is a Canon 50mm F1.2L noticeably better than a F1.4?
- Thread starter scooby-tc
- Start date
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
just one note, you wont see an enormous difference between 1.8 and 1.4, just looking on my sigma 30mm 1.4 at the difference and it really is marginal. 1.8 to 1.2 might be a bit more substantial
Hi,
50mm 1.2 is not worth it over the 1.4 version from what I can remember reading over the last few years on various forums unless you have plenty cash.
REVIEW of 1.4 on crop body.
and REVIEW of 1.2 on crop body
Going by those 2 there isn't much difference, however if you look back at the main page of the review on Photozone the 1.2 gets 2 stars for optical quality on a full frame body, in fact on full frame the F1.8 II version is better optically at £70 than the 1.2 version
Mike.
PS: forgot to mention that the F1.4 will be noticeably better on contrast and colour than your F1.8, I have owned the 1.4 a couple of times and only sold to release cash for other purchases but I loved the images from it every time.
50mm 1.2 is not worth it over the 1.4 version from what I can remember reading over the last few years on various forums unless you have plenty cash.
REVIEW of 1.4 on crop body.
and REVIEW of 1.2 on crop body
Going by those 2 there isn't much difference, however if you look back at the main page of the review on Photozone the 1.2 gets 2 stars for optical quality on a full frame body, in fact on full frame the F1.8 II version is better optically at £70 than the 1.2 version
Mike.
PS: forgot to mention that the F1.4 will be noticeably better on contrast and colour than your F1.8, I have owned the 1.4 a couple of times and only sold to release cash for other purchases but I loved the images from it every time.
very interesting read,looks like i will be saving myself £700
Hi,
just remember who told you
Mike.
There is something which is not easily quantifiable about the f/1.2 L lenses. I've used all three 50mm incarnations on Canon (on FF bodies mind you) and prefer the f/1.4 because of the issues with the 1.2 that impacted my particular style. YMMV. I'd get the f/1.4, but if I'd never tried the L, I'd be craving it.
85mm is a different story - 85 f/1.2 L is without doubt the sexiest lens I have ever had and used, and is superior imo to the 1.8 (both mark I and mark II versions are great - AF speed is a non-issue for the desired use of those lenses). They are generally easier to come across 2nd hand than the 50 L.
85mm is a different story - 85 f/1.2 L is without doubt the sexiest lens I have ever had and used, and is superior imo to the 1.8 (both mark I and mark II versions are great - AF speed is a non-issue for the desired use of those lenses). They are generally easier to come across 2nd hand than the 50 L.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
The difference in exposure terms is next to nothing - just a tweak of shutter speed or ISO gets you there.
The big difference IMHO is mainly in even more shallow depth of field, but if that's the name of the game, moving from crop format to a full frame camera will generate less DoF to the tune of 1.3 stops.
The big difference IMHO is mainly in even more shallow depth of field, but if that's the name of the game, moving from crop format to a full frame camera will generate less DoF to the tune of 1.3 stops.
I've used the Canon 50mm MkI, II, f/1.4 and very briefly (in a store) the
f/1.2L, and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4.
Which one did I keep?
The Siggy and the Canon MK 1. Of course the L is wonderful but I personally could not justify the top quality for the price.
Forget about focusing issues that you'll read about on the net - The Siggy is the 50mm to get!
If you are sure of the focal length, you can't go wrong with the Siggy. Try one before you buy. Here's where I found it to be easily better than the Canon f/1.4
BOKEH BABY!!!
Build
Sharpness (wide open and up to f/2 - f/2.8)
Vignetting
Comes with Hood
Comes wih 2 year warranty (I think)
The last issue is not a major one as I've never had a lens go wrong but I know some folks find this important.
If Bokeh is important to you, siggy all the way. If it's not and you want to save 50 quid, go with the Canon 50mm f/1.4.
f/1.2L, and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4.
Which one did I keep?
The Siggy and the Canon MK 1. Of course the L is wonderful but I personally could not justify the top quality for the price.
Forget about focusing issues that you'll read about on the net - The Siggy is the 50mm to get!
If you are sure of the focal length, you can't go wrong with the Siggy. Try one before you buy. Here's where I found it to be easily better than the Canon f/1.4
BOKEH BABY!!!
Build
Sharpness (wide open and up to f/2 - f/2.8)
Vignetting
Comes with Hood
Comes wih 2 year warranty (I think)
The last issue is not a major one as I've never had a lens go wrong but I know some folks find this important.
If Bokeh is important to you, siggy all the way. If it's not and you want to save 50 quid, go with the Canon 50mm f/1.4.
- Messages
- 10,870
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 2,421
- Name
- Marac Andrzej Kolodzinski
- Edit My Images
- No
I was desperate for the 50mm f1.2 L. I have the 1.4 Canon 50mm (wifes lens) and I borrowed the 1.2L version the other day... you know what?
