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

Quote from sjsd : I happily use my L lens with a T2i. Sold my 5Dmk2 long back. People have long argued about FF being better than APS-C and looking down on APS-C. Is it really better? Maybe. I think of it is as trade-off. By the same logic, anyone shooting FF is stupid when MF and LF exist. End of the day, what matters is what you produce and whether you like it or not.

Hey, we are sensor twins. I have a 60D and you will get very similar images than I do. I think the biggest difference between ff and crop sensors is the cleanness of the high iso shots. Because the individual pixels are spread apart (so I read), their is less noise and the images are cleaner at higher iso's. Which really can come in handy depending upon the circumstances of the shoot.

Btw, B&H has it for $1299 too after the 2% discount and no tax unlike Amazon for CA residents. The B&H deal is better for places where Amazon charges a state tax.

Quote from jdramirez : Per DPreview... both have 8 blades for the aperture, but the f/1.2 is circular so the bokeh is better (and I realize there is no way to quantify that, but I'm willing to concede this point). Both have 8 elements (or 8 pieces of glass that make up the lens, so no... not just one solid piece. AF motor for the f/1.2 is 1000% better because it is less prone to failure. I'm not trying to disparage the f/1.2... but it seems as though people are trying to assert there are differences between the lenses that don't actually exist.

different ways of making an element - ! - it would be a very long response - - in short : the most expensive and intensive is where the element is made of solid piece of glass - the less intensive way is to make a "puck" and attach a desired curvature in form of glass or plastic - all of the above finds its markets! price difference is majorly in glass and calibration!

Quote from Falqon : 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/lenses/50mm-f14.htm

Your opinion about photography is just down the drain. Whoever quotes that guy knows nothing. Obviously, you never had a L lens before. 50mm is portrait lens, not for astrophotography and certainly not for sports. Do me a favor and educate yourself about photography and stop quoting me if you never owned any good lens.

Quote from jdramirez : I think that is the crux of my issue. If the f/1.2 is soft when it is wide open, and the f/1.4 is actually sharper per the test from lensrentals (and yes they are not the end all be all of assessing the two lenses but no one has contradicted their claims either) at f/1.4, then where is the difference that makes the f/1.2 worth 4x the price. Bokeh yes... color saturation before running it through lightroom, ok, and build quality, definitely. But is that worth the 4x price. Obviously for some it is... I've spend over 10,000 dollars in lenses and I've sold over 10,000 in lenses... (keeping what I like and selling what I didn't care for). So I'm not saying that there is an appreciable value that comes from using a good lens... but rather... is there enough of an appreciable value for the f/1.2 over the f/1.4 to justify the price difference.

Yep, some lens are usable (just usable) at the widest. My 135mm f2 produces satisfactory results at f2. I imagine with a wide aperture like f1.2, it must be hard to produce anything usable with the amount of diffraction to control.

And yes, a 50mm f1.2 might be worth $1300 to some. People do spend more on those Zeiss MF lens or Leica. I don't shoot 50mm FL much so the f1.8 is good enough for whenever I do need a 50mm. Sure, it is plastic and no USM but I find it plenty quick to focus on my T2i and durable for my purposes.

Quote from jdramirez : Hey, we are sensor twins. I have a 60D and you will get very similar images than I do. I think the biggest difference between ff and crop sensors is the cleanness of the high iso shots. Because the individual pixels are spread apart (so I read), their is less noise and the images are cleaner at higher iso's. Which really can come in handy depending upon the circumstances of the shoot.

I hear ya but left my 5Dmk2 two years ago and haven't missed it much since. The lighter T2i is a good trade-off for me. I might upgrade to a 5Dmk3 since it has faster fps - something I might need when my little one starts to crawl and run about. But the whole weight thing turns me off. Maybe I will keep a lighter body for "mobile" use and a FF for home use

At about the T2i, 60D or 7D point, I think Canon dSLRs got to a point where I find it hard to justify an upgrade. The sensor is these bodies is more than what my skill level can handle

Quote from airshaq20 : Your opinion about photography is just down the drain. Whoever quotes that guy knows nothing. Obviously, you never had a L lens before. 50mm is portrait lens, not for astrophotography and certainly not for sports. Do me a favor and educate yourself about photography and stop quoting me if you never owned any good lens.

Hmm ... interesting A 50mm for astrophotography When I dabbled in astrophotography, the gold standard was a CCD webcam tethered to a telescope to use the scope as the lens. I could probably shoot a full moon or a sunrise/sunset with a 50mm. Bet that counts as astrophotography

FWIW, here's a reviewer I respect:
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/1...ew?start=2

"The Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 USM L is a specialty lens for those requiring the maximum in depth-of-field capabilities. At large apertures the lens produces the beautiful, buttery bokeh which can be expected from such a lens. Technically the resolution results are very good to excellent but not really superior to its cheaper cousin - the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. The center performance is generally stellar but the borders can´t quite follow although they remain easily in very good territory beyond f/1.2. The vignetting is quite high at maximum aperture and CAs are unusually pronounced for a fix-focal. The build quality of the lens is exceptional and the AF speed is very fast for such a lens. "

Quote from sjsd : Hmm ... interesting A 50mm for astrophotography When I dabbled in astrophotography, the gold standard was a CCD webcam tethered to a telescope to use the scope as the lens. I could probably shoot a full moon or a sunrise/sunset with a 50mm. Bet that counts as astrophotography

Not sure why you would compare a telescope vs this to take a shot of the moon. Yes, you can take a shot of a full moon with ANY camera and call it whatever you want. Maybe your definition of a picture is different. What you call an art can be a called a snapshot to others.

