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.
I am intrigued by the results, especially the differences in depth of field. The 1.8 lens seems to have a much wider depth of field with the eyelashes, the mouth, the hairs, the boobs, the scarf being sharp. With the 1.2 only the eyes seem to be sharp. The background is smoother of course but also just more blurred. it actually looks like a shot at 1.2 and another one a 1.8.
Any thoughts on this?
I kinda believe if you would have lied about which lens was which that more than a few people would still be touting the nicer bokeh (mind you at that point, for the wrong lens) That's the social experiment I want to see! Minds blown when you reveal the real lens that took each pic!
How devious! ;)
I see lots of comments about bokeh, but in my limited world, it's about the aperture. I have a 1.8, but there are many times I would love to be able to open up to 1.2!
Like for suites I choose the most expensive one without knowing the price of the lens
well, as long as you print it in size of a postal stamp, it can be even iphone...
mahmood - the high resolution images are there for your enjoyment as well.
I meant: most people don't print the photos large enough to justify a better lens. Apart from that, I have had the 50 1.8II before and it was one of the most horrendous photographic experiences of my life. Is it cheap and sufficiently sharp? Yes. Does a lens boil down to sharpness? No. I hated how it rendered most colors (specially skin), I hated it when it flared, I hated its sluggishness when focusing and lack of a real focus ring, and the fact that it went out of adjustment pretty easily. It was, in short, an unusable lens to me, and hell to shoot with. 1.4 and 1.2 are both fine lenses. Actually, I think the 1.4 is the better one, with 1.2 being almost as good, but with a very high price premium for -0.2 stops...
I've owned the both the 1.8 and 1.4. The main reason I wanted to upgrade to the 1.4 was solely due to the quality/durability of the lens, and not the quality of the image it produced. Using the 1.8 for about a year, I was constantly afraid that I was going to break the lens. And using the autofocus on the 1.8 sounds awful.
I do prefer the bokeh of the 1.4, but the 1.8 seemed to have a little less lens aberration when used on a cropped sensor.
I love my 1.4 and use it the majority of the time unless I need to go wider, then I use my 28mm 1.8.
It depends on your particular application. As I shoot product and commercial, I desire as much of the scene, subject and talent to be both in focus and sharp from edge to edge as possible. My sweet spot is f8 for this. Lots of glass, including some vintage stock meets those specs.
Even in sports, where f2.8 is considered a must have, as I shoot in broad daylight, I will always try to shoot at f4 or higher and still be at 1/2000s with base ISO, so I can keep more players and the ball in focus.
That said, the examples above, with their blown backgrounds and small online resolution, do little justice to determine the real answer. Cheaper lenses, unless shot wide open, have less blades and produce rough, shaped blurs, (which can actually draw attention away from the subject). Shooting the cheaper stock wide open to produce smoother blurs introduces their other deficiencies and CA.
Second. The higher quality lenses, with corrective coatings and exotic glass will translate into less hours spend in post. If you're a volume shooter, it will pay for itself quickly.
Third. The build of the lens matters in the long run, is more resistive to the elements, (and it doesn't have to be a downpour or desert extreme), is more responsive in focus and is more pleasurable to use.
Finally, I've yet to hear from someone ranting about having to upgrade from kit to L glass, and wishing they didn't. :)
The high res images are there as well for review.
All I notice is the bokeh and higher dynamic range with the 1.2. I personally settled with the 1.4 for my personal 50mm lens, just an over all better build to the 1.8 with out breaking the bank with the 1.2.
I can tell 1.8 compared to 1.2, but 1.4 to 1.2 looks very similar. I think it depends on what you need the lens for. If it's for your business the 1.4 seems to give a better ROI. No customer will notice the bokeh difference between the 1.4 and 1.2 pics.
The 1.2 bokeh looks lousy.. it's such blob of white on the guy that it starts to bleed into his hair. He looses dimensionality.
The 1.2 doesn't work for me in anything buy extreme low-light.
There's almost a stop of difference in the exposures. If this photographer had compensated for that I think you complaint about the bokeh would be different. This isn't a fair comparison because he used the same for all three. If he had started correctly with the 1.2 both the other lenses wold have produced dark images and the 1.2 would have been the clear winner.
