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.
looking at the low-res pix of the woman, i could tell the 1.2 from the others 'cos the background is more "bokeh'd", but in the high-res pix i note that the DOF is somewhat broader on the 1.8, so that her whole face is mostly in focus, unlike the 1.2 and 1.4 shots.
The main differences are behind those pictures - 1. AF speed. 2. AF accuracy, especially in highly backlighting scene like this. 3. L-graded quality colours right from the сamera, minor tweek's in LR/PS. 4. 1.8 & 1.4 won't last longer then two year in pro use.
Why is the focus on their noses instead of the eyes?
In my opinion the editor went for a bunch of lenses where the difference in image quality is quite small. 50mm lenses is easy to manufacture and not very demanding. That's why even a $180 lens performs astoundingly well compared to a $1600 behemoth.
Performing the same test on zoom lenses would have shown a much higher divergence. A $2000 70-200 f2.8 completely trounces it's cheaper 3rd party counterpart in every respect.
I have a question for all of you that shooting video, is the 1.8 good enough for video shooting?
Okay. Now do that same test on a candlelight dinner taking pictures of your date in a romantic corner of a restaurant.
For all of you that like the bokeh on the 1.8 better - did you consider that this strongly depends on the distance you have between the model and the trees in the background? Put the model 4 meters closer to the background and you will hate the 1.8 bokeh.
With the 1.2, you can at least chose to go up to 1.8 if you like it.
Personally i see a huge difference in sharpnes at her hair above her eyes. 1.4 and 1.2 got much detail.....1.8 is very flat! But with 1.8 her lips are sharper then the other two...so probably just a different focus point ;-)
Bokeh with better lenses is sweeeeet....but worth that price difference?
Why are there white specks all over the pic, especially in the suit, of the man with the 50 1.8?
I assume dirty lens?
http://fstoppers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SDHC-Backup-November-201...
was wondering the same
I dunno, but I don't think dust on the lens can appear in photos when you shoot at wide apertures..
u should try this test in low light conditions… :)
I guess it is better to use its maximum aperture. I mean, you would buy the lens for the aperture right? That is why you would pay such a big amount for one. But since you've mentioned you will try it again, I would really hope you will use all of the three its max apertures. I'd love to see them as well.
Do this test with extreme low light. And see why one kind of lens cost more the other.
I bought a Samyang 85mm 1.4 for my Nikon D7000 and it takes shots as well as the reviews say it does - fantastic and indistinguishable from the approaching-$2000 Nikon cousin. While it doesn't have auto-focus, I doubt at 1.4 anything could auto-focus perfectly anyway; a good loupe or focus screen allows you to focus precisely. The problem I've found with the loupe is the delay from pressing the button to getting the shot - especially when it involves kids or animals. I tend to shotgun a few shots while changing focus (through the viewfinder) to attempt to get a good shot (which does work much of the time). In a studio setting with a model it would work very well.
My old dog, the Canon 50mm 1.4, is 15 years old and still working. Focus ring isn't as smooth and it hunts a little harder at night. But it has more than paid for itself a hundred times over.
You have to understand that the main differences between 1.8/1.4/1.2 are FAR behind those pictures and you just can not see till the moment you get one of this lens:
1. AF speed.
2. AF accuracy (!!), especially in highly backlighting scene like this or low light scene.
3. L-graded quality colours right from the сamera required minor tweek's in LR/PS.
4. 1.8 & 1.4 won't last longer then two year (if you got lucky) in pro use.
Sorry, the subject looks the same to me. Shot a f2, bokeh is same size. F1.8 sharper bokeh? Okay, don't wast money on the F1.2 unless you need a brighter viewfinder.
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Times;
panose-1:2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ascii-font-family:Times;
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-hansi-font-family:Times;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
My question is if the Bokeh differences we see here are as pronounced when you shoot at F8 for landscapes etc.
