I think the argument is why not a get a lens that gets you 97% of the way there as a portrait lens but is better for more general use and street photography? The portraits of a 1.4 are not far off the 1.2. This is a value proposition. If you're a professional and you need a specialized lens, then sure. But for the majority of people this won't be the case.
I wouldn't mind to pay as much as 1.2 for a 1.4, but would expect 1.5k lens to be sharp corner to corner. That's why I chose 85 1.4 over 1.2, IS was the added benifit.
Great review of the technical differences between the f/1.2l and the f/1.4. One thing that you didn't cover is to show the pictures that the f/1.2 would capture in low-light situations, comparing it to the same shot with a f/1.4. I think that people would like to see the raw performance of the wider aperture of the 50mm f/1.2.
I use my Canon 50mm f/1.4 for professional videography, mostly for interviews. I generally shoot it wide open on a Canon 5D Mark III. What I've found is that the 1.4 is sharp enough wide open if I'm shooting outside or in a room with a lot of light. By a lot of light I mean like a 2k through a Chimera as the key. However, in lower light conditions, I've found the lens is not as sharp as I'd like, even when the subject's eyes are all the way in focus as confirmed by Magic Lantern's focus peaking assist. Has anyone else that uses a Canon 50mm f/1.4 noticed this? I'll likely be upgrading to a Sigma Art lens, since it's no doubt the sharpest 50 available, besides perhaps the Zeiss Otus, which is way out of my price range.
The only reason for someone to buy a Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 USM or a used Canon EF 50mm f/1.0 is to use this lenses at f/1.2 or f/1.0 most of times. Otherwise at f/2.8 for example the very cheep Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM delivers similar sharpness. The quality of bokeh though is another story. Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM was introduced in 1993 and the Canon 85mm EF 85mm f/1.8 USM was introduced in 1992. Both these lenses were never updated since then and are the oldest Canon lenses that are still in 2019 are sold officially by Canon as new. I don't know the reason. They are either excellent and don't need updates or they are not popular at all or Canon doesn't bother to update them.
I only have lenses from the analog era and my experiences are exactly the same as this review. The f/1.2 lenses (Canon SSC Aspherical, Konica Hexanon AR) really shine wide open at portrait distances, stopped down they're acceptable but not as good as their less bright counterparts (the Konica is the better all-rounder btw). Most of my f/1.4 lenses (Super Takumar, Pentax A, Chinon/Tomioka, Hexanon AR) are mediocre wide open, but have decent all-round performance when stopped down. So not much has changed in forty years. F/1.2 lenses aren't standard lenses, they are specialty portrait lenses and should be treated as such. The more recent f/1.2 lenses seem to be a bit better, but they're too expensive/large/heavy to always carry around so you'll still need a nifty fifty anyway.
Nice review and insight! I'd never justify the 1200 dollars price difference. It doesn't give you that much in terms of production value. I'd rather buy a 1.4 and put the 1200 in other accesoires that WOULD affect my production value in other ways.
Are you sure your L lens was clean? I find it hard to see how a flagship L lens is so blurry at the sides. It looks like something was smeared on the lens and it needed wiping off. The 1.4 I have is very soft at the edges, even for a cheap lens. I find it hard to believe it's better than the L lens in this regard.
Quite sure. That's part of the charm of the 1.2L... most people don't really care that it's not sharp at the edges, since its such a specialized lens, and portraits rarely need to be sharp at the edges. However, I've used the RF 1.2 lenses, and they're tack sharp across the frame (at least the 50mm and 85mm).
Incredibley well done!!! THANK YOU!!! This video really answered so many questions I had and has helped me make a choice! Please keep up the great work! I'll pass on the word to help support your efforts!
I'm way late to the game here, commented on a few 50mm videos, and I will add to this one. Ive owned all 3 canon 50mm lenses, and for the money the 1.4 was hands down the winner. I lost my 1.4 in a house fire and replaced it with a 1.2L. Worst lens I've ever owned. Micro calibration did little for it, even at 2.8 it was horribly soft. I sent it back and went for the sigma 50mm 1.4 Art. Absolutely amazing.
You make the best review ever, by far. keep making more reviews like this. i have the sigma 1.4 art and i love this lens. i will love see a review of the canon 70-200 vs sigma vs tamron....... or the canon 70-200 vs 135. or vs 200mm 2.0
DXO Mark actually rates the actual transmission value of the 1.2 @ 1.4 and the 1.4 at 1.5. so the transmission (tested) is actually more or less the same.
Aubrey Wild Thanks Aubrey :) Yes, I'm doing just fine... been busy so my videos only roll around when I have time, but I've been happy :) Hope you are too!
Ok, forgive me if I'm an idiot, but why would you 'test' a 50mm 1.2 by shooting landscape shots of far away things and be upset about it not being sharp in the corners? Who would buy a 50mm 1.2 to shoot landscapes?
