Which canon 50mm 1.4 or 1.2

The f/1.2 is a lovely lens.. the build quality is undeniably better than the f/1.4, being a 'L', but it's still more expensive than the f/2.8 L zooms. Do you want to pay about £800 more for that extra half-stop and better build quality? For most users the f/1.4 does the job admirably when you need a super-large aperture for low light work.

A.
 
the best f/1.2 lens in my eyes is the 85mm. INSANE lens for an equally insane price, but even though it's not a 'nifty fifty'.. If you want to have fun with f/1.2 apertures.. I would personally go for that one.

You will have to consider though, do you actually need that wide of an aperture? Nothing wrong with the gold line USM f/1.4 :)
 
As said, there's nothing at all wrong with the the 50mm f/1.4 and you won't go wrong with either lens. It's not just that extra half stop you're paying for though with the 50mm f/1.2L - it gives lovely deep colour saturation and flair is virtually non existent, even shooting directly into the light.

On the downside it's heavy and can suffer from CA at large apertures, but as you'd be most likely to use those in low light situations it's usually not going to be a major issue. Whether it's worth the extra is a personal decision - I wouldn't be without mine and I've also had the f/1.4 version.
 
Last edited:
If you need to shoot at f/1.2, or you will be shooting in harsh conditions, then you should get the L. Otherwise, at f/2 and higher I would probably go as far as claiming that f/1.4 is sharper throughout the frame (not unusual to see slower lens performing better stopped down). f/1.4 is built like junk though.
 
Sigma 50mm f1.4? Better build quality than the f1.4 canon and better lens in general. Very highly thought of and only costs a little more.
 
menthel said:
Sigma 50mm f1.4? Better build quality than the f1.4 canon and better lens in general. Very highly thought of and only costs a little more.
Click to expand...

Sigma ftw - superb lens:D
 
As others have said - it depends on how you'll use it - and the conditions in which you'll be shooting...

I've got the 1.2 and it's a great lens. Heavy yes. But build quality is superb.

1.2 is a very narrow DOF - but there are times when the 1.2 has been most welcome.. when shooting indoors without flash..

Did I mention it's also very well built? But it is however expensive!!
 
farrance said:
the best f/1.2 lens in my eyes is the 85mm. INSANE lens for an equally insane price, but even though it's not a 'nifty fifty'.. If you want to have fun with f/1.2 apertures.. I would personally go for that one.

You will have to consider though, do you actually need that wide of an aperture? Nothing wrong with the gold line USM f/1.4 :)
Click to expand...

I have the sigma 85mm 1.4 and love it
 
menthel said:
Sigma 50mm f1.4? Better build quality than the f1.4 canon and better lens in general. Very highly thought of and only costs a little more.
Click to expand...

That's interesting I have the sigma 85mm 1.4 and love it
 
It can be very demanding getting sharp focus when used wide open hand held but when you nail it it's sharp!


IMG_0648 1 by tonky8203, on Flickr

Used wide open at f/1.2, Canon 50D, 800 ISO.
 
I've seen one photographer use a 50mm 1.2 and couldn't believe it when they changed lenses and put it on the pavement! For the price difference I would really need a reason for that extra half a stop, considering you could pick up a 50 1.4 and and a backup body for the same money.
 
if you have the money... get the L if you don't or can't justify it get the 1.4.. you won't regret it either way as long as the decision is made with your head rather than than your heart!

P.s the sigma is better built the image quality however is identical..
 
CT said:
It can be very demanding getting sharp focus when used wide open hand held but when you nail it it's sharp!


IMG_0648 1 by tonky8203, on Flickr

Used wide open at f/1.2, Canon 50D, 800 ISO.
Click to expand...

It looks very sharp - right in the centre. But please excuse me asking what would it look near the edges, and on full frame. Guys on photozone.de think that it would indeed be not very good at all (and compare it to on-crop review which is pretty glowing as expected). I can't remember the last time my subject was dead in the centre, so this would be a useless lens in my bag if that review is remotely close to truth (and they generally get it right in my experience)
 
daugirdas said:
It looks very sharp - right in the centre. But please excuse me asking what would it look near the edges, and on full frame. Guys on photozone.de think that it would indeed be not very good at all (and compare it to on-crop review which is pretty glowing as expected). I can't remember the last time my subject was dead in the centre, so this would be a useless lens in my bag if that review is remotely close to truth (and they generally get it right in my experience)
Click to expand...

I think it's good enough. ;) Not heard many complaints from, well, anyone. Does fine for some of the best shooters in the world, so I think we should manage OK with it.

