L Lens

G12RDH

G12RDH

Suspended / Banned
Messages
874
Name
Gregory
Edit My Images
No
Hi again TPers :-)

Ok ive got a canon 7d with a 24-105L and a 70-200 2.8l IS

Im thinking of getting a 50mm 1.2 aswell but looking to see if anyone owns one and how they rate it?

Many thanks.
 
If you want to play shallow depth of field tricks (the only real reason to get a lens like that) then you'd be better off with a full frame camera. For same framing at same f/number, you get a bit over one stop less DoF.
 
HoppyUK said:
If you want to play shallow depth of field tricks (the only real reason to get a lens like that) then you'd be better off with a full frame camera. For same framing at same f/number, you get a bit over one stop less DoF.
Click to expand...

So i should just get the 1.4 then, the 1.2 does seem a bit over kill for me......
 
HoppyUK said:
If you want to play shallow depth of field tricks (the only real reason to get a lens like that) then you'd be better off with a full frame camera. For same framing at same f/number, you get a bit over one stop less DoF.
Click to expand...

Really? That's the only reason to get a lens like that? Are you sure?
 
Pompeyfc81 said:
So i should just get the 1.4 then, the 1.2 does seem a bit over kill for me......
Click to expand...

I've got the 1.4. Lovely sharp lens, feels tiny on the camera. One shot out of many last week at 1.4 had purple fringing that Lightroom almost took out with lens calibration, but that was the only one. I've used it lots a gigs, in the studio for a real narrow depth of field.
 
The 1.4 has been ordered!

After reading up i dont see the point in wasting money on rubbish lens hense my question on the 1.2 :-) many thanks guys! I love this place :-)
 
Dexy101 said:
Really? That's the only reason to get a lens like that? Are you sure?
Click to expand...

Not quite the only reason, but the main reason for sure. Half a stop more light gathering than f/1.4 is neither here nor there with modern cameras' ISO capability these days, and if you want more of that then that's another reason for the OP to go full frame. In optical terms, f/1.2 is a step too far IMHO, too many other compromises.

Unless you're in love with the red ring of course, and it's certainly a gorgeous lump of glass, lovely thing to own.
 
HoppyUK said:
Not quite the only reason, but the main reason for sure. Half a stop more light gathering than f/1.4 is neither here nor there with modern cameras' ISO capability these days, and if you want more of that then that's another reason for the OP to go full frame. In optical terms, f/1.2 is a step too far IMHO, too many other compromises.

Unless you're in love with the red ring of course, and it's certainly a gorgeous lump of glass, lovely thing to own.
Click to expand...

Dont like full frame, im going to try sports and marco once i can find a decent macro lens, looking at the 100 is 2.8 or they do a 189 i belive?
 
Pompeyfc81 said:
Dont like full frame, im going to try sports and marco once i can find a decent macro lens, looking at the 100 is 2.8 or they do a 189 i belive?
Click to expand...

180mm f3.5which gives you a 19.5" working distance at 1:1....then add a 2x and extension rings and you're looking at seeing the facial hair of a fly ;)
 
Phil Young said:
180mm f3.5which gives you a 19.5" working distance at 1:1....then add a 2x and extension rings and you're looking at seeing the facial hair of a fly ;)
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty good, BUT its all a learning curve so slowly slowly :-)
 
I have a 7D and have just bought the 40mm f2.8 as I have other huge lenses (e.g. 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S). It is interesting and good to walk around taking pics with a lens the size of a "lens cap"!!
 
Mel_P said:
I have a 7D and have just bought the 40mm f2.8 as I have other huge lenses (e.g. 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S). It is interesting and good to walk around taking pics with a lens the size of a "lens cap"!!
Click to expand...

:-) im looking forward to it :-) BUT itl be a long experiance and a sharpe learning curve.........
 
The 50mm 1.4 is very nice at 1.4, colours are different to pretty much all the other lenses I have but in a good way, it does show purple fringing but in extreme situations. Wouldnt see the point of 1.2 as its not a usable aperture unles you want the eyes in focus and the nose/ears out
 
funky_sam said:
The 50mm 1.4 is very nice at 1.4, colours are different to pretty much all the other lenses I have but in a good way, it does show purple fringing but in extreme situations. Wouldnt see the point of 1.2 as its not a usable aperture unles you want the eyes in focus and the nose/ears out
Click to expand...

