# Canon: 50mm f1.4 or 50mm f1.2 ?



## elrafo (Feb 26, 2009)

Hello,

I am wondering if the 50mm 1.2 is worth the price, 4 times the 1.4...
do we really get better bokeh and sharpness?
I use a lot my 50mm 1.4 on my 5D MII I love the angle of it. So I would be ready to spend more money for better lens, I just don't know if it worth the price!

thanks alot


Raph


----------



## Big Mike (Feb 26, 2009)

Worth it to some...but not to others.  I know one or two who use it a love it.  

From everything I've heard...the 50mm F1.4 is already a very good lens so the F1.2 would have to be really, really good to be worth the upgrade.  

I've heard that it doesn't have a floating element, so when it stops down the aperture, the focus shifts ever so slightly.  Probably not an issue in real world shooting....but I know some who are wary because of it.


----------



## AlexColeman (Feb 26, 2009)

I don't know, maybe a different lens then. I am getting a 85 1.4.


----------



## Mitica100 (Feb 28, 2009)

xburial said:


> Cute, Kid!



And just how is this related to the OP's thread? Clarify, please.


----------



## McQueen278 (Feb 28, 2009)

Mitica100 said:


> And just how is this related to the OP's thread? Clarify, please.


 
Don't bother man.  Just click the report post button.  It's a bot.As far as the 50mm f/1.4 vs f/1.2, I took the f/1.4 because of the price and corner sharpness.  I'd rather spend the money on the 85mm f/1.2 and have the 50mm f/1.4.  The bokeh is undeniably better on the 50mm f/1.2 though.  It doesn't bother me enough to justify the price.  The 85mm f/1.2 on the other hand is a completely amazing lens and a hands down winner in the 85mm range.  It's all a matter of what is important to you in what focal length.


----------



## Mitica100 (Feb 28, 2009)

McQueen278 said:


> Don't bother man.  Just click the report post button.  It's a bot.



Yeah, I was going to move it to the Spam bin (I can do that here) but wanted to give *xburial* a chance to reply. 

I'll do that if s/he doesn't reply.


----------



## Mitica100 (Feb 28, 2009)

Nevermind, moved xburial's post in the Spam, wasn't even his/her picture.


----------



## RyanLilly (Mar 1, 2009)

Have you considered the Sigma 50mm 1.4? check out the review on dpreview.


----------



## EhJsNe (Mar 1, 2009)

for the price, i wouldnt say tis worth it, but if you have the money for it, go ahead and buy it...and you cna even sell your f/1.4 to help pay for it.

I would say if its considerably sharper and has better bokeh, then yes go for it, if its barely noticable unless ytou zoom in 400% and still have to look...no its not worth it.


----------



## adamwilliamking (Mar 1, 2009)

Hi, woops ive changed my colour!
Anywho.. depending on location obviously, if you are getting 1/1000 with your 1.4 you are probably going to get a 1/2500 in the 1.2 , even tho these apertures are so close you will get ALOT out of that extra .2

You'll also take a rather nasty hit to your bank account


----------



## philee (Mar 2, 2009)

I have a few photographer friends who used it and loved it VS. the f/1.4


----------



## Garbz (Mar 3, 2009)

Clearly the OP has never used a f/1.2 lens. Forget sharpness and bokeh, IT'S A 1.2 and a damn good one at that. 

Frankly if you need to ask this question then you should borrow the lens and play with it. If you still need to ask this question after that then you don't need it and would be more than happy with a 1.4.

Guitarist at f/1.2 on a very very not sharp (old AI-S Nikkor) 50mm f/1.2


----------



## LarryD (Mar 3, 2009)

When you buy a 1.2 lens, you are not paying the extra money for sharpness or anything "better" necessarily..

What you are paying for is it's ability to allow more light in; glass like that isn't cheap........  For high end lenses, you aren't going to notice a difference in your shots at normal apertures, but you will know when you run out of light.


----------



## NateWagner (Mar 3, 2009)

adamwilliamking said:


> Hi, woops ive changed my colour!
> Anywho.. depending on location obviously, if you are getting 1/1000 with your 1.4 you are probably going to get a 1/2500 in the 1.2 , even tho these apertures are so close you will get ALOT out of that extra .2



I'm sorry, but difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is not 1.5 stops. actually it is a half stop (one stop being from 1-1.4) thus, the difference would only be from 1/100 - 1/150 instead of 1/100 - 1/250th


----------



## usayit (Mar 3, 2009)

Just like the ultimate performance of a car cannot be rated just by the advertised horsepower rating of the engine, a lens ability to produce high IQ images cannot be rated by the max aperture.  In most cases, the complexity of optics increases as the max aperture increases... what you are buy is the extra f-stop (or less) not necessarily better bokeh nor better IQ.

Case in point...  The Canon 50mm f/1.0 was one of their worst selling lens and very expensive.  It was outperformed by the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8 in almost every category except max aperture.  It was several times the cost of either lens and heavy too.

Case in point.. The leica Noctilux f/1.0 is capable of producing some of the most brilliant images BUT i the 50mm f/1.4 summilux, 50mm f/2.0 summicron and even the "inexpensive" 50mm f/2.5 summarit will out rank it in many aspects of IQ. (Noctilux still garners enough popularity and enjoyment that Leica photographers don't purchase the Noctilux as a replacement to another 50mm but as an addition to their camera bag),.


----------



## roentarre (Mar 29, 2009)

Bokeh of Canon 50mm f1.2 is stunning.  I love the low contrast and the gentleness from this lens wide open.

Good lens to own.

here are the shots

James Wei :: Photography


Enjoy the gallery


----------



## Montana (Mar 29, 2009)

Some fantastic shots on your site James!

Derrick


----------



## Sarah23 (Mar 29, 2009)

ooo, the bokeh you can get at 1.2 is so yummy! I would LOVE to own that lens. I really want the 85 1.2.....oooo.....be still my heart....


----------



## table1349 (Mar 29, 2009)

elrafo said:


> Hello,
> 
> I am wondering if the 50mm 1.2 is worth the price, 4 times the 1.4...
> do we really get better bokeh and sharpness?
> ...




What do you shoot?  It's worthless for sports, the AF is far to slow, even on a 1D body. It's a standard 50mm prime, no macro, no zoom.  

But if you are shooting a lot of studio/portrait stuff it is the sweet cream of lenses in the 50mm range.  Is it worth it to you for what you do?  It's your money and only you can decide. 

If you want to compare differences go here: 
photoSIG &#187; Main
You can pull up photos by lens.  

Here is a review of the lens:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens Review


----------



## drafuul (Mar 29, 2009)

I've used the 50 1.2 time and time again. I highly recommend going with it if your budget allows. Beyond just the over boost in quality, it makes your camera look cool having that beast attached.


----------

