I considered the f1.2 but I simply could not justify the cost so I ended up getting the excellent Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art for £650 it is very close to the 1.2 in quality.
Interesting video, I'll preface this with I am a professional photographer, with a photography degree. In my opinion the difference between two lenses from Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji/Sigma etc at the same focal length but different price points are quite often fine margins and even the very budget lenses can be used for professional work. However, Image quality, resolution, etc will flat light is one thing. How a lens handles back lighting, Direct lighting etc, any Flare? Ghosting? LOCA? can all influence how a lens can be used. The lens coatings make a big difference to how a lens performs. Under direct Sun their may be flaring, the image may lose contrast etc. This may be used in an artistic way, but knowing how a lens performs in all situations is important before making a choice. How these effect your desired image could well be depending on how you can control the light, can you use diffusers, black card etc, can you change the angle you take the photo from, stopping down the aperture etc. Sometimes with cheaper lenses you need to work harder to get the same shot. But considering you can buy a lot of accessories or other lenses with the massive price difference it is always worth considering. In reality I have normally found that there is a lens in the middle ground that keeps most of the benefits or the premium lens but is significantly cheaper an F/1.4 range etc (obviously for everyone but canon, you have excellent 3rd party options) I have never used either of these lenses in their current form. Back in Film days and at university, I used the canon plastic fantastic nifty fifty and never had any issues with image quality (keeping the small 35mm negatives dust free was the biggest challenge though, 120mm was always easier...)
I think you need some thicker glasses if you don't see a difference in sharpness. It's so clearly evident that there is a difference. The 50mm f1.8 uses plastic lens elements to keep costs down and sufferers from a lack of micro contrast as well as slight color bluring. The 50mm f1.2 picks up on all the micro contrast in an image and colors are crisp and well defined. There is a massive difference.
Worth noting the difference in light reaching the sensor between f/1.2 and 1.8. the last comparison showed a doubling of the shutter speed 1/400 to 1/800. The more expensive lens is going to give you far more useability in low light situations, with that extra stop. I've owned the nifty RF (back when it was £120) and now the L RF (cheaper on MPB). It gives that extra inch of creative opportunity which is difficult to discern on a purely technical evaluation.
For almost everyone the 1.8 does the job. But if you have the money and want f1.2 and a slightly better colour reproduction and bokeh quality the f1.2 is magical. I’ve taken some of my best photos with that lens and I have some lovely hasselblad and Fuji glass as well. You can get the f1.2 quite often between £1500 and £1800. New too. Even Amazon often have it for less than £1800. Still around 10 times the price mind you !!!
Thank you for the comparison which is nicely and thoroughly done. Although I do not think this shows the real differences between these two lenses. Bigger variety of shots would show that they differ more than this comparison suggests. For example full body or small group portraits in front of a busy background do make much bigger difference. The nifty fifty is very good at smaller focus distances. But the further it is focused, the worse it gets. Not much but visibly. The 1.2 stays same sharp no matter the focused distance. Such kind of shots also reveal better bokeh with the faster lens and much better separation at 1.2 than 1.8. I've spent a week comparing these two to make the right decision. And finally I bought Sigma 40mm f/1.4 :-). It is same sharp as the RF 1.2, with slightly better contrast wide opened, even creamier blur and better handled transition from sharp to blurred giving it nicer 3D pop. Sigma is also much better built (all metal vs cheap feeling plastic on Canon) and costs one third of the price of Canon....
Hi Marc, I know this question is a bit off-topic for this video, but could you consider making a video about back-button focus, AF-ON, and AEL, and explaining what they're used for?
I've had the EF 50mm f/1.4 for many many years and goes with me everywhere. Can't beat the quality of the images. And, it doesn't intimidate people when you walk around city streets like some other lenses.
The nifty fifty was slightly back-focused on the tree. Can't you see that? And it seems like the exposure with the expensive lens is a bit darker, which could explain the extra shades of color in the bright areas.
Love your comparisons between these two lenses, right to the point! I have the nifty fifty and love the size and cost. I couldn’t afford the price of the 2500.00 for the slight difference in image quality. I just got the canon 6D mark ll and the adopter for my EF lenses and they work well on the mark ll. I have the Tamron 24-70 2.8 EF mount and it to works well on the mark ll. I am glad other companies are finally making the RF mounts lenses which will save $$. Again thanks for you comparison and looking forward to others.