Was purely looking as i have L glass and it from reading does make a massive difference.....
 
Pompeyfc81 said:
Was purely looking as i have L glass and it from reading does make a massive difference.....
Click to expand...

L glass is very good, don't get me wrong. It helps a lot.

But the difference is not as massive as one would believe, far from it. It's only massive when you are using it in condition that would challenge non-L glass.

As for the 50mm... be aware the sigma 50mm f1.4 is much better than the canon.
 
Phil Young said:
180mm f3.5which gives you a 19.5" working distance at 1:1....then add a 2x and extension rings and you're looking at seeing the facial hair of a fly ;)
Click to expand...

That's minimum focusing distance. Minimum working distance, measured from the front of the lens, is about half that at 1:1. Still good though.
 
RichardtheSane said:
L glass is very good, don't get me wrong. It helps a lot.

But the difference is not as massive as one would believe, far from it. It's only massive when you are using it in condition that would challenge non-L glass.

As for the 50mm... be aware the sigma 50mm f1.4 is much better than the canon.
Click to expand...

Not interested in 3rd party glass im affraid! Gota be the same as the body:-)
 
RichardtheSane said:
As for the 50mm... be aware the sigma 50mm f1.4 is much better than the canon.
Click to expand...

I'd always advise anyone to buy the best product for them and with camera gear for me that means buying the best lens at the spec, focal length and price I'm willing to pay. I always feel a little surprised when people seem more drawn to the badge than to buying "the best."
 
Pompeyfc81 said:
Not interested in 3rd party glass im affraid! Gota be the same as the body:-)
Click to expand...

You're missing out on some good lenses then. Any particular reason why you are not interested? Only I recall you are fairly new to a DSLR so it doesn't strike me that you have really had time to make an informed judgement.
 
I've tried and owned the following 50mm lenses on Canon bodies over the years:

Canon 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.5 Macro
Zeiss f/2 MP
Sigma 1.4, macro (f/2.8)

The only 50mm I have now is the Canon 50mm f/1.2L

1.8 - plasticy build, nasty bokeh, inconsistent focussing - sharp and good for the money

1.4 - a bit plasticy on build, bokeh far from great, good when treated as an f/2 lens, but I wasn't very impressed wide open. Very sharp and reasonably priced.

Zeiss 50mm f/2 MP - utterly superb, but I shoot a lot of portraits and manual focus was slowing me up too much.

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 - great wide open, disappointing stopped down, focus can be variable one copy I had was great on my 5D but all over the place on my 50D.

Sigma Macro - superb at macro - couldn't focus in the same room as the subject when used as a general purpose lens.

For me the 50mm f/1.2 is the best - weather sealed, makes a superb portraits lens on my 7D and a great full length portrait / candid lens on my 5D. The weather sealing and 65mm effective length means I like it on my 1D3 too. It has a particular look which I really like and I've been delighted with wide opens shots and stopped down studio shots alike. A negative? Well there is a danger of focus shift if you shoot between f/2 and f4 near MFD, but it I tend to be stopped down more than that for headshots and would go for 85mm or 135mm anyway.

I think all the mentioned 50's have their merits, but for me the 1.2 is the best overall. (I might have said the Zeiss if I wasn't shoot portraits though).

Phil
 
philthejuggler said:
I've tried and owned the following 50mm lenses on Canon bodies over the years:

Canon 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.5 Macro
Zeiss f/2 MP
Sigma 1.4, macro (f/2.8)

The only 50mm I have now is the Canon 50mm f/1.2L

1.8 - plasticy build, nasty bokeh, inconsistent focussing - sharp and good for the money

1.4 - a bit plasticy on build, bokeh far from great, good when treated as an f/2 lens, but I wasn't very impressed wide open. Very sharp and reasonably priced.

Zeiss 50mm f/2 MP - utterly superb, but I shoot a lot of portraits and manual focus was slowing me up too much.

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 - great wide open, disappointing stopped down, focus can be variable one copy I had was great on my 5D but all over the place on my 50D.

Sigma Macro - superb at macro - couldn't focus in the same room as the subject when used as a general purpose lens.

