[TEST] Canon vs Nikon 50mm f/1.2 L, 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4G AF-S
This time it's the 50mm that pass the test bench. The 50mm is my main tool in marriage. So one of my favorite lens for portraits and wedding pictures. Therefore essential (in my opinion) in a park that meets target.
So I will oppose this test, the three stars of 50mm available in two industry giants of photography. The 50mm 1.2L and the 50mm 1.4 for Canon 50mm 1.4 and the latest AF-S G for Nikon.
Curiously, during this test I noticed that shooting, white balance automatically, Nikon was warmer on the screen. Same in the viewfinder. And yes, even if it can / me seem incredible, the D700 viewfinder gives a more "yellow" as the 5D2 and therefore less accurate than Canon. However Raws imported into Aperture 3 are more loyal than the Canon at the finish. Apparently the problem is known and the screen has been fixed this year, with the arrival of a new firmware for the D700 . But the viewfinder?
The dive:
Test dive of 50mm
Trying to focus with the 5D2 I had a lot of error of assessment of AF, with 50 1.4. Probably due to the complex compositions of the granite wall chosen for the test. So I had to check my resume samples and more pictures before having the best clarity possible. With the 50mm 1.2 L, the accuracy of the AF, was much better. Nikon far fewer problems, the 50mm 1.4G AF with was much more accurate than the canon 50 1.4.
Thank you to click on the image below to read the test properly:
Test dive of 50mm
What is striking when comparing the images of the three objectives is the lack of exposure of the Nikon. We here at least 1It less compared to Canon. Regarding the sharpness, below f/2.4, the Canon has a small head start, especially if we include 21MP resolution for large prints or viewing on large screens. Despite the "withdrawal" from Nikon over Canon F/2.4 below, performance remains good.
From f/2.8, often a border for optical light, things become less clear. The three perform with excellence. You can see that there is little difference between the Canon 50 1.4 L and 1.2. This is primarily the advantage of the 50 1.2 L, to have an ultra wide open, Af a slightly more powerful, and you will also see an advantage in terms of bokeh ...
The Bokeh:
Testing of 50mm bokeh
The bokeh is also for optical light, a criterion that should not be overlooked. Each optical bokeh rendering more or less specific. It is therefore also monitor this issue in the choice of optics, especially a 50mm is often expected for the main portrait.
Thank you to click on the image below in order to properly display the test.
Testing of 50mm bokeh
The samples above are used only to illustrate the depth of field obtained by the different openings. The crops made below, however, allow to better appreciate the nuances of each view. The contours drawn by the canon 50mm 1.4 are more "rude" than the other two. Always at full aperture, the 50 1.2L and 1.4 have a Nikon bokeh ... more "sweet" and defined (here he made the famous Benjamin BROLET 
. My words are a bit pompous, you'll understand that it is difficult to define the quality of bokeh in words. This is something that is appreciated with the eyes ...
Here the weakness of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is clear from its two competitors:
Test of bokeh 50mm full aperture
My preference is to Canon and Nikon 1.2 L 1.4 (with a little more for Nikon), which in my opinion a much better bokeh than the Canon 1.4, with more detail and better accuracy at the edges.
Verdict:
With its exceptional opening of f/1.2, the Canon 50mm L is a target of choice, in my opinion. It features high-flying optical qualities, an opening to photograph or film in very difficult light conditions, a neat bokeh and finally build quality worthy of the best L series. Here we are truly in the "Luxe" (hence the acronym L).
The challenger is the Nikon 50mm 1.4, even if it belongs to a different system. I confess, I'd be curious to see its performance on a D3X at 24MP, I might be dazzled ...
For those who still hesitate between the two systems, with the 50 f/1.2 L, Canon offers a better resolution here / optical performance. 50mm fans with a big budget, would have an interest in turning to red. As far as a budget more "classic" Nikon has clearly the best offer "portrait 50" with a 50mm 1.4.
Read also:
43 reactions
even a very specific test! I love Bravo and thank you for your availability has merwen and your craftsmanship!
a question you would prefer a 1 div d3x + 50L or 50 + 1.4?
thank you for this comparison, even if the 50 1.2 is out of reach for me for now
you would not have compared the 50 mm 1.8 and the Canon 50mm 1.4, do the jump worth after you? after a lot of reading, it is not obvious as it seems.