Hi Tom, Since it's just a resolution/sharpness test, the subject itself doesn't matter; all that matters is that there's fine detail to compare. I use landscapes for several reasons, but most importantly, because I can usually rely on them not moving (and introducing motion blur that confounds the results), and I shoot landscapes that are far away because when the lens is focused at infinity, there's not going to be any problem with field curvature or back-focusing, and front-focusing would be very unlikely with my testing procedure. It's also where the focal length of the lens is not affected by focus breathing, so I know that I'm comparing the same focal length on both lenses, as much as possible. Hope that helps. - Matthew
@@RaymondLo84 thats right! Anyway when you shoot landscapes you stop down the aperture to at least f4. At least I haven't seen that much landscapes at f1.2....
Hey Matthew, I think you should be shooting a flat surface to check the sharpness so that the plane of focus is perpendicular to the centre of the lens. Maybe your test charts might look a bit different then.
Generally, I shoot a subject that is far enough away from the camera that it's at the "infinity" focus range, where field curvature isn't a problem, or I shoot something with enough depth that if there is a field curvature issue, I can see where the actual focus is. I do also use test charts and a piece of software called Reikan FoCal to check resolution in absolute terms, but that's tedious to show in a video. More tedious, I mean.
I bought the 1.4 today for £175 to fit my Canon 5D. think i have a good combination until i have money to buy the 35mm 1.4 II (the lens i really want).
Hi, I saw the 1.2 live in action yesterday & it was amazing but one of my best friends convinced me to save money & go for the 1.4 so I'm curious why the 35mm is the one you really want?
Hey Gore great review, to the point and funny lay back humor, one of the best reviews and comparisons I've read regarding this lens, but hey you are good at what you do! This is just as good as (well you know the other guy? hahaha) Keep them coming!
Hey man, I normally don't comment on lens review videos, but yours was beautifully done. You're real honest about lens features, down to Earth, without hype. Also honest about (not) making money with videos like these. And oh, has super calm sexy voice. I said that as a straight male, I bet the ladies would say few more words too. xD Anyway, thanks and good luck!
Thanks so much ! Btw ad you in Seattle I live close by it fun fun to learn more from you if u ever need help with anything . I started a wedding photography company and you saved me some money I'm going to go with the 1.4 for now
After shooting for a few years.. I find primes hands-down leagues better than any zoom (except for maybe the 70mm to 200mm zoom). The larger apertures are wonderful on primes, and they are much sharper. - Speaking of primes.... I don't own a 50mm. Currently, it's the 28mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.8. IMO, the 50mm is an OK lens... and good for certain circumstances... like street photography (street-level, not architecture) and maybe for portraits. It's a kind of bread-and-butter focal length... and has been around for decades. So maybe then it's a little humdrum.
Great video with many details about these lenses. I've never had cutted bokeh highlights with die 50L wide open at night. This phenomenon has to be very unusual under normal conditions. It's possible that there was a wire or a branch in the way of the light source? It's also not shown on your other example pictures. Cutted bokeh highlight are a thing with the old rare 50mm f/1.0 caused by the chip fixed on the rear element.
I had clipped bokeh consistently, in hundreds of photos, in different locations... but it was usually only apparent at night. When I get back to my computer tomorrow, I'll try to remember to post some additional examples for you.
I'm interested in 50mm f1.2.Does 50mm f1.2 have AF inaccuracy, like back focusing problem?And the image quality of 50mm f1.4 is better than 50mm f1.8 stm? You know 50mm 1.4 is too old lense.
Cant Wait for your upcoming video vs sigma...i hope you plan a video on the 85mm focal length also would love to see your comparison of the 85 1.2L vs 135 f2L Wishing you Best of Luck
Agreed, though there is a significant difference under the right conditions. If you haven't already seen it, you might find my comparison of the Sigma 50mm ART interesting, too.
Luck has nothing to do with getting good sharpness at wide open on both of these lenses. I`d say it`s impossible because they both are very blurry wide open, even in the center. They get sharp at 4.0 but that defeats the purpose of both.
***** If you're watching this video on a computer, any time that you mouse over the video there's an "i" in the upper right corner that you can click on, and that will display the support link :) On a mobile device, you just need to tap the video, and you'll see a menu at the top of the video with a circled "i". Or, if you watch to the end of the video, there should be a message that pops up in the video. Hope that helps. So far, nobody seems to have found it... :)
***** How strange... thanks for letting me know! The next best thing to do is go to my Channel page, czcams.com/users/JMatthewGore and at the top of the right sidebar, there's a "Support this channel" link. There doesn't seem to be a link I can copy from it.
***** Ahhhh.... it occurs to me that this feature is only available in the USA, Australia, Japan and Mexico. So if you were in Europe, for example, they wouldn't show up. So... don't worry about it! You're awesome for even trying, thanks a ton!
