Canon 50mm 1.2 L Review
The Canon 50mm 1.2 L is one of the best lenses I have ever had the pleasure of owning. I was initially skeptical, because reviews mentioned poor focusing ability, but I have experienced the opposite. Unsurprisingly, the four times pricier L series lens beats the cheaper non-L prime.
The real question is whether the much higher price of the Canon 1.2 is justifiable. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art lens was another enticing option that I ended up opting out of.
Why not Sigma?
Price
The Sigma retails for $950 and Canon’s best 50mm retails at $1,600. At first, the price of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art was sounding good. Ironically, the Sigma Art series drove the price of a used Canon 1.2 down to $1,000 or less. It was impossible to find a used Sigma Art at the time of purchase, so the cost was the same, which made price a non-factor.
Overall Image Characteristics
The Sigma Art series characteristics veer far away from Canons. It gives a punchier look, with deep contrasts and vivid colors. If I wasn’t editing my photos and shooting in RAW format, than the traits of this lens would be a positive thing, but I don’t always prefer contrasty and vivid images.
The Sigma’s images are very striking straight out of the camera, but Canon’s images are flatter and give you more of a blank canvas when editing. I wanted as much room as possible for creative editing. Also, all my other lenses are Canon, so there’s a high probability that going with this lens could increase my workflow time.
Sharpness
The Sigma Art 1.4 looks sharper when compared to the Canon, but sharpness is not the biggest factor for me. A little bit of softness is okay when working with people, because softer images are more flattering. I don’t need to see every single pore in someone’s face.
Brand Name
Some people will disagree about the importance of brand, but going with Canon was a factor in my decision. There’s comfort in knowing that there’s a long history of good quality control and customer service with Canon lenses.
Canon does not provide third party suppliers with the focusing algorithm they use on their lenses. As rumor has it, this is still causing focusing issues with Sigma lenses. Sigma’s answer to this ever-nagging problem is supposed to be the USB hub for the lens, which allows you to adjust focusing algorithms. For me, the bottom line is that if I am paying almost a grand for a new lens I want it to work, without having to worry about technical issues.
Canon 50mm 1.2 L vs. Canon 50mm 1.4
The biggest difference: The ability to focus at very narrow depth of fields. I have owned the Canon 50mm 1.8 lens and it focuses fine at its widest aperture. That is not the case with the 1.4. Anything wider than f/1.8 is unusable. I found myself often wanting to go shallower than f/1.8 and the L version fixes this issue. Even f/1.2 is usable with a steady hand and still object or person. The ability to go down a few more stops is a huge advantage in low light.
The bokeh just looks better. Real world usage and what I see in the images trumps how many aperture blades it has or what the technical mark is. In this case, I see creamier, better looking bokeh. It’s that simple.
Focus is faster and more accurate. I found focus to be faster, able to work in darker situations, and more accurate than the non-L version.
The L lens x-factor. You are paying a big mark up over their non-L counter parts for some better weather sealing and a small improvement that you can’t quite explain. It’s not going to make your photography better overnight. Can it help? Yes, but going non-L is not going to make or break a picture. If you think that your equipment is holding you back, go type the lens or camera that’s holding you back into the search bar of <a href=“https://500px.com/” data-link-type=“external” data-link-value=“https://500px.com/” target=“_blank”>500px.com</a>, and see all the amazing things people are shooting with the set-up you’re currently complaining about.
Is the Canon 50mm 1.2 L worth four times as much as the Canon 50mm 1.4?
It depends. If you are shooting professionally in low light situations consistently and need the highest quality, I would say yes. If you are on a budget, then no. I find the even cheaper Canon 50mm 1.8 to be a good option too. Keep in mind that buying used can bring the price down considerably.
Example shots from the Canon 50mm 1.2 L:
Example shots from the Canon 50mm 1.4:
Fast Prime Lenses in Real Wedding Conditions
I originally wrote this Canon 50mm 1.2 L review from the perspective of using fast prime lenses during real wedding days and portrait sessions. A 50mm lens can be useful for portraits, getting-ready rooms, receptions, and quieter in-between moments, especially when light is limited and the background matters. As a Colorado wedding photographer, I care about lenses less as specs and more as tools for reading light, working naturally, and making photographs that still feel connected to the moment. You can see more of that approach in my Colorado wedding photography portfolio, browse featured weddings, or explore Colorado wedding photography pricing for wedding, elopement, and portrait coverage.
I also wrote a Sony a7III review from the perspective of real wedding use, including how the move from cameras like the Canon 5DS R changed the way I thought about dynamic range, autofocus, low light, and full-frame wedding photography.