Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

You are probably reading these reviews to decide if you will pay $1,500+ to buy this lens or to get its sibling the 50 f/1.4. I owned the 50 f/1.4 for a year, and currently own the 50L 1.2. Ignore the reviews by those who have never even owned 50L 1.2 (or maybe rented it for a weekend) yet feel they can give you a solid opinion about it. I will give you a run-down of my experience with the 50L 1.2 as a portrait photographer: ********************************* *** Crop vs Full-frame Camera *** ********************************* This lens is all about narrow DoF. I will talk about the characteristics relating to DoF further in my review. To get the most out of this lens it is recommended that you use a FF camera to give you the most control over DOF. A full-frame camera will give you approx 1.6 times more blur than on an APS-C camera (such as the 7D). 50mm is very versatile on a FF camera, allowing small group photos, individual photos of bust-up / full length / three quarters. But not so much on the 7D, when you will have an equivalent field of vision of 80mm. 80mm is quite tight, and more suited for headshots and bust-up. * * * ************* *** Bokeh *** ************* With narrow DoF comes great bokeh. The bokeh produced by the 8-bladed aperture is round and beautiful, currently matched only by the 85L 1.2. The 50 f/1.4 also has an 8-bladed aperture but the bokeh it produces pales in comparison and is often nervous and distracting. With the 50L 1.2, the bokeh has a soft and beautiful rendition - the subject is well isolated and everything out of focus becomes a wash of creaminess. * * * ***************** *** Sharpness *** ***************** This is one of the areas where I feel the 50L 1.2 is most misunderstood. I will open my review of sharpness with this: between the apertures of f/1.2 to f/2.0, this lens is the sharpest of the Canon 50mm family. Period. If you don't like taking my word for it, then you can poke around in MTF charts. You must be skilled (yes, skill is needed, this is not a point and shoot lens) at using single focus points, have a steady camera technique, knowing where the blade of DoF falls, and knowing when to not focus and recompose. The 50 f/1.4 then takes over in sharpness at around f/2.2 to f/2.8. The 50L 1.2 will never be as sharp as my 85L 1.2 II. But for me as a portrait photographer, sharpness is relative. If the background is pure cream, then the lovely lady I am photographing will look sharp. Also, I don't mind not having the lens a little soft so the photograph does not capture every pore and imperfection on my subject's face. It actually saves me time when retouching later! As a further note, I found that shooting wide open with the 50 f/1.4 gave results that lacked so much sharpness so as to be unusable. * * * ************************ *** Color & Contrast *** ************************ The color rendition and contrast from the 50L 1.2 is beautiful, and what you would expect from an L lens. The optics and lens coatings are far superior to the 50 1.4 when it comes to color and contrast between f/1.2 and f/2.0. When shooting wide open with the 50 1.4, I found out of focus areas with sunlight would exhibit color shifts to red and green. The contrast would also be very low - and at times so faded that the photograph could not be fixed (to my satisfaction) in post. With the 50 1.4 closed up to f/2.8, the color shifting was much more controlled and the contrast at an acceptable level. * * * ************************* *** 50L 1.2 vs 50 1.4 *** ************************* The $1,500 grapefruit or the $355 non-L? I would sum it up this way: 1. The non-L is advertised as an f/1.4 lens. BUT, there will be many lighting conditions in which shooting between f/1.4 to f/2.0 will give you less than perfect results (eg. distracting bokeh, terrible color, washed out photos, or complete lack of sharpness). For a professional, it would be a challenge to practically use the non-L at f/1.4-f/2.0 in less than perfect situations. Shooting at f/2.8 and narrower, the non-L is as good as any Canon lens. 2. The grapefruit is advertised as an f/1.2 lens. AND, it is the wonder lens between f/1.2 and f/2.0 for the reasons given above. The color and contrast is L glass quality at all apertures. However, the sharpness is not as good as other Canon lenses from the more standard apertures of f/2.8 and narrower. The sharpness is also affected by the focus shift that occurs because the 50L 1.2 focuses wide open and the aperture is stopped down an instant before the sensor is exposed to take the photograph. So where does this leave us? Because what I am going to say might insult some people, I am going to caveat that all of this is my own personal opinion - which is totally worthless anyway. Why have you read all the way down to here, hey? Here we go with a deep breath: 3. The $1,500 grapefruit is the lens for you if you love shooting between f/1.2 and f/2.0 for that bokehlicious cream and narrow DoF. It is a perfect versatile complement to the 85L 1.2, 135L 2.0, and the legendary 200L 2.0. I also consider the 35L 1.4 a fantastic prime, but not for portraiture as it has even less lens compression than a 50mm lens. 4. The non-L is advertised as an f/1.4 lens. HOWEVER, in practice, in most conditions it will only give best results when used as an f/2.8 lens. With this limited 'usable aperture', this leads me to question what is the place of the non-L in my lens bag when there is the 24-70L 2.8. The L zoom is as sharp as most primes, and with the high resolution 24-70L 2.8 Mk II just around the corner, the Mk II will blast the 50 1.4 away in sharpness, color, contrast and versatility. For apertures wider than f/2.8, the grapefruit is firmly rooted in its position. Unless you cannot afford L glass (which you obviously can, otherwise you would not be reading this review), then you are sacrificing image quality for something else by putting the 50 1.4 in your lens bag. * * *