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

Quote from woodygg : i was thinking the same thing...

Quote from airshaq20 : Having owned at least 35 L lenses since I started photography back in 2006 (peaked at 14 L lenses at one time, currently own 9 right now), I could never go back to a non-L lens. Call me a L snob but there is something magical about L lenses. I currently have 3 L lenses that cover the 200mm range (70-200 2.8IS, 200 2.8 and 200 2.0) and they all serve specific purpose. How can a 50mm 1.4 beat the L at 1.2 if it cannot shoot at 1.2?

Isn't that like saying, "I married the hermaphrodite for the flexibility of going gay... ya know when I need to."?

If that's your thing (shooting at f/1.2 that is), then go nuts... but I am just naive enough to think that most people who have the f/1.2 aren't always shooting at f/1.2.

And really the hermaphrodite joke has very little to do with this conversation... I just amused myself.

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?

Are you talking 5D classic, mkii, mkiii? Regardless, bodies depreciate like crazy and while ff does contribute to an image, it doesn't do more than the lens. Your comment is as helpful as saying, "If people don't have a good tripod, then they shouldn't even bother."

Quote from jdramirez : Are you talking 5D classic, mkii, mkiii? Regardless, bodies depreciate like crazy and while ff does contribute to an image, it doesn't do more than the lens. Your comment is as helpful as saying, "If people don't have a good tripod, then they shouldn't even bother."

No, you're misunderstanding me.

I'm saying that if DX is someone's endgame (i.e. if someone will never in actuality purchase a full-frame camera and will keep at DX bodies) then this particular lens is a stupid buy over a lesser 50mm. The f/1.2 is the selling point here (over the other 50s) and a 1.6x crop factor annihilates that added value.

Quote from jdramirez : If that's your thing (shooting at f/1.2 that is), then go nuts... but I am just naive enough to think that most people who have the f/1.2 aren't always shooting at f/1.2.

I have used the 50/1.4, 50/1.8 II and 50/1.2 and the 1.4 developed issues with the focusing mechanism. There's no comparison in terms of build quality and for someone who goes on a trip of a lifetime (for example) that would matter. It matters to me too because I find comfort in knowing the 1.2 is unlikely to break down.

Also, sharpness is not the only aspect to look at when comparing lenses (at the same focal length and at the same aperture). The 1.2 has better contrast and color than the 1.4.

I got my first L (the 70-200/2.8) in 1996 and it's still going strong...

- zichi

If you have money or reason to buy F1.2, you should get it.

If not, then F1.4 is better choice for you.

Easy logic.

Quote from zichi : I have used the 50/1.4, 50/1.8 II and 50/1.2 and the 1.4 developed issues with the focusing mechanism. There's no comparison in terms of build quality and for someone who goes on a trip of a lifetime (for example) that would matter. It matters to me too because I find comfort in knowing the 1.2 is unlikely to break down. Also, sharpness is not the only aspect to look at when comparing lenses (at the same focal length and at the same aperture). The 1.2 has better contrast and color than the 1.4. I got my first L (the 70-200/2.8) in 1996 and it's still going strong... - zichi

I didn't notice a difference when I looked at the examples... but it was over HD video and that obviously can be misleading. I'll take your word for it. And while I have 2300 in cash burning a hole in a SLR pockets, I'm confident I will be going with a 70-200mm f/4L IS or f/2.8L IS mkii, a 135mm f/2, and eventually a 5d mkiii before I even mull over upgrading the 50mm f/1.4.

Quote from expansionist : No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that if DX is someone's endgame (i.e. if someone will never in actuality purchase a full-frame camera and will keep at DX bodies) then this particular lens is a stupid buy over a lesser 50mm. The f/1.2 is the selling point here (over the other 50s) and a 1.6x crop factor annihilates that added value.

Your really confusing me? Why wouldn't someone be able to open the aperture from f/1.4 to f/1.2 just because they are using a crop sensor body?

is this worth buying if you already have a 85mm 1.2 ? got a 5dm2

Quote from darkkookie : is this worth buying if you already have a 85mm 1.2 ? got a 5dm2

If you want a 50mm it is.

Quote from jdramirez : I'm always curious why people want this lens. The f/1.4 beats it in sharpness and are there really that many people shooting at f/1.2? I'm sure there are... but still it just doesn't seem to be the best use of funds. http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout

You know what's funny? Everyone says the same thing about the 1.4 vs. the 1.8, so by the transitive property, I suppose we should get the 1.8 over the 1.2. At least the wallet agrees.

Quote from jdramirez : Your really confusing me? Why wouldn't someone be able to open the aperture from f/1.4 to f/1.2 just because they are using a crop sensor body?

I think what he meant was that the 1.2 don't give as shallow DoF on crop compared to FF, or something. Not sure, I was bit confused too. It'll still be shallower compared to 1.4, regardless of the body.

Quote from biggiep : You know what's funny? Everyone says the same thing about the 1.4 vs. the 1.8, so by the transitive property, I suppose we should get the 1.8 over the 1.2. At least the wallet agrees.

Show me one person telling 1.4 vs 1.8 is about same.

For me:
-build quality
-USM
-sharpness
-2/3 stop extra light

All those for only ~$200 extra, big difference.

1.4 -> 1.2 is 1/3 stop, sharpness maybe better, build quality also, and $1000 extra bucks. Not sure if that's worth the upgrade, but 1.8 -> 1.4 is.

Quote from biggiep : You know what's funny? Everyone says the same thing about the 1.4 vs. the 1.8, so by the transitive property, I suppose we should get the 1.8 over the 1.2. At least the wallet agrees.

I see a difference in the bokeh. The fan blades of the aperture are a definite upgrade... though I think it is less noticeable between 1.2 and 1.4.

Quote from tpatana : Show me one person telling 1.4 vs 1.8 is about same. For me: -build quality -USM -sharpness -2/3 stop extra light All those for only ~$200 extra, big difference. 1.4 -> 1.2 is 1/3 stop, sharpness maybe better, build quality also, and $1000 extra bucks. Not sure if that's worth the upgrade, but 1.8 -> 1.4 is.

I think he was trying to pick a fight.

Quote from airshaq20 : Having owned at least 35 L lenses since I started photography back in 2006 (peaked at 14 L lenses at one time, currently own 9 right now), I could never go back to a non-L lens... How can a 50mm 1.4 beat the L at 1.2 if it cannot shoot at 1.2?

It's fine if you want to waste money, but to pretend other people should is moronic. Shooting at 1.2 is universally regarded as soft, pro's don't need it. Here is an actual opinion from someone who shoots for a living of the non L

"The $1,400 50mm f/1.2 L doesn't do anything much differently, is much bigger and heavier, and doesn't focus as consistently. The 50mm f/1.2 is for astronomers, not action shooters."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/...mm-f14.htm