I borrowed one for a couple of shoots recently. These portraits were shot wide open on a 5D, image quality looks alright to me. http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=363425
 
daugirdas said:
It looks very sharp - right in the centre. But please excuse me asking what would it look near the edges, and on full frame. Guys on photozone.de think that it would indeed be not very good at all (and compare it to on-crop review which is pretty glowing as expected). I can't remember the last time my subject was dead in the centre, so this would be a useless lens in my bag if that review is remotely close to truth (and they generally get it right in my experience)
Click to expand...

They thought it wouldn't be very good? Did they test it or not?
When was any large aperture lens expected to perform well at the edges when used wide open anyway - especially one as extreme as this, so it's a pretty safe prediction if they didn't actually test it.

This is shot wide open at f/1.2. It's not set up with the slide rule by any means and the camera was pointing upwards slightly from the horizontal so you should really only judge the results from around the centre two lines of script in the frame. Having said that - wherever you look in the frame it impresses the arse off me , but you form your own opinion.


Chandler 1024 by tonky8203, on Flickr

The full sized unsharpened file can be downloaded here..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonky8203/6339443076/
 
Is that a character reference from your CV Cedric?
 
HoppyUK said:
Is that a character reference from your CV Cedric?
Click to expand...

It's a bit of Raymond Chandler Richard which hung in the Det Supt's office as long as anyone could remember. When I retired they presented it to me. Bloody cheapskates - everyone else got cut crystal. :D
 
CT said:
It's a bit of Raymond Chandler Richard which hung in the Det Supt's office as long as anyone could remember. When I retired they presented it to me. Bloody cheapskates - everyone else got cut crystal. :D
Click to expand...

Haha! What a wonderful gift! Stick on your CV anyway, I've heard no Duchess is safe down your way :D
 
Actually I was never too sure about the 'wouldn't despoil a virgin' bit. :coat:
 
daugirdas said:
It looks very sharp - right in the centre. But please excuse me asking what would it look near the edges, and on full frame. Guys on photozone.de think that it would indeed be not very good at all (and compare it to on-crop review which is pretty glowing as expected). I can't remember the last time my subject was dead in the centre, so this would be a useless lens in my bag if that review is remotely close to truth (and they generally get it right in my experience)
Click to expand...

I think that may be a bit of a mute point though. Unless you're descending into manual focus then even the outer focus points are nearer to the centre that the edge of frame. It therefore only becomes relevent if you're shooting a two dimensional subject which is offset to one side. Anything three dimensional is going to get eaten by the DoF

Bob
 
My 30 seconds of time says the canon 1.4 is poor you may aswell but the 1.8 the build quality is just as good. If you have to ask you dont need the 1.2 in which case get the sigma 1.4, alot better build and nicer images
 
charleyboy14 said:
My 30 seconds of time says the canon 1.4 is poor you may aswell but the 1.8 the build quality is just as good.
Click to expand...

I hope you are on about the Sigmas because unless you were born on Mars, the build quality of the Canon 1.4 SUPERSEDES the Canon 1.8 by lightyears. The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is a plastic body, plastic mount and has only 5 aperture blades. The 1.4 trumps it in absolutely every single department.
 
If going for a 50mm f1.4, I haven't read a review yet that places the Canon ahead of the Sigma.

I have the Sigma and it's at the very least a match for my Canon 50mm f2.5 which I've read is thought by some to be Conon's sharpest 50mm and one of their sharpest lenses.

The Siggy is worth thinking about.
 
charleyboy14 said:
My 30 seconds of time says the canon 1.4 is poor you may aswell but the 1.8 the build quality is just as good. If you have to ask you dont need the 1.2 in which case get the sigma 1.4, alot better build and nicer images
Click to expand...

Really. I had the nifty fifty on tour lens for a while and got some great results but it was rather cheap and plasticky. I bought the 50mm f1.4 and it's different quality both in build quality and results. I didnt find i could use the 1.8 pin sharp wide open, but i can the 1.4 The other bonus is its small and light so is always in my bag. It's been brilliant at gigs but also for real shallow depth of field shots, such as babies feet and hands.
 
Basically, what i was trying to say was that the canon 50 1.4 is a piece of crap in comparison to the Siggy. and yes i have used them both aswell as the 1.2
 
charleyboy14 said:
Basically, what i was trying to say was that the canon 50 1.4 is a piece of crap in comparison to the Siggy. and yes i have used them both aswell as the 1.2
Click to expand...

Fair enough, canon *is* built like crap. Sadly optically, I must say I find it completely the opposite. My canon performs 100% when stopped down just half a stop (a little low contrast at 1.4 if you must). I am really pleased with the sharpness and I can go to do silly things like shooting landscapes at night at f/2.8 and get uber sharp results - or place my subject right in the corner and it is still perfect, perhaps I got very lucky with mine. I am yet to see a Sigma performing even remotely close on 35mm to this (6x4 size web preview or centre placed subjects do not count). I might agree sigma produces a lot of nice out of focus areas - sometimes as much as 100% :lol: - please prove me wrong here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top