50 1.2 vs. 50 1.4 quick test

[jimcon11]

So, I've been following the great debate about the Canon 50mm 1.2 lens around here and finally decided to pick one up and see if I would fall in love with it😀 or be bitterly disappointed:bang:. Last night I ran a little backyard test putting it head to head with the much revered 50 1.4. I have seen these lenses compared at f1.4, but the appeal of the 1.2 seems to be wide open, at least from an aesthetic standpoint, so I decided to try to replicate the same shot with both lenses wide open and see just how much that extra half-stop changes the rendering of the image.

(Top image is the 50/1.4, bottom is the 50/1.2. These are cropped somewhat to show a bit more detail)

#1

#2

#3

#4

The results? The 50 1.4 produced just the images I expected, as I have been using it for a couple years now: nice and sharp on the point of focus, good contrast, and a nice recession into very smooth out-of-focusness. In every case it seemed considerably sharper and delivered more contrast than the 50 1.2, but given the half-stop difference this is no surprise.

What did surprise me a little was that the 50 1.2 colors were cooler in all my shots. This was just cheap CVS film that I auto-colored and levelled in photoshop after scanning, and I really wasn't trying to reproduce the natural colors, but in every case the 1.2 images have a cooler, darker tone to them. Maybe this is just an issue with my scanning, not really sure 😕

I wasn't sure what to expect as far as out-of-focus rendering. I am not really into the 'bokeh' craze, but I definitely find myself wanting to produce a surreal, dream-like quality in some of my shots of people and places. I was attracted to the 50 1.2's considerable vignetting and hoped it might produce some large-format-ish pictorial effects in a much more portable package. Anyway, I feel like my experience so far has been pretty inconclusive. The blurred areas do seem to be a little more pronounced and 'wild', less smooth, and with larger and more pronounced out-of-focus highlights. But with so little depth of field, the point of focus doesn't stand out so sharply either, and the image feels a bit flat in comparison to 1.4.

Also, in the 4th photo there seems to be some 'flaring' in the middle for both lenses, but noticably worse on the 1.2. I am not really a lens hood kind of person so I am a little worried this might detract from my shots in the future🙁

I guess my conclusion is, while the 50 1.2 did not immediately win me over, there are a few hints here and there in the photos that intrigue me and make me want to keep using it for a while.
I will be the first to admit these are pretty awful pictures, but I do think they show a bit of the diverging character of these lenses when used wide open. Also, this was by no means an objective test, just one man's findings; I'd like to hear what you all think 🙂

 

[umcelinho]

Have you checked if the 1.2 is properly aligned? Maybe it's front or back focusing a bit, which would explain the softer point of focus. On the first photo some areas on the bouquet seem to be somewhat sharper, although not as sharp as the 1.4.

 

[alexnotalex]

I agree with your comments, the 1.4 wins for me. Strange coolness... is there a difference in the coating?

Are these Sonnar designs?

thanks for this post, very interesting.

 

[bennyng]

That's a useful comparison that folks can use for reference. Thanks for the contribution.

Cheers,

 

[jimcon11]

Have you checked if the 1.2 is properly aligned? Maybe it's front or back focusing a bit, which would explain the softer point of focus. On the first photo some areas on the bouquet seem to be somewhat sharper, although not as sharp as the 1.4.

No, that is definitely a good point I forgot to address. I am not sure whether it is soft due to minor front or back focusing, or if that is just the nature of the lens. I honestly don't know how to precisely check the focus on these lenses, and if it was off I certainly wouldn't know how to fix it😱.

I read in another thread that you can put a piece of clear-ish tape on the film plane and examine the image with a loupe after focusing on something... is that the right idea? (I'm using an M2 by the way)

 

[jimcon11]

I agree with your comments, the 1.4 wins for me. Strange coolness... is there a difference in the coating?

Are these Sonnar designs?

thanks for this post, very interesting.

I believe the coating is the same. They are planar designs. A sonnar vs. a planar would be another fun test🙂

 

[LeicaFoReVer]

If there is any haze or oil on the lens elements which is common, f1.2 may produce low contrast images...

 

[Sonnar Brian]

These resukts are consistent with my Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.2. The 50/1.4 tends to be "cool" for color, a skylight 1B filter is a good candidate for warming it up. The 50/1.2 is soft wide-open, sharper bt F2, very nice Bokeh.

 

[LeicaTom]

I had the f1.4, (one that backfocused) and I never bothered to get it fixed just sold it.....I don't really see the difference of it and my f1.2 stopped down to f1.4, it really has just as smooth and nice a Bokeh as the f1.4 had at f1.4 ~ I think the f1.2's Bokeh is dreamier than the f1.4s ~ JMO

I do find the colors a little cool with the f1.2 but nothing that I cannot fix in the PP (I shoot more B&W with my f1.2 than color, I leave the colors up to my Sonnar's and Summicron lenses).

This was a very kool test 😀 ~ Thanks

Tom

 

[jimcon11]

Thanks everyone for the comments. Here's another shot I took out in the woods that I am much more pleased with. Focus was on the bark near the top and seems spot on. There is a little flare in the middle of the frame but I don't think it affects the image too much.

When I did the test shots above, I only had one ltm adapter and I think my focus might have been off due to not screwing the lens in super tightly each time.

Although I didn't take this same shot with the 1.4, I have never seen that lens produce anything nearly as 'painterly' as this. So clearly I am looking forward to trying this lens on some real subject matter, and some b&w 😎

 

[MCTuomey]

great comparison! Wouldn't this be a really interesting three-way:

1. canon 50/1.5
2. canon 50/1.4
3. canon 50/1.2

Canon's fast 50s are breathtaking ...

 

[raid]

The test results are very useful, Jim.

I also say that these findings agree with mine in my repeated comparisons of 50mm lenses, but I would take a second look at the sharpness og the 50mm/1.2. The 50/1.4 does have a cool color rendering, but the 50/1.2 can be very sharp. DAG did magic on my 50/1.2, and it is now very sharp and glare resistant.

Compare your own findings to what I found with Roland:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Raids-50mm-Tests/The-Door/9196210_YBLFy#613819137_rBqHE

The more tests we have on RFF, the better. Your thread made me go back to my own test results.

 

[Mackinaw]

I own both of them and rarely use the 50/1.2 (which, a few years back, was my favorite 50mm lens). I like the superior image quality, wide-open, of the 50/1.4 as well as the the smaller size and weight.

Jim B.

 

[pagpow]

The bokeh, as well the focused plane, on the 50 1.4 looks more attractive to me. Thanks for doing this.