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME..... I APPRECIATE YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF LENSES.. IT HELPED ME UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE BETTER....... sorry I always use cap Locks.. I like to see what I am writing.........loll
Thanks for another great review. Really appreciate the time you invest, the information you provide, and the consistency of the real-world shooting example images. I have viewed nearly all of your product videos and because they are so great, just donated via your support link. I hope that everyone who takes the time to watch and enjoys the benefit of the knowledge you impart will do the same!
Nice Review at always in Light and Matter. Great Job. Now, the Canon 50mm set needs to be replace soon. Both lenses are outdated and packed with numerous flaws. I used both of them, find out trhey are soft in the IQ department, tons of cromatic aberrations and AF performance is really poor. I find the 50L is the worse Prime L of canon, and the 50 1.4 its actually worse than the chepo 50mm 1.8... Just wait for the 50mm Update or go for the 1.8
I think i have some problem with my Canon 50mm lens. coz there's a point on people nose when i use it to take portraits photos. how can i fix it ? Thanks
Even after micro AF adjustments my Canon 50 1.4 was terrible until f2.0 when it became useful. If the 1.2 is only better in the center wide open I am very very glad I did not go for the 1.2 Are you sure you didn't just get a bad copy?
KevTCC Yes, I'm confident that I got a good copy... this is also consistent with my experience with the lens over the past several years, and the MTF charts. Regardless, most people buy the 1.2L for the bokeh rather than for resolution :) It does have nice bokeh, usually.
Matthew Gore Thanks. I sold my 1.4 when after a year of carrying it in my bag I realized I never use it and I could use the space... lol I've considered the Sigma but the focal range isn't one I work at very often at all. The 24-70 2.8L II is spectacular so while it might not be a 1.4 it produces great images. It's interesting what is important to people. I like bokeh as well, but the subject needs to be sharp with lots of local contrast and detail in order for me to enjoy the softness of the out of focus areas. I'd love to see a 85 1.8, verses the L test done like this. My 1.8 is so good I really haven't felt the need to get the L. I always joke with clients: Hey I'm about to use my cheapest lens, and your'e going to love it! :)
Thanks great video I'm looking forward to your next video as I'm debating between the sigma 50mm art and the 1.2L , I'm just disappointed the sigma is so heavy! it weighs same as my 24-70 2.8 ii
cyberchickgeek Thanks :) Yes, the Sigma is pretty bulky for a 50mm lens, which is too bad... but it feels soooo nice in the hand. I really like the feel of it, and that makes up for a lot... but that won't be the case for a lot of people, I can understand.
I think the weight is the only thing putting me off sigmas..when's your new video comparing them come out?? Before I buy the wrong one and regret it lol
c0pyimitati0n I haven't ever had a problem with the focus speed on the 50mm f/1.4. It wouldn't surprise me if the f/1.8 were slightly faster than the 1.4, since they've always seemed about the same to me, but I'd think that the difference is pretty inconsequential. The 1.2 is significantly slower than either of the others. Just to be sure, I'm checking the 1.8 and 1.4 now...
Matthew Gore OK. I took three measurements on each lens, from minimum focal distance to infinity. The 50mm f/1.8 averaged .237 seconds, and the f/1.4 averaged .246 seconds, so the difference over the entire focus range is only about 1/100th sec, and the slowest recorded speed for the 1.8 was .247 sec, while the fastest recorded speed for the 1.4 was .232. So, not very significant. It will be interesting to see how the new STM compares.
Sigma is a nice lens, but to be honest 50 1.2 is the most sexy looking glass i ever seen. Im currently nikon fx user, but I allways loved 50 1.2. Same with 85 1.2. Great looking and amazing lenses, but to be honest they are too expensive. AF is slow, overal sharpens nowdays are not tier 1 anymore. I currently using few sigmas art and You need dock for them and of coure If You have a chance shoots few of them in the store and chose the best (if You can). Sry for potaot english. ANd i hate sigma coating its easy to skreatch.
The screen-area link doesn't work in CZcams anymore, but you can still download them from the review on my website, about halfway down the page: www.lightandmatter.org/2015/equipment-reviews/lens-comparison-canon-50mm-f1-4-vs-canon-50mm-f1-2l/
I think comparing an optically sound lens to an art lens is wrong and deprives people who could have owned a 1.2 lens. It is worth the price difference, the weight, the everything. BTW. The 50mm 2.5 Macro is much better than the oversold 1.4.
Matt, I've had my 1.4 canon lens in the bag 90% of the time. After watching your 1.2 vs 1.4 video, it's about to be used WAY more. I only have 2 lenses for my 5D mark iii and am looking to expand. Am a total amateur whose camera is too big for his abilities :) But love this stuff. Would you recommend a 3rd lens? Thanks for your vids, going through a lot of them!
+Dan Gros Hey Dan, Thank you! What lenses do you have now? The 50 1.4.... and another one. I can tell you that my favorite range is the 70-200 f/2.8, but that's a matter of personal taste. You'll see my comparison of the Tamron and Canon versions of those lenses, if you haven't already, and they're both excellent.
