As someone who has shot with all of the 50mm Canon lenses, I would rank them as 50 1.2, 1.8 STM, 1.8 II, and 1.4. I've had 2 copies of the 1.4 and was never content with the focus and quality of that lens. I've had 3 1.8 STMs and they all performed great. Primarily the only difference I noticed on the 50 1.2 was that it was a bit softer, more romantic, and an overall brighter lens; it was a touch sharper but not much. The 50 1.8 STM is hands down the most valuable 50mm. I sold my 1.2 and use the 1.8STM instead because its lighter, smaller and the difference is nominal. After thoughts; do I miss my 50 1.2? Yes, at times I miss it, its a very unique lens, and I often used it for Films rather than photography. In my experience I've never had a client notice the difference between the 50 1.2 and 1.8STM, they love each image just as much. The 50 1.8STM and 85 1.8 made my career.
I have the RF50 1.8 and the EF85 1.8 and love them. I worry bout dealing cause I shoot street mostly, but as far as what I get out of them, I love ‘em. So good.
The Nifty Fifty was the second lens I purchased after my 75-300 zoom to go on my first canon body. Loved it and it goes great on my M5 (with converter) for a walk around street photography lens.
Just a tip for whoever out there -- when using the 50mm, you want your shutter speed to be at least 1/100 sec (at least double the focal length) for sharp images. I noticed that there were several photos taken for comparison of "quality" and (as you can see if you look back), the photos taken with less than 1/60 shutter speed look very dull. If you'd like sharper (and higher quality) images, stick to the shutter speed vs. focal length rule of thumb.
OK I wished the model steps 2 steps back and you did the picture with 1.2 vs 1.8. I think there you can see the price difference. Your Scenario is very pleasent for the f1. 8.
I wish the model Didn't move betweem pictures soo we can have a real comparaison because now the 1900$ 1.2 Seem really out of the game 😂 but hey if you shoot 50mm on low light just pays the 1500$ différence, but hey since IT is a portrait lense nobody does
I have the Canon 1DX MK II and I’m getting this lens next. I had the R6 two of them and found a flaw in low light that would get you in trouble after a wedding shoot. So I got the 1DX MK II instead and I’m in live with my camera. It’s really good 👍
I have both the f/1.8 and the f/1.2. I love the f/1.2 for portrait and unique creative photos, if you have the cash for it you wont be disappointed- Ive been using my f/1.8 has solely a macro lens, with the EF25 II canon extension tube and min focus dist of only 0.35m/1.1ft for the lens you can get very close to your small subject to produce a very nice 1:1 ratio size at 50mm. The f/1.2 has min focus distance of 0.45m/1.5ft making it not as quite effective for macro. love the ACDC t-shirt by the way!
I've found that my 1.2 loses sharpness when wide open compared to my 1.4 (that I sold) - contacted Canon about this and after sending in test photos I was sent this reply, I quote, "Generally speaking, shooting with a lens "wide open" would not be recommended if your goal is to capture the sharpest image possible as the lens will be susceptible to aberration.. Each lens model has a "sweet spot" or ideal aperture. Once you have determined the sharpest aperture, I recommend using it going forward, to achieve the sharpest quality images that your lens is able to capture." This response was a bit disappointing to me because my incentive for buying the 1.2 was to get the super shallow DOF - I have heard some amazing things about the 85 1.2 though
Yes on kelbyone you learn so much from professionals. And that's basically standard knowledge for pro photographers, that they understand any lens bought, has to go up a couple stops to find "The Sweet spot".
Hi all - to a guy who shoots his EOS3 filmcamera - would it be noticeable to tell the difference on the classic 35mm photo? Or just get the STM for its good price and nice performance ?
There is no "MUDDYNESS" to it as you say. The characteristics of the 1.8 and 1.2 are different, that's the whole point to creating different lenses, each one offers the photographer different opportunities. This video was made to solely push the 1.2.
For any flight travels, I always choose 50mm f1.8 lens due to the light weight and small volume. f1.2 is kind of home town photo-shot lens coming from my car trunk. I think Mirrorless + 50mm f1.8 is kind of master piece for travel photo. When I took big & heavy lenses for travel, I immediately regretted on the wrong choice due to serious neck pain & shoulder pain. And I knew I had to endure that situation over 1 month. And carrying a large lens has always made big attention from people in developing countries. And I found it might be a stupid thing to do that puts me at risk for a number of reasons.
@@ffo5pokemon483 according to all the tests f1.4 is one of the worst performing lenses Canon ever released. So it desperately needs an update. If you wanna have next to perfection performance and save money, I'd suggest to look into Sigma ART line. I got 24 and 35, coz Canon equivalent is severely overpriced. No complaints.
Very well done. I like it that you took the trouble to demonstrate what you are saying. Your pictures also show the credible photographer that you are. It is shame that Canon does not have a good 50mm f1.4- this lens has autofocus and other issues.