I think what you say about these lenses could be applied across most brands. I moved to the OM pro a couple of years ago and as you say the difference in certain photo quality is similar. Portraits, speed of focus and darker conditions and the difference is more obvious. More important the sealing is important. Travelling to wet places like the UK, Iceland etc make it important to me. With the cost of travel it is worth the investment to avoid disappointment. Great video comparison though.
I love the Nifty 50 1.8. Got a refurbished from Canon for $110, but it's not my sharpest cheap lens. The Canon EF 10 -18 F4.5 to 5.6 is sharper and it has image stabilization. Not that you really need it with a lens this wide. Great for vlogging though and you can find them used for about $100.
I bought the 50 f1.2 and it is brilliant, but very heavy too. So I ended up selling it after one year. I am not a portrait photographer and so it was of limited use to me and could not justify the ongoing ownership!
If you stop down. Nah the 50 f1.2 is over kill in my experience. Canon's nifty 50 stm lenses (ef or rf) are absolutely amazing. Almost too good. Much better then say Sonys FE 50mm f1.8 for example.
Who gets fast primes and stops down? You get fast primes to use it wide open 99% of the time. In the past with dslr’s, the AF accuracy was hit or miss with shallow dof, but most modern mirrorless AF’s can nail f/1.2.
I own this lens also, and I absolutely love it, punches well above its weight. small lightweight and discreet, whats not to like, also these days if you need a little extra background blur there's always a way around it in post. different matter if photography paid my bills though.
Canon vs Canon; it's going to be close. However, I don't think I'd want to spend on a high quality body, only to put a bargain lens on it. I could see the difference between the two lenses, and having seen that, couldn't be satisfied with the cheaper version; it may be sharp, of course, but it doesn't handle the light generally anything like as well as the f1.2. Not to mention the super smooth bokeh. Great project, thanks for taking the trouble!
50 f1.2 is meant for people its a portrait lens and there it shines.the skin tones and the clarity of the eyes are amazing and the fall of buttery smooth
A very informative test/comparison, thanks for sharing this. It must be said that the difference between 1.2 and 1.8 on the £2.5k lens, is a halving of the speed used. This is surely as significant as the bokeh/blur, which as you say, has very little difference. I’d take the nifty 50, as I don’t have sufficient spare cash ( I do have the EF nifty 50 though !) on my Canon R6m2. Thanks 😀👍
There is a slight difference - you would certainly hope that there was for such a hike in price. But does the difference really matter for most non-professional photographers? I would say not, but it is ‘horses for courses’, and if folk have a ton of money, well go for it! As it is, I always buy used equipment for the lowest price/quality I can, and as someone who is more interested in the actual photo than ‘gear’, I am more than satisfied. Indeed while I am typing this I can’t wait to get out today and take some shots! I print to A3 and frame a lot of my photos, and from normal viewing distance I would challenge anyone to see a difference! I have 5 cameras, the oldest having only 5MP (an old Canon Powershot bridge camera), and people beg prints off me so they can have them framed as well. WEX and other outlets are a brilliant source of really good used kit and you have the reassurance of a great guarantee as well!
I have used the "nifty fifty" 1.8 for years. He is correct for $150 (USD) it is the best lens at that price you will ever buy. If you need a 50mm (and who doesn't) at 1.8, go and buy it, you will not be disappointed.
I have said nifty fifty, payed 110 quid for it new .. seeing that comparison I'm sticking with it , the more expensive lens doesn't give that much more for the money
!.2 lens is a specialty lens. If I had a reason to get it I would but since I shoot mostly at 4-8 the cheaper lens is good and sharp enough for me. Close portraits with one eye in focus are beautiful with the 1.2 in high contrast B&W. Also pet photography is very nice with 1.2. Just not needed for what I do. Get the 1.4 instead. The build quality is worth it.
Seems to be a speciality lens for the most critical professionals. Would make a difference in large prints when using a high resolution camera like the R5. As a hobbyist there’s no way I would buy this lens.