+Matthew Gore was looking at that just now. I have the 24-104L. It was my first lens at the time so wanted a well rounded one. Kind of disappointed at it's inability to mask my ignorance with perfect images in every shot :) sounds like the Tamron would make sense to me due to cost and closeness of quality. How's the bokeh on it?
+Dan Gros I'm not really a bokeh aficionado, so I'm not sure I can really tell you anything helpful. It looks great to me, but then, just about any bokeh from a 200mm lens looks nice and smooth.
Hi Joe, Unfortunately, I don't really shoot video, so I can't give you an answer from experience. However, if you're shooting video... 1080p is about 2 megapixels of resolution, so sharpness isn't as critical, especially in the corners. If you're using auto-focus, the f/1.2 is going to be a little more finicky, but it will give you a bit more light. Neither one of these lenses is great for manual focus... I'd rather use something like a Zeiss or Samyang that is intended for manual focus. Sorry I can't be of more help.
Who cares? All these factors in the end don’t determine what makes a “good picture”. No one in the real world is examining photos and judging them based on these details. Only CZcamsrs making videos like these to make content and drive views and affiliate links care.
The trees and buildings are simply substitutes for resolution charts, and they do their job. And if you shoot them with any of Canon's new f/1.2 RF lenses, they're remarkably sharp.
@@MatthewGore I agree with you but for me the ef 50mm 1.2 was made purposely "soft" wide open, a tack sharp lens on the skin can reveal all the imperfections of the skin, sometime on portrait a softer image can look more pleasing
@@thewetpen alright, if a lens is made for portraits I expect to see some portraits, we all know that this lens is not that sharp, but this is not the point, because it can create some unique photos.
@@redis8298 Maybe we all know that the 50 1.2 is not that sharp now, but seven years ago when this video was made, it wasn't such common knowledge. And the reason that I focus on fine detail and resolution in videos like this is that you can see the overall effect of a lens in any of the 50 1.2 photos that are on any of the photo sharing sites, or on Canon's product website for that matter, but you can't see the fine details in web-sized images or videos. And they do matter to some people. And I have included more portraits in my more recent videos, and the other 50mm 1.2 lens that I published around the same time as this one.
50 1.2 is not a landscape lens it’s a beauty portrait lens sharp centers and beautiful bokeh is the purchasing points for the owners of the 1.2.
I think the argument is why not a get a lens that gets you 97% of the way there as a portrait lens but is better for more general use and street photography? The portraits of a 1.4 are not far off the 1.2. This is a value proposition.
If you're a professional and you need a specialized lens, then sure. But for the majority of people this won't be the case.
I wouldn't mind to pay as much as 1.2 for a 1.4, but would expect 1.5k lens to be sharp corner to corner. That's why I chose 85 1.4 over 1.2, IS was the added benifit.
You are the best lens reviewer in CZcams. Sharp, to the point and not just saying anything to add more time to the video. KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK.
Great review of the technical differences between the f/1.2l and the f/1.4. One thing that you didn't cover is to show the pictures that the f/1.2 would capture in low-light situations, comparing it to the same shot with a f/1.4. I think that people would like to see the raw performance of the wider aperture of the 50mm f/1.2.
I’ve been looking for a video comparison this good for soooooo long. Thank you good sir.
I use my Canon 50mm f/1.4 for professional videography, mostly for interviews. I generally shoot it wide open on a Canon 5D Mark III. What I've found is that the 1.4 is sharp enough wide open if I'm shooting outside or in a room with a lot of light. By a lot of light I mean like a 2k through a Chimera as the key. However, in lower light conditions, I've found the lens is not as sharp as I'd like, even when the subject's eyes are all the way in focus as confirmed by Magic Lantern's focus peaking assist.
Has anyone else that uses a Canon 50mm f/1.4 noticed this? I'll likely be upgrading to a Sigma Art lens, since it's no doubt the sharpest 50 available, besides perhaps the Zeiss Otus, which is way out of my price range.
The only reason for someone to buy a Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 USM or a used Canon EF 50mm f/1.0 is to use this lenses at f/1.2 or f/1.0 most of times. Otherwise at f/2.8 for example the very cheep Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM delivers similar sharpness. The quality of bokeh though is another story.
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM was introduced in 1993 and the Canon 85mm EF 85mm f/1.8 USM was introduced in 1992. Both these lenses were never updated since then and are the oldest Canon lenses that are still in 2019 are sold officially by Canon as new.
I don't know the reason. They are either excellent and don't need updates or they are not popular at all or Canon doesn't bother to update them.
you are the best mathew.. this detailed reviews and your advices always help
I only have lenses from the analog era and my experiences are exactly the same as this review. The f/1.2 lenses (Canon SSC Aspherical, Konica Hexanon AR) really shine wide open at portrait distances, stopped down they're acceptable but not as good as their less bright counterparts (the Konica is the better all-rounder btw). Most of my f/1.4 lenses (Super Takumar, Pentax A, Chinon/Tomioka, Hexanon AR) are mediocre wide open, but have decent all-round performance when stopped down.
