Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras $1299.00 ($1273 w/2% credit) fs @ amazon

What's the point of this lens if you don't have a full-frame camera?

Quote from Cookie21 : have 1.4 and use it wide open most of the time / 1.4 isn't an "L" lens (difference is about the same as between KIA and BMW) - well - 1.4 is better than KIA / the other aspect is that this lens 'll most likely appreciate - ! - 1.4 most likely 'll not! and 1,000,000 more reasons why it cost more!

Using your analogy, I'd probably say that the f/1.4 would be a certified pre-owned Honda with all the bells and whistles (Touring Edition), where as the f/1.2 would be a new entry level model Acura. Yes the Acura is more expensive, and has slightly better performance in regards to horsepower, but is lacking in certain amenities like a built in GPS or a video player for the kids to watch tv, or even trunk space. I'm going a little too literal with the analogy.

Quote from Luxowell : It has a red ring. That makes you cooler and a better photographer! KIDDING! I've used both the 1.4 and the 1.2 (although the 1.2 not nearly as many times) and I do think the 1.2 is better. Is it $1000 better? To my eye, nope. Its also surprisingly massive and heavy next to the 1.4.

I have L series lenses... and I really do like the white bodies and the red rings. But I'm shallow. I will say when I had the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM, it kinda felt like I was driving a Hummer and the assumption was that I was compensating for something... which I take offense to.

I do love my my L lenses though... I seriously could not go back to shooting variable aperture non-L's.

like JD,
i'd probably go for the 1.4 especially if it was on sale for just below $300...

Quote from LSUluey33 : The build quality between the 1.4 and the 1.2L is night and day. The 1.4 af motor went out in a matter of months, repaired by canon, and went out again. Now I have the 1.2 and no issues as you should expect when spending that much for a 50.

I know... but what I have read is that is an issues with physical damage. When the lens is focused away from infinity and then takes a bop which moves the entire AF motor out of alignment. I've had my 50mm f/1.4 for about a year and I have kept a hood on it the entire time and I haven't had any issues, though I do realize that is anecdotal evidence.

Quote from jeepingsurfing : Just use 1.8 its worth the budget and spend other money on guns and ammos for craziness that is going to happen in 2013

I just throw knives. They can be recycled, have great accuracy (in the right hands), are super quiet, and you don't have to get a permit.

Quote from MOkoFOko : You'd think that was the case. I've had to have two canon 50 1.4s repaired for similar issues, after minimal use.

I'd buy practically every other Canon lens refurbished or used... but not the 50 f/1.4 for that reason. But I babied the new one I have... so I really don't have any concerns.

Quote from expansionist : What's the point of this lens if you don't have a full-frame camera?

You basically shoot it as if it were an 85mm on a full frame. It's a touch long for indoor close quarter shots... but 50's can be excellent. My 50mm f/1.8 was my lens of choice over and above the 18-55mm I originally had.

"L" clearly outperform non "L" lenses / question is ?! how much that extra : performance, built, color, boke (or bokeh), value (or appreciation), etc. worth to you!?

Quote from jdramirez : I'd buy practically every other Canon lens refurbished or used... but not the 50 f/1.4 for that reason. But I babied the new one I have... so I really don't have any concerns.

Some lenses definitely are just more prone to failure--almost always the same problems. Another good example is the 17-55 IS--some users have had to get their IS motors replaced multiple times on the same unit--fortunately less people are reporting the issue in the last 2-3 years. And then there's the 100-400L--a great lens if you're careful and have a recent copy--but I've seen some people complain about needing calibration every 6-12 months for those older lenses.

Quote from airshaq20 : How can a 50mm 1.4 beat the L at 1.2 if it cannot shoot at 1.2?

i was thinking the same thing...

Quote from jdramirez : You basically shoot it as if it were an 85mm on a full frame. It's a touch long for indoor close quarter shots... but 50's can be excellent. My 50mm f/1.8 was my lens of choice over and above the 18-55mm I originally had.

Sounds like a tremendous waste of money and that you'd be better off just going with a 5D.

Why do people bother buying these for their Rebels and such?

Quote from expansionist : Sounds like a tremendous waste of money and that you'd be better off just going with a 5D. Why do people bother buying these for their Rebels and such?

Perhaps they don't have the money for a FF camera and the lens? They can always upgrade bodies later.

Quote from Mattsgarage : Seems like every canon lens has went on sale except the 17-40. I'm looking for that at the moment. I just recently bought the Sigma 50mm, I'm a fan of it. Very nice lens for the money.

no deal on the 100-400 L yet either

Quote from expansionist : Sounds like a tremendous waste of money and that you'd be better off just going with a 5D. Why do people bother buying these for their Rebels and such?

It's better to invest in lenses than camera bodies.

I've found that 50 is a great focal length for some portraits on a crop body.