I have whole set of canon EOS lenses with me. Canon now has a different lens mount and my lenses and all the investment has become a waste. I didn't like buying an adaptor extra and I don't know what quality I am going to get with adaptor. I feel cheated.
I had the same worry but went with the R52 and many adapted EF lenses.. works flawlessly. A little annoying to remember to take the adapter, and your camera gets a bit longer, but functionality is great.
It's not worth that much more, the difference in quality would probably be more in the corners, I'd imagine the cheaper lens may fall away in the corners
I like what Ken Rockwell says about f1.2 lense "They are for show" and owning a few I can say UNLESS I really need a f1.2 I really don't. I find f1.4 lenses just as creamy bokeh and honestly prefer my Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 if I am being honest. Though on my Canon's I use my DSLR Sigma 50mm f1.4. I sold my f1.2 50's as they are just so bloody big.
I considered the f1.2 but I simply could not justify the cost so I ended up getting the excellent Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art for £650 it is very close to the 1.2 in quality.
There’s a massive difference under harsh lighting conditions like ghosting, flaring, aberrations and especially speed of focus tracking
Interesting video, I'll preface this with I am a professional photographer, with a photography degree.
In my opinion the difference between two lenses from Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji/Sigma etc at the same focal length but different price points are quite often fine margins and even the very budget lenses can be used for professional work.
However, Image quality, resolution, etc will flat light is one thing.
How a lens handles back lighting, Direct lighting etc, any Flare? Ghosting? LOCA? can all influence how a lens can be used. The lens coatings make a big difference to how a lens performs.
Under direct Sun their may be flaring, the image may lose contrast etc. This may be used in an artistic way, but knowing how a lens performs in all situations is important before making a choice.
How these effect your desired image could well be depending on how you can control the light, can you use diffusers, black card etc, can you change the angle you take the photo from, stopping down the aperture etc. Sometimes with cheaper lenses you need to work harder to get the same shot.
But considering you can buy a lot of accessories or other lenses with the massive price difference it is always worth considering.
In reality I have normally found that there is a lens in the middle ground that keeps most of the benefits or the premium lens but is significantly cheaper an F/1.4 range etc (obviously for everyone but canon, you have excellent 3rd party options)
I have never used either of these lenses in their current form.
Back in Film days and at university, I used the canon plastic fantastic nifty fifty and never had any issues with image quality (keeping the small 35mm negatives dust free was the biggest challenge though, 120mm was always easier...)
I think you need some thicker glasses if you don't see a difference in sharpness. It's so clearly evident that there is a difference. The 50mm f1.8 uses plastic lens elements to keep costs down and sufferers from a lack of micro contrast as well as slight color bluring. The 50mm f1.2 picks up on all the micro contrast in an image and colors are crisp and well defined. There is a massive difference.
This is the video that camera companies don’t want you to make. Thank you for making it.
Worth noting the difference in light reaching the sensor between f/1.2 and 1.8. the last comparison showed a doubling of the shutter speed 1/400 to 1/800. The more expensive lens is going to give you far more useability in low light situations, with that extra stop.
I've owned the nifty RF (back when it was £120) and now the L RF (cheaper on MPB). It gives that extra inch of creative opportunity which is difficult to discern on a purely technical evaluation.
For almost everyone the 1.8 does the job. But if you have the money and want f1.2 and a slightly better colour reproduction and bokeh quality the f1.2 is magical. I’ve taken some of my best photos with that lens and I have some lovely hasselblad and Fuji glass as well.
You can get the f1.2 quite often between £1500 and £1800. New too. Even Amazon often have it for less than £1800. Still around 10 times the price mind you !!!
Thank you for the comparison which is nicely and thoroughly done. Although I do not think this shows the real differences between these two lenses. Bigger variety of shots would show that they differ more than this comparison suggests. For example full body or small group portraits in front of a busy background do make much bigger difference. The nifty fifty is very good at smaller focus distances. But the further it is focused, the worse it gets. Not much but visibly. The 1.2 stays same sharp no matter the focused distance. Such kind of shots also reveal better bokeh with the faster lens and much better separation at 1.2 than 1.8.