Don't bother with the 1.2L unless you really really want a red ring on the end. There is a difference, of cause but it is not worth an extra £700, I hear the Sigma 1.4 is a tad better than the Canon so I am going for one of those now.
Don't bother with the 1.2L unless you really really want a red ring on the end. There is a difference, of cause but it is not worth an extra £700, I hear the Sigma 1.4 is a tad better than the Canon so I am going for one of those now.
This is where it can get very subjective.
It's much more 'creamier' and 'buttery'. You've got to be a proper bokeh nut to appreciate it. I never saw the fascination until I used it side by side with the canon. Then my eyes were truly opened!
I've sold the siggy on our site to raise funds for my wedding. However, I remember doing a comparison with the canon. Let me see if I still have the comparison pics and I will put it up on a flickr account I created a few weeks ago.
Busy with wedding prep at the mo as I've only got 2.5 weeks left before the big day, so if I forget, don't hesitate to pm me.
In the meantime:
shots from real users
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/661966/0
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/716880
ok, i found some sigma pics on my pc. The majority of them have my nephew and niece, and I don't want to upload those. Here is a pic from the sigma:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45859795@N05/4293877242/sizes/m/
These wooden shelfs 2.6metres long. On the far right are heavily chequered curtains. When I took the same shot with the Canon at the same settings, the bokeh was fuzzy and cluttered. The siggy 'smears' it all over the place and I personally find the siggy's bokeh way more attractive.
I never understood bokeh until I got the siggy. I got it confused with shallow apertures. But I now understand that the 2 are completely different.
Ok for completeness sake. Here's the one with my nephew and niece blanked out.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45859795@N05/4293910404/
If you look past the 2 kids and near the top middle and top right, you will see 2 metallic objects. On the far right is a BIG metallic pot (used for cooking). It has a rough outer surface and many 'ridges'.
when taken with the canons, this roughness is more pronounced and the various tones are shown. The sigma however, really diffuses and smears the colours and light in circles.
Like I said, it's hard (for me) to explain. But those that have used it extensively (like those in the links above) get it. Don't forgrt the better build quality (way better balance on a bigger body), sharpness and almost no vignetting.
There's a reason why sigma choose to sell it at £50-£70 more than the Canon f/1.4. They'd be really silly to sell an inferior lens for more money.
I am a massive believer in taking advice from those that have used lenses rather than those just expressing other people's opinions/or what they have heard. A lot of forums spread issues about focusing and this or that and other problems when in reality the numbers of real-life issues are low. Hope that makes sense.
I forgot to add: my siggy was not as good as the canons when using the outer AF points on my 5D. However, this was not a problem for me as I mostly used centre af point.
It's much more 'creamier' and 'buttery'. You've got to be a proper bokeh nut to appreciate it. I never saw the fascination until I used it side by side with the canon. Then my eyes were truly opened!
I've sold the siggy on our site to raise funds for my wedding. However, I remember doing a comparison with the canon. Let me see if I still have the comparison pics and I will put it up on a flickr account I created a few weeks ago.
Busy with wedding prep at the mo as I've only got 2.5 weeks left before the big day, so if I forget, don't hesitate to pm me.
In the meantime:
shots from real users
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/661966/0
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/716880
ok, i found some sigma pics on my pc. The majority of them have my nephew and niece, and I don't want to upload those. Here is a pic from the sigma:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45859795@N05/4293877242/sizes/m/
These wooden shelfs 2.6metres long. On the far right are heavily chequered curtains. When I took the same shot with the Canon at the same settings, the bokeh was fuzzy and cluttered. The siggy 'smears' it all over the place and I personally find the siggy's bokeh way more attractive.
I never understood bokeh until I got the siggy. I got it confused with shallow apertures. But I now understand that the 2 are completely different.
Ok for completeness sake. Here's the one with my nephew and niece blanked out.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45859795@N05/4293910404/
If you look past the 2 kids and near the top middle and top right, you will see 2 metallic objects. On the far right is a BIG metallic pot (used for cooking). It has a rough outer surface and many 'ridges'.
when taken with the canons, this roughness is more pronounced and the various tones are shown. The sigma however, really diffuses and smears the colours and light in circles.
Like I said, it's hard (for me) to explain. But those that have used it extensively (like those in the links above) get it. Don't forgrt the better build quality (way better balance on a bigger body), sharpness and almost no vignetting.
There's a reason why sigma choose to sell it at £50-£70 more than the Canon f/1.4. They'd be really silly to sell an inferior lens for more money.
I am a massive believer in taking advice from those that have used lenses rather than those just expressing other people's opinions/or what they have heard. A lot of forums spread issues about focusing and this or that and other problems when in reality the numbers of real-life issues are low. Hope that makes sense.
