Canon 50mm f/1.2 L, talk me out of it. - Page 2

f1.2 isn't that much faster than f1.4. The difference is not that much, especially on a 50mm. Even with the crop factor. Just sayin'. And if you get a used Canon 50 f1.4 you can buy a whole lotta more gear to make up all the money you would have spent on the heavy (but pretty) f1.2L.

Quote:

Originally Posted by audioser 

f1.2 isn't that much faster than f1.4. The difference is not that much, especially on a 50mm. Even with the crop factor. Just sayin'. And if you get a used Canon 50 f1.4 you can buy a whole lotta more gear to make up all the money you would have spent on the heavy (but pretty) f1.2L.

The advantage of the Canon f/1.2 over the Canon f/1.4 isn't the amount of light passing through the lens, as you stated,but the bokeh. The f/1.2 has much better looking bokeh than the Canon f/1.4. That is why I recommended he check out the Sigma f/1.4.

yes, but if your pictures need that extra bokeh to look good, it's not a lens problem.

For real.  Get the Sigma and with the money you save take a great photography course, or a trip, or any # of things that will be far more impactful on your photography than that extra stop or that slightly better bokeh. 

I too have made the mistake of agonizing over equipment and spent hours reading lens reviews when I should have been looking at work that I admire and learning about actually taking photos.

I'd be cautious about the Sigma.  I've never seen results or comparisons between the sigma 1.4 and canon 1.4, but the Canon isn't that expensive as it is. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils 
I'd be cautious about the Sigma.  I've never seen results or comparisons between the sigma 1.4 and canon 1.4, but the Canon isn't that expensive as it is. 

Um... what? 

Why get a Sigma when the Canon 50mm 1.4 is 350 dollars. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils 

yes, but if your pictures need that extra bokeh to look good, it's not a lens problem.

I understand what you're trying to say here, but it doesn't make any sense. Bokeh isn't something you can quantify... you can only qualify it. In other words, it's not how much out of focus it is, it's the characteristics of the out-of-focus areas. Even beautifully composed shots can be tainted by ugly out-of-focus areas. Many lenses suffer from this (most commonly shorter-focal length lenses).

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchandler3 

I understand what you're trying to say here, but it doesn't make any sense. Bokeh isn't something you can quantify... you can only qualify it. In other words, it's not how much out of focus it is, it's the characteristics of the out-of-focus areas. Even beautifully composed shots can be tainted by ugly out-of-focus areas. Many lenses suffer from this (most commonly shorter-focal length lenses).

Yeah but it takes a really bad lens to have bokeh bad enough to ruin a picture.  That's not what we're talking about here.  Were' talking about a 1.2 vs a 1.4, both primes made by Canon.  So we're not talking about horrendous bokeh vs incredible bokeh, we're just talking about more blur vs slightly less blur.  And my point is that a slightly blurry-er background is not going to make a bad picture good.  I could see it adding to an already fantastic image, but that image would also be fantastic with a 1.4.  And it would likely also be good at f16.  The only time when more background blur makes an image great in and of itself is when there is a composition problem and the blur helps lessen distractions like poles sticking out of someone's head.  There's a limit to how much technology can make your pictures great.  You only need good enough equipment that it doesn't get in your way of making great images on your own.  If someone is not very experienced with photography, there would be no difference between a D90 and a D3X.  Same with lenses. 

I'd like to see one example of a fantastic picture that was ruined from not enough background blur (esp. 1.4 instead of 1.2).  And I'd love to see a fantastic image ruined by horrible bokeh.  I've seen people make really nice pictures with Holgas and iphones, and while the images do need to work with that aesthetic, it is certainly an example of crap gear making good images.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils 

Why get a Sigma when the Canon 50mm 1.4 is 350 dollars. 

Why buy an HD600 when skullcandies at bestbuy are 30 bucks?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils 

Yeah but it takes a really bad lens to have bokeh bad enough to ruin a picture.  That's not what we're talking about here.  Were' talking about a 1.2 vs a 1.4, both primes made by Canon.  So we're not talking about horrendous bokeh vs incredible bokeh, we're just talking about more blur vs slightly less blur.  And my point is that a slightly blurry-er background is not going to make a bad picture good.  I could see it adding to an already fantastic image, but that image would also be fantastic with a 1.4.  And it would likely also be good at f16.  The only time when more background blur makes an image great in and of itself is when there is a composition problem and the blur helps lessen distractions like poles sticking out of someone's head.  There's a limit to how much technology can make your pictures great.  You only need good enough equipment that it doesn't get in your way of making great images on your own.  If someone is not very experienced with photography, there would be no difference between a D90 and a D3X.  Same with lenses. 

 

I'd like to see one example of a fantastic picture that was ruined from not enough background blur (esp. 1.4 instead of 1.2).  And I'd love to see a fantastic image ruined by horrible bokeh.  I've seen people make really nice pictures with Holgas and iphones, and while the images do need to work with that aesthetic, it is certainly an example of crap gear making good images.

The concern in question is the bokeh quality of the canon f/1.4, which isn't very great. The topic is not whether its about the equipment or the skill of the user.
 

post a good picture that was ruined by the "bad" bokeh of the canon 1.4.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/bokeh/bokeh.htm [Canon 1.2 vs 1.4]

You can see that the Canon 50 f/1.2L has smoother bokeh than the Canon 50 f/1.4. IMO, however, it's not really worth the extra cost. That is why I suggested the OP try to find a place to actually try the Canon 50 f/1.4 and the Sigma 50 f/1.4 and see if the differences between the Sigma and the Canon f/1.4 are important to him or not (weight, bokeh, # of aperture blades, cost, etc)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uaOC-q6nP8 [Sig 1.4 vs Can 1.4]

I just don't think pictures are about bokeh balls.

Of course not, I do not mean to argue with you about that! I've been on forums where all people do is argue about negligible technical differences. I'm just being nitpicky and detailed as the OP is asking for advice on a technical issue - which lens to buy.

I totally agree with you though, many people focus too much on buying, rather than practicing with what they've got, but I think it's still a good idea to do tons of research before spending money on something like a lens.

yeah for sure.  I thought the question was still 1.2 vs 1.4.  If the OP is going to go with 1.4, then he/she should definitely pick the best 1.4 out there for the price.  From the video, the Sigma does look a bit better, though there's more to a lens than just bokeh I think sharpness might be more important and I'm still skeptical cause it's Sigma.  I don't care enough to research more reviews on the two.  If I was buying, I would definitely find the best one.  I like to have the best just for peace of mind. 

But really, no one will ever look at one of your pictures and think or say "nice bokeh".  And if they do, they won't be someone whose opinion you care about anyways.