|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
is that 50/1.2 worth it?
I'm not worried about the price. I'm more concerned about overusing shallow DOF if I were to get a lens this fast. I have a whole suite of cameras and I'm always tempted into purchasing speedster, but I can never justify a purchase. Right now I have GAS and I'm thinking of getting a MF 50/1.2 lens, haha. I might just need to get it out of my system. Honestly, who hasn't been tempted? My question, more precisely, is shallow DOF worth it? Jun 14 14 12:57 pm Link I used to have the 85 f/1.2 and it was totally worth it. The quality of the glass alone made the cost worth it, but the dof completely erased any doubt. I've heard the 50 is a similarly well-made lens, so if price isn't an issue you should pull the trigger. Jun 14 14 01:04 pm Link If it was not worth it, nobody would buy it. The real question is, what will it do for you? That lens holds value well, find a good used one and your worst case scenario is selling it for a break-even if you don't want it. I played with one briefly, it's really nice. Jun 14 14 01:12 pm Link I've never been strongly motivated to shoot at an aperture that wide. When one factors in the expense, I'd say the answer to your question is "NO". The actual results obtained from the F/1.2 aren't really that different from the results obtained from the inexpensive Canon 50mm F/1.8 "plastic fantastic". To be honest though, I've never been strongly motivated to shoot at f/1.8 either. I know the f/1.2 will provide more viewfinder brightness which is fine if you shoot in really dark places, but I have all the light I'd ever need in the studio and don't find myself shooting in dark places often. Even if I did shoot in dark locations, and even considering the fact that one might be able to hand-hold an f/1.4 in low light, the benefits provided are really minimal...and...you really have to want to shoot at f/1.2 (which I've never been strongly motivated to do). When it comes to fast lenses, I usually "pass". They offer limited benefits and limited options for actually using their fast apertures. I'm a much bigger fan of tripods for the work I do. A tripod usually offers me more choices of F-Stop/Shutter Speed combinations than any fast lens would. Sometime it might be nice though to shoot a portrait of someone where their eyes are in focus and their eyelashes, nose, lips, and ears aren't...I've just never been strongly motivated to do that either. Jun 14 14 01:24 pm Link Mike Kelcher wrote: A glance at the photos taken by the 1.2 and the 1.8 will quickly prove you incorrect. The 1.2 has smooth, beautiful out of focus areas. The 1.8 out of focus areas look a bit harsh and jittery. I will never own another Canon 50 1.8 for that reason, the bokeh from my vintage Pentax 50 1.4 is far more pleasing. Jun 14 14 01:34 pm Link B L ZeeBubb wrote: If you actually shoot at apertures like F/1.2, F/1.4 or F/1.8 you are correct. It varies, but I generally shoot between F/5.6 and F/11 depending on the lens I'm using and the situation. If I desire out of focus backgrounds, I generally choose a longer lens. There are situations where that's not possible...though I've found those to be rare. Jun 14 14 01:38 pm Link Mike Kelcher wrote: Which is perfectly fine, that's what you like and many others agree. I enjoy shooting shallow DOF recently and am pretty choosy about how the out of focus areas appear. Jun 14 14 01:42 pm Link michael___ wrote: Rent an F1.2 and see if it's what you want. SEE FOR YOURSELF BRO Jun 14 14 01:53 pm Link Mike Kelcher wrote: Why would anybody buy an F/1.2 if they didn't intend to shoot wide open a fair amount? Also, the 85 1.2 renders better color detail in my experience. Jun 14 14 01:53 pm Link Jun 14 14 01:54 pm Link Duncan Hall wrote:
