Q for 50mm users whom upgraded 1.4 to 1.2.

[Belle&Sebastain]

To be honest TS, I feel whipping out extra $1700 for a lens that has only 1/3 more stop very expensive.

However I must also confess that the 50mm f1.4 is a problematic lens. The USM motor runs on a gear chain and it will be easy to worn it out within 2-4 years of usage. It cost 25% of the lens price to get it replace.

For performance wise, the 50mm f1.4 lens is averagely usable at f1.4, when you nail the focus and its mostly luck than skill (coming from my experience) The bokeh is rather neutral at f1.4.

Like you I struggle about 14 months deciding to buy the 50mm f1.2, asked many professionals in the wedding business and it was only after my 2nd copy of the 50mm f1.4 broke down the 3rd time I was without a 50mm workhorse for 2 months when I decided to purchase the f1.2

The f1.2 is very reliable, like the f1.2 of the 85mm lens. Its does not produce the swirly bokeh of the former, but its more pleasing to my eyes than the 50mm f1.4 at f1.4. As my usage increased, i find myself more and more whipping out my 50mm than before I had my 50mm f1.4.

As for price, take heart, the other L brand is retailing their 50mmASPH f1.4 at $4400 and 50mmASPH f0.95 at about $15,000. So if you afford it, i say go for it.

 

[rendition]

Thanks Belle&Sebastain and yes, at 1.4 halation and CA is quite apparent at times. Actually, I tend to stop down not only because it's not usable most times but the kind of things I shoot (whether personal or assignment), more often than not 1.4 is just too shallow - Nice bokeh doesn't mean nice pictures. Of course, it has it's moments for 1.4.

OK... think am getting this (now that B&H has rebate!) almost, merely, for better mechanism.

 

[Snoweagle]

To be honest, i only use the f/1.2 end for special 'creamy' effects, else f/2.0 to f/2.8 for portraits.

 

[gazkw]

this thread has proven to be an interesting thread for people on how they use their 50L...

thanks guys!

 

[PrimePhotog]

The 50L is THE MOST AMAZING 50mm I have ever tried IMHO...(Pls note that I am a Nikon user).
The most important thing to do once you get the lens is to get it callibrated...Out of 4 copies I tried (3 from a shop and 1 from a friend), Perfect focus is impossible with AF until I got my friend to callibrate the focus of his lens.

As for price, take heart, the other L brand is retailing their 50mmASPH f1.4 at $4400 and 50mmASPH f0.95 at about $15,000. So if you afford it, i say go for it.

OT but this is something I have to disagree with...If you happen to know about Leica lenses, you would realise that the older and nearly-as-good pre-asph lenses are much cheaper(50 f1 is about 6-8k plus).Besides that, you are paying for the extremely good build, brand name and the fact that you lose less(if not no money at all) during resale.Very hard to compare with the Canon 50L.If you really want to compare prices, the Nikon 50 f1.2 is $500, way cheaper than the 50L.Go figure...

 

[rendition]

With my 5DMII's micro adjustment feature, does it mean that if I happen to get a misfocusing copy of the 50mm, it can be easily adjusted?

Then again... I have 5D Classic to deal with too haha. Oh well, actually am not even worrying about this yet... Just wanna get it first.

 

[gazkw]

With my 5DMII's micro adjustment feature, does it mean that if I happen to get a misfocusing copy of the 50mm, it can be easily adjusted?

Then again... I have 5D Classic to deal with too haha. Oh well, actually am not even worrying about this yet... Just wanna get it first.

the problem i had was that the focus was dead on for f1.2 and f2.0.

but f1.4 and f1.6, well especially f1.6 had some focus issues. if you use the micro adjustment, it adjusts the entire range of apertures as a whole.

anyway, calibration is free is either your camera or lens has warranty. at least, this is what i experienced.

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

OT but this is something I have to disagree with...If you happen to know about Leica lenses, you would realise that the older and nearly-as-good pre-asph lenses are much cheaper(50 f1 is about 6-8k plus).Besides that, you are paying for the extremely good build, brand name and the fact that you lose less(if not no money at all) during resale.Very hard to compare with the Canon 50L.If you really want to compare prices, the Nikon 50 f1.2 is $500, way cheaper than the 50L.Go figure...

I do not understand what you like to disagree about? You just confirm my words by telling the TS starter that Leica lenses are more expensive than Canon ones, like the USED 50mm f1 going for 6-8 thousand dollars? Or is the 2ND HAND 50mm f1.4 pre ASPH more expensive than canon's f1.4 and f1.2?

BTW, I'm talking new off the retail shelf prices, we never discuss about used products or 2nd hand products in the thread.

 

[rendition]

OT but this is something I have to disagree with...If you happen to know about Leica lenses, you would realise that the older and nearly-as-good pre-asph lenses are much cheaper(50 f1 is about 6-8k plus).Besides that, you are paying for the extremely good build, brand name and the fact that you lose less(if not no money at all) during resale.Very hard to compare with the Canon 50L.If you really want to compare prices, the Nikon 50 f1.2 is $500, way cheaper than the 50L.Go figure...

