Advantages of 50mm 1.2L over 1.4 for gig photography?

Mintyhit

Mintyhit

Messages
147
Name
James
Edit My Images
No
Hi, just wondering if anyone has had any experience going from a 50mm 1.4 to the 1.2 L for low-light shooting?

Obviously the 1.2 L is slightly faster but would the difference be that noticeable?

How often do you shoot wide open on a 1.4 at an indoor gig?


Cheers guys!
 
Mintyhit said:
Hi, just wondering if anyone has had any experience going from a 50mm 1.4 to the 1.2 L for low-light shooting?

Obviously the 1.2 L is slightly faster but would the difference be that noticeable?

How often do you shoot wide open on a 1.4 at an indoor gig?


Cheers guys!
Click to expand...

I can't really answer your last question "How often do you shoot wide open on a 1.4 at an indoor gig?" You have to access the environment first. When I capture gig photography, I try to never use flash, infact to this date I haven't used flash at all... brings out the atmosphere in my images and this is what you should try and capture. There are times where I have used f1.8 and sometimes when the lighting changes I've been able to get some brilliant shutter speeds at very wide stops.

Ed :)
 
I'm not really sure why people want a 50mm f/1.2, or indeed why Canon chose to make one. It is a flagship lens for sure, makes statement about what Canon can do. Maybe it makes the same sort of statement about owners ;)

In terms of exposure, the benefit is neither here nor there. It's main virtue is miniscule depth of field. You don't say what camera you are using but unless it's full frame you are not going to realise that benefit anyway (Canon crop format has 1.3 stops less DoF than full frame f/number for f/number at same framing). And TBH it's not that much less than f/1.4 anyway - check it out on www.dofmaster.com.

This lens also has focus shift issues too. Not only is it very hard to focus accurately but the focus shifts slightly on stopping down :shrug: I think there are also slight bokeh problems as the diameter of the light cone is too big to physically pass through the mirror box unhindered (out of focus highlights are not round and clipped off the top at f/1.2).

On the other hand, it is an utterly fabulous thing of magnifiscent optical beauty :)

Lots of info if you google.
 
I am no expert but at the price of the lens it may be worth looking at putting the funds to upgrading the camera for one with better high ISO performance assuming you have not already?
 
Sorry guys, I forgot to mention my new Camera is a 5D MK II.

Thanks for the excellent replies. Google would seem to agree that the differences in low light performance between the two (despite the monstrous cost) would seem to be quite minor. I was just wondering if anyone had any first hand experience in making the change.
 
Can't help you with experiences, but I'm a 1.4 owner who's also seriously tempted to upgrade to the 1.2 L :nuts: Maybe because all my other lenses are L's! :nuts:

Maybe it makes the same sort of statement about owners
Click to expand...

The 50mm f/1.2 L. Imagine the feeling of having a huge, expensive chunk of glass on your camera. A lens that means business. A lens for someone who shoots wide open and worries about the consequences later. A lens that doesn't compromise.

:D

A.
 
Anorakus said:
The 50mm f/1.2 L. Imagine the feeling of having a huge, expensive chunk of glass on your camera. A lens that means business. A lens for someone who shoots wide open and worries about the consequences later. A lens that doesn't compromise.

:D

A.
Click to expand...

if it wasn't for the first sentence, i could've sworn you were trying to describe a Noctilux. :eek: :bonk: (ducks for cover & runs away)
 
I use a 85 1.2 for gig photography so I can loosely relate to what you're asking dude.

First of all it depends on your final destination for the photo, is it printed? web upload only? resized web upload? or the dreaded facebook?

Reason being is that the 50 f/1.2 is sharper, at 1.4 than a 1.4 is at 1.8, and a 1.8 is at 2.8. The focus might not be quickest but I've never found it a hindrance, however, you're find that the focus from the L is a lot more accurate regardless of what body you're shooting off - I've found anyway.

Depending on the lighting in the event you're shooting I've found that I'm literally crying for every last 1/3 of a stop that I can get from my lens... It's good for close ups and as a result I really aim for a minimal shutter speed of 1/125... so I'm thankful for the extra bit of light I can mash on to the sensor.
 
Anorakus said:
Heh :)

If you're really hardcore about your low-light photography, pick up a Canon 50mm f/1.0 !!

A.
Click to expand...

at that aperture, though, focusing becomes an issue - and i'm pretty sure you'd get more accurate results with the rangefinder. I must admit, though, that while the 1.0 lenses for the m-mount are way out of reach, the Voigtlander 50mm/1.1 seems more viable.

to get us back on track with the thread, though - how confident would you be with low-light AF on the 1.2 canon? or would you shift to MF and use a split-prism focusing screen?
 
kumimajava said:
to get us back on track with the thread, though - how confident would you be with low-light AF on the 1.2 canon? or would you shift to MF and use a split-prism focusing screen?
Click to expand...

that's another benefit too, you get a bright image going to the AF system. Although if your subjects aren't moving about then you can bang on a flash (disable the firing though) and use the AF beam to help.

I forgot to mention why I was asking about the final output of the image, because if it's going to be resized, compressed and/or bunged on facebook then you might as well shoot off the f/1.8 :LOL:
 
Didn't I read something somewhere about Canon AF performance actually dropping off after f2... optimum being cited as f2-f2.8?
 
I shoot a lot of gigs, and have rarely used anything less than 2.8 that my Tamron 17-50 offers. Depends on the gigs you are photographing, how much access you have etc. But in my experience, 3 songs isn't long and unless you have one body for shooting prime and one for a zoom, will be hard to get the shots you want. Also with such a minimal D of F it would be very hard to keep focus on a frantic singer IMHO.

Also 3200 on 5D2 is great, so bumping your iso a little could save you a lot of cash.
 
ding76uk said:
I shoot a lot of gigs, and have rarely used anything less than 2.8 that my Tamron 17-50 offers. Depends on the gigs you are photographing, how much access you have etc. But in my experience, 3 songs isn't long and unless you have one body for shooting prime and one for a zoom, will be hard to get the shots you want. Also with such a minimal D of F it would be very hard to keep focus on a frantic singer IMHO.

Also 3200 on 5D2 is great, so bumping your iso a little could save you a lot of cash.
Click to expand...

I agree. With modern digital, high ISO is not that much of a problem these days. Wafer thin DoF is more of a problem than an asset if all you want is a decent low light exposure.

Or use flash ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top