Canon EF 50 mm f/1.4 vs f/1.2 L

[antonroland]

Anybody here who own both?

Bragging rights aside, are there any real reasons to have the 1.2?:shrug:

Much appreciated

 

[ps2user]

I be interested to find out aswell

 

[Joe T]

1.2 has slower AF, so there's a real reason to have the 1.4!

 

[Canon Bob]

I don't own both now but did have them both a few months ago....sold the f/1.4 and kept the 1.2L

If the inherent design problem of the f/1.2L isn't going to be a problem ( http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=534158&postcount=5 ) then the image's it can produce have a better contrast and bokeh. Subject isolation wide open is second to none.
AF is slow but it's not a lens for chasing swallows either.
It eats so much light that the room goes dark when you take the lens cap off.
Bettered only by the 85L...my choice if you're heading FF.

Bob

PS..Yes, bragging rights too

 

[Diego Garcia]

I demoed the 1.2L before I moved over to Nikon. Super lens. A bit here and there at 1.2, but as with most lenses, stopped down x2 was awesome. In effect a razor sharp lens at 1.8. Pro spec, pro price. nike bokeh too, due to the circular design.

Diego.

 

[chewyuk]

Well, it's part of the reason for my lens sale (see sale section) invested in the 1.2 last week. I absolutely love it.

 

[Ally]

I've found for sports its too slow AF wise and at 1.4 the dof is too small, Personally I rekon even at 1.8 your pushing it. Seems a nice enough lens other wise.