Anyone else notice that the focus appears to be off in all 3 of the 2nd set of samples? Unless the intent was to focus on his wrist. Not the best examples.
i just said the same thing, on the 1.8 th sfocus is good on the lips and eyes but not on th e1.2 i did not check the 1.4
Is it me or the focus on the girl is not the same on the 1.8 and 1.8 so its hard to compare
I have both the 1.4 and the 1.2, and the reason I bought the 1.2 was build quality. I have had the 1.4 break two times, the servo arm for focus would get bent and stop auto and manual focus. While it is a hefty price to pay, the 1.2 is built like a tank and I don't think it is fragile as the 1.4, and certainly the 1.8. While a client might not notice that difference in the lens, the reliability of the your equipment is key to your job. But, if you can't afford the 1.2 or the 1.4, make sure to baby the lens. I went the extra step to put a lens wrap around my 1.4, even in a padded camera bag. I also notice some serious vignetting on the 1.4 when shot wide open, but I kind of like that, so I don't know if that is a bad thing.
Bright sun light.... yeah won't make much difference. Go into a really dark event environment and the 1.2 will come into its own... and worth every penny!
They are tools and if you need it to do a job, you pay.
If you mainly shoot bright outdoor work, then id even go 3rd party and save even more.
I immediately noticed the difference in bokeh. The average person wouldn't care and honestly, unless seeing them side by side, I probably wouldn't have noticed either. Sooo cool to see this comparision!!! (I misunderstood at the beginning so my earlier comment was dumb and I changed it, lol!)
they are at the same f-stop --- it's a bit confusing but the numbers on top are the names of the lenses
AHHHH! I got it now.... Maybe if I had read the article better, my bad! I'm so used to people posting settings that way. Sorry! :)
...contrast SOC seems better with the cheaper.. but portraits of people standing still in shade/partial shade/sun tend to equalize the lens.. if that is what a new photographer will be shooting, totally go with the cheaper lens.. if you shoot low-light sports like I do (though I do seniors and weddings from time to time as well) then the fast glass works best (though 50mm is a bit short for most action). Tamron is advertised mostly in scrapbooking magazines and natural light shooting situations.. you may see it in professional action sports magazines aimed at photographers.. but not too often. Just my 2 cents.
I this is why I own a 1.8 and rent anything faster. 99% of the time that cheap lens will make the same great picture.
I'm still trying to figure out how you got the models to stand so still while you changed lenses three times, especially the woman in the first comparison. But, like the others, most clients are not going to tell the difference. How about shooting in a low-light situation and then comparing the difference?
I like the 1.4 in both shots the best. 1.2 is nice but in all fairness it will only shine in lower light settings. For the price difference I believe I'd rather have four 1.4s... ;) the 1.8 is okay but the build quality in comparison leaves some to be desired. Holding the 1.4 you would never feel this way.
Well....you're shooting in a scenario where you just don't need the speed and light boost of the pricier lenses - it's so bright out and the background is so far away. If you want to see where those faster lenses come in handy, do a test in a low-lit night setting with a background that is a few feet away from the subject. Then you might have a reason to want extra light and separation. Fast lenses can always be stopped down - it's just about how versatile each lens can be in any situation.
I ran the same tests with the Sigma 1.4 included.
http://brandenhughes.zenfolio.com/blog/2013/11/50mm-lens-test-between-th...
Two words: Chromatic aberration. I can't take it in the 1.8... it's less obnoxious in the 1.4 and hardly noticeable at all in the 1.2. There IS a difference and the 1.2 IS better. I wish it weren't so. I really do, but it's there.
You'll be paying for more lighting, better construction and better glass. The 1.2 can save you in a very dark situations (church, party) without losing quality.
Lens cost, for me, is mostly about handling and feel.
yo that 1.8 needs a cleaning. dust everyhwere!
I bought my girl the 1.2L because she gets nothing but the best and I love her so much.
Wow ami the online that can clearly see the difference of the 1.2. Those pictures are flatter wig more detail and a better bokeh. Just look at his fingernails, the hair on his hands, and the grass background - clearly superior imagery. Totally don't see a huge difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 though as much. It's there but it's not pronounced. Anyone else?
This kind of test is a minefield. Pixel peeping at the first set of full resolution images, take a look at the bottom-right hand quadrant of her face. The lips and the hair have a huge amount more detail in the 1.8 image than the 1.4 (the worst of the three) or the 1.2. Just missed focus?
