How much is a little "L" really worth?

[NewCreation517]

Hey all!

So, in trying to make a convincing case to my wife to allow me to purchase the Canon 50mm f1.2 "L" (haha yes, I do have to get permission, lest she goes on a shoe buying binge in revenge! :D), but being the frugal individual she is, she asks why no simply stick with the Canon 50mm f1.4 for +/-$1000 difference?

And I guess she sorta got me thinking ... other than the obvious difference of f0.2, what does that little "L" really mean for me? Is it worth that much extra dough?

Anyone have some sample images that might highlight things a bit for me?

Thank you!

[darkdragon]

Well, according to Andy's review, it really isn't worth the extra $1k

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2217311

:dunno

[z_28]

First of all - that's not f0.2 difference !!
Thats one full step.

Secondly - if you got extra $1000 - buy 1.2L - you will be happy - guaranteed :D

If not - you will be very happy (and your wife too :wink) with nice 1.4

Choice is always yours.

[ziggy53]

First of all - that's not f0.2 difference !!
Thats one full step.

Secondly - if you got extra $1000 - buy 1.2L - you will be happy - guaranteed :D

If not - you will be very happy (and your wife too :wink) with nice 1.4

Choice is always yours.

We just went through this. It is "not" a full stop of difference.

http://dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=696944&postcount=6

[z_28]

Was living in total darkness whole life.
Thank you my tutors and teachers !!!

If really full step is between 1.0 and 1.4 and nothing between -
I'll sell all 1.2 IMMEDIATELY :scratch

Whooa - looks as I sold all of them already.

So it's totally clear - 1.4 rules.
That's finally explain why I had 50/1.4 30 years ago :rofl

That's finish my eternal pain -
"Modern lenses use a standard f-stop scale that corresponds to the sequence of the powers of √2: f/1, f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, f/32, f/45, f/64, f/90, f/128, etc."

Thank you Ziggy !

[LiquidAir]

What the "L" means varies from lens to lens. In the case of the 50/1.2L, the major improvement of the L or over the 1.4 is the rendering of out of focus areas (bokeh). If you look at the same shot taken at the same aperture, you can tell the difference between the 1.2 and the 1.4 by looking at the background. If you are a conniseur of bokeh, get the 1.2. Otherwise, the 1.4 serves just fine. Here is a link to a very good comparison review:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm

[claudermilk]

Having been able to use all three normal varieties (this leaves out the f2.5 macro), I'd personally go with the f1.4 version. While the 1.2 is very nice, I don't think it's worth the $1k premium for the red ring & giant glass.

[pathfinder]

The only real reason to buy the 50mm f1.2 over the cheaper 50mm f1,4, is if you plan to shoot at f1.2 routinely.

I do know of wedding shooters who shoot the majority of their images with an 85mm f1.2 AT f1.2. NOT easy to do well at all, but lovely when done professionally.

[Tee Why]

It's half a stop faster, so if you shoot wide open, it'll give you 50% faster shutter speed. I think if you put a filter on it, then the lens is weather sealed (not helpful unless you also have a sealed body i.e. 1D series). It's built a bit nicer than the 50mm f1.4 lens.

Optically, I don't think there is that much difference.

Whether the difference is worth it to you or not is a personal one.
For me, I got the even cheaper 50mm f1.8 and am happy with it.

[Sprout Crumble]

IMO, the 50/1.2L is probably the worst value lens in the range. Its not bad per se, but that kind of extra cost for so little extra benefit is just ridiculous.
I'd get the 1.4 and spend the other grand on something worthwhile like another lens altogether.

[jdryan3]

I only have the 50 f/1.8, but if you go for the f/1.4, take the other $1000 and get the 35 f/1.4 L . It's only $1200. You can tell the wife you got a great deal - 2 for the price of one!

[claudermilk]

Optically, I don't think there is that much difference.

:scratch Have you seen the 1.2? Optically they are completely different. the 50/1.2 looks very much like the 85/1.2, nothing at all like any of the other 50's. I'll agree that stopped down it's results aren't all that much different from it's siblings--thus why most of us don't think it's worth the premium unless you really need that speed.

[Rhuarc]

Regarding the OP question, I'm goingto throw in my opinion from the point of view of an ametuer hopeing to be a proam at some point.

IMHO, L glass is reserved for at a minimum the proam class of photographer. I am an ameteur, and unless I had money to burn I just can't justify the premium amount for the L-glass. Sure, there are times a cosntant apeture, or weather sealing, or a little more sharpness would be nice, but it isn't something I would spend that much more money on right now. If I was doing paying jobs, however, my opinion would change completely!! Here is my lens line up right now:

All these are Canon:
28-105/3.5-4.5
50/1.8
70-300/3.5-5.6 IS
18-55/3.5-5.6 (kit lens)
100/2.8 Macro

So as you can se, I don't exactly have a super fast lineup. I use the 28-105 for my everday walkaround, and keep the 50/1.8 with me incase I need something low light. The 70-300 is for the zoo, and other stuff needing the range. I just picked up the 100 Macro a week or so ago, and am loving it for both closeup work, and for a faster lens that still has a little reach. I use the kit lens if I'm indoors and need something wider that the 28 that my walkaround can provide.