For me the 50mm f/1.2 is the best - weather sealed, makes a superb portraits lens on my 7D and a great full length portrait / candid lens on my 5D. The weather sealing and 65mm effective length means I like it on my 1D3 too. It has a particular look which I really like and I've been delighted with wide opens shots and stopped down studio shots alike. A negative? Well there is a danger of focus shift if you shoot between f/2 and f4 near MFD, but it I tend to be stopped down more than that for headshots and would go for 85mm or 135mm anyway.

I think all the mentioned 50's have their merits, but for me the 1.2 is the best overall. (I might have said the Zeiss if I wasn't shoot portraits though).

Phil
Click to expand...

Many thanks phil :-) that was very useful information :-)
 
RichardtheSane said:
You're missing out on some good lenses then. Any particular reason why you are not interested? Only I recall you are fairly new to a DSLR so it doesn't strike me that you have really had time to make an informed judgement.
Click to expand...

Experiance has taught me to stick with what was made for the camera, I own an Mercedes and wouldnt dream of buying any parts other that mercedes for it. Reading reviews on here on sigma, tameron and so on the best reviews seem to come with a canon lens on a canon body, or a nikon lens on a nikon body. Wether i have had a DSLR for a day or 20 years MY personal preference is what counts and from what i read from TP forum the L glass out performs all competion so i can afford it why will i waste my money on sigma or anythink that isnt the best for the camera? I looked at the 70-200 OS and for £1000 it was good but i didnt like the build quality. For an extra £390 i brought a lens that will "fingers crossed" last me a life time. Sometimes cheaper isnt the best option and with what i have i am not disapointed, although i do wish i didnt have my AMG or i would have proberly had a 1dx but couldnt justify having it. This isnt a bulshy message just me explaining why i want to stick with canon products :-)
 
philthejuggler said:
I've tried and owned the following 50mm lenses on Canon bodies over the years:

Canon 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.5 Macro
Zeiss f/2 MP
Sigma 1.4, macro (f/2.8)

The only 50mm I have now is the Canon 50mm f/1.2L

1.8 - plasticy build, nasty bokeh, inconsistent focussing - sharp and good for the money

1.4 - a bit plasticy on build, bokeh far from great, good when treated as an f/2 lens, but I wasn't very impressed wide open. Very sharp and reasonably priced.

Zeiss 50mm f/2 MP - utterly superb, but I shoot a lot of portraits and manual focus was slowing me up too much.

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 - great wide open, disappointing stopped down, focus can be variable one copy I had was great on my 5D but all over the place on my 50D.

Sigma Macro - superb at macro - couldn't focus in the same room as the subject when used as a general purpose lens.

For me the 50mm f/1.2 is the best - weather sealed, makes a superb portraits lens on my 7D and a great full length portrait / candid lens on my 5D. The weather sealing and 65mm effective length means I like it on my 1D3 too. It has a particular look which I really like and I've been delighted with wide opens shots and stopped down studio shots alike. A negative? Well there is a danger of focus shift if you shoot between f/2 and f4 near MFD, but it I tend to be stopped down more than that for headshots and would go for 85mm or 135mm anyway.

I think all the mentioned 50's have their merits, but for me the 1.2 is the best overall. (I might have said the Zeiss if I wasn't shoot portraits though).

Phil
Click to expand...

Back to you phil,

I ordered a 1.4 today purely because i couldnt justify an extra £800 for somethink i just want to have an experiment with........ If i get on with it then im straight on WEX and getting one :-)

I read a few reviews on the sigma being a little tempermental which is not what i want, i want reliable, long lasting, sharp and most importantly weatherproof :-)
 
I think using the 1.4 will tell you if it's the sort of FL prime you'll use. Once you've established that you'll love the 1.2!
 
philthejuggler said:
I think using the 1.4 will tell you if it's the sort of FL prime you'll use. Once you've established that you'll love the 1.2!
Click to expand...

Im still on a major learning curve at the moment but i am loving every minute of it :-)
 
Well, here's a couple to whet your appetite!

@ f/1.2 on a 7d:
p1259966936-5.jpg


p1256131018-5.jpg


@ f/9 on a 5DII

p1201301566-6.jpg


@ f/5.6 on a 5DII
p1178878500-6.jpg


@ f/1.2 on a 5DII
p1143815430-6.jpg
 
Pompeyfc81 said:
Experiance has taught me to stick with what was made for the camera, I own an Mercedes and wouldnt dream of buying any parts other that mercedes for it.
Click to expand...

Then, sorry, but you are clearly simply barking mad :D

Do you think Merc make every part for every car?