@ Albert: Hi, the D3X as it is a 24MP full frame so the optical quality will be higher than the 1D4 is not a FF but an APS-H (1.3 x crop). Should make this comparison with the 1DS III or IV who are true FF.
@ Olivier: Yes, I know a little about the 50 1.8. In my opinion the 1.4 is better. Especially below f/2.8. What seems quite normal because it has a notch in advance. Also the build quality has nothing to do! the 1.8 is a little low in construction ...
Thank you for this test.
Perhaps it would have been interesting to include the Sigma 50 1.4 in the test. Many of the wealthy amateur just looking to this alternative.
Nothing,
The Sigma 1.4 is very good in quality. Quite surprised by the brand. But I did not that day. The Sigma AF, however, suffers from a pretty bad according to some tests ... Can not take that risk for me. But if you did, I would confront him.
Just to add my experience since I owned the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 of the Canon 50mm.
The construction of 1.8 is ultra cheap, it looks like a toy and finish suffers. Nothing to do with the 1.4.
Not to mention the guts to advance.
For cons I recommend it to all the people who spend their first focal light: it is an excellent CO Update for the "beginning" to understand the concepts of bokeh, etc. to open.
Sorry, I do not have this, but have heard a lot about, and rather well.
@ Brian: Thanks Brian, totally agree. It is also a history of budget.
Beautiful discovery that this blog, tests accurate, detailed (yes, I read everything). I often wondered if the price difference between the 50 f1, 2 L and the 50 f1, 4 really justified? And today I'm still not really convinced. At the same time, I use little more than the 50 digital (while the 55 f1, 2 was my favorite focal length of time F1n). I'll be back!
Lol yes you come back necessarily. We will say that the 50 1.2 is a luxury. Goodies:
A AF A LITTLE more efficient, very quiet and an opening of 1.2
But frankly, in terms of pure optical perfs, the price does not justify a passage on the 1.2.
The 1.4 is the best value for money!
> The 1.4 is the best value for money!
he said with a smile, while continuing to use its 50 f1, 2 L
Lol, yes but I was serious!
Frankly if the budget is tight the 50 1.4 is nickel. the picture is also a matter of pocket unfortunately.
ca super enlightened me again on the goals, thank you. But what do you call bokeh and where it comes from?
@ Berghman: The bokeh blur describes the background of a photo. It will be the ability of the lens to display a certain degree of difference between the net and the blurring of the same image. Plus you will ask him to show the net, the more he'll seek the light. and vice-versa.
Some aesthetic connotations attached to it, but for me = bokeh blur. This comes from the Japanese bokashi (transition, graduation). Depending on the shape and number of blades in each CO Update, it will have rendered a different aspect. is what we sought to understand with the last 3 photos: "Testing of 50mm bokeh at full aperture."
I also have not managed to get a clear view, cut and justified on the justification of the price of 50 mm 1.2. Canon from its little brother the 1.4.
It's always responses from Norman and it does not provide information at all.
How to brand as serious as a gun Can sell an item with a price difference of almost € 1000 but are not jusitifié?
While the 1.2 is really cheap. But whether to buy the 1.4 and then buy the 1.2, the addition will be even greater.
Even though I know nothing, I am not persuaded that we can say that's how the price difference is not justified solely because the brightness of the 1.2 is not very important compared to 1.4.
If someone can give me a complete info on these two products I'm interested.
Thank you in advance.
Do not look for clear view, there is none. How Canon can sell the 1.2 so much? the margins. It is well known that the optical L (Luxury) are those most relevant to Canon. The low-end, they serve as loss leaders.
Also making an optical to 1.2 still costs much more expensive, the control of light while maintaining an acceptable quality is a combination of mathematical problems, physical and industrial. even if it does not explain everything.
Finally, it sells for less than 1.2 than 1.4, the coup economies of scale have nothing to do. In a product business plan, it is expected!
So to summarize here the pros and cons:
- The 1.2 has a more open, (super video in order to limit noise), so one step ahead in terms of sharpness (small difference anyway) to 2.8. Another advantage is as important as or even more openness, the quality of bokeh, much higher than the 1.4! (See above test with the red circle), but it is more expensive, bcp more expensive and heavier.
- The 1.4 good optical quality, good opening, and ahead 1.2 from f / 4. so this is the best value for money.