Thanks but am not looking at any other lenses but Canon 50mm 1.2L.

 

[Snoweagle]

Thanks but am not looking at any other lenses but Canon 50mm 1.2L.

Then go get it, it's a swell lens!

 

[rendition]

I am... back-ordered status.

 

[rendition]

BTW, am I right that the front barrel of 50 1.2 extends during focusing? Pretty much like the 1.4 i guess? Seems like I must have it's hood on since day 1. I reckon that's how many of the 50 1.4 died... possibly due to pressure to focus barrel during storage.

Happen to have any close up shot of your 1.2 Snoweagle? Think am gonna purchase off B&H.... so no see see and touch touch.

 

[Snoweagle]

BTW, am I right that the front barrel of 50 1.2 extends during focusing? Pretty much like the 1.4 i guess? Seems like I must have it's hood on since day 1. I reckon that's how many of the 50 1.4 died... possibly due to pressure to focus barrel during storage.

Happen to have any close up shot of your 1.2 Snoweagle? Think am gonna purchase off B&H.... so no see see and touch touch.

No. 50f/1.2 is a completely internal focusing lens so no such thing as any barrel protrusion, unlike 85 f/1.2.

Here are pics of my lens (taken by my ex 17-40) and some shots taken at f/1.2. All pics are unedited.

 

[litechaser]

The pics seem soft at 1.2

 

[Snoweagle]

The pics seem soft at 1.2

I simply just resized it. U should see the original, it's not soft.

 

[rendition]

No. 50f/1.2 is a completely internal focusing lens so no such thing as any barrel protrusion, unlike 85 f/1.2.

Excellent! Thank you Snoweagle, appreciate your help!

 

[Snoweagle]

Excellent! Thank you Snoweagle, appreciate your help!

No probs, just enjoy the lens!

 

[nuanda]

No. 50f/1.2 is a completely internal focusing lens so no such thing as any barrel protrusion, unlike 85 f/1.2.

Confirm .

 

[babykailan]

My first 50mm was the f/1.8. Cheap and good but noisy and slow focusing.

Changed to the f/1.4. Big jump up. Was happy until realizing most of the shots at f/1.4 were soft. I became a pixel peeper as a result of that. Did research and realize you need to shoot at least f/2 or narrower to get "sharper" photos.

Plunged into the f/1.2L a few months ago after battling thoughts of the f/1.2L for 12 months. I would say the price difference do not justify the quality of the pics (compared to the f/1.4) especially when I am only a hobbyist but I did not care, I JUST NEEDED TO HAVE IT. Rationality is not meant for luxurious goods. So the heart made the choice there.

I was very disappointed with the first 50+ test shots. It had back-focusing problems. Sent the lens for calibration. Came back and same thing. Sent the lens and cam body for calibration - fortunately solved. 4 trips and 2 weeks of torment, anticipation, regret and hoping I did not get a lemon. Why should we pay top dollars for L and be made to suffer like this?! LOL...

After the initial anticlimax of not getting better and more "impressive" shots, I am learning how to tame this beast at f/1.2. You just need to manage the expectations. It is not an easy lens - at f/1.2 the focus point is pin-sized. Holding technique must be tip-top (especially when it is so !^$@# heavy). I also stopped taking every bloody photo at f/1.2 - now only when conditions require it.

 

[Snoweagle]

My first 50mm was the f/1.8. Cheap and good but noisy and slow focusing.

Changed to the f/1.4. Big jump up. Was happy until realizing most of the shots at f/1.4 were soft. I became a pixel peeper as a result of that. Did research and realize you need to shoot at least f/2 or narrower to get "sharper" photos.

Plunged into the f/1.2L a few months ago after battling thoughts of the f/1.2L for 12 months. I would say the price difference do not justify the quality of the pics (compared to the f/1.4) especially when I am only a hobbyist but I did not care, I JUST NEEDED TO HAVE IT. Rationality is not meant for luxurious goods. So the heart made the choice there.

I was very disappointed with the first 50+ test shots. It had back-focusing problems. Sent the lens for calibration. Came back and same thing. Sent the lens and cam body for calibration - fortunately solved. 4 trips and 2 weeks of torment, anticipation, regret and hoping I did not get a lemon. Why should we pay top dollars for L and be made to suffer like this?! LOL...

After the initial anticlimax of not getting better and more "impressive" shots, I am learning how to tame this beast at f/1.2. You just need to manage the expectations. It is not an easy lens - at f/1.2 the focus point is pin-sized. Holding technique must be tip-top (especially when it is so !^$@# heavy). I also stopped taking every bloody photo at f/1.2 - now only when conditions require it.

Perhaps u just have a bad copy of the f/1.2.