This lens wasn't designed to be super sharp....if you want that, go mirrorless and buy RF glass. 50L has more character than the entire RF lineup. Mentioned weaknesses and imperfections made this lens legendary...few will understand this.
Fortunately, I must be one of the few who understand that the EF 50mm 1.2 has more character than the entire RF lineup (which seemingly has become obsessed with sharpness and measured performance).
Agree with most of what you said, however I have over a dozen fast 50mm lenses and I have to say I've never worried about corner sharpness in any of them. I struggle to think what I would be photographing (at wide apertures) that I would need sharp corners for
Corner sharpness is really important if you're taking landscape photos for example, just looking at the centre is great but what makes a lens legendary is how sharp is in the corners. Is lens is really one-of-a-kind thanks to its amazing Aperture.
There will never exist other lens like this, most of the imperfections that you said made this lens magical, with character and pretty artistic results.
On your recommendation, I purchased the Tokina 50mm f1.4 Opera. Beautiful lens. It has the sharpness of the RF 1.2 or the Sigma, but the vivid colors, pop and character of a Vintage Lens. Thank you so much!
I love your video. Concise & consistent. One thing that I've been wondering is why people don't talk about the rich latitude in the mid-tone. Another thing is that you definitely need to adjust the autofocus point on your camera, if you use it on a DSLR. Keep up with your good work. Looking forwards to more videos from your channel.
Not sure why you compared the lens against the RF regarding size and weight when you didn't include the adapter. Otherwise everything on that section of the video is a moot point. Adding the adapter adds 110g and quite a bit more length. It's the reason why the heavy sigma lenses are really bad to adapt.
Used to own one of these before I had to sell it to service my car. It was easily the best 50mm lens I ever owned .Ans it's key attribute is something you didn't mention ie colour rendition. It produced beautifully soft colours and was a dream for portraiture. It wasn't the sharpest I ever owned but it was acceptably sharp at wider apertures and very sharp c f5.6 to f8.0.
I have access to buy one in very good condition for my MKIII, I want it for modeling portrait mainly. did you ever notice the 'ugly" bokeh he mentioned?
It’s an older RR. Or the new one ? Made for those who love quality.What’s the difference ? Speed for me is not quality ,It’s impatience .If you’re not in a hurry, then the 2006 Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L is fabulous… And thank you, for your video, because it really does explore all around such a delightful lens a bespoke tailor made suit in my opinion, the kind of fine Glass that doesn’t age. but focuses on what you’re looking at…
Lol my fav lens is one I have owed for 33 years (v4 35 Cron). I am actually buying this over the clinical rf 50 that is a great lens for soul-less clinical images IMO but good new is Canon let’s you chose old school or new school. Cheers
Agreed. All new lenses and many new photography enthusiasts who like to photograph graphs and zoom in to see how sharp the edge of the pictures are really make me wonder.. I suppose the industry was always moving in this direction. The coatings used to slightly polarise and push contrast to create perception of sharpness have been cheaper and cheaper. You will actually notice that the cheaper lenses are even sharper than some of the most high priced lenses. This is great for product or architecture but horrible for people/portraits etc. The harsh sterility of modern lens design ends up needing to be softened and effected with filters and colour grading as character has been manufactured out of them.
I wouldn’t say it is bad bokeh anymore, looking back I would say it’s more unique. This lens unlike modern lenses has more of a personality, which is why it has more of a cult following versus other more modern lenses.
Bokeh is ugly? Oh no way. 😂 it draws some crazy out of focus images. Yes it may be not sharp at 1.2. Noone talkes about very short min focus distance. Thats a plus.
Great point about the min focus distance. For comparison, I have the Canon Dream Lens f/0.95 and this lens creates backgrounds that are more out of focus than the Dream Lens purely because of that min focus distance. It really is amazing, especially at f/1.2. And this isn't even getting into the beautiful, dynamic rendition of color that makes it a wonderful art lens.
A good used price on the EF 1.2L is worth it, especially on the mirrorless bodies which don't have focus issues like the DSLRs do with this lens. It does a good job on my R5.
Hi Luke - thx for the reply. Glad to read that the lens is worth the money for you. I used it on the Canon 90d, and borrowed the lens for a few weeks - and it didn't justify the price compared to the f/1.4 & the f/1.8. The difference in the quality of the photos was - in my eyes - to small for me to consider buying it. In all fairness, I didn't have any focus issues with the 90d..
I had all three of those and you are so wrong. Especially the 50/1.4 form canon that is crap. Sigma is ok but 50 1.2 renders nicer tones and more natural image. I had mine since the release and with 35/1.4 the only lens I will never sell.