Jun 14 14 02:00 pm Link I personally love the 50L. I love the way it renders images and it's awesome at night. Here's a shot I took at the South Street Sea Port. https://www.flickr.com/photos/evans-pix … /lightbox/ While the 50L is often considered a soft lens, it's actually sharper than the 50 1.4 and the 50 1.8 at apertures at 2.0 and below, i.e., if you shoot at wide apertures, you will get sharper images with the 50L. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01 … m-shootout Jun 14 14 04:26 pm Link some what useful information , maybe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44FqqE6ukjY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ser2tsK3sao Jun 14 14 04:33 pm Link I've owned two copies of this lens. The first was horrible....  Returned it for another copy. Second was better but IMHO, it's pretty soft at 1.2. When you stop it down, it does get much sharper. I did like the focusing mechanism compared to the 1.4 which I also own. The 1.4 is also soft wide open. It starts to get sharp at 2.0 and really gets tack sharp at 2.8. It is a very old design and the focusing motor is no where near as smooth as the 1.2. The 1.2 is also showing it's age. Canon is said to be releasing a new 50MM sometime later this year. Possibly a new 1.4 with IS. May or may not be an "L" series. If you want to buy it, rent it first. Then you can test it out and see for yourself. It will hold it's value so no need to worry there. On a side note, I also have owned the 85 1.2. IMHO it completely outclasses the 50MM 1.2.  Jun 14 14 08:29 pm Link Funny, everyone assumes that I was talking about the Canon 50L. I wasn't. I was thinking more along the lines of a legacy 50mm, like a Olympus, Nikon, Minolta, and etc. to use on a film SLR or a Nokton 50mm f1.1 to use on a film M. I was even considering a Pentax 67 with a 105mm f2.4 or a focal plane Hasselblad with a 100mm f2.0 (this would be a stretch) on medium format. Not that this detracts anything from the conversation, it is just an observation. I have read that the 50L is a great lens. I'm not challenging this statement. I'm just unsure how important f1.2 DOF is for me. Part of me believes that shallow DOF is pleasing and worth it, but part of me also believes that shooting at f1.2 is more of a gimmick. I've never shot at f1.2 and so I can't evaluate its importance. I do love my Rolleiflex and that f2.8 aperture is worth it to me (over the f3.5 aperture models). If you know don't know anything about medium format then 80mm f2.8 vs 80m f3.5 is kind of like 50mm f1.4 vs 50mm f1.8. Jun 14 14 09:06 pm Link always Jun 14 14 09:12 pm Link software can compensate for the bokeh more than the wallet....if you want to spend the dollars for that blur, go for it....a 100 dollar plastic fantastic 1.8 gets great sharp images when you learn its limitaions...and tweak the blur...Mo Jun 14 14 09:22 pm Link mophotoart wrote: Can it really? Jun 14 14 09:27 pm Link michael___ wrote: It takes a LOT of work to make something that sort of looks like pretty OK bokeh and mostly just looks like blur. VERY different effect than the look a good lens will give you at the press of a shutter. For one thing, bokeh is progressive, there is more effect as the distance increases. With some images you could spend days trying to make that look at all realistic but it never will. Jun 14 14 09:36 pm Link mophotoart wrote: i dunno about anyone recommending artifical bokeh...... Jun 14 14 09:41 pm Link wow... touched a few nerve endings with that comment....darn iphone pictures, spoiling everyone with the fantastic dynamics ...Mo Jun 14 14 10:00 pm Link mophotoart wrote: I didn't mean to criticize your taste, if you like artificial blur. I just don't believe that they look the same. Jun 14 14 10:06 pm Link agree...not the same...but I was talking about the price of the lens and result, bang for buck...that is all I meant Jun 14 14 10:15 pm Link mophotoart wrote: 1.2 50mm is like 80$... Jun 14 14 10:20 pm Link mophotoart wrote: No it really can't, maybe it can get close if you are rather good at it and have the right image but it's not the same. Secondly you are assuming that someones time has no value, better to get it in camera every time on every shot. Jun 14 14 10:27 pm Link again, will not argue...but...where is your budget and time....am not bragging about my best glass...just my opinion of a fun lens that works...Mo Jun 14 14 10:38 pm Link michael___ wrote: The shallow DoF fetish is one of the most annoying things in photography. Jun 15 14 01:34 am Link Duncan Hall wrote: The 50 1.2 doesn't give you images that are quite as elegant as the 85 1.2. Jun 15 14 01:36 am Link Mike Kelcher wrote: It's not that different from the 1.4, but it's drastically different from the 1.8. Jun 15 14 01:37 am Link Mike Kelcher wrote: Have you put a camera on a tripod