Canon 50mm lenses
Dec 23, 2022 13:11:11 #
Sorry, I didn’t notice. When I ask a serious question, I, like most, expect a serious answer.
Perhaps if we were face to face I would have recognized the tongue in his cheek, in a print forum, not so much.
Perhaps if we were face to face I would have recognized the tongue in his cheek, in a print forum, not so much.
Dec 23, 2022 15:14:01 #
rlscholl
Loc: California
As the number and verity of the responses, this issue has been around long enough that a lot of people have enough experience on the topic to have formed strong opinions. So— my 2 cents.
First a summary: the f 1.8 is optically a bargain at the price, but with a number of mechanical compromises. The 1.2 is also excellent for the (slightly higher) price, but without the mechanical issues. The Canon 1.2 is optically a pretty good lens at its price, but at that price it faces really steep competition. The Sigma Art priced slightly lower is a markedly superior lens in almost every way, although it is pretty bulky. For optical quality, the Zeus’s Milvus is also exceptional, but you have to put up with the nosebleed of a manual lens. After a period of years, I ended up with three, each with a special purpose. For a walk-around lens, I tried the 1.8, but ended up choosing Canon’s 40mm f 2,8 lens that is about as sharp as the 1.8, but far superior mechanically. At its price, I effectively use it like a lens cap, keeping it on the camera when I have no specific objective in mind. When I specifically want a faster lens but for more general use, I use the 1.4. For those instances that I want the highest optical quality and am willing to put up with its operation and in the upper range of what I think I can afford, I chose the Zeiss.
If I were to do it all over again, I might choose the Sigma replacing the Canon 1.4 and Zeiss with the Sigma Art. I really cannot think of any circumstance where I would choose the Canon 1.2.
Naturally, this is just my opinion. Others (actually nearly everyone else) will differ.
First a summary: the f 1.8 is optically a bargain at the price, but with a number of mechanical compromises. The 1.2 is also excellent for the (slightly higher) price, but without the mechanical issues. The Canon 1.2 is optically a pretty good lens at its price, but at that price it faces really steep competition. The Sigma Art priced slightly lower is a markedly superior lens in almost every way, although it is pretty bulky. For optical quality, the Zeus’s Milvus is also exceptional, but you have to put up with the nosebleed of a manual lens. After a period of years, I ended up with three, each with a special purpose. For a walk-around lens, I tried the 1.8, but ended up choosing Canon’s 40mm f 2,8 lens that is about as sharp as the 1.8, but far superior mechanically. At its price, I effectively use it like a lens cap, keeping it on the camera when I have no specific objective in mind. When I specifically want a faster lens but for more general use, I use the 1.4. For those instances that I want the highest optical quality and am willing to put up with its operation and in the upper range of what I think I can afford, I chose the Zeiss.
If I were to do it all over again, I might choose the Sigma replacing the Canon 1.4 and Zeiss with the Sigma Art. I really cannot think of any circumstance where I would choose the Canon 1.2.
Naturally, this is just my opinion. Others (actually nearly everyone else) will differ.
Dec 23, 2022 16:42:09 #
Ruthlessrider wrote:
Sorry, I didn’t notice. When I ask a serious question, I, like most, expect a serious answer.
Perhaps if we were face to face I would have recognized the tongue in his cheek, in a print forum, not so much.
Perhaps if we were face to face I would have recognized the tongue in his cheek, in a print forum, not so much.
You cant take UHH literally or seriously. You just cant. Its a mishmash gumbo of pure misinformation, sarcasm, baseless opinions plus, acoarst, expert trolls ... with a bit of solid info just for seasoning.
Dec 23, 2022 16:42:41 #
User ID wrote:
You cant take UHH literally or seriously. You just cant. Its a mishmash gumbo of pure misinformation, sarcasm, baseless opinions plus, acoarst, expert trolls ... with a bit of solid info just for seasoning.
Dec 23, 2022 16:47:52 #
rlscholl wrote:
As the number and verity of the responses, this is... (show quote)
Canons 40mm pancake might not be the coolest lens on the market, but is surely in the Top Ten. And acoarst there are NO f/1.2 or f/0.95s contending.
Dec 23, 2022 19:17:37 #
So OK if you actually have a semi-sane reason to shoot at f/1.0 it doesnt hafta cost $3000 or even $1500. Attached photo shows the $500 solution.
In the "no free lunch" column, this only applies to formats smaller than FF.
In the "no free lunch" column, this only applies to formats smaller than FF.
Dec 23, 2022 21:52:19 #
rgproctor
Loc: Central Florida
It could be worse (better?). Afreind of mine just inherited his brothers Canon 7S with a f1:0.95! Check that lens out! Thought I might stir the pot a little.
