Personally, its not worth the extra 1K. While the 1.2 background is creamier, the 1.4 is plenty creamy itself and the fact that it misses focus less often and is quicker to focus is so important. I shoot portraits with people typically not used to posing and weddings with couples and families eager to get back to the festivities so having something I can rely on to get the focus and do it quick so that I can release my subjects is a big deal. Unless they're models, having to re-do poses or hold one for extra long because my camera didn't focus, can get annoying fast for everyday people
Definitely not worth the $1000 difference in my opinion. Clients would NEVER be able to notice such minute differences unless you were shooting for some huge commercial client. But I mean for portrait photography, family photos and weddings, I doubt the 1.2 would be worth it. Especially if the focus takes longer!!!
Definitely agree with this. I’ve heard a lot of people having issues with the focus on the 1.2 though and I don’t know if the hassle would be worth it.
I am so sorry for the audio when we are using the wireless mic! It didn't sound as bad when I watch the file on my computer but on CZcams it is worse :/
I have the 50mm 1.4, best lens ever IMO, definitely, 1.2 is overkill and definitely not worth the extra money at all, a ridiculous price for a lens thats not as good as the 1.4 . 1.4 is the perfect balance.
The light in the 1.2 is stunning. However I don't think it's worth it because the 1.4 does the job so closely. I do think 1.4 is worth it over 1.8 however because the subjects are soo much sharper.
The most noticeable difference is in exposure and contrast. Look at the skin tones of the 1.2 images - they are visibly brighter and more contrasty than those of the 1.4. (easier to see on the side-by-side images on your blog...) Did the image sensor receive the same exposure when using the 1.2 versus the 1.4? (did you shoot manual and alter the shutter speed or ISO to compensate for the greater aperture when using the 1.2?) The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2 is 0.44 stops Or did the 1.2 image get exposed more than the 1.4 images?
the micro contrast is superb on 1.2 that is where the life comes out of the subject while the 1.4 is more flat and lacks some of the natural contrast of the scene....that being said there is 1k difference but that difference can be easily removed with canon fd 50mm 1.2 which will beat the sh.t out of these two if you don't mind the manual focusing 🙃
Great point! The 1.8 is not to be taken lightly, and it does have a metal option for those who have been misinformed that it only comes in plastic. I challenge anyone to see a difference between my 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 photos.
You were missing focus because you selected a huge focus area on the bottom, and the background is way more contrasty for the camera than your model. The solution I found is just using one single focus point, or in case of not nailing it using the center point which is the most accurate and recomposing the shot. I also had the same problem! Nice video 🫶
I think you can definitely see a difference side by side edited or unedited. It is clearly better on 1.2 but the time to focus is such an Important factor. I take pictures of kids all the time and 1.4 is wonderful .
compared to my 3.5 lenses these are so much sharper so I think the best option would be 1.4 because it's much more affordable and the differences are so subtle although noticeable. But that is my opinion. If you have the money to go for the 1.2 go for it!
Was the focus issue with the 1.2 due to the extremely shallow depth of field with depth of field in the lower light? Hand held would be changing the focal plane in every direction due to the nature of hands. Could this be solved by using a single focus point? If so it should also improve focus time. Thank you for the interesting video.
@@JessicaWhitaker thank you for the reply! Seems strange that a single focus point would act that way. Only thing left to my mind: when was the last time the body was cleaned and serviced?
So 1.2 50mm Luxury USM is just making the low light image brighter. I mean I appreciate it and it does make a difference but come on... $1k that's absurb... well for casual photographer that is. But if you want the best of the best specially for job related photography, I guess spending the best equipment isnt that bad if you are making money out of it.
Man, I miss the film days - and I don't. My A1 with a 1.2 and the fast motor drive cost me $600 back then. I don't recall what the 1.2 cost me back then, but it was a few times what the 1.4 went for. I justified it for low light performance. I could shoot ambient where the 1.4 couldn't without blur. I came to love super low lightl long exposure architectural photography. Didn't even need a meter. Just bracket it at 60/90/120. If car headlights or something intruded, just put my hand in front of the lens until it passed. Hot some great.shputs of an old church in Oz. The stone walls were alive with a warm golden glow.