So not much has changed in forty years. F/1.2 lenses aren't standard lenses, they are specialty portrait lenses and should be treated as such.
The more recent f/1.2 lenses seem to be a bit better, but they're too expensive/large/heavy to always carry around so you'll still need a nifty fifty anyway.
Nice review and insight!
I'd never justify the 1200 dollars price difference. It doesn't give you that much in terms of production value. I'd rather buy a 1.4 and put the 1200 in other accesoires that WOULD affect my production value in other ways.
Are you sure your L lens was clean? I find it hard to see how a flagship L lens is so blurry at the sides. It looks like something was smeared on the lens and it needed wiping off. The 1.4 I have is very soft at the edges, even for a cheap lens. I find it hard to believe it's better than the L lens in this regard.
Quite sure. That's part of the charm of the 1.2L... most people don't really care that it's not sharp at the edges, since its such a specialized lens, and portraits rarely need to be sharp at the edges. However, I've used the RF 1.2 lenses, and they're tack sharp across the frame (at least the 50mm and 85mm).
This is by far the best comparison between these two lenses
Thanks Connor!
Hey Matt -- not through the entire video and just had to pause and say this is an excellent review of those two lenses.
Incredibley well done!!! THANK YOU!!!
This video really answered so many questions I had and has helped me make a choice!
Please keep up the great work! I'll pass on the word to help support your efforts!
I'm way late to the game here, commented on a few 50mm videos, and I will add to this one. Ive owned all 3 canon 50mm lenses, and for the money the 1.4 was hands down the winner. I lost my 1.4 in a house fire and replaced it with a 1.2L. Worst lens I've ever owned. Micro calibration did little for it, even at 2.8 it was horribly soft. I sent it back and went for the sigma 50mm 1.4 Art. Absolutely amazing.
Very nice comparison and editing . I WISH I COULD SUPPORT YOU.... Everything you say is so helpful! Thank you very much for making those videos
+Albert Nguy Thanks!
Canon 50 F1.4 is a good lens for the money
You make the best review ever, by far. keep making more reviews like this.
i have the sigma 1.4 art and i love this lens.
i will love see a review of the canon 70-200 vs sigma vs tamron....... or the canon 70-200 vs 135. or vs 200mm 2.0
Melvin DLaCruz He already has one on the 70-200s.
benahhx thanksssssssssssss
DXO Mark actually rates the actual transmission value of the 1.2 @ 1.4 and the 1.4 at 1.5. so the transmission (tested) is actually more or less the same.
This is the best review video I've ever seen!
I am still using My old MK 1 F/1.8 of 1990 vintage so I don't really worry about AF noise there is nothing much to gain from My Lens to The F/1.2
Nice video! I like how you compared and put a noise graph to see the actual difference!
I asked you to review these lenses, in the discussion section about a week ago....you move fast Matthew Gore.
Welcome back. Have missed your video's. Hope your doing well.
Aubrey Wild Thanks Aubrey :) Yes, I'm doing just fine... been busy so my videos only roll around when I have time, but I've been happy :) Hope you are too!
Ok, forgive me if I'm an idiot, but why would you 'test' a 50mm 1.2 by shooting landscape shots of far away things and be upset about it not being sharp in the corners? Who would buy a 50mm 1.2 to shoot landscapes?
Hi Tom,
Since it's just a resolution/sharpness test, the subject itself doesn't matter; all that matters is that there's fine detail to compare. I use landscapes for several reasons, but most importantly, because I can usually rely on them not moving (and introducing motion blur that confounds the results), and I shoot landscapes that are far away because when the lens is focused at infinity, there's not going to be any problem with field curvature or back-focusing, and front-focusing would be very unlikely with my testing procedure. It's also where the focal length of the lens is not affected by focus breathing, so I know that I'm comparing the same focal length on both lenses, as much as possible.
Hope that helps.
- Matthew
Tom King you are correct, this is a portrait lens
He mentions the “no landscape” remark !!
just stop down to f/4.0 and it is sharp edge to edge for landscape... not sure why they care about large aperture
@@RaymondLo84 thats right! Anyway when you shoot landscapes you stop down the aperture to at least f4. At least I haven't seen that much landscapes at f1.2....
Hey Matthew, I think you should be shooting a flat surface to check the sharpness so that the plane of focus is perpendicular to the centre of the lens. Maybe your test charts might look a bit different then.
Generally, I shoot a subject that is far enough away from the camera that it's at the "infinity" focus range, where field curvature isn't a problem, or I shoot something with enough depth that if there is a field curvature issue, I can see where the actual focus is. I do also use test charts and a piece of software called Reikan FoCal to check resolution in absolute terms, but that's tedious to show in a video. More tedious, I mean.
u forgot f/1.2 is weather seal... a big deal if we use it daily and outdoor
What an amazing review. Thank you. I'll be buying the Canon 50mm 1.4 today!
