jimcon11
Member
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 🙂
(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 🙂