For the shots at f/1.8 wondering how much of the difference in IQ was based on the fact that the f/1.2 lens was stopped down a bit to f/1.8 while the f/1.8 consumer grade lens was actually used at max aperture?
Very good video, thank you for the time and effort to publish this. This is very timely for me as I’m struggling with this very topic. As you said in the video, you are shooting in ideal circumstances. Can you do another video where the light isn’t as good, and you’re not using flash? Say indoors, or dusk/sunset photos? My question now is, how many pictures would the 1.2 save the day on, over the 1.8. (without going to post to do any photo mechanics). Thank you
The model has a beautiful brown caramel skin tone evident throughout the video. I couldn’t help but notice that in your final edit you ‘whitened’ her skin tone and got rid of much of her natural warm brown beautiful skin tone. Unfortunate because lightening her skin that much does not make her look better it just makes her look whiter.
Professional photographers secret : " You get what you pay for" If you have a cheaper 50 mm 1.8 or 1.4 , you can get similar results if you use a speedlight or strobe. But the pro lenses pretty much eliminate the need for external lighting if you have sufficient daylight. You'll only understand by using both. But the 50 mm 1.8 by Vanon is a good choice if you're limited on money- just learn to use a rotating speedlight $100 to 150) on a lightstand to get good results.
If anyone can Canon can,,,but it also helps if Vanessa can. I have the 1.4 never used it much perhaps I should now, seeing as your pictures always look amazing.
The most compelling statement is "the 1.2 looks a little better". The 1.2 is exceedingly expensive and unless you're a professional, the cost doesn't justify the expenditure. When you compare the cost of 1400.00 vs 125.00 there really isn't 1200+ worth of difference. Not to mention the 1.2 is much heavier to carry around. It's not a vacation lens ! Especially when the 1.8 and an extra 10 min in Lightroom or PS will do the job. You could purchase 3 1.8's on sale, and simply recycle when one stops working. In fairness, the 85mm f1.4L is a better choice for portrait work (on sale, of course!!)
Canon 50mm 1.2 very good lens ...Video tes only makes people confused...I suggest for canon 50mm 1.2 but my tips open f 2.8 ...very clarity sharp and good contrast than 50mm f 1.8
Loved this real world test Vanessa. The only (very minor) thing that I noticed, wasn't with either lens. It was just the distortion in the video on Julianna at the beginning. Thanks, as always!
I sometimes bring along 3 camera with me, just in case. I have shot with Nikon, Canon, Pentax. Panasonic, etc., full frame and crop frame, expensive lenses, and moderate priced lenses. I used to think buying a more expensive lens would make my photographs better or my models more beautiful. It is generally not the case, I would not bet if I could tell the difference between images from a Canon full frame and a Nikon crop frame camera, an expensive lens from a moderate or even cheap lens with a scratch on it. The model and the photographer are the two main and maybe only factors. I like how this photographer shoots, is is generally my style. The model is very good also. I do think if you are going to shoot with plants in the foreground that you should do it outside as it looks more natural.
Excellent images. Personally, viewing here on my iPad, I can't really see a difference , save or them being next to each other and you telling me which image is which. Seems both are very usable given the right light scene.
People Buy a 1900$ lens they need to justifie themselve😂 the real différence is going to be on low light ... As if highlight can't be correct but you dont need to get tour subject a big White Stamps on the head. IT make the pictures feel fake too but juste a opinions. But hey have you ever Seen a Brown Girl the forehead White 😂 maybe that the make-up too feel Strange to not seeing anyway détail on her face. Would Say that for is Price tag your way better with L lens
I got the canon 50mm F1.2L lens and I paid £490.00 for it second hand and is very good for fashion photography and portraits photography and video recordings
I have several 50mm lenses. They all have different characteristics and the size of the front element certainly seems to have an effect on the amount of detail captured in shadows and also what you describe as clarity. Personally the 50mm that sees the most use is the Sigma Art 1.4. for portraits. I would really love to see you do a slightly broader 50mm lens video that included the Sigma Art as well as the Canon 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 just to see how they all stack up. Tokina also has a 50mm f1.4 (Tamron doesn't have a 50mm for some reason) that looks like it may be pretty decent lens as well. There's also the Rokinon/Samyang stuff. I know Adorama sells them all and a proper 50mm shootout would be great to see. Just a suggestion but I think it would really be helpful to see what is the best, which is the best bang for the buck and which makes the most sense for those starting out..
This video was very informative. Thank you for sharing. I am curious as to your thoughts on the RF 50mm F1.2 assuming you've used it. Are your images tack sharp with a mirrorless system in contrast with a DSLR system? I noticed that images shot with the 50mm F1.2 were a bit soft wide open.
Mirror less = Still subject Dslr way better for sport, animal or mouving Target Shooting a Flying Bird 100% Dslr On Mirror less since your auto focus use the primaru sensor they Them to be less durables, but more precise on Still subject, but Still the real question is more what are you shooting. On a couple of years and développement the mirrorless mat become the only option.
