.
Unless you really need that extra 1/2-stop of speed, the 55 f/1.4 Zeiss Otus is a better value.
Sep 18, 2019 01:09:03 #
Sep 18, 2019 02:13:05 #
RWR
Loc: La Mesa, CA
rcarol wrote:
A better value? At $4,000 a pop?
If someone gave you one of each, which would you value most?
Sep 18, 2019 02:54:03 #
RWR wrote:
If someone gave you one of each, which would you value most?
That is a non-supporting argument.
Sep 18, 2019 03:18:01 #
I prefer my EF 85mm f/1.2L and my EF 50mm f/1.4, which at $300 usd is a pretty good lens.
Sep 18, 2019 05:29:30 #
I've used my Canon F/1.4 at several indoor people functions and no flash with good success. Forgot just what I paid for it on Ebay a few years back but pretty sure it was just a couple hundred.
Sep 18, 2019 06:47:59 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The 50L is a wonderful lens at every aperture. It'... (show quote)
Precisely. The 1.2 Canon is excellent at apertures larger than 2.8. I use mine for window light portraits quite often and the bokeh is excellent with sharpness my 1.4 won’t deliver. But unless you’re making money as a pro photographer the price difference is probably not worth it.
Sep 18, 2019 07:18:39 #
rcarol wrote:
That is a non-supporting argument.
No it isn't, because it takes cost out of the equation.
Personally, I would hardly ever use a lens between f/1.2 and f/1.4, so this question would depend on how much difference there is between lenses at f-stops they have in common.
Sep 18, 2019 07:49:41 #
extra half stop is not worth it, and how often do you even use the 1.4? A 1.8 usually suffices, is lighter and less expensive. Want to blur more background? Just get the 85 1.8 and back up a bit.
Sep 18, 2019 08:16:08 #
poortrucker4838 wrote:
Is a Canon 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens worth $1200.00 more than a Canon EF 50mm F/1.4 USM Lens for Canon that seems to be quite a lot money.
If you are considering spending the money for a f/1.2 lens you might consider the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art lens, in my opinion it clearly out performs the Canon at f/1.4. F/1.2 vs f/1.4 does not make that huge of a difference in background blur and at both settings focus has to be spot on because the DOF is so thin. I had the Canon 50/1.4 and was not impressed with the overall quality of that lens both from the standpoint of build and IQ, the Sigma is clearly the superior lens but it also comes at a price.
I will say that the Canon f/1.2 definitely looks sexy on your camera but I am not sure that the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.4 justifies the added expense, I do have a 50/1.2, an older Pentax adapted for my Canon bodies and I also have the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L they are fun lenses but that extra 1/3 of a stop does not make that huge of a difference in my opinion.
Sep 18, 2019 08:19:30 #
For modern cameras, the ISO performance of the camera negates the 'pure' benefit of low-light shooting at apertures wider than f/2. Rather, these lenses differentiate themselves on their artistic performance at wide apertures.
Sep 18, 2019 08:22:00 #
I would spend on a 24-70 f/2.8 II before a f/1.2 50mm. A much more versatile lens in my opinion. The f/1.2 is a great but specialized lens. The f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm are a better value for most shooters in my opinion.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.