Canon 50mm Prime

[s4avant]

I'm thinking of buying a 50mm prime lens for my Canon 60d and there is a huge price jump between the F1.4 and the F1.2l.
The F1.2l is clearly the better quality lens but is its performance that much better than the 1.4 for normal day to day photographs of family, friends,etc?

[DavidCane]

I'd save yourself hundreds and hundreds of pounds and get the 1.4

All of the 50mm lenses are good, but is the jump from 1.4 to 1.2 worth the extra £££s for you?

[Mr Will]

If you're planning to shoot mostly wide open, the Sigma 50mm 1.4 beats the Canon 1.4 for not a lot more cash. The Canon is better stopped down however.

I'd avoid the 1.2L - It's a big, heavy lens that's not worth the extra unless you are a pro with a specific need for it on a regular basis.

[Crafty_]

..and on that basis consider the 1.8 too ? See if you get on with the focal length okay, then flog that if you really want to upgrade to the 1.4. You won't really lose any money on the 1.8 if you do decide to replace it.
Be aware I've seen reports of the 1.4 being a bit fragile ?

[Phunk]

1.8 is good, you need to baby it, as it will fall apart.

1.4 is great, very sturdy and gives great results.

[Crafty_]

Just did a google, apparently its the focus ring on the 1.4, if it takes a knock it will jam up.

I've got a 1.8, don't use it that much but its certainly not "baby'd" at all and is fine. Its a cheap lens but seems pretty robust to me.

I'm thinking that 28-35mm may be a better length for a crop anyway.

[Phunk]

Crafty_ said:

Just did a google, apparently its the focus ring on the 1.4, if it takes a knock it will jam up.

I've got a 1.8, don't use it that much but its certainly not "baby'd" at all and is fine. Its a cheap lens but seems pretty robust to me.

I'm thinking that 28-35mm may be a better length for a crop anyway.

My 50mm 1.4 just so happens to be in getting 'unjammed'.

[Mr Will]

Phunk said:

Crafty_ said:

Just did a google, apparently its the focus ring on the 1.4, if it takes a knock it will jam up.

I've got a 1.8, don't use it that much but its certainly not "baby'd" at all and is fine. Its a cheap lens but seems pretty robust to me.

I'm thinking that 28-35mm may be a better length for a crop anyway.

My 50mm 1.4 just so happens to be in getting 'unjammed'.

Impacts to the front of the lens when focussed at less than infinity are the cause apparently. Make sure it's wound all the way before putting it back in the bag and is should (hopefully) be okay.

Still wouldn't class it as a sturdy lens though.

[Simpo Two]

Can't speak for Canon lenses per se but on the aperture front, I find even f1.4 hard to work with. I really don't see any need to go to f1.2 for 'day to day family photographs'.

Even though I have a 50mm f1.4, in practice I rarely need more than f2.0 before DOF becomes unworkable.

[flat-planedCrank]

Have had the f1.4 for ages: pretty good, build is ok but I've heard of people having af problems as the front element extends (not rotates) while focusing. I've just got into the habit of focusing it to infinity when putting it away - never had any problems.

It's properly sharp at f2, nice to have f1.4 options though.


The f1.2 is properly lovely, I've used it briefly and would hope to buy it some day.


The Sigma f1.4 wasn't available when I got my canon f1.4, but I think if I was buying now I'd take a look at the Sigma before hand.

[RobDickinson]

I have the sigma.

All canons 50's have issues. The 35 and 85 are much better.

I would go for the sigma or the 1.8 and a sigma 35

[tim-b]

Just a thought; anyone considered the Zeiss 50mm f1.4? I fondled one in a shop a while ago, felt amazing, although I didn't use it enough to make a judgement on IQ etc. Price wise it's kind of in the middle of the Canon 1.4/1.2. Doesn't have autofocus I think, and the manual focus was very heavy and slow, but in a good way (super precise and smooth).

[RobDickinson]

Manual focus at 1.4 is a serious mission

[creampuff]

s4avant said:

I'm thinking of buying a 50mm prime lens for my Canon 60d and there is a huge price jump between the F1.4 and the F1.2l.
The F1.2l is clearly the better quality lens but is its performance that much better than the 1.4 for normal day to day photographs of family, friends,etc?

The fact that you are asking the question, means you should not buy the f/1.2 and maybe not even the f/1.4. Why buy something that expensive if you are confused about how you will use it?

The depth of field at f/1.2 is almost zero - you will not be able to get two people in one photo in focus and you will not even be able to get all of your subjects face in focus. Stuff 0.5 inches from the whatever you are focusing on will actually be out of focus. You can take very good photos with selective depth of field and parts of a face out of focus, but again, if you are asking the question then you probably don't need it.

[RobDickinson]

That's only for close subjects though. Faster lenses allow you to isolate subjects further alway but still need careful use.

I also agree with the rest if you're not sure then a used canon 1.8 will quickly let you know and cost nothing

[s4avant]

Thanks for all the good advice!
I was harking back to the days when I had a Pentax SLR with a 50mm F1.7 lens and with it, took some good portraits with a nicely blurred background.
The F1.2 is clearly OTT but I'll have a look at a F1.4, as the build quality seems to be better than the F1.8.

[Mr Will]

s4avant said:

Thanks for all the good advice!
I was harking back to the days when I had a Pentax SLR with a 50mm F1.7 lens and with it, took some good portraits with a nicely blurred background.
The F1.2 is clearly OTT but I'll have a look at a F1.4, as the build quality seems to be better than the F1.8.

Just be aware that the 50mm on a 60D will be a lot more "zoomed in" than a 50mm on an old film SLR. You'd be looking for a ~31mm lens to get the same field of view.

On that note, the new Sigma 35mm 1.4 is supposed to be pretty amazing...

[Kermit power]

Mr Will said:

Just be aware that the 50mm on a 60D will be a lot more "zoomed in" than a 50mm on an old film SLR. You'd be looking for a ~31mm lens to get the same field of view.

On that note, the new Sigma 35mm 1.4 is supposed to be pretty amazing...

I've got a 50mm 1.8 (with a 7D), and I've not used it even once in the year or so I've had a 28mm f1.8. I use my 100mm macro lens a lot, and the 28 a lot, but nothing I shoot ever seems to be right for 50mm....

[Kermit power]

M4FFU said:

Same camera, similar lenses, 50 is my most used.

That's interesting! What do you shoot with it?

I find I can't quite get far enough back for most indoor shots with the 50, but if I'm outdoors, prefer the extra candid element that the 100 gives.

[tim-b]

Kermit power said:

M4FFU said:

Same camera, similar lenses, 50 is my most used.

That's interesting! What do you shoot with it?

I find I can't quite get far enough back for most indoor shots with the 50, but if I'm outdoors, prefer the extra candid element that the 100 gives.

I use my 85mm on FF (so similar length to 50mm on yours) a lot, I find it great for street photography and use it for people, details and sometimes from a distance at race meetings too.

I first got it just before a trip to Japan, and loved it so much it stayed on for the whole trip!

It can be a bit long for crowded areas where it's not possible to step back, which forces you to look for different angles instead of just going with the more obvious shots.... I found I got more interesting pictures as a result