1.2 does look a little bit better. Worth the extra cost if you can afford it, but not a must have unless you can really perfect your shots to notice the higher quality in the 1.2.
It depends on the lenses ... what is sharper, focus faster... I got the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for the crop sensor, which means it is 45mm, and dam cheap for Nikon, second hand... Because it is a DSLR lens... The new price is $500, you still can buy this lens everywhere for DSLR, second hand $120... (460g) And so is it for all Nikon DSLR second-hand lenses ... the 16-80mm F2.8 -4 for $300 second-hand and new $1200...
1.2 vs 1.4 there’s not much difference, one of the reasons 1.4 is favorite aperture, it balances perfect between subject and bokeh. 1.4 vs 1.8 that’s a difference in many light stops comparison.
When you actually use both lenses and can realise very soon what’s different between them. Otherwise you never know the value of money. There are totally different outcome between those two lenses.
Personally, its not worth the extra 1K. While the 1.2 background is creamier, the 1.4 is plenty creamy itself and the fact that it misses focus less often and is quicker to focus is so important. I shoot portraits with people typically not used to posing and weddings with couples and families eager to get back to the festivities so having something I can rely on to get the focus and do it quick so that I can release my subjects is a big deal. Unless they're models, having to re-do poses or hold one for extra long because my camera didn't focus, can get annoying fast for everyday people
Definitely not worth the $1000 difference in my opinion. Clients would NEVER be able to notice such minute differences unless you were shooting for some huge commercial client. But I mean for portrait photography, family photos and weddings, I doubt the 1.2 would be worth it. Especially if the focus takes longer!!!
You can tell a difference when you put the photos side by side but for me the difference doesn’t warrant shelling out an extra 1k 😂
Definitely agree with this. I’ve heard a lot of people having issues with the focus on the 1.2 though and I don’t know if the hassle would be worth it.
I am so sorry for the audio when we are using the wireless mic! It didn't sound as bad when I watch the file on my computer but on CZcams it is worse :/
Take the mask off. You’re outside! 😊
@@brandonj8018 they never worked anyway 😂😂😂
@@rentedtux1883 exactly!
I have the 50mm 1.4, best lens ever IMO, definitely, 1.2 is overkill and definitely not worth the extra money at all, a ridiculous price for a lens thats not as good as the 1.4 . 1.4 is the perfect balance.
The light in the 1.2 is stunning. However I don't think it's worth it because the 1.4 does the job so closely. I do think 1.4 is worth it over 1.8 however because the subjects are soo much sharper.
The most noticeable difference is in exposure and contrast. Look at the skin tones of the 1.2 images - they are visibly brighter and more contrasty than those of the 1.4. (easier to see on the side-by-side images on your blog...)
Did the image sensor receive the same exposure when using the 1.2 versus the 1.4? (did you shoot manual and alter the shutter speed or ISO to compensate for the greater aperture when using the 1.2?) The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2 is 0.44 stops
Or did the 1.2 image get exposed more than the 1.4 images?
the micro contrast is superb on 1.2 that is where the life comes out of the subject while the 1.4 is more flat and lacks some of the natural contrast of the scene....that being said there is 1k difference but that difference can be easily removed with canon fd 50mm 1.2 which will beat the sh.t out of these two if you don't mind the manual focusing 🙃
NICE! Would be even more interesting if you had included the 50mm 1.8 for beginners and budget photographers....
Great point! The 1.8 is not to be taken lightly, and it does have a metal option for those who have been misinformed that it only comes in plastic. I challenge anyone to see a difference between my 50mm 1.4 and 1.8 photos.
1.4 is waaaay better focusing. Ive sold 3 1.2s in my career and wont go back! sigma is better or the 1.4!
You were missing focus because you selected a huge focus area on the bottom, and the background is way more contrasty for the camera than your model. The solution I found is just using one single focus point, or in case of not nailing it using the center point which is the most accurate and recomposing the shot. I also had the same problem!
