Tom Berkowski , Nov 29, 2008; 05:20 p.m.
I have almost decided to make the 50 1.2L my gift to myself. Someone talk me out of this $1400 purchase.
Sample reasons that will cause me to put away my credit card:
- Someone can speculate that Canon will come out with a better 50 1.4 which will focus faster & more accurately
than the one I purchased & returned last year and that reported reliability issues will improve.
- Someone can tell me to wait for a Conurus to start conversion of Contax N 50 1.4, that I shouldn't worry about
possible mirror clearance with 5D, that it image quality will be exceptional, and that focus speed and accuracy will
be in the ballpark of a Canon 50 1.2L.
- There is some other substitute for the breathtaking, "did I really shoot that?" quality of a few of shots from the last
time I rented this lens. (I commonly used 1.8, so 2.8 zooms not an option. 85 definitely not a substitute, and 35
probably not the best choice in my experience)
- That there will be a rental company that will open nearby that will always have this in stock at last minute.
- That the infrequent focus issues I had first time I rented this lens (and decided not to purchase) should stick in my
mind. (Focus issues were not as bad as 50 1.4, just more annoying than I thought should happen in a lens so
expensive.)
- Many other reasons, I'm sure.
Thanks.
Shawn Davie , Nov 29, 2008; 05:56 p.m.
I have the Sigma and have been really pleased with it. Very sharp.
Shawn
John Crowe , Nov 29, 2008; 05:57 p.m.
You seem terribly concerned about focus issues. Do these 50mm lenses not have the autofocus performance like other Canon lenses that you already have? Is it possible that it is your camera body or technique that is causing the problems that you had with the 50mm lenses?
My concern is that the 50/1.2 L may not be that much better than the 50/1.4 with respect to actual image qualtiy. I have not specifically researched this though.
The 50mm focal length is not as important to me as other focal lengths so I would have a hard time justifying the expenditure but if you use yours alot than it may well be worth it to you.
Brad Fernihough 
, Nov 29, 2008; 06:11 p.m.
What do you use it for?
I was considering it myself but am going to hold off a bit longer. It appears that the general view is that it's not worth the extra $1000 for the 1.2 over the 1.4. I have the 1.4 and borrowed a friends 1.2 the other day, and am now comparing.
The new 50mm 1.4 EF bayonette Zeiss lens was released this week and at about $750 is substantially less. (No auto focus though)
Bruce Muir , Nov 29, 2008; 06:23 p.m.
I have the 50 1.4 qnd it nails focus.
I can't complain about any "reliability" issues.
I keep the hood on it all times including in the bag to protect the front, my favorite on a crop body followed by my 85 1.8 on
FF.
I may go 1.2 on the 85 one day but not at the moment.
On the other hand L glass is why we shoot Canon.
Scott Ferris 
, Nov 29, 2008; 06:24 p.m.
Get it, if you hate it sell it, you will only lose a few weeks rent on the thing and you will be able to lay the ghost to rest.
Take care, Scott.
Bueh B. , Nov 29, 2008; 07:11 p.m.
I am too are not that happy with the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens. It must be the worst 50mm lens I've tried! But I
would not think that f/1.2 glass would be better in perfomance -- I have an old manual focus Tomioka f/1.2 lens
and while it is definitively a high-end lens, it has some optical abberations like glow and low contrast that
would not work so well with autofocus. I guess Canon's f/1.2 is somewhat better optically, but then again, many
other manufacturers were able to make decent and autofocus-friendly 50mm f/1.4 standard lenses. I would rather
give SigMa's new 50mm a chance than waste a lot of money on a lens that is probably not really better than
Canon's old f/1.4 normal lens when it comes the focus accuracy. I mean, even you experienced critical focus
troubles with it when you rented this lens.
It's a feature of super-fast lenses to be very demanding on autofocus systems! Maybe a high-end body with the
very best AF technology will focus better with any lens, but I don't think that a f/1.2 lens will make you happy
if the current f/1.4 is performing poorly.
Bill Clark - Minnetonka Minnesota 
, Nov 29, 2008; 08:21 p.m.
Have you looked at the new cameras that do a pretty good job handling higher ISO's?
Jeremy Richter 
, Nov 29, 2008; 08:29 p.m.
Don't do it; those lenses are known to carry the Bubonic Plague, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions in Europe and Asia. JR
Petr Zavadsky (CZ) , Nov 29, 2008; 08:31 p.m.
I can confirm, EF 50/1.2L is not the most consistently focusing lens I own. Consistent means - no finetuning will solve the issue. EF 28/1.8 is the worst, however - even highly praised EF 70-200/2.8L IS is better, yet not great in this respect.
EF 50/1.2 L is very good wide open and is flare resistant. Good lens. If you have use for it - get it. I have no good words to say about EF 50/1.4 - maybe except it is great stopped down.
