Canon 50mm Lens Digital Cameras Survey The reviews of the 50mm f/1. 2L are useless. All you hear is "Spend your money on the 35L or 85L instead" or "the focusing issues make this lens unuseable". But something makes me think that people are just writing reviews based on what other people have said without actually ever using the product. If you ever want to shoot snapshots of downtown without a flash at midnight WHILE walking, this is the lens to have. I'm so in love with this lens. Pros: * It's completely silent. Quieter than the f/1. 4 * It has no problems focusing in the dark * It's highly useable at f1. 2 * It's sharper than the f/1. 4 * Colors are more saturated than the f/1. 4 * Images taken with this lens have higher contrast than the f/1. 4 * It makes the f/1. 4 feel like a hunk of plastic * It comes with a hood Cons: * It costs 4 times more than the f/1. 4 * It costs 18 times more than the f/1. 8 Pros: * You can comfortably shoot under conditions that would make the f/1. 4 nervous. * Produces a much higher yield of useable photos * Aesthetically, it's the coolest looking lens I own! For those who are concerned about the "back focusing" issue, I will let you know that I haven't experienced any backfocusing at all. I've let others shoot with it, wide open, within low-light environments and even the non-photographers were able to focus/shoot accurately. This is my review from my non-scientific, real-world, situational testing. I am not a professional photographer, or make living with taking pictures. I am just a person who loves to take pictures & enjoys good pictures. And, I know how expensive this lens is, and YES, I am very aware of "Back Focusing" issue with this lens that others worry. I have been using this lens for 3 weeks now, and have been experiencing good & bad about this lens. (I believe "back focusing" issue was way too much inflated. ) I have EOS 5D, and wanted to take full advantage of FF factor, and this was why I took a plunge instead of getting acclaimed 35MM or 85MM. Good: Picture quality - from f1. 2 thru f2. 8, the lens works superbly. AF is fast & faster compared to 50mm 1. 4. Above f2. 8, the pictures become a touch soft, but it exceeded my expectation. In low light condition, this lens is virtually unbeatable. Weight & Feel - Anoth factor that sold me to this lens is its overall feel. Very balanced & well weighted. And, its build quality is good. Bad: Back Focus Yes, it does back focus in very (very) close distance. Within 20 inches, you may experience back focusing more than half of the time. (Others say within 30 inches or so, but I never experienced more than 20 inches far. ) I asked myself how many times (in reality), I would try taking pictures within such distance. Cost - Yes, this is expensive lens. 4 times more than very good 50mm 1. 4. I love to take portraits (especially for my new born baby) , and this was my main reason that I upgraded from 50mm 1. 4 to 50mm 1. 2. I would recommend this lens if you are into portraits. If you want more than what I am into, you may be disappointed. Did I make a good investment? Yes, I believe I did. I have to briefly comment regarding this lens. In the past I had been lukewarm about it, but over time I have come to cherish it. Make no mistake, it has caused me some troubles over the years. As others have written, there is a learning curve to the lens. The narrow aperture at f1. 2 itself requires some practice but even beyond this, the lens has some quirks that, like a good friend, you learn to understand better and eventually start to like. I also have to say that when I started fussing with this lens some years ago I was using the 5D --which I still love-- but having upgraded to various other bodies such as the 5D II and others, the focusing reliability of this lens has improved dramatically. I have since sold off most of my L lenses and now exclusively shoot with the 50L and I can't see parting with it anytime soon. You are probably reading these reviews to decide if you will pay $1,500+ to buy this lens or to get its sibling the 50 f/1. 4. I owned the 50 f/1. 4 for a year, and currently own the 50L 1. 2. Ignore the reviews by those who have never even owned 50L 1. 2 (or maybe rented it for a weekend) yet feel
they can give you a solid opinion about it. I will give you a run-down of my experience with the 50L 1. 2 as a portrait photographer: ********************************* *** Crop vs Full-frame Camera *** ********************************* This lens is all about narrow DoF. I will talk about the characteristics relating to DoF further in my review. To get the most out of this lens it is recommended that you use a FF camera to give you the most control over DOF. A full-frame camera will give you approx 1. 6 times more blur than on an APS-C camera (such as the 7D). 50mm is very versatile on a FF camera, allowing small group photos, individual photos of bust-up / full length / three quarters. But not so much on the 7D, when you will have an equivalent field of vision of 80mm. 80mm is quite tight, and more suited for headshots and bust-up. * * * ************* *** Bokeh *** ************* With narrow DoF comes great bokeh. The bokeh produced by the 8-bladed aperture is round and beautiful, currently matched only by the 85L 1. 2. The 50 f/1. 4 also has an 8-bladed aperture but the bokeh it produces pales in comparison and is often nervous and distracting. With the 50L 1. 2, the bokeh has a soft and beautiful rendition - the subject is well isolated and everything out of focus becomes a wash of creaminess. * * * ***************** *** Sharpness *** ***************** This is one of the areas where I feel the 50L 1. 2 is most misunderstood. I will open my review of sharpness with this: between the apertures of f/1. 2 to f/2. 0, this lens is the sharpest of the Canon 50mm family. Period. If you don't like taking my word for it, then you can poke around in MTF charts. You must be skilled (yes, skill is needed, this is not a point and shoot lens) at using single focus points, have a steady camera technique, knowing where the blade of DoF falls, and knowing when to not focus and recompose. The 50 f/1. 4 then takes over in sharpness at around f/2. 2 to f/2. 8. The 50L 1. 2 will never be as sharp as my 85L 1. 