In a world that lives at 72dpi monitor resolution with most posted file sizes less than 640x480, this is something worth considering.....
Thank you! I try to explain to every single one of my clients that it's not about the camera or the lens, it's the damn SCREEN that makes the biggest difference to a digital photo.
And I use the 50/1.8 on every single shoot, by the by... I toyed with the 1.4 once (significantly better autofocus, obviously better in low light, built better and looks nicer), but I flew to New Zealand for the weekend instead. Definitely don't regret that decision!
I also think that the results shown here are fairly the same, and the details are not that evident, except to the trained eye. These pictures were shot in bright sunlight, at 1/2000s, right? Do you think you would get different results shooting at dusk, using the same f/2 settings?
Even at f2 the 1.2 lens lets in more light. I think this is interesting and would be very useful in shooting low light situations. There seems to be about a .75 difference in exposure between the 1.8 and the 1.2. Additionally the 1.2 is sharper in the details. I'd like to see these exposures leveled out so a better conclusion could be drawn about the bokeh (Or maybe just shot in Av mode). The 1.8 is by no means a bad lens but there is so much more functionality to the 1.2.
There's almost a stop of difference in the exposures. If this
photographer had compensated for that I think the complaints about the
bokeh would be different. This isn't a fair comparison because he used
the same for all three. If he had started correctly with the 1.2 both
the other lenses wold have produced dark images and the 1.2 would have
been the clear winner. It's just much faster glass.
I did notice in the shot of the guy that the 1.2 lens was a tad brighter (not sure if it is a full stop, I'd say probably closer to a third or half stop.) But all the settings were exactly the same and I didn't want to do any post processing to the images. My thought is that a cloud might have moved exposing more sun light.
I have tried all 3 lenses and surprisingly, the 50 1.4 seems to be the best bang for your buck. The 1.8 has a very cheap build and I had issues focusing with it. The 50 1.2 I used was actually soft at 1.2 so I found myself stopping down. I had a friend that had the same issues at 1.2. Great article.
I'm more curious how they compare at low and painfully low lighting.
I'll do my best to find some time to shoot that in the next few weeks.
Very Nice Trevor, but what I really want to know is HOW THESE LENSES WORK IN A STUDIO F16 SHOOT?!
And yes...F16 because that's how far de 1.2 reaches.
Did you test that?
I haven't yet. But it sounds like that would be a fun thing to compare as well. I hope to do this more often... real world lens comparisons.
I'm going to try that soon, and let you know about my results.
I'm kind of amazed at how many of you guys didn't do this test on your own before shelling out top dollar for that 50mm 1.2.... There are reasons to get the f/1.2 instead of the cheaper lenses, but not many. I've found that the 50mm 1.4 still has plastic, cheap gears inside, and since the front element protrudes when focusing, it gets damaged more easily than the other two. Stay away from the 1.4 unless you're always shooting in really controlled environments.
Obviously 1.2 performs better (in the end, in photography you get what you pay for) but I can't imagine any situation in which shooting at 1.2 would be useful (if you're shooting in a low light situation, you clearly can't control the light, which often implies you can't control your subject and the dof provided by such a low aperture is useless if your subject isn't standing perfectly still, waiting for you to get the shot). Also, $1600 for a 50mm? I'll keep my 1.8 II (which, by the way, got from my father who bought it around 20 years ago and it's still kicking!), thanks.
Seriously one of the most misleading articles I have read in a long time. I'd like you to do the test in a dimly lit church wide open no flash and then get back to us on the difference between a 1.8 and a 1.2 lens. Whats next? An iphone and a Mark III at 22 aperture full sun?
Jennifer this was not put out there to be misleading by any means. This was simply to share a comparison with all the lenses on equal settings. I feel like every owner of the 50mm 1.2 lens feels like I am out there to discredit their investment. I love that lens... it is phenomenal. All I did here was share the results of the test which I outlined in the article... it humors me to think people are so upset about this.
there are enough $25 session fee cd burning hacks out there as it is without articles like this downplaying the importance of good glass. Sorry, you should have elaborated and made it clear that fast pro glass is a MUST for professionals in certain situations.
I think you are quite naive to think that just because you have "good glass" that suddenly that makes you a professional photographer. Really? Is that all it takes?
It's a matter of professional touch. If you are a professional you need to have an edge over amateurs.
It is also tough to compare without being able to look at distortion and edge sharpness
You might notice if you look closely at the all three images side by side that their is a BIG difference in the depth and contrast in the 1.8 shot compared to the 1.4 and 1.2.
I'm more impressed that she was able to hold that pose so well over 3 shots
The only thing I notice looking at the images above on a small laptop screen is the skin tones .. I like the 1.4 the best.. the 1.8 off to me ..
Great comparison though !
It's not about more or less bokeh. That's a function of the aperture the photo was shot at. The difference in the quality of the bokeh is apparent to me, even in the low res versions. You really do get what you pay for.
This "non comprehensive" totally incomplete and imprecise "comparison", is just to trick us into looking at B&H web shop? Because it seems to go hand in hand with the "Extremely Low Price on Canon EF 70-200mm"... er... "article"
Yeah, I have shot with cheap lenses and like with all equipment, you are fine with it until the situation is challenging or demands precision. But seriously, this is not an article, it only seems to me like a cheap way to make us look into B&H shop...
Starting by saying that you "feel like I should preface this article by saying this is not by any means a comprehensive test." is a poor excuse for a poor article. All you get is us to become oppinionated about little and therefor a lot of visits and comments having done no job at all.
C'mon, be honest! FS can do better than this!
Alejandro you make me smile. This was just me on a shoot with a group of other photographers that had an idea to see what it looked like to shoot all the different 50mm lenses and compare the results. Yep, it was far from comprehensive. But I promise this is not some Fstoppers tricky conspiracy to get you to the B&H Shop. Lol. Too funny!
maybe the diference you can see in nocturnal photos
litte difrence between the 1.8 and 1.4 but to the trained eye 1.2 stands above
I shoot with my 50 mm 1.2 and couldn't be any happier. Why not show how these three lenses work in low light? That's when you'll tell the big difference. Lenses aren't priced just because.
I plan on doing that in future tests. Thanks Lupe.
Okay, the only differences I can see from the sample images is that the shadow of the more expensive lens is a bit brighter than the cheaper. Also, I agree with the other posts about the bokeh. Smoother bokeh on the more expensive lens than the cheaper. Unless my clients are photographers themselves, I doubt that they'll notice the difference. The results from these lenses are great in my opinion, but I prefer the look of the f/1.2 if I had to choose one.
Granted, I am not the photographer I would like to be. I am too cheap to be able to afford an SLR much less the lenses. From the work I have done with the pictures I have taken and the touching up I have done in Photoshop, I do have a decent eye for differences. I can see subtle differences between the 1.8 and 1.2. In one instance, the 1.2 looks like it took the better picture and in another the 1.8 looks better. The 1.2 looks like it has too much of a white wash look to it. I guess this is yet another example where the cheaper turns out just as good stuff as the more expensive.
I think the major item being missed here is that the photos were shot at the same aperture, f/2. If the photos were shot at their widest open, the difference likely would be rather obvious. It's like taking a Corolla, a 'Vette and a Bugatti and then comparing how fast they go when you drive each one at 60mph, guess what, they'll all be doing 60. The reason a 1.2 costs more is that it CAN do 1.2, that 1.8 glass is cheaper partly because it Can't do 1.2, same way a f/.95 is both better than, and more expensive than a 1.2. You could throw a .95 in here and shoot at 2.0 too, but that would defeat the point of what makes it a .95
Marvin I am happy to do more tests and look forward to it. But I do think it makes plenty of sense to test the lenses all at the same aperture to see what the difference looks like. I get your car comparison (another person mentioned it as well.) Keep in mind though that all the companies that review cars don't just put the best features to the test. They have standards that they run the cars through to see how they perform against other cars at those same standards.
I liked the bokeh from the 1.8 better. Because of the increase in exposure from the differing exposures the 1.2 background was more blown out and didn't allow for seeing the full quality of the bokeh. Big questions: focusing distance. Weather resistance. Loudness. Speed of focus. Oh yeah, and 1.2 will always let in more light in lowlight situations, instawin for low-light photographers trying to stop motion. ;)