The 50mm 1.2?

[dantambok]

I am planning of getting the 50mm 1.2 from Hong Kong this march.
But I've read a lot of complaints that this lens has?

In what I think, I buy the best that i can afford and buy good glass one buy one. Or instead of spending about $1,350 on one lens, should i consider buying 2-3 of them?

Thank you in advance

 

[Dao]

what the 50mm f/1.2L lens will do with my photography?
- It offer extreme low light photography.
- It give me a razor thin Depth of Field. (in some cases, it could be a problem)
- Extra light for AF to work better under a low light situation.

(I am not going for the build nor AF speed since they have little effect on the output)

For me, since the extra $1000 only give me the above benefits from the lens, so I'd rather take the 50mm f/1.4 especially I seldom do extra low light nor extra shadow DoF type photography. And for extra low light type photography, I think I am better use the extra cost towards a better ISO handling camera body.

But again, this is my personal choice base on what I need. And of course, if cost is not an issue, why not.



So for me, I prefer getting the 50mm f/1.4 and then use the extra money to get other lenses I need.

 

[dantambok]

Money is not much of an issue. The problem that i have is that I can only buy one at a time (I'm 16yrs old and my mom won't let me buy a lot)..
I'm thinking of this lens because I'll be using it indoors on a 7D so that i wont use flash and sealing is another benefit.

 

[Trever1t]

must be nice :raisedbrow:

if indeed money is no issue, then what's the question?

 

[Moe]

I second the 50 1.4. Or, heck, do your mom a favor and get the 50 1.8. I'd be willing to bet you won't see the difference in your photos, or use the higher end glass to its fullest potential. I don't mean to offend, as I haven't seen any of your work. I'm just saying the differences in those lenses at the beginner level don't justify the price increase.

 

[molested_cow]

I have the Nikkor AI-s 50mm F1.2. Now it's a different brand, different era of technology, but let me share my take on this.

First of all, I am shooting 35mm, not digital.
The AI-S is not AF. For the most part, I am fine with just manual focus, but when it comes to kids running around, or pets that doesn't sit still, I've had some challenges, so AF is a plus.
one beef I have against cropped sensor cameras is, I cannot really manually focus with the view finder. It's TINY!!! I am pampered with my F501 and F4 full size view finders, so manual focus is feels natural. So if you are using a cropped sensor body, turn the AF on.

Depth of field wise, this is NOT a landscape lens. It is, however, an excellent portrait or still life lens. The depth of field really brings the subject forward. Be careful about pushing the aperture to the extremes as you already know it, but it does offer a much wider range of light conditions you can shoot in.

So is it worth getting a F1.2 or is F1.4 good enough?

Well, for my case, I only got up to ISO400, so F1.2 can be very helpful. Some times, I go to the night market and shoot without a tripod, pushing the shutter speed at 1/60 or 1/125. It's under exposed, but I can make the adjustment in photoshop later and it's been ok so far.

For you folks doing digital, I say it's not as critical. The reason being that modern cameras can do so much better under low lighting situation. You can choose to crank up the ISO setting instead of going for large aperture. It's the cheaper way to go, and you don't get the light distortions.

F1.2 is really an exotic lens, like a Ferrari Enzo. You drive it on the street. You drive fast on the street, but you almost never get to drive REALLY REALLY fast on the street.
I do get the privilege of bragging about owning one. A lot of people don't even know it exists.

I'd say F1.4 is more than enough. That's like the Porsche GT3R equivalent. Performance where you need it.

 

[usayit]

Whether nikkor 50mm f1.2, canon 50mm f1.2, Leica 50mm Noctilux, or any other ultra fast prime, I have yet to meet someone who also didn't own a more "normal" versions of the prime.

They are specialized lenses and quite different.. sharing pretty much just the same focal length. Often the 50mm f1.4 or f1.8 will be faster focusing, more compact, and produce sharper images at the same apertures. What they do have are different rendering characteristics, shallower DOF, and a little faster. That's the reason behind the polarized reviews online.

I never really understood this difference until I decided to "try" one of the best 50mm lenses you can buy and compare it to one of the fastest that I acquired a few years ago. Its been three months and I cannot decide. I then realized something... Simply put, the only thing that they have in common is the 50mm focal length. They were never intended to be on opposite ends of a choice but as a two separate and discreet choices. I am probably going to bite the bullet..... end up with both wondering how to explain that to the wife. lol

Examine and read the reviews....buy it for the specialized purpose. Any other intended purpose, you'd probably be better served with the more "normal" f 1.4 or 1.8 version.

 

[dantambok]

I second the 50 1.4. Or, heck, do your mom a favor and get the 50 1.8. I'd be willing to bet you won't see the difference in your photos, or use the higher end glass to its fullest potential. I don't mean to offend, as I haven't seen any of your work. I'm just saying the differences in those lenses at the beginner level don't justify the price increase.