I've had some nice cars (Merc, Lotus, Porshe etc...) but I see a difference between buying the right part and buying the exact same part at an inflated price from a Merc dealer.

Anyway, back to cameras. To dismiss third party manufacturers and buy only Canon lenses is a choice you are free to make and I honestly hope you're happy with your choices but I hope that you'll at least accept that Canon don't make unarguably the best lens at every focal length and price point.
 
woof woof said:
Then, sorry, but you are clearly simply barking mad :D

Do you think Merc make every part for every car?

I've had some nice cars (Merc, Lotus, Porshe etc...) but I see a difference between buying the right part and buying the exact same part at an inflated price from a Merc dealer.

Anyway, back to cameras. To dismiss third party manufacturers and buy only Canon lenses is a choice you are free to make and I honestly hope you're happy with your choices but I hope that you'll at least accept that Canon don't make unarguably the best lens at every focal length and price point.
Click to expand...


Canon are the only ones who know how their autofocus is programmed. I'm happy to buy Zeiss as their glass tends to be amazing, and they are MF!

Phil
 
woof woof said:
Then, sorry, but you are clearly simply barking mad :D

Do you think Merc make every part for every car?

I've had some nice cars (Merc, Lotus, Porshe etc...) but I see a difference between buying the right part and buying the exact same part at an inflated price from a Merc dealer.

Anyway, back to cameras. To dismiss third party manufacturers and buy only Canon lenses is a choice you are free to make and I honestly hope you're happy with your choices but I hope that you'll at least accept that Canon don't make unarguably the best lens at every focal length and price point.
Click to expand...

Conpletly accept that point! :-) only dismissed them to start with no doubt il change my mind one day!

As for the amg! WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY!!!! :-(
 
The problem with Tamrons and Sigmas is that if you get a perfect copy that matches the config of your camera it will be amazing but thats quite rare, theres less consistancy than with a Canon lens.
That said if you got a non L like the 50 1.4 or the 17-55 2.8 and it matches your camera then it can be better than a soft L. Its the combo of both the lens and camera that makes the diff
 
funky_sam said:
The problem with Tamrons and Sigmas is that if you get a perfect copy that matches the config of your camera it will be amazing but thats quite rare, theres less consistancy than with a Canon lens.
That said if you got a non L like the 50 1.4 or the 17-55 2.8 and it matches your camera then it can be better than a soft L. Its the combo of both the lens and camera that makes the diff
Click to expand...

Apprecieate that, just read some reviews on the canon L lens being not sharpe so would appear my theory isnt correct anyway ! Lol
 
Everyone will tell you about a lens not being snap or how good their choice of lens is. I've tried a couple of duff other lenses as recommended by others so I stick to canon now.
 
Pompeyfc81 said:
Apprecieate that, just read some reviews on the canon L lens being not sharpe so would appear my theory isnt correct anyway ! Lol
Click to expand...

I know as many people who shoot awful shots with L glass as those that shoot excellent shots with non-L. I've used several different L lenses across the range and, although they are better made and have quieter/faster focus, that's not to say you won't get excellent shots without one.

I obviously don't know your history but, having only had your first DSLR for a few weeks, I think you need to find your feet with whatever lens is in front of you before you start worrying about the 'best' glass.

I've shot an indoor kids footy party today on a 40D and 85/1.8 which combined cost considerably less than the 50/1.2 on its' own so just step away from the WEX website and get out and shoot some pictures! Reading posts on this forum recently it feels like people (not aimed directly at the OP) are spending more time buying kit and shooting test shots of walls than actually using the gear :0)

Cheers
Steve
 
stevelmx5 said:
I've shot an indoor kids footy party today on a 40D and 85/1.8
Click to expand...

Indoor at 85 on a crop? Was it a hall or some really large rooms? I was wanting wider than 17mm on my 7D today at a party, small rooms though
 
funky_sam said:
Indoor at 85 on a crop? Was it a hall or some really large rooms? I was wanting wider than 17mm on my 7D today at a party, small rooms though
Click to expand...

Sorry, should have clarified it was an indoor football party on an astro pitch. The pitch was around 60ft long so I sat in one corner and covered all 3 opposite corners. It was a favour for a mate hence me not being very mobile! Once the party moved into the food area I switched to my Tamron 17-50/2.8

Cheers
Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top