I forgot to add: my siggy was not as good as the canons when using the outer AF points on my 5D. However, this was not a problem for me as I mostly used centre af point.
- Messages
- 5,001
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Going by these charts the 1.4 is actually BETTER than the 1.2:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6
But in fact unless you desperately need the 1.4 at full aperture the "Nifty Fifty" f1.8 is as good as the 1.4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=105&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=5
And it also beats the Sigma 1.4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
And the review of the Sigma has a definite warning:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6
But in fact unless you desperately need the 1.4 at full aperture the "Nifty Fifty" f1.8 is as good as the 1.4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=105&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=5
And it also beats the Sigma 1.4:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
And the review of the Sigma has a definite warning:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-50mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx
cheers for that peter but as Sonny says I would rather get opinions from users that have actually used both lenses first hand than rely on reviews as the vast majority of reviews are tosh anyway,I mean people on here think there isnt a noticeable difference between a canon 1.4 and a 1.2L despite the 700 quid price difference and other people say that the difference between a £70 nifty and a 1.4 is next no nothing.So what are they saying? a nifty fifty is every bit as good as a 1k cannon F1.2L that is ludicrous
- Messages
- 5,001
- Edit My Images
- Yes
cheers for that peter but as Sonny says I would rather get opinions from users that have actually used both lenses first hand than rely on reviews as the vast majority of reviews are tosh anyway,I mean people on here think there isnt a noticeable difference between a canon 1.4 and a 1.2L despite the 700 quid price difference and other people say that the difference between a £70 nifty and a 1.4 is next no nothing.So what are they saying? a nifty fifty is every bit as good as a 1k cannon F1.2L that is ludicrous
Well I do have and use the "Nifty Fifty" - and I'm going by the charts which actually show that the f1.8 is virtually as sharp as the 1.2 at the centre and definitely sharper at the corners.
It's very difficult to judge a lens subjecively which is why I use the charts when I first consider buying a lens.
The "Nifty Fifty" has a cheap build and poorer Bokeh - whether you consider paying £1000+ more is entirely up to you - I know my choice in those circumstances.
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.....So what are they saying? a nifty fifty is every bit as good as a 1k cannon F1.2L that is ludicrous
Most of the replies are simply based on "sharpness". If sharpness beyond f/2 is what you're after then the f/1.8 will do you fine. IQ has a lot of other factors to be considered....bokeh and colour rendition/contrast being important to some users. There is little doubt that the f/1.2 will show up its little brother when all factors are taken into consideration.
One aspect of faster lenses is that the target focal plane is more accurate although body/lens calibration has to be spot on to realise the benefits.
Bob
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,685
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Don't discount 85mm f/1.8 USM either. I love mine; when focus with precision it is tack sharp wide open - but it is rather easy to miss with all wide aperture primes. Keep that in mind. I have even considered 85mm f/1.2 second hand, and decided against it. It is sharp wide open with pleasant bokeh, but vignetting on FF is disaster, and the cost is hard to justify unless it would be used daily.
Canon Bob
Loves the Enemy
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's interesting how opinions can vary. As a classic portrait lens, many would wooed by 1.5 to 2 EV loss around the edges when using it at large apertures. Contrast is generally improved and the subject region is enhanced as a result. Peripheral illumination correction has been implemented for those who prefer a more even exposure.
I suspect "snoots" don't figure in your kit bag.
Bob
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,685
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I do use snoot and I do add vignettes in LR when I want. I prefer to keep it this way. When I need clean corners -2EV at £1.6k is hard to justify. my 2p.
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 7,882
- Edit My Images
- No
I can read mtf charts all day long but i pefer going on using the lens before making my mind up. I value bokeh, build/weight (in combination with the slr body), colours etc over sharpness.
My issue is a very simple one: For 50 quid more, the sigma 50mm f/1.4 was better than the canon 50mm f/1.4 for me, on my 5D, and it came with a hood and cool case.
Buy the best you can afford. You won't go wrong with any of them. In the right hands, a nifty fifity will do a fantastic job, and it's a great way to test out the 50mm focal length. you have to really be sure it is the FL you want. Some folks will find it to short and prefer the 85mm f/1.8, which is a beautiful lens.
Good luck with you choice, and let us know how you get on.
My issue is a very simple one: For 50 quid more, the sigma 50mm f/1.4 was better than the canon 50mm f/1.4 for me, on my 5D, and it came with a hood and cool case.
Buy the best you can afford. You won't go wrong with any of them. In the right hands, a nifty fifity will do a fantastic job, and it's a great way to test out the 50mm focal length. you have to really be sure it is the FL you want. Some folks will find it to short and prefer the 85mm f/1.8, which is a beautiful lens.
Good luck with you choice, and let us know how you get on.