I doubt if you can get a full frame shot of the moon with a 50mm WITHOUT cropping on a dSLR.

Quote from airshaq20 : Not sure why you would compare a telescope vs this to take a shot of the moon. Yes, you can take a shot of a full moon with ANY camera and call it whatever you want. Maybe your definition of a picture is different. What you call an art can be a called a snapshot to others. I doubt if you can get a full frame shot of the moon with a 50mm WITHOUT cropping on a dSLR.

a portrait of the luna

Quote from sjsd : I happily use my L lens with a T2i. Sold my 5Dmk2 long back. People have long argued about FF being better than APS-C and looking down on APS-C. Is it really better? Maybe. I think of it is as trade-off. By the same logic, anyone shooting FF is stupid when MF and LF exist. End of the day, what matters is what you produce and whether you like it or not.

You're preaching to the choir here. I'm M43 with a 20mm f/1.7 (before 2x crop).

Quote from airshaq20 : Not sure why you would compare a telescope vs this to take a shot of the moon. Yes, you can take a shot of a full moon with ANY camera and call it whatever you want. Maybe your definition of a picture is different. What you call an art can be a called a snapshot to others. I doubt if you can get a full frame shot of the moon with a 50mm WITHOUT cropping on a dSLR.

Sorry, I got my replies mixed up. I was replying to a post by someone who posted that Mr. Rockwell thinks 50mm f1.2 is suited for astrophotography. So I was trying to imagine ways of using a 50mm (irrespective of aperture size) for astrophotography

Quote from Bleufire : Yeah, i do have to say his viewpoints are definitely worthy when it comes to "Just go out and shoot" but alot his talk about the technicalities of a camera or what not are absurd and so it is hard to give him credit in one area and not another. I did also enjoy reading his article about how he affords his gear.

Yes some of his lens "reviews" are just specs, but that's perfectly fine since I believe the best way to check out a lens is to wait for an SD, get it at a discount, shoot the crap out of it, then flip it for a profit

Quote from woodygg : you need to work out if the 1.4 is 'breaking your back'...

It makes a huge difference when you walk around all day. I walked around Quebec City the entire day (and Montreal for a few days straight) a few months back and my shoulders are sore towards the end of the day carrying just an XSI, 28-105mm f3.5-4.5, and a 50mm f1.8. Imagine if you're a journalist and you'd also haul around a flash, laptop, chargers, etc. then every ounce counts.

Quote from sjsd : Ken Rockwell? You subscribe to the famous photogear troll? The guy who posts reviews without ever touching the gear? LOL!

I mentioned above that some of his reviews are just specs, but he also has some useful reviews of lenses (which others simply brush off as crap), like this 28-200mm review:

http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-200mm.htm

I find that he makes some good points, while also disagree with some others. One shouldn't take everything that's told as absolute truth anyway (especially what you read on photo forums!).

Quote from sjsd : FWIW, here's a reviewer I respect: http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/1...ew?start=2 "The Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 USM L is a specialty lens for those requiring the maximum in depth-of-field capabilities. At large apertures the lens produces the beautiful, buttery bokeh which can be expected from such a lens. Technically the resolution results are very good to excellent but not really superior to its cheaper cousin - the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. The center performance is generally stellar but the borders can´t quite follow although they remain easily in very good territory beyond f/1.2. The vignetting is quite high at maximum aperture and CAs are unusually pronounced for a fix-focal. The build quality of the lens is exceptional and the AF speed is very fast for such a lens. "

In a nutshell, the review says:
1. It has a large aperture with 8 blades, resulting in round bokeh. (that's common sense)
2. The f1.4, which also has an aperture with 8 blades, is also pretty good (info straight from Canon)
3. Edges are not as sharp as the center and CA appears at extremely high aperture (naturally for most lenses)
4. Fast focusing (true to all lenses with ring USM) and nice build quality (duh, it weighs more than 4x 50mm f1.8 II)

Personally I didn't learn anything new from the review. Have you ever seen a $1500 lens that's inferior in every category than a $400 lens or a $100 lens?

Quote from airshaq20 : 50mm is portrait lens, not for astrophotography and certainly not for sports

Someone's sarcasm meter is broken. And why is 50mm a portrait lens? You can use it to shoot mountains, and surely for sports, or whatever you like if you're at the right focal length.

Quote from sniperruff : Yes some of his lens "reviews" are just specs, but that's perfectly fine since I believe the best way to check out a lens is to wait for an SD, get it at a discount, shoot the crap out of it, then flip it for a profit It makes a huge difference when you walk around all day. I walked around Quebec City the entire day (and Montreal for a few days straight) a few months back and my shoulders are sore towards the end of the day carrying just an XSI, 28-105mm f3.5-4.5, and a 50mm f1.8. Imagine if you're a journalist and you'd also haul around a flash, laptop, chargers, etc. then every ounce counts.

Hey... I like doing that too. The first lens I ever bought arrived months before I ever got a camera body. But I sold those which then allowed me to afford a Canon body and I have since spent $22870 on gear... buying and selling mostly. It's a crazy hobby.

As for walking around all day... It helps if you balance your load. I like backpacks because the camera and lens pull you one direction, but you can balance the load pulling the other direction. I had a 70-200mm f/2.8L USM and that was heavy... but for three hours at a time, it didn't bother me at all.