I bought the 1.4 today for £175 to fit my Canon 5D. think i have a good combination until i have money to buy the 35mm 1.4 II (the lens i really want).
Hi, I saw the 1.2 live in action yesterday & it was amazing but one of my best friends convinced me to save money & go for the 1.4 so I'm curious why the 35mm is the one you really want?
Hey Gore great review, to the point and funny lay back humor, one of the best reviews and comparisons I've read regarding this lens, but hey you are good at what you do! This is just as good as (well you know the other guy? hahaha) Keep them coming!
Matthew, I just found your channel. Very impressive. Thank you very much, I look forward to watching more.
Hey man, I normally don't comment on lens review videos, but yours was beautifully done. You're real honest about lens features, down to Earth, without hype. Also honest about (not) making money with videos like these. And oh, has super calm sexy voice. I said that as a straight male, I bet the ladies would say few more words too. xD Anyway, thanks and good luck!
Thanks! Glad you found it helpful :-) I'll be publishing a new video about the Tamron 35-150 f/2 - 2.8 in a couple of weeks, if you're interested.
Thanks so much ! Btw ad you in Seattle I live close by it fun fun to learn more from you if u ever need help with anything . I started a wedding photography company and you saved me some money I'm going to go with the 1.4 for now
After shooting for a few years.. I find primes hands-down leagues better than any zoom (except for maybe the 70mm to 200mm zoom). The larger apertures are wonderful on primes, and they are much sharper.
- Speaking of primes.... I don't own a 50mm. Currently, it's the 28mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.8. IMO, the 50mm is an OK lens... and good for certain circumstances... like street photography (street-level, not architecture) and maybe for portraits. It's a kind of bread-and-butter focal length... and has been around for decades. So maybe then it's a little humdrum.
if you are into a test chart photography, f1.2 is not your best choice
What good is a wide-ass lens (f/1.2) if the depth of field is so shallow that missing focus is a consistent issue?
Shot in dayligt (with 5dsr) the 1.2 gives a much better result regarding colors. At least in my experiance.
I have the 50 1.4, It is a very nice lens. Buy one used for a song, you cant go wrong ;-)
Great video with many details about these lenses.
I've never had cutted bokeh highlights with die 50L wide open at night. This phenomenon has to be very unusual under normal conditions. It's possible that there was a wire or a branch in the way of the light source? It's also not shown on your other example pictures. Cutted bokeh highlight are a thing with the old rare 50mm f/1.0 caused by the chip fixed on the rear element.
I had clipped bokeh consistently, in hundreds of photos, in different locations... but it was usually only apparent at night. When I get back to my computer tomorrow, I'll try to remember to post some additional examples for you.
So basically keep my 1.4.... got it lol
It isn’t significant.. but someone who has a really strong color eye it’s easy to tell to the difference.
I'm interested in 50mm f1.2.Does 50mm f1.2 have AF inaccuracy, like back focusing problem?And the image quality of 50mm f1.4 is better than 50mm f1.8 stm? You know 50mm 1.4 is too old lense.
Cant Wait for your upcoming video vs sigma...i hope you plan a video on the 85mm focal length also would love to see your comparison of the 85 1.2L vs 135 f2L
Wishing you Best of Luck
Canon is sexy, but If You have a money go with sony a9 and gmaster lenses...
It seems like the difference isn't very significant. but 1.2 is 3x the price!
Agreed, though there is a significant difference under the right conditions. If you haven't already seen it, you might find my comparison of the Sigma 50mm ART interesting, too.
Matthew. One very mellow video,Good info.
Thanks for this review :) I'm looking for a new lens, and it's so hard to decide.
Luck has nothing to do with getting good sharpness at wide open on both of these lenses.
I`d say it`s impossible because they both are very blurry wide open, even in the center.
They get sharp at 4.0 but that defeats the purpose of both.
I am a big fan. My first support of this kind goes to you. Thank you.
***** If you're watching this video on a computer, any time that you mouse over the video there's an "i" in the upper right corner that you can click on, and that will display the support link :) On a mobile device, you just need to tap the video, and you'll see a menu at the top of the video with a circled "i".
Or, if you watch to the end of the video, there should be a message that pops up in the video. Hope that helps. So far, nobody seems to have found it... :)
***** How strange... thanks for letting me know!
The next best thing to do is go to my Channel page, czcams.com/users/JMatthewGore and at the top of the right sidebar, there's a "Support this channel" link. There doesn't seem to be a link I can copy from it.
***** Ahhhh.... it occurs to me that this feature is only available in the USA, Australia, Japan and Mexico. So if you were in Europe, for example, they wouldn't show up. So... don't worry about it! You're awesome for even trying, thanks a ton!