2 II. But for me as a portrait photographer, sharpness is relative. If the background is pure cream, then the lovely lady I am photographing will look sharp. Also, I don't mind not having the lens a little soft so the photograph does not capture every pore and imperfection on my subject's face. It actually saves me time when retouching later! As a further note, I found that shooting wide open with the 50 f/1. 4 gave results that lacked so much sharpness so as to be unusable. * * * ************************ *** Color & Contrast *** ************************ The color rendition and contrast from the 50L 1. 2 is beautiful, and what you would expect from an L lens. The optics and lens coatings are far superior to the 50 1. 4 when it comes to color and contrast between f/1. 2 and f/2. 0. When shooting wide open with the 50 1. 4, I found out of focus areas with sunlight would exhibit color shifts to red and green. The contrast would also be very low and at times so faded that the photograph could not be fixed (to my satisfaction) in post. With the 50 1. 4 closed up to f/2. 8, the color shifting was much more controlled and the contrast at an acceptable level. * * * ************************* *** 50L 1. 2 vs 50 1. 4 *** ************************* The $1,500 grapefruit or the $355 non-L? I would sum it up this way: 1. The non-L is advertised as an f/1. 4 lens. BUT, there will be many lighting conditions in which shooting between f/1. 4 to f/2. 0 will give you less than perfect results (eg. distracting bokeh, terrible color, washed out photos, or complete lack of sharpness). For a professional, it would be a challenge to practically use the non-L at f/1. 4-f/2. 0 in less than perfect situations. Shooting at f/2. 8 and narrower, the non-L is as good as any Canon lens. 2. The grapefruit is advertised as an f/1. 2 lens. AND, it is the wonder lens between f/1. 2 and f/2. 0 for the reasons given above. The color and contrast is L glass quality at all apertures. However, the sharpness is not as good as other Canon lenses from the more standard apertures of f/2. 8 and narrower. The sharpness is also affected by the focus shift that occurs because the 50L 1. 2 focuses wide open and the aperture is stopped down an instant before the sensor is exposed to take the photograph. So where does this leave us? Because what I am going to say might insult some people, I am going to caveat that all of this is my own personal opinion which is totally worthless anyway. Why have you read all the way down to here, hey? Here we go with a deep breath: 3. The $1,500 grapefruit is the lens for you if you love shooting between f/1. 2 and f/2. 0 for that bokehlicious cream and narrow DoF. It is a perfect v I'm a professional wedding and portrait photographer who has been using this lens extensively for about 3 1/2 years. Combined, I use this lens for about 70 weddings/portrait sessions per year and am intimately familiar with it's image quality and nuances. Let me start off with the weaknesses. The lens loses edge sharpness on a full frame quicker than longer focal length, or slower aperture
lenses. Don't even think about shooting a full width group shot at anything faster than F2. 0. Purple fringing will be apparent when shooting at large apertures under harsh lighting conditions. This is even more true at longer subject distances. Shooting that backlit portrait subject at 20 feet? Expect ugly edges. - Close up performance is relatively weak. This lens employs what's called a fixed rear element design vs a floating rear element. The fixed rear element design results in superior bokeh and background blur, yet somewhat weakens the closeup performance of the lens. At moderate to longer distances, the lens is super sharp. Near minimum focusing distance (much closer than what you would use for portraits), images are not as sharp. And honestly, I'm struggling to come up with anything else. The whole "focus shift" issue is so overblown its hilarious. Whatever tiny effect their may be (in 3. 5 years I've yet to confirm it - seriously), it is VASTLY overshadowed by the fact you're using an F1. 2 lens and focus accuracy by the user and camera is critical. You absolutely cannot have sloppy technique when focusing this lens. It requires precision or you're wasting your time. Now, for the strengths of this lens - the reason why anyone would buy it. Image quality below F2. 0 is the best of any AF 50mm lens you can buy from any brand - period. Take that to the bank. - Bokeh, contrast and color saturation from this lens are outstanding - far better than other Canon 50mm lenses. The bokeh is far smoother and less busy than the 50/1. 4 at similar apertures. The color and contrast are also superior. In harshly backlit environments, the 50/1. 2 L delivers vastly superior image quality than the other 50s. - Build quality is top notch typical of Canon "L" lenses. This lens has been dropped multiple times (repaired once). It's even sustained a drop that completely smashed the lens hood. To this day it focuses smoothly and is razor sharp. Believe me when I say this thing is built to last. - Focusing is reliable. This lens requires zero microadjustment on my Canon 5dII bodies and is worlds more reliable than my Sigma 85/1. 4 with accurate focusing. So there it is. In short, you have a less than perfect lens from most objective standards. If you are looking for clinical sharpness (ie: resolution charts), go elsewhere. If you are looking to shoot at F2. 8, there are better choices. If you want the best fast 50mm for Canon you can buy, this is the ticket. It's very expensive, but it's a golden goose and it will retain it's value very well over time. Right now the retail price of this lens is $300 more than when I bought it. I expect that trend to continue in the future. Why get this lens over a 35/1. 4 or 85/1. 2? That's like asking why buy a screwdriver when you could buy a hammer or band saw. These are high end professional tools with very specific usages. Each focal length has a very nuanced perspective and image rendering that is unique. If you need 50mm, then a 35 or 85 won't do. FWIW, I do have a Sigma 85/1. 4 (and before that a Canon 85/1. 2) and while both of them are from a strictly objective standpoint sharper, I use the 50/1. 2 three to four times as much as I use the 85s. The perspective is just more comfortable and natural for me. You can move closer to your subject than you can with telephotos without getting the exaggerated perspective distortion that you get with wide angle lenses. For me, 50mm is the golden focal length and this lens is the best 50 you can get.
http://gradebit.com/21137