Of coruse I plan on slowly upgrading these over time as money permits. But for me right now these lenses provide me with a good variety for most thigns I shoot. The only things I miss are some type of Ultra Wide Angle for indoors and some landscapes, and sometimes the aperture on the 70-300 just can't get me fast enough shutter speeds. The next lens I'll be getting will be a faster alternative to the 28-105 for a walkaroudn lens. I'm looking at something with a constant 2.8, and 18mm on the wide end, up to hopefully something between 70 and 135mm on the long end.

There you have it! My very longwinded and drawn out 2 cents!! :D

[Shizam]

+1 to the 50L isn't worth it except in one scenerio: you really really need that extra fStop because you're already shooting at iso1600 and don't want to go up to 3200. Its heavier, vastly more expensive and focuses slower then the f1.4, the f1.4 really is L quality in my mind, more so then any of the other prime non-L zooms.

But I totally disagree with Rhuarc, L glass is amazing and is generally worth the cash if you can fork it over, but thats a whole different thread :)
Sam

[Rhuarc]

+1 to the 50L isn't worth it except in one scenerio: you really really need that extra fStop because you're already shooting at iso1600 and don't want to go up to 3200. Its heavier, vastly more expensive and focuses slower then the f1.4, the f1.4 really is L quality in my mind, more so then any of the other prime non-L zooms.

But I totally disagree with Rhuarc, L glass is amazing and is generally worth the cash if you can fork it over, but thats a whole different thread :)
Sam

To each their own! :p My feeling is that if you fall into the prosumer or professional categories that yes, it woudl be worth it. For someone just starting out or just taking shots for fun, I think there may be L glass worth it, while others are just more money than they need to spend.

[claudermilk]

Rhuarc has a good point. While the L glass is pretty much in a class of it's own and a joy to use, it requires a hefty investment. If you are new to DSLRs, or are merely dabbling it probably doesn't make sense to spend that kind of money. However, if you need the capabilities, pro or not, nothing less will do (e.g., f2.8 zooms for low light shooting). It's up to each of us to make that value judgement.

[Rhuarc]

Rhuarc has a good point. While the L glass is pretty much in a class of it's own and a joy to use, it requires a hefty investment. If you are new to DSLRs, or are merely dabbling it probably doesn't make sense to spend that kind of money. However, if you need the capabilities, pro or not, nothing less will do (e.g., f2.8 zooms for low light shooting). It's up to each of us to make that value judgement.

Couldn't have put it better myself! And trust me, I tried!

LoL, but don't doubt for a second that as soon as I have the money I will be all over that little "L"!! :D

[ChatKat]

I have the 1.2 and the 50 2.5.

I absolutely love that lens. The bokeh beats the 1.4 and 1.8 - I got it because I love the 2.5 and that 2.5 was the reason I bought my 5d. Amazing combination of camera and lens.

I've used that lens hand held in dark spaces at 1600 without tripod when nothing else would do. I've done some artsy images and I love the lens for it's portraits. That lens is ALWAYS in my bag with my 24-70L and the 70-200 2.8is.

It would not have been my first choice in L lenses - I love the 24-70L 2.8 but there are times when nothing else would do but that 50 - for me.

This is the first image I took with that lens:http://www.pbase.com/chatkat/image/71110996/medium.jpg

And here is a fun one I took for the Assignment thread on Feet!
http://www.pbase.com/chatkat/image/85076571/medium.jpg

This one was taken at 1.2 in a portico in Dubrovnik - no flash allowed because of some art and the building was about 500 years old. The nun was walking by.

http://www.pbase.com/chatkat/image/81673099/medium.jpg


Couldn't have put it better myself! And trust me, I tried!

LoL, but don't doubt for a second that as soon as I have the money I will be all over that little "L"!! :D

[Manfr3d]

The 50mm/1.2 is a great lens and I dont quite understand
why so many ppl think it's a bad value. Buying an f1.2 lens
means that one wants to the lens at large aperatures. And
this is where this lens performs superior. Bokeh and flare
is also something that seperates this lens from the other
contenders.

Correct, the 50mm/1.2 isn't as sharp as the other fifties
at f5.6 for example. But who's planning to use a speciality
f1.2 lens at f5.6? Thats is the sweet spot of my f2.8 zooms
and whats what I'm going to use if I feel I really need it.

I have the impression that most reviewers want a
general purpose lens that performs more evenly
across the aperature. Those will be better of with
the 50/1.4 or so, but once you've discovered what
you can do with the 50/1.2 (low light, isolating with
depht of field) you'll be hooked instantaneously. Thats
how I feel about it.

here is a good review of the fifties btw:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm