One of the most popular lens lengths on the market is the 50mm. As a Canon shooter I have a few different choices to pick from at that length, but the three most popular seem to be the 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.2. While on a shoot last week I decided to play with all three lenses and shoot a few photos to see how different each lens was from each other. Here are my results.
I feel like I should preface this article by saying this is not by any means a comprehensive test. A group of photographers were out shooting and I realized we had the full variety of 50mm lenses (1.8, 1.4, and 1.2) so I asked if I could borrow each for a couple shots. In order to keep things fair I shot each of these photos with the exact same settings, from the exact same distance, using the same camera. I decided to shoot all the photos using an aperture of f2.0 so that it was even across the board. I realize that the 50mm 1.2 lens is a great performer even when wide open so shooting at f2.0 might be limiting it's potential but I thought it would be nice to see all the images using the exact same settings. Lastly, the images being shown are JPEG's coming straight from the camera. Any processing (contrast, colors, sharpening) were done all in the Canon 5D Mark III using the Camera Standard profile.
The 50mm 1.8 II lens currently sells for around $125, the 50mm 1.4 lens is $400 and the 50mm 1.2 lens is $1,619.
In order to get a good close up look at each file I have uploaded the high resolution images as well for comparison. You can view them by clicking the links here. Photo from 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2.
Here is another example.
View the high resolution images here. 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 50mm 1.2.
As I mentioned in the beginning this was by no means a comprehensive test. But it really was quite eye opening for me and the other photographers with me that day. I was surprised that at f2.0 I really didn't notice as much difference as I thought I would between each of the three lenses. I plan on doing more of these tests on upcoming shoots and trying out a number of different scenarios. But I thought it would be fun for now to share these shots. Hopefully if you are a photographer sporting the 50mm 1.8 lens on your camera you can hold your head high and carry it with confidence knowing that your $100 lens is actually quite nice!
If you're passionate about taking your photography to the next level but aren't sure where to dive in, check out the Well-Rounded Photographer tutorial where you can learn eight different genres of photography in one place. If you purchase it now, or any of our other tutorials, you can save a 15% by using "ARTICLE" at checkout.
? He compared the lowest price 50mm to the higher priced "Nifty Fifty" I guess you don't know the Canon 50mm 1.2L is &1,400-$1,600?
It's the 1.8 that's nicknamed "nifty".
It should be thrifty nifty. All three are nifty.
Correction:
Should be thrifty fifty.
I'm not sure what your point would be. The DOF on any lens with the same focal length and aperture setting would be the same, given the same subject distance. Yes, corner sharpness might differ depending on lens quality, or maybe chromatic aberrations or coma, but this isn't a test of that.
Agreed. I also agree that the author is pointing out that 99% of the public won't know or care that it came from the 1.8 or 1.2. The other conversation would be how versatile and or efficient each lens is. My Sigma is sharper across the board than all Canon 50s but doesn't snap focus as quickly or consistently.
I know what you mean! It's still better than the 1.8 but a touch more consistency would be nice.
Sigma 50 1.4 is the best for the 50mm lenses !!!
Congrats :: )
yeah been debating that Sigma 50 1.4. I have their the 30mm 1.4 which is designed for crop sensors, and its a awesome piece of glass, even wide open.
Get the SIgma 50 or the newer 35 1.4 you won't regret it! The 35 is sweet from what I hear. :)
I think he dont use a tripod! He could have at least used a tripod when I did the tests .. tremors affect results
No tripod was used. My shutter speed was 1/2000th of a second.
That explains the motion blur ;-)
At 1/2000, even Michael J. Fox could take a tack sharp photo!
Great comparision Trevor. As a photographer having just bought the 1.8 I feel so much better that I didn't make the sacrifice for the higher lens.
This test should have been done wide open. Of course a 50mm will be sharp by f/2! This would be like comparing a Ferrari to a Mustang to an Accord by driving all of them at 50 mph, and then concluding that you can't tell much of a difference.
Jason - as I stated in the article I will be doing more tests and happy to shoot them all wide open as well. What I wanted to do here was compare the optics using the exact same setting for each lens. Using your example it would be like driving the Ferrari, Mustang and Accord all at 50mph and seeing how each felt at that speed.
Trevor, I side with you on this one. What is the most likely use... With 1.4/1.8 lenses unless it's an exposure issue a lot of photogs step down to 2/2.2ish range so that they can have a decent DOF but still have a great response from the lens.
A majority of drivers will be driving at 50-70 on the highway. So feel, ride, noise and all of that come into play. The new AMG S Class gets 0-60 in 4s. but is limited to 155mph, but last time checked, its hard to find a speed limit over 85 in the US.
I like the way you compared them in this, but them all wide open would be sick too.
Don't get me wrong, I love photography. But I rather test that Ferrari's or AMG S Class' 0-60 acceleration speed than any lens out in the market. Just saying... :P
doing this wide open would blow the whole point of the test, because you'd have nothing common to compare between lenses. it would have become a comparison of different DOFs instead of lenses.
