Canon 50mm f/1.2 upgrade from f/1.4 - worth it?

[Anorakus]

OK so I've been mulling over this for ages.. I have a Canon 50mm f/1.4 which I'm very pleased with.. fast and sharp.. BUT, all my other lenses are L's and I'm seriously tempted to upgrade it to the 50mm f/1.2. The weatherproofing and fixed front element would be nice to have (the front element on the 1.4 protrudes when you close focus)

For anyone who has the 1.2 or has done the upgrade from the 1.4 or 1.8, is it worth the extra £££'s? Does the IQ and sharpness compare OK?

Cheers

A.

 

[cymruchris]

I have the 1.2 - I love the 1.2 - I've only ever had the 1.2. I wouldn't change it. It has its quirks though. It's much heavier than what you have. It's a slow focus at times. The DOF can be so thin at 1.2 that you miss your focus spot. But when you get it right, you get it RIGHT. If you have the budget, then it's worth a go, particularly if you pick up a good used copy that if you don't like it can sell for what you paid for it

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

For anyone who has the 1.2 or has done the upgrade from the 1.4 or 1.8, is it worth the extra £££'s?

In my opinion, having used the f1.2 lenses from Canon, Nikon and Ricoh: no.

Does the IQ and sharpness compare OK?

Based on the above mentioned experience the image quality at f5.6 is much the same for all the 50mm lenses from the same manufacturer, which is not why you'd buy an expensive lens.

f1.2 lenses were useful when film was the only game in town. If you were working in really low light, handheld, the 15% extra light from f1.2 instead of f1.4 was worth the money (provided you really wanted or needed the image). For thin depth of field, you'll get much the same effect by using a longer lens wide open (and probably better image quality, depending on how you judge that).

 

[woof woof]

In my opinion, having used the f1.2 lenses from Canon, Nikon and Ricoh: no.
Based on the above mentioned experience the image quality at f5.6 is much the same for all the 50mm lenses from the same manufacturer, which is not why you'd buy an expensive lens.

f1.2 lenses were useful when film was the only game in town. If you were working in really low light, handheld, the 15% extra light from f1.2 instead of f1.4 was worth the money (provided you really wanted or needed the image). For thin depth of field, you'll get much the same effect by using a longer lens wide open (and probably better image quality, depending on how you judge that).

Something I've played with is the difference between focal lengths and aperture settings and aperture diameter (focal length divided by aperture setting in f = aperture diameter) and the effect on DoF and the overall look. (For example 50/1.2=41.6mm. 85/1.8= 47.2mm. Which is preferable?) Of course for the same framing the camera to subject distances will change and with it the perspective and that does matter.

By coincidence I saw this this morning...

A Surprising Comparison of Depth From the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 and RF 70-200mm f/2.8

Shallow depth of field is desirable, particularly in portrait photography, due to its subject and background separation, and its pleasing aesthetic. But while your gut reaction for depth might be to go for the fastest prime you can, you might be surprised at this side-by-side comparison. There...

fstoppers.com

One commenter seems to have been down the same road as me.

I only have two f1.2's, an old film era Minolta Rokkor 50mm and a modern 40mm Voigtlander. When looking at the effect of aperture on one focal length (for the same perspective) it's up to each of us to decide when the differences between f1.2 and stopped down settings (f1.4? f1.8? f2?) become significant, for me it becomes significant somewhere around f2.5 or so and is pretty obvious by f2.8 although others will say that the differences I see as fairly insignificant are vast. It's easy enough to do if you have an f1.2 lens, just shoot a series of pictures at various distances (for example tight close portrait, half body, full body, further away for full body with more context) stopping down from f1.2 to f2.8 at each distance to see at what point the differences in depth and the wider look become significant for you.

Personally I don't think I'd buy a lens because it's f1.2, I'd buy a nice lens and if it was f1.2 that'd be incidental.