Canon 50mm 1.2 L

[george]

Hi Canon fans !

What goes for Canon 50-1.2 USM L lens ?
Is it worth the money ?
The build is superb, the specs sound good but is it so much better than the 1.4 ?
Is it sharp ?
Chromatic aberration ?
Can it be used as an everyday lens ?
Is there another alternative ?
How would it compare to the Leica Noctilux or Summilux or even Summicron ?

I use 16-35 2.8 L, 17-40 4 L, 24-70 2.8 L ,70-200 4 L IS and the 14 2.8 L is on the way.
On 5DMKII.

I've been shooting inside very old Byzantine churches, unfortunately half ruined  but extremely interesting. I could actually post some images if anyone cares.
Needless to say that the 70-200 is too long and too dark for this.

(take care Bob)

Cheers,


George

[george]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45552751@N03/4184542317/

This is a test image shot with the lens wide-open.


G.

[Bob Atkins]

The main reason for fast lenses like the 50/1.2L and the 85/1.2L is to shoot them wide open. Generally they won't be spectacularly better then slightly slower lenses (like the 50/1.4 and  the 85/1.8) when you stop them down. So if you don't use them wide open you're not getting the advantage that you pay a lot of money for.

So it all comes down to how often you will use them wide open. Wide open the DOF is small, which may  or may not be what you are looking for. If you're shooting indoor architecture you may need more DOF than a 50mm lens at f1.2 will give you wide open, so you'd have to stop down and so, in which case there would be little advantage in using one. You may get a slighly sharper image at f1.4 than the 50/1.4 lens would give but again the advantage isn't huge and certainly isn't a factor of 4 like the diference in the price!

A tripod can sometimes be a better solution than a faster lens for indoor work, particularly for static subjects.

[george]

Yes, that makes sense...
On the other hand :
I consider a 50mm rather boring as far as perspective is concerned, so the idea of having an 1.2 aperture  is tempting even if you don't use it all the time.
If a 50, then an extreme 50.
(I am trying to convince myself)
Have you seen my test image ?

[Bob Atkins]

The test image looks fine as far as I can tell, but you can't tell everything from a single shot.

As far as I know just about everyone with the 50/1.2L seems to love it, and if you can afford it then it's certainly a nice lens to have available. In some respects (bokeh and flare and sharpness) it is a little beter than the 50/1.4 when shooting faster than f2.

I think the 50/1.4 is a better bargain for most people simply due to the fact that it's about 1/5th of the cost, but that doesn't mean the 50/1.2L isn't a better lens, especially for portrait work shot wide open.