The pictures taken here are all slightly saturated in my opinion; and in such cases the lower the f stop the more the light coming in anyway. I use a manual focus f1.2 50mm on my Nikon D7000, and the control I get with composing a picture is amazing. I'm sure focusing would be faster too if it were digital- and yes the price difference is visibly ridiculous but the sharpness I get, as well as ability to shoot dSLR video without having to crank ISO up higher and grainier- is priceless for night footage.
I actually think 1.4 is a great middle, settling point if you're going with 50mm. But glass over polycarbonate makes a huge difference too. Again- I think the settings used in these pictures don't justify a discussion on 1.8 vs 1.4 vs 1.2
At least the bokeh is much better with 1.2 when comparing to 1.4 and 1.8. It's much smoother and not so fuzzy. It's also a shame that the focusing point is a little bit different in those pictures of a woman. I have Canon 50mm 1.4 and it's still one of my favorite lenses. Focusing is one of the key things why I'd recommend 1.4 instead of 1.8.
I've owned all 3 of these lenses, in fact all three at the same time at one point. I noticed a pretty clear difference between the 1.8 and the 1.4 but the difference between the 1.4 and 1.2 was much, much harder to see. I ended up buying it for a few reasons - mainly that my 1.4 was so unreliable - it would break almost once a year - fail to focus. It was so regular, that I had to get a spare. In the end I bought the 1.2 because I read that it was much more reliable and I liked the idea of the weather sealing. Also, it wasn't a huge price difference for me - I got a sweetheart deal from a friend who was exiting the business.
the originals doesn't look full res photos, moreover do a 100% crop on the eyes of the person and you'll see the difference in chroma aberration and sharpness (besides construction differences that are huge), the Q is, do you need to go that extra sharp for that money? do you need weatherproof and presicion? is it going to be printed really big? or is it going to be just nice pictures on facebook? if you're not a pro or well trained eye photographer keep it cheap
Jesus, it's easy. It's 1500$!!
I've used the 1.2 a lot and the bokeh can be really nice sometimes but in these examples the bokeh is so far out of focus that the background is mostly composed of blown out highlights.
For all the readers evaluating these examples for sharpness, if it hasn't already been discussed, the focus wasn't nailed on the subjects face/eyes in every shot so don't look there for your comparisons. For the photos of the girl the focus was on her lips with the 1.8 and on the scarf for both the 1.4 and 1.2, likewise with the photo of the guy, the sharpest point on all three of his photos was on the cuff of his sleeve. I find that it's clear looking at the portraits of the guy that the 1.8 has the most chromatic aberration and the 1.2 is the sharpest, but is it sharp enough to justify the price tag? Hell, no.
Personally, I think for the price and quality the 1.4 is the winner. I have both the 1.8 and 1.4, and since I upgraded to the 1.4, the 1.8 has become what I call my "beach day" lens, because I'll still take it with me anywhere since it's so light but I never worry about getting it dirty or damaged since it's priced to be almost disposable. (-And for those that do want to splurge and get the 1.2, just keep in mind that thieves can see an L series Canon lens from a mile away, that red ring means you gotta be extra careful with your gear!)
I am not a photographer, just a thought though, mere logic. I think there is a major factor ignored here. You are comparing the 3 photos based on the appearance on your monitor screen which has a maximum resolution beyond which one would not see any difference. You are limited to the maximum resolution of your examination screen! If you take a photo with extreme high resolution setting, a large file, and use it online, you would only still see the maximum screen ability, i.e. you would still see it identical to another photo taken at less resolution but high enough to meet or exceed that of the monitor. And, the real difference would be when the file is expanded to print a large poster.
Leica
I own both the 50mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.2, and have shot thousands of photos on both. The 1.2 has the ability limit the amount of moire vs. the 1.8. The 1.8 is a great lens in some situations, but parallel lines found in architecture are a challenge and will have you in several software tools to remove the very visible moire pattern. The 1.4 may be a good between lens but the 1.2 is amazing wide open an gives you an artistic advantage over 1.8 and I imaging the 1.4 as well.
Skin tone and overal color on 501.2 is much better, but if you like work in raw you can spend less money for 501.4 :))