The 1.2 is not called "L" for nothing, and yes it is a luxury ...
you forget the excellent quality of construction of the 1.2 which is tropicalized. While the 1.4 is just better than the 1.8 that is lightweight, ie plastic. This is not a luxury that allows the tropicalization to use in case of cold, rain, extreme heat, dust ...
Yeah it's not my preferred criteria in my choice of optical /
1.2 is the barrel of the metal and there is a seal against dust and water effects. But the build quality was from 1.4 .. say correct. Nothing to do with the 50 1.8 that is very cheap.
An optical tropicalised a case that is not, Yeah ... If I go to the future 1Ds IV I could probably enjoy more
I can buy a 50mm L 1.2 a € 1,000 a year he es a case?
Thank you
I have a 24-70 and a 1.2 85L esque 1.2la you think the 50mm is really useful for me? Thank you for helping me I'm afraid to regret my purchase!
In my humble opinion I think so because it is a standard length which allows for the photo report and any kind of after-school photo of Cartier Bresson who was working only 50 mm. Your 85 mm should be excellent for portraits. As for your 24-70 that contains the focal length of 50 mm is a zoom and even if it's an L, the picture quality of 50 mm 1.2 is superior in my opinion. And above a fixed lens requires to work and move that can only enrich your way to make the picture as opposed to 24-70 prompting to meet the comfort zoom without having to move.
@ ALBERT
About your 50 mm 1.2, 1 year to € 1,000. Know that the site passions camera based near parisiennne, you can have it brand new for € 1200 payable with paypal, which I think is a very good deal because for 200 € more you have secured a new item without vagaries of chance which we never know how the item was used.
@ Albert: looks good if properly aligned, because many problems head on and backfocus.
In my opinion, part of a 50 1.4. 02.01 with a 85 you have already a super ultra-bright optics. Now that the purchase of my 50 1.2 is that I do not regret it. However, I do not necessarily recommend it to others. especially if the budget is limited!
you do what kind of picture?
@ AIT-Akli TALEB: OK with you, but the 1.2 is still expensive. The 1.4 does the job for less.
Thank you for the address: http://www.passions-photo.fr/page_canon.html is cheap for France!
for the 50 1.2 there is also FOKA
@ Masden.
Thank you for the info about the site FOKA. That's interesting.
You say you own the 50mm 1.2 and you do not regret, but you do not necessarily recommend it to others, especially if the budget is limited. It is somewhat paradoxical. Because we all know that the high-end camera equipment is expensive and no one can change anything.
I equip myself for example I would like a Leica M and one or two optical leica. Maybe one day ... But to get that Voigtländer made the job for less money, that would be lying.
Recognizes that it's hard to follow you.
We understand that almost 1.2 and it is good for Masden. but for others only a 1.4.
Not at all the depths of my mind! I can not express myself.
For those with a limited budget, the 50 1.4 is very close to 1.2 in terms of sharpness. What makes it an excellent price / quality ratio or dive / price.
For those with a larger budget (like me in this case), the 1.2 is then an option. But while passing in 1.2 it will not expect a big improvement in sharpness. This may disappoint some. So it's a dive report / price less favorable than the 50 1.4. It's as simple as that! but he has other qualities (building, AF a little better, etc. ..) Everyone does not necessarily want to € 1200 in a 50mm ...
I do not think the only one to say that. Just look at some comments on adorama.com
[...] [...]
Sigma 1.4 that I have is really good, it pretty vignette, but the big worry is the fact that we must focus micro adjust or return from Sigma (for mine anyway), for once inside against c is "impeccable", I also had a gun 1.4, and have used a 1.2 and I will put this one in between, it is much more robust than the canon 1.4. So the big catch is the focus ...
before the microphone settings, the focus is uncertain http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7889381/_MG_2114.JPG
after http://dl.dropbox.com/u/7889381/_MG_3508.JPG
I will still make him a ride home sigma (3yr warranty)
Hi
Yeah. The 1.2 is still the winner in history. The only question is the price. After several months of intensive use (weddings here in India) I can say it provides much better than the other 50.
There's no picture
Exciting your forum, I have the same state of mind that a lot of choice 1.2 / 1.4
an additional question: I have a 7D for now, I probably will be aiming a little higher qq ds time, but for the moment that can be said about the comparative perf 1.2 / 1.4 on the 7D?
@ PROTPHIL: The 1.2 will always advance. because it closes a notch that supp 1.4. Not to mention the much larger building. Starts with the 1.4. it's always my advice. Then if you really want to win in build quality, AF and optical performance you will gain in 1.2 is 20-25% if I had to "quantify." So it is expensive ...
D90 on foot, I want a Nikon AF Nikkor 20mm f2.8D. thank you in advance
Very interesting as a comparison, we want more!
Doubt on the test .... It seem to me from subjective Pro-Canon. I understand that you do, but it is reassuring dubious objectivity of the real test.
Moreover, it is best to compare like with like.
Finally, the reference site: dpreview.com
N.
@ Niko: Thanks for your very constructive way. In support of my test, the real reference
On Dpreview, there are too few objos tested for now.
@ Obturations.com:
I tease a bit ... Sincerely, whether for a client or available to either yourself, the difference is so small that I doubt if any of these test techniques.
Allows a note:
The posts on shooting techniques are more useful to me and very well done
Precisely, it can see that the difference is not so great
Hello merwen
Congratulations for your site.
Just like the one I had with my 50 1.4 5d Mk II have always been very disappointed.
Focus rotten as I say it, regardless of lighting conditions.
You really have a hand in hardened steel and a good speed for a good result I think.
You also are you satisfied with the MkII Focus 1.4 has opened with the barrel?
I often spoke of the micro alignment but quite frankly when I see that even with my Canon 24-70 result in slightly lower light is even more disappointing when I watch iso I really doubt these optics.
I actually brought the 50 Purchased after 3 days so it disappointed me.
If you have a track I'm interested because I love the openness and the bokeh of obejectif.
@ A perspective rarely used at full aperture, especially at 1.4 or 50mm is not too (soft and full of chromatic aberrations). it's like a Ferrari at full speed, it quickly becomes dangerous, especially if you do not have the mastery from a certain time. The 5D2 to f/1.4 I also had the prob of focus. Which is normal since at 1.4 It is very critical to have a precise focus. Instead, close to f/2.2, plus you will have better quality images. I switched to the 50mm 1.2 L which is more accurate in terms of focus, but you have to be careful all the same. They are too extreme for openings have complete confidence in the housing. it is necessary to shoot in bursts, constantly check and adjust the focus by hand if necessary. I doubt it is necessary that you shoot at 1.4 all the time. is not really made for this.
For the iso is a camera, normal if you ride in iso there is a degradation of the image. It is also necessary to use the exhibition to limit noise. I explain why always right. The 50mm 1.4 gives great results and is used by many pros, you just tame it. As everything.
24-70 the full aperture is also disappointing to me. Normal because it is fully open. Long live the primes ultra light, which allow you to win close in quality, focus and achieve your
Without it launched a debate is what has fixed a target opening peus if you do not use the grand opening?
Zooming is done to zoom.
Similarly a ferrari is for driving fast. No?
This is not the quality of the driver is in question if the Ferrari does not rotate when the driver turns the steering wheel.
For the iso I mistranslated my thought and thank you for the reminder
In fact I feel "may be false" that the focus is even worse when I get the iso, a quality of light equivalent.
Regarding this objective you brought an answer that I also found it necessary to have a brakecté in 10 exploitable freehand "can be exaggerating a little"
To summarize the practice to have clear images with a focus or you wish, correct me in case.
No-decendre below f2, 2 "image quality issue"
Privileged, I guess the only central collimator has to be crossed
Presentation on the right-
Quite frankly they are just "best practices" already used in my tests.
Mierdassss I hate braces ...
"Just because you have, you should use it"
Of course if you really need to shoot at f / 1.4 you can. But by making a compromise. that's all I'm saying. Plus you have a large aperture, the more you'll have a better closing. EX: a 1.2 50mm f / 2.8 override necessarily a 50mm f / 2.8 to 2.8 open.
I speak and not Burst Bracketing because we do not change the parameters.
Prob about your focus on the high sensitivity, I think it is that you shoot in low light
Personal ever contasté focus less efficient by increasing the isos .. A test.
> You can go below f / 2.2 course. But skipping over certain quality criteria. I personally am in f / 1.6 and f / 2.5 with my 50mm 1.2.
> In low light the center will be much more accurate and efficient.
> Also if you want to limit the appearance of noise in post production!
Here are the tests of 50mm to make you consider the quality by closing the diaph
@ Obturations.com:
I must admit that .... You're right.
I wish you a great summer and I remain a faithful reader.
N.
PS: One idea, cross posts between blogs ZY Studio and its menbres to improve SEO ....