Got tax refounds and paycheck today so i could afford 50mm 1.2, but dunno if i should get it since it costs about 1000€ more than the 1.4 version. Theyr both about equally sharp, but 1.2 is sharper at lower f-numbers(under 2.8) what i will be using quite alot. It has slightly better contrast and meny(really meny) reported af problems that some of them can not be fixed and canon claims its some "special feature" and will not refund money if calibration wont help. Allso its weather sealed and thats a big deal for me and flare resitance is better on it that 1.4 version, not that big of a deal, but it will mean quite alot in some situations. Am i skilled enough to pay that much for a lens? I dont think so, but i will be some day and the lens aint going nowhere.

What do you guys think i should get? It will be my main lens and i got no idea whitch one to buy. Iv read quite alot of reviews about both and all say get 1.2 if you need those features and got the money, but its not much better(enough to notice the difference) in normal situations that the 1.4 version.

plx help i really dont know what i should do..

haha I guess you are having these doubts whether if you should cough up a lot of money for a pro lens or get a mediocre lens that cost 4 times less
but I think you've answered your own question, if you really think you are going to be a pro one day then you probably should get the L lens. I have seen your pics and I really like them and they all look pro to me. On the other hand you could get 50 f/1.4 and save the rest of the money for a full frame camera, EOS 1Ds Mk3

Heh, im not intrested of buying new camera in long time, i bought this so i dont have to get new in long time.

Im apllying to photography school next fall and im going to need to start saving money soon for it and i dont think i would have money in years to buy eny new lenses if i get to school, so 1.2 could get handy after the school, but i would manage with 1.4 allso..

why do you need the weather sealing of the L lenses so much? I know weather sealing is very nice,especially against dust but in this case the difference in price is just too much to justify. I will probably get a wide aperture lens after I've got a camera and 50 f/1.4 USM will be one of the lenses I kinda want but I just dont really like the focal length of that lens since I will get either 40D or 50D which got 1.6x fov crop which means 50mm would actually be 80mm
haha anyway I will probably make a topic when the time comes that I will have to choose between a few of the lenses I am interested in

It sounds like that you've almost made up your mind. Maybe you could also go to a local camera store and hold both of the lenses in your hand and take some test shots

Get the 1.2... Seriously. If you can even afford to think about it do it. You'll be getting a much stronger tool to play with and it will look that much better. Besides as you've stated the lens isn't going anywhere and your 50mm is going to be a workhorse for a very very long time. Put your money in the right place. Look at it as an investment.

well well... I have the 1.2 and had the 1.4.
I can say that image quality wise the 1.2 is sharper under f/2.8 and has nicer bokeh/colors.

I love my 50 1.2, I only have one because 50mm is my favorite focal length.
It's expensive and has issues (backfocus at closer distances since it has no floating rear element) but for me, the build quality and 1/3 extra stop are worth it.

Only get it if you really really love 50mm, otherwise for the same money you can get the 1.4 and something else, like the almighty 135L or 35L (these things are INSANE).

Actually if I start looking at it this way the 50 1.2 is not so worth it (2 awesome lens vs 1 awesome lens basically).

It's really up to you.

ok I hope mr Antichrist doesn't mind me ask a question in his thread here. Is the 50mm, any versions, wide enough for landscape and night photos on a 1.6x fov crop body? or is it only good for indoor portraits

This post was edited by Futurama on Dec 7 2008 04:43am

50mm is my favourite focal lenght for general use allso, for portraits i love 85mm. 35mm is bit too wide, allso if i pay so much for a lens i want it weather sealed, 135 bit too tight, basicly only focal lenght im in need now is the 50mm, so i wouldnt be buying other lens enyways, its basicly up to if i want to use the 1000€ for something useless stuff or for the 1.2.

How easilly the lens goes off focus at closer range and is it doing it only with 1.2 or allso with about 1.8-2-8? Allso im wondering if this is some problem showing on all copies all the time or some copies some times.



Its not wide enough for landscapes or some basic street photography. Indoor its only wide enough for head portraits.

The backfocus issue is a know design flaw, it's present in every copy.
You can see it at apertures from 1.4 to 2.8ish at close distances. It's present but it's not that bad.
I mostly shoot at 1.2 anyway.

I think every lens can be a landscape lens, just need the right landscape.

The 35L and the 135L are SUPERB (I still think the 135L was the best piece of glass I ever owned, on par with the 85L).

hmm so what are you going to use it for? since 1D mk3 got 1.3x fov crop so its equivalent to 65mm on your camera