50mm f1.4

[Nicole85]

I'm just switching to full frame. Unfortunately the 1.2 isn't in my budget right now. Is the 50mm f1.4 worth the investment if I have the 1.8? Eventually I'll save up to upgrade to the 1.2.

[ebiggs1]

Scotty,

"I really dont think "buy the "L" lens or buy nothing at all" is a viable answer to 90% of Canon DSLR owners..."

It depends on whether you want good or do you want the best?  The very expensive price point, I admit, is getting you much more than just a f1.2 vs a f1.8 or f1.4.  You can't choose or select a lens on a single spec. At least a reasonably intelligent person shouldn't.  You must consider the entire package.

Of course, I wouldn't think the f1.2L is a good fit to a SL-1 for instance. But I would never buy an SL-1.  That is a point to consider, too.

I would venture a guess, I am the only regular contributor here that owns the f1.2L and uses it?  How can non-owners/users say one way or the other?  They can't.

[TTMartin]

Why would you ever choose the EF 50mm f/1.2L over the EF 85mm f/1.2L II?

If you 'need' the razor thin depth of field and a fantastic bokeh the EF 85mm f/1.2L II is a superior choice. 

For a 50mm lens today for most people the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is a superior choice given the price difference relative to the performance difference.

Peoples assumptions here about what lenses others have and haven't used aren't accurate. A couple of my coworkers were all L lens guys. I was able to borrow their lenses and did. After trying the EF 50mm f/1.2L, I wasn't overwhelmed. The EF 85mm f/1.2 (I) was nice for portraits, but, its focus was to slow for other uses.

For my usage the EF 85mm f/1.8 was a superior choice over both of those, as it is a fine portrait lens, and its fast focus performance made it suitable for gymnasium sports.

I was never a fan of the EF 50mm f/1.4. The EF 50mm f/1.8 II wasn't that great of a choice either, but, at least its price reflected that. Until the EF 50mm f/1.8 STM was introduced my 50mm of choice was the EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro. 

[ebiggs1]

"If you 'need' the razor thin depth of field and a fantastic bokeh the EF 85mm f/1.2L II is a superior choice."

Not on a 1D Mk IV.  The 85mm f1.2l is a fantastic lens on a FF.  It is slow to focus but that is again part of the package.  I made mention that you must consider the entire package.

Another mistake most all of you seem to make is, both f1.2L lenses have all the other f-stops.  It is just that no other lens has f1.2.  That seem to be a difficult point to sink in. It is a more challenging lens to use.  Again part of the deal.  If you aren't up to it, either f1.2L isn't for you.  The price not withstanding!

[Waddizzle]

"Another mistake most all of you seem to make is, both f1.2L lenses have all the other f-stops.  It is just that no other lens has f1.2.  That seem to be a difficult point to sink in. It is a more challenging lens to use."

I don't know how you reached the conclusion that people don't seem to realize that the f/1.2L lenses have a full range of f-stops.

[TTMartin]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"If you 'need' the razor thin depth of field and a fantastic bokeh the EF 85mm f/1.2L II is a superior choice."

Not on a 1D Mk IV.  The 85mm f1.2l is a fantastic lens on a FF.  It is slow to focus but that is again part of the package.  I made mention that you must consider the entire package.

---

Which is why I went on to say: 

For my usage the EF 85mm f/1.8 was a superior choice over both of those [EF 50mm f/1.2L and EF 85mm f/1.2L], as it is a fine portrait lens, and its fast focus performance made it suitable for gymnasium sports.

[ebiggs1]

"Which is why I went on to say: "

Which is why I suggested everyone consider the 'entire' package.  Not just one part.  If your skills are not at the level required to master the big f1.2L lenses, it isn't for you.  If it is too expensive, it isn't for you.  If it is too slow to AF, look at something else. Etc, etc and etc.

It still remains there is the 50mil f1.2L and the 85mil f1.2L and everything else. These two lenses are in a class all by themselves.

[diverhank]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

It still remains there is the 50mil f1.2L and the 85mil f1.2L and everything else. These two lenses are in a class all by themselves.

---

I don't have the 50mm f/1.2L and haven't tried it so I can't comment.  I do have both the 85mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.2L II lenses and I concur with ebiggs1.  It took me a couple hundred of pictures to distinctly tell how much better the 1.2 is...and I probably will fail a few blind tests but on average, there is no question...I do not regret getting the 1.2 after having used the 1.8 for a long time.

The f/1.2L II is a lot heavier and the focus is a bit slower (but neligible for all practical purposes) but that's the one I reach for...even on travel trips.... I haven't heard of anyone who has both and opted for the 1.8 outside of cost considerations.

[ebiggs1]

The ef 85mm f1.2L really only shows it tardy focusing if you go from close-up to infinity or vice versa.  At normal shooting ranges it is very usable.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Scotty,

"I really dont think "buy the "L" lens or buy nothing at all" is a viable answer to 90% of Canon DSLR owners..."

It depends on whether you want good or do you want the best?  The very expensive price point, I admit, is getting you much more than just a f1.2 vs a f1.8 or f1.4.  You can't choose or select a lens on a single spec. At least a reasonably intelligent person shouldn't.  You must consider the entire package.

Of course, I wouldn't think the f1.2L is a good fit to a SL-1 for instance. But I would never buy an SL-1.  That is a point to consider, too.

I would venture a guess, I am the only regular contributor here that owns the f1.2L and uses it?  How can non-owners/users say one way or the other?  They can't.

---

Of course we can. One way is by paying attention to you. More than once in this forum you've pronounced the lens excellent in quality but difficult to use effectively. And we all know that an f/1.2 lens is bound to have a very shallow depth of field at full aperture; that's just elementary physics.

Some of us, I suppose, don't have that lens because we can't afford it. But most of us don't have it because we don't need it; it provides no particular benefit for the type of photography we do. And it becomes less and less useful as cameras get better and better at handling low light. If you happen to want or need its shallow depth of field (e.g., if you want to take portraits where the subject's eyes are in focus and his ears and the tip of his nose are blurry), then the lens is useful. Otherwise it's pretty much a dinosaur.

[Waddizzle]

Guys, don't lose sight of the original question.  It is NOT which 50mm should I buy.  The question is if I already have the 50mm f/1.8 STM, is it worth upgrading to the f/1.4?  Or, is the f/1.2 worth it?

If you already have the f/1.8 STM, not unless you shoot wide open aperture most of the time, I say stick with the f/1.8.  If you need the f/1.2, then I don't think you would be asking which is better, the f/1.4 or the f/1.2.

So, my answer is upgrade the f/1.2, or buy nothing, at all.  My recommendation has been to buy nothing.  You don't need f/1.2.