Nice video 🫶
3:10 F1.2 and F1.4 is really hard to get focus using dslr. Just change to mirrorless and you will find magic starts to happen
Thank you for the video.... I like how you did the comparison photos.... before and after editing them. That helped a lot.
I can tell that the f/1.2 is more creamy and softer in the background than the f/1.4
Slightly
I think you can definitely see a difference side by side edited or unedited. It is clearly better on 1.2 but the time to focus is such an
Important factor. I take pictures of kids all the time and 1.4 is wonderful .
Informative video. Your model is absolutely stunning
compared to my 3.5 lenses these are so much sharper so I think the best option would be 1.4 because it's much more affordable and the differences are so subtle although noticeable. But that is my opinion. If you have the money to go for the 1.2 go for it!
Was the focus issue with the 1.2 due to the extremely shallow depth of field with depth of field in the lower light? Hand held would be changing the focal plane in every direction due to the nature of hands. Could this be solved by using a single focus point? If so it should also improve focus time.
Thank you for the interesting video.
That is what I thought at first too! But after this video I experienced it a few other times in different posing situations. Very strange!
@@JessicaWhitaker thank you for the reply! Seems strange that a single focus point would act that way. Only thing left to my mind: when was the last time the body was cleaned and serviced?
Exactly the video I was looking for, thank you Jessica! trying to compare my RF 50 1.8 to these
So 1.2 50mm Luxury USM is just making the low light image brighter. I mean I appreciate it and it does make a difference but come on... $1k that's absurb... well for casual photographer that is. But if you want the best of the best specially for job related photography, I guess spending the best equipment isnt that bad if you are making money out of it.
Man, I miss the film days - and I don't.
My A1 with a 1.2 and the fast motor drive cost me $600 back then.
I don't recall what the 1.2 cost me back then, but it was a few times what the 1.4 went for.
I justified it for low light performance.
I could shoot ambient where the 1.4 couldn't without blur.
I came to love super low lightl long exposure architectural photography.
Didn't even need a meter.
Just bracket it at 60/90/120.
If car headlights or something intruded, just put my hand in front of the lens until it passed.
Hot some great.shputs of an old church in Oz. The stone walls were alive with a warm golden glow.
A GREAT job, side by side, many conditions, Thank you. All photographers on youtube should do like you.
1.2 does look a little bit better. Worth the extra cost if you can afford it, but not a must have unless you can really perfect your shots to notice the higher quality in the 1.2.
It depends on the lenses ... what is sharper, focus faster... I got the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for the crop sensor, which means it is 45mm, and dam cheap for Nikon, second hand... Because it is a DSLR lens... The new price is $500, you still can buy this lens everywhere for DSLR, second hand $120... (460g) And so is it for all Nikon DSLR second-hand lenses ... the 16-80mm F2.8 -4 for $300 second-hand and new $1200...
Hello mam.....Can i pair this 50mm 1.4 lens with Canon 200D mark II
1.2 vs 1.4 there’s not much difference,
one of the reasons 1.4 is favorite aperture, it balances perfect between subject and bokeh. 1.4 vs 1.8 that’s a difference in many light stops comparison.
no lens hood?
I thing the 1.2 render the highlights much better!
You do this on Manual or Auto? I understood that on Manual right?
She's a pro of course it's on manual
U have not calibrated the camera to the 1.2
When you actually use both lenses and can realise very soon what’s different between them. Otherwise you never know the value of money. There are totally different outcome between those two lenses.
i think the 1.2 is more useful for low light than anything else.
應該是鏡頭內鏡片數目的關係。
If you have money just get f1.2 😄 Simple...
Good comparison but Oh dear lord you are outside take off the mask!
Jessica Please reach out to me about fixing your audio. I can make it sound 1,000 percent better, and I'm not exaggerating. : )
Good jod 🤛🏻
Thank you!
Joss
eh ada warga +62 hahah
Next: Sigma 50 Art! 😁