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME..... I APPRECIATE YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF LENSES.. IT HELPED ME UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE BETTER....... sorry I always use cap Locks.. I like to see what I am writing.........loll
Thanks for another great review. Really appreciate the time you invest, the information you provide, and the consistency of the real-world shooting example images. I have viewed nearly all of your product videos and because they are so great, just donated via your support link. I hope that everyone who takes the time to watch and enjoys the benefit of the knowledge you impart will do the same!
Thank you for your investigation, nice work
Nice Review at always in Light and Matter. Great Job.
Now, the Canon 50mm set needs to be replace soon. Both lenses are outdated and packed with numerous flaws. I used both of them, find out trhey are soft in the IQ department, tons of cromatic aberrations and AF performance is really poor. I find the 50L is the worse Prime L of canon, and the 50 1.4 its actually worse than the chepo 50mm 1.8...
Just wait for the 50mm Update or go for the 1.8
I think i have some problem with my Canon 50mm lens. coz there's a point on people nose when i use it to take portraits photos. how can i fix it ? Thanks
today is the next one?
i will love see the 135mm 2.0 vs canon 70-200 ( i know they are different)
Melvin DLaCruz The next one should be published today ... I fell a bit behind over the weekend :) Thanks... I'll think about the 135 f/2
Even after micro AF adjustments my Canon 50 1.4 was terrible until f2.0 when it became useful. If the 1.2 is only better in the center wide open I am very very glad I did not go for the 1.2
Are you sure you didn't just get a bad copy?
KevTCC Yes, I'm confident that I got a good copy... this is also consistent with my experience with the lens over the past several years, and the MTF charts.
Regardless, most people buy the 1.2L for the bokeh rather than for resolution :) It does have nice bokeh, usually.
Matthew Gore Thanks. I sold my 1.4 when after a year of carrying it in my bag I realized I never use it and I could use the space... lol I've considered the Sigma but the focal range isn't one I work at very often at all. The 24-70 2.8L II is spectacular so while it might not be a 1.4 it produces great images.
It's interesting what is important to people. I like bokeh as well, but the subject needs to be sharp with lots of local contrast and detail in order for me to enjoy the softness of the out of focus areas.
I'd love to see a 85 1.8, verses the L test done like this. My 1.8 is so good I really haven't felt the need to get the L. I always joke with clients: Hey I'm about to use my cheapest lens, and your'e going to love it! :)
Thanks great video I'm looking forward to your next video as I'm debating between the sigma 50mm art and the 1.2L , I'm just disappointed the sigma is so heavy! it weighs same as my 24-70 2.8 ii
cyberchickgeek Thanks :) Yes, the Sigma is pretty bulky for a 50mm lens, which is too bad... but it feels soooo nice in the hand. I really like the feel of it, and that makes up for a lot... but that won't be the case for a lot of people, I can understand.
I think the weight is the only thing putting me off sigmas..when's your new video comparing them come out?? Before I buy the wrong one and regret it lol
cyberchickgeek It should be published this coming weekend... Monday at the latest (if I get busy over the weekend)
cyberchickgeek OK... I guess I was a bit optimistic about the weekend. Should be published this evening, though!
awesome review!
50mm f/1.4L IS USM would be nice for the price of 1.2 but has to be sharp corner to corner.
From what i've seen the f/1.4 is very slow to focus. I think dititalrev did a review of all three and the 1.8 beat the other two on several occasions.
c0pyimitati0n I haven't ever had a problem with the focus speed on the 50mm f/1.4. It wouldn't surprise me if the f/1.8 were slightly faster than the 1.4, since they've always seemed about the same to me, but I'd think that the difference is pretty inconsequential. The 1.2 is significantly slower than either of the others. Just to be sure, I'm checking the 1.8 and 1.4 now...
Matthew Gore I have the new 50mm stm on pre order. You can't beat the quality you get from that lens for the price.
Matthew Gore OK. I took three measurements on each lens, from minimum focal distance to infinity. The 50mm f/1.8 averaged .237 seconds, and the f/1.4 averaged .246 seconds, so the difference over the entire focus range is only about 1/100th sec, and the slowest recorded speed for the 1.8 was .247 sec, while the fastest recorded speed for the 1.4 was .232. So, not very significant. It will be interesting to see how the new STM compares.
***** who wouldn't? For about $100, it's a crazy good piece of glass.
Great review!!!
The best resolution of any lens is between 5.8 to 8 F-stop why not do a proper test with a proper subject at best resolution?
The sigma autofocus is hit or miss. Dealbreaker for me. Canon glass only
Wow!!Great video!!!
Thanks for this great review. Very informative.
Sigma is a nice lens, but to be honest 50 1.2 is the most sexy looking glass i ever seen. Im currently nikon fx user, but I allways loved 50 1.2. Same with 85 1.2. Great looking and amazing lenses, but to be honest they are too expensive. AF is slow, overal sharpens nowdays are not tier 1 anymore. I currently using few sigmas art and You need dock for them and of coure If You have a chance shoots few of them in the store and chose the best (if You can). Sry for potaot english. ANd i hate sigma coating its easy to skreatch.