Dec 23, 2022 22:01:20 #
rgproctor wrote:
It could be worse (better?). Afreind of mine just inherited his brothers Canon 7S with a f1:0.95! Check that lens out! Thought I might stir the pot a little.
He can easily cash out that turkey for a verrrrry tidy sum.
If it were me, I would dump that whole package. If you want a camera of that type get a Cosina, available in all three lens mounts from the film RF era. I do love using those lenses but I have zero need for a film body. My Z is my Leica.
Dec 24, 2022 08:12:02 #
tcthome
Loc: NJ
Tomfl101 wrote:
The 1.2 lens is a bit sharper at apertures wider than f-2.0. I have both and honestly must say the 1.4 is perfectly fine for the majority of the the work I do. Save the $1000 for something more important.
Shooting into light or bokeh any better with the 1.2. Just curious never using one? Thanks for any replies.
Dec 24, 2022 09:53:23 #
I’ve watched the responses a couple of days now. I am interested because I used to own a Canon50 mm F1.2 FD lens, but now my fastest 50 mm lens is a Canon F1.4 EF lens. Here is what some on line research indicates, and this seems credible:
“Full stops worked out to f1, f1.4, f2, f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11, f16, f22, f32, f45. So, f1.2 is just a bit smaller than f1, and f1.8 is just a bit bigger than f2, and there you go. A bit over a stop's worth of difference. Common belief holds that a lens is sharper once it is stopped down a bit, so for a thousand dollars, you can buy a 1.2 lens to give you the same sharpness as a 1.8 lens if the 1.8 lens was really sharp wide open, instead of needing to be stopped to f2.”
As to my own photography, I do not seem to be limited by use of an F1.4 lens. But reading elsewhere, the depth of field “wide open” for an F1.2 lens makes it more useful to a portrait photographer because of the more narrow depth of field.
Thanks for initiating a good conversation.
JimR
“Full stops worked out to f1, f1.4, f2, f2.8, f4, f5.6, f8, f11, f16, f22, f32, f45. So, f1.2 is just a bit smaller than f1, and f1.8 is just a bit bigger than f2, and there you go. A bit over a stop's worth of difference. Common belief holds that a lens is sharper once it is stopped down a bit, so for a thousand dollars, you can buy a 1.2 lens to give you the same sharpness as a 1.8 lens if the 1.8 lens was really sharp wide open, instead of needing to be stopped to f2.”
As to my own photography, I do not seem to be limited by use of an F1.4 lens. But reading elsewhere, the depth of field “wide open” for an F1.2 lens makes it more useful to a portrait photographer because of the more narrow depth of field.
Thanks for initiating a good conversation.
JimR
Dec 24, 2022 11:02:05 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
How often do you need f1.2 that a f1.4 won't work. What type of photography requires a f1.2 or even a f1.4 and if you work at that f level buy it.
Dec 24, 2022 19:45:38 #
It is if you're rich and need to impress your other rich acquaintances. Personally I like the f/1.4 so much I've two of them.
Dec 24, 2022 23:30:46 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
Ruthlessrider wrote:
Is the Canon 50mm 1.2 lens $1000 better than the 1.4
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM.... $1399 (72mm filters, 580 grams)
If you are a wedding photographer, the extra $1000 is probably worth it.
If you shoot portraits professionally, the extra $1000 is probably worth it.
If you're a pro who has to shoot in bad weather or dusty conditions, the extra $1000 is probably worth it.
If you are the other 95% of photographers, you can probably save money and get...
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM...... $399 (plus cost of lens hood sold separately, 58mm filters, 290 grams)
- Yongnuo YN 50mm f/1.4.......... $185 (58mm filter, 572 grams?)
Or spend quite a bit more to get the ridiculously big, heavy...
- Tokina Opera 50mm f/1.4 FF........ $749 (72mm filter, 950 grams)
- Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art.... $949 (77mm filter, 815 grams)
Or spend a lot less and get the small, light...
- Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM.... $125 (49mm filter, 160 grams)
- Yongnuo YN 50mm f/1.8 II...... $99 (58mm filter, 162 grams)
Dec 25, 2022 00:18:37 #
JimRPhoto wrote:
I’ve watched the responses a couple of days now. ... (show quote)
Real portrait masters do not shoot at absurd f/stops. They need the whole subject to be well rendered ... most especially both eyes.
"Portrait bokeh" is just amateurish mythology. The results show that.
Dec 25, 2022 23:39:36 #
I remember reading one of the British, Canon-specific photo mags about a year ago and it was evaluating 50mm lenses. I don't remember their specific rationale but they actually preferred the f1.4 over the f1.2. As I remember, the did discuss lens speed in their evaluation but the 1.2 was judged superior. I was kinda surprised by that so the review stayed with me.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.