and shot identical shots swapping out the lenses yourself? Jun 15 14 01:39 am Link I have owned and used the 50mm f/1.2L - it's a fine lens and it can be used to capture good images. It's not pixel-sharp wide-open across the entire field, but its softness is pretty - it's good for some kinds of shots, but it can be limiting. However, since then, I've switched to Nikon, and the Nikkor 50mm lenses have proved disappointing. I have just solved my problem: the Sigma 50mm Art is a superb lens, and cheaper than the 50mm f/1.2L - bonus! You'll hear a lot about how wonderful the 50mm f/1.8 lenses are - I keep wondering if the owners try to run down the more expensive lenses because of jealousy The Zeiss Otus is a fine lens, but it's manual focus (and $4k). The Sigma is a quarter the price, and supports auto-focus. The Zeiss may be slightly sharper in the corners wide-open (and has slightly less vignetting), but the Sigma is better corrected - even ignoring the price, I'd choose the Sigma over the Zeiss. The Sigma can produce images that are pixel-sharp at f/1.4 on the D800E - I have done so. The depth of field is scary shallow, though, so you need to make sure you nailed the focus. I'd strongly suggest that the OP give serious consideration to getting the Sigma Art 50mm instead of the 1.2L. Heck, you could get the 35mm f/1.4 Art AND the 50mm Art for a little more money as the 50mm 1.2L - there's a tempting thought! Jun 15 14 01:48 am Link michael___ wrote: For DoF 1.2 vs 1.4 is not important. Jun 15 14 01:51 am Link mophotoart wrote: Dunno, Jun 15 14 02:28 am Link Since the main reason for buying a 50mm f/1.2 over the f/1.4 or f/1.8 is the additional speed, I'd say that the answer depends in part on how sharp a particular specimen of that lens is. A couple of weeks ago I tried out a couple of used Nikkor lenses (50mm f/1.4D and 24mm f/2.8D) in a camera store. The price was right. Because the main reason for upgrading from a 50mm f/1.8 would be the half-stop or so of additional speed, I put my D3X on a tripod and shot a pegboard display of Tiffen filters with each lens wide open. Neither lens looked sharp when I zoomed in on the particular cardboard filter box that I had focused on and looked at the photos on the LCD. When I got home and opened the files in Adobe Camera Raw, the photos with the 50mm lens were extremely soft at 12.5% magnification, and the images from the 28mm were downright ghastly. The box I focused on was near the center of the frame, nowhere near the edges. Neither lens was even close to being as sharp wide open as my 50mm f/1.8D, 35-70mm f/2.8D or 16-35mm f/4G. Even the 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor I got with my first Nikon F when I graduated from high school (1965) and the 28mm f/3.5 Nikkor that I bought when I was in college were MUCH sharper wide open. If you can, I'd suggest that you check the sharpness of a lens wide open before you buy it, since the speed of the lens would be the main reason for buying it. I used to have the 85mm f/1.4 AIs, and it was extremely sharp, even wide open. My 105m and 135mm f/2 AF DC lenses are also extremely sharp, even wide open. But after my little tests of the 50mm and 28mm lenses, I may never buy another fast lens without testing it first. Jun 15 14 03:04 am Link Zael Photography wrote: I've always thought there was something fishy about that area. Jun 15 14 03:16 am Link I have a 50 f1.2 AIS. It's a fun lens, but I don't use it much. A friend of mine is going through a retro Nikon kick, I suspect he will be its new owner soon. Jun 15 14 04:21 am Link Mike Kelcher wrote: Exact opposite opinion here. For me, fast lenses are essential to some of the work I do. Jun 15 14 05:26 am Link michael___ wrote: Put the money into a money market mutual fund for a couple of months until the GAS passes from your system. Jun 15 14 05:51 am Link B L ZeeBubb wrote: I love that lens - but it's not primarily for the Bokeh - I'd a nice sharp very sharp lens when stopped down a bit that gives a vintage look to your images. Jun 15 14 07:46 am Link Mikey McMichaels wrote: It's one of thew first things that other photographers and internet mavens comment on. Real people (99% of the population) dont care and really as you say if the picture is done correctly wont notice it. Jun 15 14 07:50 am Link |