2:24 Where???????
The screen-area link doesn't work in CZcams anymore, but you can still download them from the review on my website, about halfway down the page: www.lightandmatter.org/2015/equipment-reviews/lens-comparison-canon-50mm-f1-4-vs-canon-50mm-f1-2l/
Very great! Thank You.
Sigma's Art Series Prime lens and Tamron's Zoom f/2.8 Lens are all great with good price for poor man like me
I think comparing an optically sound lens to an art lens is wrong and deprives people who could have owned a 1.2 lens. It is worth the price difference, the weight, the everything. BTW. The 50mm 2.5 Macro is much better than the oversold 1.4.
Why is the 2.5 macro better? Just curious
Who the fuck would buy the 50 1.2 to shoot landscapes bro?
Best review
Thanx mate
wow but that's way too expensive
Thanks!
Matt, I've had my 1.4 canon lens in the bag 90% of the time. After watching your 1.2 vs 1.4 video, it's about to be used WAY more. I only have 2 lenses for my 5D mark iii and am looking to expand. Am a total amateur whose camera is too big for his abilities :) But love this stuff. Would you recommend a 3rd lens? Thanks for your vids, going through a lot of them!
+Dan Gros Hey Dan, Thank you!
What lenses do you have now? The 50 1.4.... and another one. I can tell you that my favorite range is the 70-200 f/2.8, but that's a matter of personal taste. You'll see my comparison of the Tamron and Canon versions of those lenses, if you haven't already, and they're both excellent.
+Matthew Gore was looking at that just now. I have the 24-104L. It was my first lens at the time so wanted a well rounded one. Kind of disappointed at it's inability to mask my ignorance with perfect images in every shot :)
sounds like the Tamron would make sense to me due to cost and closeness of quality. How's the bokeh on it?
+Dan Gros I'm not really a bokeh aficionado, so I'm not sure I can really tell you anything helpful. It looks great to me, but then, just about any bokeh from a 200mm lens looks nice and smooth.
solid video thank you
anyway I can do a Zeiss 1.4 vs canon 1.2l
which lens would you recommended for video recording
Hi Joe,
Unfortunately, I don't really shoot video, so I can't give you an answer from experience. However, if you're shooting video... 1080p is about 2 megapixels of resolution, so sharpness isn't as critical, especially in the corners. If you're using auto-focus, the f/1.2 is going to be a little more finicky, but it will give you a bit more light. Neither one of these lenses is great for manual focus... I'd rather use something like a Zeiss or Samyang that is intended for manual focus. Sorry I can't be of more help.
As night shooter, this is a dreams. Nightclub life, Night street photography, and venue concerts.
The sigma 50 mm f1.4 art is a lot better.
Who cares? All these factors in the end don’t determine what makes a “good picture”. No one in the real world is examining photos and judging them based on these details. Only CZcamsrs making videos like these to make content and drive views and affiliate links care.
If ur never ever heard about photography or lenses in your lifespan, u would definitely chose 1.4 because it's higest...in number 😂
Yes Mr. White! Science!
congrats men
Nothing annoys me more than someone continually repeating themselves and this guy has perfected it.
do you measure/evaluate your girlfriend's face also with a ruler?
best video!
You don't buy a 50mm 1.2 for photographing trees and buildings, no surprise that the output isn't great
The trees and buildings are simply substitutes for resolution charts, and they do their job. And if you shoot them with any of Canon's new f/1.2 RF lenses, they're remarkably sharp.
@@MatthewGore I agree with you but for me the ef 50mm 1.2 was made purposely "soft" wide open, a tack sharp lens on the skin can reveal all the imperfections of the skin, sometime on portrait a softer image can look more pleasing
@@redis8298 True. My purpose here isn't to promote one lens or the other, just to show people what they're getting.
@@thewetpen alright, if a lens is made for portraits I expect to see some portraits, we all know that this lens is not that sharp, but this is not the point, because it can create some unique photos.
@@redis8298 Maybe we all know that the 50 1.2 is not that sharp now, but seven years ago when this video was made, it wasn't such common knowledge. And the reason that I focus on fine detail and resolution in videos like this is that you can see the overall effect of a lens in any of the 50 1.2 photos that are on any of the photo sharing sites, or on Canon's product website for that matter, but you can't see the fine details in web-sized images or videos. And they do matter to some people. And I have included more portraits in my more recent videos, and the other 50mm 1.2 lens that I published around the same time as this one.
Are you in Washington state???
Yep. Seattle area.
@@MatthewGore nice... I live in Auburn. 20mins south of seattle...
@@3obardThawn3 I just drove by there today on my way home from Mt. Rainier / Paradise, I came up HWY 167. Pretty day to be out there.
sigma master race
1.2 is a creamy, bokelicious lens.
50mm 1.2 for the win!
1.4 is sharper...save your money
Haha all there is to take away from this comparison is the Sigma is better lol
(Y)
1.4 :-)