I’ve been wanting to get this lens for a while but have been unsure. I’ve read mixed reviews on the sharpness of the lens beyond f1.2 and 1.4. Sure, the bokeh is nice and the fall-off seems very creamy but I reframe a lot and it does seem to be true that the point of focus runs a little when you recompose (meaning the part where it’s focused shifts and when you have so little DoF, this is risky).
I am going to use this lens for four shoots this week. We’ll see how it goes compared to my cheap f1.8 which produced this picture (1/1000s at ISO 100):
Closer up:
You can see every hair and lash. Not bad for a US$90 lens 
Facebook comments:
Powered by Facebook Comments
Hi Jennifer,
I love your work.
I am getting started in photography and wanted to know what your final toughts of the 50mm 1.2L were.
Please post an update to let us know.
Thanks!
Jerry
Hey Jerry, so far I’ve only used it at f2 and up, not much at f1.2. Not sure if I ever need to shoot that wide ever.
I also like to shoot backlit. Flare-wise, both lenses seem to come away tops (both the f1.8 and the f1.2).
Only thing is build. Of course the f1.2 is loads better. U only need to drop the f1.8 once to break it. Then again, it’s also a cheaper lens to replace so much so you won’t need to ever insure it!
I would only buy the f1.2 if I have tons of money sitting around (as a business buy). I’d go for the f1.4 for better build.
Hi Jennifer,
Hope you remember me from this summer. Celeste and I are friends of Susan and Hiren and visited in July. You did a shoot for us which was wonderful.
I finally bought a DSLR and want to get your opinion from time to time on how things are progressing for me, if you don’t mind. I’m pretty behind in practice and technique of people photography but I’m fairly good about the science and hardware (been using SLR’s over 20 yrs. now with some experience with MF and LF and lens designs/attributes). So, I’ll pipe in here just a bit.
Jennifer, you’re right about the plane of focus not really being a plane. In most lenses, the plane of focus is not spherical either so if you focus at center then compose, you will assuredly move the plane of focus slightly behind your subject (rarely ahead of them (requires something like a parabola of focus)). Only macro lenses can be predictible on this issue. But they don’t help since they are usually flat field lenses and have a real plane that goes behind your focal point as you compose. Best bet, I think, would be to use one of the other focus points in your viewfinder. I don’t know if Canons have a really quick way to do that today unless some of them still retain the “eye control” feature used on many of the ELAN film cameras which actually watched your eyeball to see which focus point you were looking at in the viewfinder and focussed to that point.
As for the focus distance causing the issue, I doubt that is something that can be easily measured even by labs who test lenses. A common prime lens should keep its properties of sharpness pretty well throughout its range of focus. Only zooms or primes with floating elements could succomb to a real problem with this issue. The moving internal elements are actually designed to help maintain a higher standard for sharpness throughout the focus range for special lens designs. However, these floating elements could get out of sync with the helical and cause problems requiring a professional to readjust the mechanism.
As for the choice of lenses: build quality goes to the 1.2 and the 1.4. However, the original version of the 1.8 was built much more robust than the modern 1.8 II. It has a focus distance window, some DOF marks, and (most importantly) a metal lens mount. Otherwise, I think the optic design and MTF scores match the modern 1.8 II. All three lenses have the same minimum focus dist. of 45cm. The number of blades in the aperture is different: 8 for the 1.2 and 1.4, only 5 for the 1.8. This would give the brighter pair a more circular flare and more “swirly bokeh” than the 1.8. In sharpness, I can’t find MTF on the 1.2 but I would imagine the 1.8 wins at wide open aperture but the 1.2 and 1.4 should definitely nudge ahead of it by f5.6 and f8. Past f8, all three lenses will begin to suffer from diffraction problems and lose sharpness pretty much equally.
Still, don’t knock the 1.8. It’s really sharp with an MTF of 4.1 (5 is highest possible). I would still say the best bet is the 1.4 (bokeh, speed, build better than 1.8 and price better than 1.2). So, I said a lot to come to the same conclusion as you, Jennifer.
So here’s what I’ve got to point out. The MTF charts indicate that there should be a “halo” of reduced sharpness in images made with the 1.8 which occurs at about 15mm from center with a return to great sharpness in the corners, all at f8. The spot you magnified should be, according to the charts, exactly in the area of least sharpness on that lens and yet you get WAY more sharpness there than I have yet attained on ANY photo I have made on my D60. You are doing something way right with focus and steadiness and I am obviously not. I know you are doing some post processing for sharpness but I’m sure even your original raw files are way sharper than my sharpest photo after sharpening (modest sharpening). What was your aperture on that photo, if you have easy access to that. Please don’t waste your time with looking that up.
Is there a way for me to check your EXIF data on your posted photos? That would keep you from having to look that up.
Thanks in advance just for taking the time to read this “entry”.
Thad
Hey Thad, I bought the f1.4 already. Thanks for the very informative input though!