I won`t be saving her much of a favor since I`ll be using my own money. You haven`t seen any of my work because I`m not that much into portrait photography because I don`t have time right now. I`m getting this lens so i can start practicing and by summer break (April-May) I can have photo shoots.

I have the Nikkor AI-s 50mm F1.2. Now it's a different brand, different era of technology, but let me share my take on this.

First of all, I am shooting 35mm, not digital.
The AI-S is not AF. For the most part, I am fine with just manual focus, but when it comes to kids running around, or pets that doesn't sit still, I've had some challenges, so AF is a plus.
one beef I have against cropped sensor cameras is, I cannot really manually focus with the view finder. It's TINY!!! I am pampered with my F501 and F4 full size view finders, so manual focus is feels natural. So if you are using a cropped sensor body, turn the AF on.

Depth of field wise, this is NOT a landscape lens. It is, however, an excellent portrait or still life lens. The depth of field really brings the subject forward. Be careful about pushing the aperture to the extremes as you already know it, but it does offer a much wider range of light conditions you can shoot in.

So is it worth getting a F1.2 or is F1.4 good enough?

Well, for my case, I only got up to ISO400, so F1.2 can be very helpful. Some times, I go to the night market and shoot without a tripod, pushing the shutter speed at 1/60 or 1/125. It's under exposed, but I can make the adjustment in photoshop later and it's been ok so far.

For you folks doing digital, I say it's not as critical. The reason being that modern cameras can do so much better under low lighting situation. You can choose to crank up the ISO setting instead of going for large aperture. It's the cheaper way to go, and you don't get the light distortions.

F1.2 is really an exotic lens, like a Ferrari Enzo. You drive it on the street. You drive fast on the street, but you almost never get to drive REALLY REALLY fast on the street.
I do get the privilege of bragging about owning one. A lot of people don't even know it exists.

I'd say F1.4 is more than enough. That's like the Porsche GT3R equivalent. Performance where you need it.

Yes, I`ve read a lot of people saying that there is not much of a difference between these two. But I just want to get the best that I can for myself?
And some bragging rights would also be a plus

I have the 1.8 version and it got stuck on my 450D

 

[John Mc]

If i was you,and spending my own money,i'd want to get more with it. especially if your just starting out. Get more for your money. The 50/1.4 is more then enough for starting out. Plus,saving the extra cash and spending it on another lens or two is probably a better way to go. im not saying having the extra stop wont be good or useful,but if you dont know where to use it,you'll find it'll be more hasel then its worth.

 

[dantambok]

If i was you,and spending my own money,i'd want to get more with it. especially if your just starting out. Get more for your money. The 50/1.4 is more then enough for starting out. Plus,saving the extra cash and spending it on another lens or two is probably a better way to go. im not saying having the extra stop wont be good or useful,but if you dont know where to use it,you'll find it'll be more hasel then its worth.

If you were in my position and get the 1.4, what other lenses would you buy?

 

[John Mc]

Well,Im not one for Going Get this and that. But what other lenses were you looking at?
What type of work do you Want to do?

Theres quiet a few lenses out there that you'd enjoy.

 

[dantambok]

Well,Im not one for Going Get this and that. But what other lenses were you looking at?
What type of work do you Want to do?

Theres quiet a few lenses out there that you'd enjoy.

I forgot to say that I may also be getting a mp-e 65 along with this. I would really like to do portaiture and after that, i plan on getting a fisheye lens

 

[John Mc]

Your Photography seems Prity Varied, I havent used the MP-e 65 before,so i cant comment on it.
I'm Looking to get a 24-70/2.8 for Portraitures. i would maybe say look at one of those. But theres also the 85/1.8 and a 70-200 which are good for portrait's. on the Telephoto,the Apertures really upto you,aswell as having the Is function.

I would Avoid a Fisheye unless its something you really want, I'd personally go with something along the line of a 10-22mm lens,or a Tonika 11-16/2.8,Ive heard nothing but good things about this lens,on the plus side,it gives a simular effect to Fisheye

 

[usayit]

I forgot to say that I may also be getting a mp-e 65 along with this.

Make sure you think about the other stuff you'll need to get the most out of the mpe-65.... its not just the lens you are now talking about.

50mm f/1.2 and mp-e 65. Both again.. very specialized optics and probably will disappoint 90% of us on here. The 10% of those that like it will love them for what they are and probably use them for very special purposes... Its that 10% that they are intended for.

 

[Big Mike]

I agree with 'usayit'. Those are two rather specialized lenses that have fairly specific uses compared to most other lenses that are more universal.

What lenses do you have now? I'd suggest building up a good basic kit before getting anything too specialized.

For the 7D, I'd suggest the EF-S 10-22mm, the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, and the EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS.
After that, I'd add a fast prime like the 50mm F1.4, 35mm F1.4 L, 24mm F1.4 L, 85mm F1.8 (or 85mm F1.2 L).