I've spent a week comparing these two to make the right decision. And finally I bought Sigma 40mm f/1.4 :-). It is same sharp as the RF 1.2, with slightly better contrast wide opened, even creamier blur and better handled transition from sharp to blurred giving it nicer 3D pop. Sigma is also much better built (all metal vs cheap feeling plastic on Canon) and costs one third of the price of Canon....
I'd have liked to see you attempt to improve the color on the cheaper lens to see if you could match the better photo using LR
Hi Marc, I know this question is a bit off-topic for this video, but could you consider making a video about back-button focus, AF-ON, and AEL, and explaining what they're used for?
Good idea Dennis, I'll add it to the list!
I've had the EF 50mm f/1.4 for many many years and goes with me everywhere. Can't beat the quality of the images. And, it doesn't intimidate people when you walk around city streets like some other lenses.
The nifty fifty was slightly back-focused on the tree. Can't you see that? And it seems like the exposure with the expensive lens is a bit darker, which could explain the extra shades of color in the bright areas.
Love your comparisons between these two lenses, right to the point! I have the nifty fifty and love the size and cost. I couldn’t afford the price of the 2500.00 for the slight difference in image quality. I just got the canon 6D mark ll and the adopter for my EF lenses and they work well on the mark ll. I have the Tamron 24-70 2.8 EF mount and it to works well on the mark ll. I am glad other companies are finally making the RF mounts lenses which will save $$. Again thanks for you comparison and looking forward to others.
Pleasure Brennan 👍 🙏
I think what you say about these lenses could be applied across most brands. I moved to the OM pro a couple of years ago and as you say the difference in certain photo quality is similar. Portraits, speed of focus and darker conditions and the difference is more obvious. More important the sealing is important. Travelling to wet places like the UK, Iceland etc make it important to me. With the cost of travel it is worth the investment to avoid disappointment. Great video comparison though.
I love the Nifty 50 1.8. Got a refurbished from Canon for $110, but it's not my sharpest cheap lens. The Canon EF 10 -18 F4.5 to 5.6 is sharper and it has image stabilization. Not that you really need it with a lens this wide. Great for vlogging though and you can find them used for about $100.
Thanks for sharing
@@theschoolofphotography Love you guys.
I bought the 50 f1.2 and it is brilliant, but very heavy too. So I ended up selling it after one year. I am not a portrait photographer and so it was of limited use to me and could not justify the ongoing ownership!
Thanks for sharing 👍
If you stop down. Nah the 50 f1.2 is over kill in my experience. Canon's nifty 50 stm lenses (ef or rf) are absolutely amazing. Almost too good. Much better then say Sonys FE 50mm f1.8 for example.
Who gets fast primes and stops down? You get fast primes to use it wide open 99% of the time. In the past with dslr’s, the AF accuracy was hit or miss with shallow dof, but most modern mirrorless AF’s can nail f/1.2.
I own this lens also, and I absolutely love it, punches well above its weight. small lightweight and discreet, whats not to like, also these days if you need a little extra background blur there's always a way around it in post. different matter if photography paid my bills though.
on the 1.8 lens have more magenta color at 1.8. you can se it on the color at the leaf on the ground in the background.
Nice one Marc. So it's very similar result to that video you did 6 years ago comparing a 1.8 to 1.4.
Thanks. Kind of, but the f1.2 is 'a lot' more expensive!!
Canon vs Canon; it's going to be close. However, I don't think I'd want to spend on a high quality body, only to put a bargain lens on it. I could see the difference between the two lenses, and having seen that, couldn't be satisfied with the cheaper version; it may be sharp, of course, but it doesn't handle the light generally anything like as well as the f1.2. Not to mention the super smooth bokeh. Great project, thanks for taking the trouble!
Thanks for this. So professional
Glad you liked it Tom 😊
Thank you for excellent review🙏
No problem 👍
Thank you so much for the helpful and informative comparison video! Good luck and keep creating! ❤
Thank you! You too!
50 f1.2 is meant for people its a portrait lens and there it shines.the skin tones and the clarity of the eyes are amazing and the fall of buttery smooth
They seems very close in shrapnels’s. Could You try to colorgrade the 1,8 to match the 1,2.
I have both and I prefer the 1.2 over the 1.8. Wide open the 1.8 has too much CA.
