|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
is that 50/1.2 worth it?
I have both sold the 1.4 in any aspect the 1.2 is far Beyond what has been compare to. Shooting w this lens it would teach you more about creativity than the technical aspect. I thought many photogs are more in to point & shot. Not with lens. Anyway if someone is hot about this lens wouldn't seek advice. Rent one the rest is history Actually you can get results from the 1.2 that you can't believe it was shot by you. H Jun 15 14 08:45 am Link Canon 50mm 1.2L IMO is a low IQ lens. It is not sharp or does it have good contrast. Canon 50mm 1.2 L @ 1.2  Canon 50mm 1.2 @ 2 mid frame  Cromatic abberation is bad and Contrast/Sharpness is bad. Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART @ 1.4  Very nice but has LoCA issue very close to the focal plane. Zeiss Otus 55mm 1.4 @ 1.4  The best shallow depth of field lenses for FF are IMO are the Zeiss Otus, The Zeiss 135mm f2 APO (best kens ever made for FF) Zeiss 135mm 2 APO @ f2  The Olympus 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 have an interesting look but quite a few artifacts. Jun 15 14 02:55 pm Link I wanted to like this lens, but after 3 copies I gave up. Focus shift was too much for me to handle. I'm using medium format cameras now and prefer how these cameras handle depth of field. Jun 21 14 10:21 pm Link If you have to ask, no it isn't. Bokeh is great tnx to the rounded aperture blades, but this is a specialty lens, and people need to get that already. If bokeh is all you're after 9and not the actual ability to shoot in the dark), there are plenty of alternatives at similar focal range, or from other manufacturers. I'd say: just get the 1.4. It is fine, much faster focusing. Jun 21 14 10:51 pm Link Fred Greissing wrote: Fred besides other shootings I shoot w Vassanta in a hotel room No flash just the ambient lights. All I can say Its pure love. Actually shoot StephyC 90% no flash its on Model Society! I'm not angered or bothered by your post. Jun 21 14 11:00 pm Link HarryL wrote: All I can say the love for this lens isn't illusion its on my back 24/7 Besides. I do really carry the products that I'm talking... Never have to believe diagrams Never BS anyone here like many do:) Sorry for the Rant:) Jun 21 14 11:13 pm Link HarryL wrote: Just don't go far to Model Society. check this shots: Jun 21 14 11:33 pm Link When I moved from Canon to Nikon a couple of years ago, I really missed my 50mm/1.2. The 85/1.2 I replaced with the superb Nikon 85/1.4g, so that wasn't a big deal, but all of the choices at ~50mm for Nikon kind of sucked. I even hated the 58/1.4g when it came out a few months ago, even though I was really hopeful. But now I have the Sigma 50/1.4 Art lens and it's fantastic. I no longer miss my 50/1.2. If I were you I would definitely look into it. I think optically it's a much superior lens, though it doesn't have f1.2, which may or may not be a dealbreaker. Jun 22 14 03:31 am Link B L ZeeBubb wrote: The nifty fifty is also difficult to manually focus! Jun 22 14 04:38 am Link PitchBlack wrote: No offense I believe there is Attention Deficit Disorder:) you don't really said anything valuable Jun 22 14 06:42 am Link HarryL wrote: Awww... I'm an idiot. How comforting. No, I own the 50/1.4A and I've done 4 full shoots with it and it's become my favorite lens, and I own a sack of really top-quality glass. I suppose "wrong hands" is a nice euphemism for "it won't take certain kinds of shots very well" like, for instance, wide open outside or any other instance where chromatic aberration is likely to happen. Jun 22 14 02:12 pm Link PitchBlack wrote: Actually I replied w samples also No offense or bad judgment Its just a hot subject. I had the canon 1,4 I shoot very happily I did 90% of fashion event 2011 No flash just locations light appliance's most of the models they were in constant movements >all this is on Model Society port. Now when you mention to go with Sigma I really freak out Jun 22 14 08:15 pm Link michael___ wrote: That's really something you should be considering yourself. I can only tell you if I'd buy one using my own standards, not your standards. It looks like you know the pros and cons of the lens, so go from there. Your money, your images, your standards, your