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.
yup, it's about getting the shot .. most important ..
are you sure all shoots are at F2? as there is quit a big difference in depth of the background...
Great test, for 1.4 looks legit. Nice work...
I'm surprised at the price difference when the image quality seems to be the same with all three types. Perhaps in different scenarios or situations like when there isn't enough light, the difference will come out but under normal circumstances, the 50mm 1.8 is doing very well. - http://www.lensgiant.com/
lol.. I remember seeing this on my phone and moving on because there was no way I could tell on that little thing, but the real story is that whoever conducted the comparison did an awful job at 1]taking the photos, and 2] handling/processing the files.
Moral of the story, if you don't know how to use the tools properly and effectively, then no, you cannot tell except for the 1.8 sticking out with the image blur (bokeh) in the back. Not one of the images is in focus. So either they purposely slanted the comparison that way because they wanted people to think there was no difference, or they were clueless about it. Which is worse?
If you can't get a quality shot with the $125 gear you are not a real photographer. I won't pay $1600 so that I can be "LEET". I always stand amazed about gear arguments when some of the greatest photos of all time were shot on relative crap gear. I cant speak to "hunting" and "loud" because I shoot manually. If you spend more time learning the craft, you could take amazing photos on a Polaroid.
this is something we already know without reading.
1) a prime lens comparison is rather pointless, most prime are sharp to begin with, w/e you get on top when spending extra money is purely for speed. Not only that, he picked a 50mm, that's the easiest lens everyone can make, and out of the 100 different 50 1.8/1.7/1.4/1.2 I'm almost sure they are the same when stopping down to about f/2.
2) A more "fair" comparison is this. the canon 24-85 for around 100 VS the 24-105 L for around 600. see what that 500 bucks can get you, that should be the next article.
And that's why, I prefer a lens with characteristic rather than sharpness and contrast. I usually use MF lens.
Canon 55mm f1.2 is still nicer for portraits, but i guess that's just personal preference.
1.2 is for night shoots, yes i can tell the difference. u are using a macro for taking a photo of the city, and a 23mm for a close up with a wild lion. beginner. jajajajajaja
So what is the name of the lady model?