I hope you make a video comparing these two lenses in portrait photography
Coming soon, make sure you are subed to get notified 👍
A very informative test/comparison, thanks for sharing this. It must be said that the difference between 1.2 and 1.8 on the £2.5k lens, is a halving of the speed used. This is surely as significant as the bokeh/blur, which as you say, has very little difference.
I’d take the nifty 50, as I don’t have sufficient spare cash ( I do have the EF nifty 50 though !) on my Canon R6m2.
Thanks 😀👍
Thanks for the info!
I view on a 4k TV picture quality first class from both lenses as you said more colour from the expensive lens. Interesting one
Thanks for sharing 👍
The difference is huge to me. Doesn’t matter if a client can see it. I can, and it matters to me.
There is a slight difference - you would certainly hope that there was for such a hike in price. But does the difference really matter for most non-professional photographers? I would say not, but it is ‘horses for courses’, and if folk have a ton of money, well go for it!
As it is, I always buy used equipment for the lowest price/quality I can, and as someone who is more interested in the actual photo than ‘gear’, I am more than satisfied. Indeed while I am typing this I can’t wait to get out today and take some shots! I print to A3 and frame a lot of my photos, and from normal viewing distance I would challenge anyone to see a difference! I have 5 cameras, the oldest having only 5MP (an old Canon Powershot bridge camera), and people beg prints off me so they can have them framed as well. WEX and other outlets are a brilliant source of really good used kit and you have the reassurance of a great guarantee as well!
Thanks for sharing 👍
Please do a similar video for 85mm lenses
I have used the "nifty fifty" 1.8 for years. He is correct for $150 (USD) it is the best lens at that price you will ever buy. If you need a 50mm (and who doesn't) at 1.8, go and buy it, you will not be disappointed.
Thanks Dave 😊
I have said nifty fifty, payed 110 quid for it new .. seeing that comparison I'm sticking with it , the more expensive lens doesn't give that much more for the money
!.2 lens is a specialty lens. If I had a reason to get it I would but since I shoot mostly at 4-8 the cheaper lens is good and sharp enough for me. Close portraits with one eye in focus are beautiful with the 1.2 in high contrast B&W. Also pet photography is very nice with 1.2. Just not needed for what I do. Get the 1.4 instead. The build quality is worth it.
Yup
I have found my Sony 55/210 kit lens is my favorite landscaper
About the same in cost 200 or so but man, depth and dynamic, light and easy
Seems to be a speciality lens for the most critical professionals. Would make a difference in large prints when using a high resolution camera like the R5. As a hobbyist there’s no way I would buy this lens.
I think most porple buy the 1,2 version because of the faster stop and it's build quality, rather than superior sharpness.
Good work❤
Thank you! 😊
I miss RF 50mm f1.4 lens for £600.
I would get the excellent Voigtländer Nokton 50mm 1.0 Aspherical Lens !
Good woek❤
ive been a photographer for the longest time seems like the 50 1.2 is tack sharp
I have whole set of canon EOS lenses with me. Canon now has a different lens mount and my lenses and all the investment has become a waste. I didn't like buying an adaptor extra and I don't know what quality I am going to get with adaptor. I feel cheated.
I had the same worry but went with the R52 and many adapted EF lenses.. works flawlessly. A little annoying to remember to take the adapter, and your camera gets a bit longer, but functionality is great.
I don't see a 2300 difference. People don't zoom in 200%. That's not how you view images.
3:39 Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 🤦♀
4:32 Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssss 🙌
🪟 shut that window! You’re letting flies in.
BASICALLY THE DIFFERENCE IS ONLY INTHE PRICE ......😂😂😂😂
It's not worth that much more, the difference in quality would probably be more in the corners, I'd imagine the cheaper lens may fall away in the corners
Unless you’re a professional photographer the 1.8 is best bang for buck!
I like what Ken Rockwell says about f1.2 lense "They are for show" and owning a few I can say UNLESS I really need a f1.2 I really don't. I find f1.4 lenses just as creamy bokeh and honestly prefer my Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 if I am being honest. Though on my Canon's I use my DSLR Sigma 50mm f1.4. I sold my f1.2 50's as they are just so bloody big.
I wonder if these comparisons should be done "blind". That is, somebody should jumble them up before you do the comparison.