decision. Jun 22 14 09:47 pm Link Honestly, I don't even really think there's a question here. You have to look at everything in context and the original post was about whether or not the lens was worth the asking price (currently about $1620). I've used this lens extensively, and I've used the Sigma 50/1.4 Art extensively now as well, and the Sigma is not only better, it's much better. Add to this the fact that the Sigma costs $670 less and hell no, the Canon isn't worth it for half a nearly unusable stop. Let me put it this way... if the prices were reversed and the Canon were $950 and the Sigma were $1620, I would buy the Sigma. If the Canon were $500 and the Sigma were $2000, I'd buy the Sigma. If someone gave me the Canon, I would drop it in my bag and never, ever use it. Granted, I don't shoot Canon anymore, but if I did, I'd not buy this lens again. Sure, a year ago I would have said it was worth it because all of the 50s out there were junk, but now there is some serious glass available and you don't have to worry about the expensive and temperamental 50/1.2. This was shot at 1.4 and backlit shooting into the sun. It is super sharp, the bokeh is lovely and there is hardly a hint of chromatic aberration. The same shot with the 50/1.2 would be fuzzy and probably riddled with chromatic aberration... though the bokeh would be pretty.  larger size: https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2922/141 … 8dd7_o.jpg Jun 23 14 02:02 am Link HONY loves his  http://www.humansofnewyork.com/ and I love mine  051HP by josedeidaphotography, on Flickr  _MG_9054 by josedeidaphotography, on FlickrJun 23 14 04:12 am Link Jose Deida wrote: Yes but for how long ? Jun 23 14 01:06 pm Link michael___ wrote: I have not Jun 23 14 01:07 pm Link Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote: Hahaha.. Jun 23 14 03:34 pm Link I have the 50 1.2 and am totally happy of my purchase. I got it at a really good used price at $900 too. Depending on what aperture you're mainly going to be shooting with will justify the cost. Jun 25 14 03:42 am Link OP question, Is shallow depth of field really worth it? For me yes. I have had a 50mm 1.2 for years, love it. I like it more than my 85mm 1.2, I like it better than a 80mm f2.8 on a medium format camera too. But that is just me. I like to open up the lens to take isolation shots. Lots of good photographers don't. Instead of the technical aspects of the lens, ask yourself does shallow DoF fit my shooting style, if yes buy it, you don't know you should try it. Jun 25 14 04:29 am Link It was to me, but I wouldn't expect everyone to agree. I think the Sigma produces better IQ and I am still considering selling my 50 1.2 for it. I did a comparison of the Canon 1.4 vs the Canon 1.2. Click on link for more pictures and results http://johncarnessali.com/camera-lens-tests/5338   Jun 25 14 07:54 am Link Moon Pix Photography wrote: Sorry.....the samples don't make any sense. The 1.2 bokeh is so distinguish that even a 3 year old can tell:) Jun 26 14 11:05 am Link Compare the DoF of a 135mm F2 / 180 F2.8 and a 50 or 85mm F1.2 / F1.4. Compare the cost of the options. If you have the space you might find the 135 / 180mm to be the best option. Jun 26 14 12:08 pm Link Only if you can afford it! Jun 26 14 01:18 pm Link I personally owned the 1.8, the 1.4 and the 1.2 at the same time. The real difference to me was that the 1.2 has a much wider range of sharp pictures than the other two. And yes you get a prettier bokeh on the 1.2. But honestly I think unless you have a professional use for it then either of the other lens would do. Jun 26 14 01:39 pm Link I love the control over really shallow DOF...but if it's worth it.. is up to you and what you like. To me, it is... Jun 26 14 02:12 pm Link 1k-words-photograpy wrote: + 1 Jun 26 14 02:19 pm Link Jose Deida wrote: Love the x-mas light bokeh in the top photo... beautiful. Jun 28 14 06:02 am Link Moon Pix Photography wrote: Thanks, that is very helpful. I can see that the 1.2L is a better lens, in terms of sharpness and abberations, but in terms of DOF/Bokeh, I do not think that the difference is too substantial. I mean, it is there, but i wouldn't pay too much more for that difference. Jun 28 14 06:11 am Link Sweet REview!! Jul 18 14 07:31 pm Link |