That’s crazy Vanessa, I actually bought yesterday the canon 50mm 1.4 🤔 not had chance to use it has yet. Would be nice to see you test the 50mm 1.2 Vs 50mm 1.4, I’d like too see what you think 👍🏻
@@VanessaJoy ha ha I’m sure with ur publicity and your professionalism, some retail out there would love you too test their equipment out for them. If lived near I surely be around too borrow you mine 😂😘
I’ve read some review of the 1.4 vs 1.2 and it seems that the 1.4 is sharper and faster AF than the 1.2. Being cheaper and lighter it is a better option if you don’t need the 1.2 aperture (and the L weather sealing).
I travel with the original nifty fifty -- having previously dropped and ruined expensive equipment when running around (including slamming a flash against a boat, and dropping a 70-200 2.8 out of my bag) -- it's a bit of a no brainer.
Ummm the 1.8 is sharper and it’s way quieter. Smoother af too. It’s a good video lens. It’s 100 bucks it’s perfect get it. It may expose a drop less so just need to bump the ISO a bit and you won’t get the same bokeh but it’s still very good at 1.8. They have a 85 1.8 also great 350 bucks get that too.
Esta prueba es mejor con flash electrónico, Ya que la luz ambiental cambia constantemente y es imposible determinar que un lente es más lumínico que el otro si hay algún cambio en la luz ambiental. Es posible que la cantidad de luz en el lente f 1.8 sea un problema de viñeteo del lente Gracias
Tal vez pero no quería introducir otras elementos de Fotografia. Lo más elementos que yo uso, lo más que la cualidades son de los otros elementos y no de los lentes. Lo siento si mi español es horrible 😊
Thank you for the video. Just wondering was this done pre-Covid? Other Adorama hosts (Seth, Daniel, Gavin, Mark etc) all wore face coverings in recent videos.
Thanks for the video. I have the 50 mm 1.4 and unfortunately, it can deliver a sharp image at anything below 2.8 even after micro-adjustments are made with a pro software so I might actually have a look at the 1.8 after this. Side question, if you don't mind, what does your Hebrew tattoo say?
@@VanessaJoy Thank you kindly for taking the time to reply. Nice.! Guess I shouldn't have skipped Hebrew lessons and I would have known ;) I have had it calibrated to my camera but no I haven't had Canon looked at it. Maybe I should but that usually means that I have to send the camera to Canon because there is only one authorized canon repair place in Sweden, believe it or not, and it's just ridiculously expensive and a pain in the *** to ship it as well.
@@KosherBeycon I used to have that 1.4 as well, my problem with it was it simply cannot focus, and that’s why I returned it and decided on switching to the 1.2.
Seem to me the only différence you can Seen are more based on the fact that your subject tilt her head in your directions making stand out on the light ....
Agreed! Don't waste your money if you're a portrait Photographer!! I've owned all 3 f stops in the nifty 50! Never see the advantage using any lens below f1.8 as a portrait lens on a FF camera. Much better to use a telephoto zoomed in @ F2.8 to F4 :)
I think an RP would do a better comparison than 1DX III. Low pixel count top end $6k sports camera isn't ideal to do image quality comparison on lens. High resolving lens wouldn't show advantage. You put a Zeiss Otus 55mm in front of 1DX MKIII wouldn't reveal more details on 20mp.
Vanessa Joy subjective? Would it be possible that one lens Showed better clarity than the other if shot at higher shutter speeds that would have eliminated any camera shake? As maybe because of slight shake they both appeared equal and acceptable?
Old video but just what I was thinking. I think the ONLY reason to get the 1.2 is if you are professional shooter that needs better low light performance.
1.2 is a more opened diaphragm lens... so it can handle faster shutter speed... so absolutely its capable of shooting at moving objects better like kids photography... how u don't get the point of existence of this particular lens and make vid on it?!
Correct me if I'm wrong. Color Fringing and Chromatic Aberration is the same. It can also be corrected by chromatic aberration correction of the Canon body or LR.
Why didn't you try the 1.4 too. Lots of people I know can afford the 1.4 but not the 1.2 and even though its an old lens, we still use it and its a lens of choice. I've heard from many that there is actually not that much difference between the 1.4 and the 1.2.
As a 7DII shooter you can really see the difference without native crop. I can't shoot that close with the 50. Image wise great comparo. But the nifty fifty is very slow and noisy
So you test a cheap 1.8 wide open with A L 1.2 lens stopped down to 1.8 ????? we all know a lens wide-open is not at its best so how is this a real test?
The video is very helpful, but the quality of the video is so poor. You are using a 1DX mark III for photos, why couldn't the videographer shoot on something much better? or set the camera right. I thought at first that the video is made in early 2010 because of the motion blur...I can take a guess that the camera it was set on 1080p 24p with 30 shutter speed at max...I don't want to be mean or a hater but you should really step up the quality of the videos overall.
@@VanessaJoy Just kidding of course. I used to own a 1.2 lens and sold it to get a 1.4 and a bunch of money in my pocket. There's really very little difference, and anyhow, it's not the wand that makes the magic.