I know I can compare a $6,000 Nikon 200mm f/2G VR II open wide open to any lens under $2,500 at the same focal length. Does that count? Or a Nikon 24mm f/1.4G to a 24-85 kit lens, that's easy too. =P
Not sure I quite understand?
you're not alone tdayley
You have to try the two lenses I mentioned then. Especially the 200/2. http://fstoppers.com/fstoppers-reviews-the-worlds-best-portrait-lens
I can see a difference in the bokeh, clarity and the color between especially the f/1.8 and the f/1.2.
thank you captain.
The question is, will the client notice?
Ding, ding, ding.
They won't, but I will. And that's 50% of what matters IMO.
I definitely agree with you Tam!
I agree...but it's not a "50%" price difference. One is 1500% more expensive than the other. Sure, it's 100% more light...but ONLY 100% more. Again, not 1500% more. The 1.4 seems the fast-but-practical choice.
...And Voigtlander has f/0.95 glass for about $600 cheaper than Canon's f/1.2. Glad I use m43. .-.
for gear savvy clients, just paint a red line around your 1.8 and tell them it's the L series
i think the photogrpaher does notice....not the client. But first of all I have to love the photos :-)
The client will not notice.
Depends on your client. If it's the average family who just want some cheap portraits, then no, they wont. Not at all. If it's the art buyer/art director of an agency who are looking for someone to shoot for their client, they absolutely will! You will not notice any difference when you look at the thumbnails here (except the bokeh, which is pretty bad on the 50mm), but if you are shooting for a client who requires the files to be good enough to make huge prints, then it's another story.
It all depends on your needs. If you are shooting $100 jobs, then it would not make sense to buy a $1600 lens. The f/1.8 is great for its price point! If you are working for people who know photography, then you need to make sure the stuff you deliver is solid.
If I get a whole bunch of images with a 200/2 and someone else does the same with a 70-200/2.8, I'm sure my 200/2 images will pop out more, assuming we both shoot the same way. Clients do notice if it's different than everyone else's photos. The ones who don't... well, they don't pay as much. =P
Eye-opening for sure, but I don't think this is comparing apple to apple. Well, if it were, it'd be comparing Fuji apple to a Red apple.
Without touching the subject of bokeh, among the 50mm f/1.2, f/1.4 and f/1.8, you are more bound to get closer to the lens' "sweet spot" at f/2.0 if your max aperture is f/1.2 than when it's at f/1.8. This means that you're more prone to CA, vignette, and lack of sharpness at f/2.0 if your max is a third of a stop away compare to when you're a full stop away.
Obviously, comparing these glasses at their max aperture would be apple to orange, since nothing given is equal. That said, everyone raves about how their f/1.4 or f/1.2 is way better than f/1.8. Maybe it's the bokeh, maybe it's the extra stop. I personally like my 50mm f/1.4 a lot better than my f/1.8. I could shoot at f/2.0 or even f/2.2 and know that my end result would look better than if I were shooting with a 50mm f/1.8.
I'm not saying your assessment is wrong, but I'm not saying it's right either. Just... kinda cool. I guess.
Disclaimer: I'm a Nikon shooter.
Nailed it. For most uses, the f/1.8 is great. Mind you, the focusing is really bad, slow and noisy. The worse is you can't override the autofocus without flicking the switch. The bokeh is kind of busy at anything other than wide open due to the 5 blade aperture. Everyone should have a 50mm. If you don't use it a lot, the f/1.8 is certainly worth getting. Mind you, the 1.4 is the sweet spot in my opinion. You get more light in, smoother bokeh and the build quality and focus is much better. It seems to be agreed on that the f/1.2 is overpriced and actually doesn't perform as well as the 1.4 in many respects.
As for the shots, the second series makes it hard to judge as it seems like a cloud moved out going from the 1.8 to the 1.2, giving more pleasing light to the 1.8 and better contrast. The 1.2 also seems to have more green fringing between the hair and the background, but it might just be because of the stronger light and contrast.
Sharpness is almost a wash, but for those who care, the difference in bokeh is readily apparent IMO. The 1.8 is a bit busy, the 1.4 a touch less so, and the 1.2 is significantly smoother than both, at least in these shots. I'm surprised and thought they'd be more similar at the same aperture.
I actually like how (at least in these shots) the 1.8 and 1.4 retain a little more detail in the background. the 1.2 is so blurred out that it feels removed rather than distanced. especially in the last three.
Canon 50 1.8 easy outperforms new Nikon 58 1.4 :) ok ok just kidding :D
Haha the only difference is your clients want to see the red ring not the nifty 50 cent.
The more you pay, the more you carry
The companies just want to suck your blood more and more these days.
What is with the white dust all over the 1.8 image of the gentleman? Dust in the lens?
I noticed that as well Marco. It might have been.
Filthy sensor. Would also help is half the photos were actually in focus.
It would have been a much better test if the images weren't front-focused on her forehead in the first set and his lips in the second set.
I think for your next set of tests, it would be cool to not list the lens used until the end. that way we can judge which images we like more, without getting a 1.2 or 1.4 bias