Im planning to buy 50mm Lens for Indoor shooting maybe you could give me some advise on this? thanks!

If you have the budget to spare for a 50 mm 1.2 L USM lens then go for gold. If not, a 1.8 is okay. I dont have P60K to spend for the 50 mm L lens ... so I settled for the P4k one ...

the 50 1.2 should cost you more than 60K, as compared to around 4K for the 50 1.8. i do encourage the purchase of an L lens, but forking out more than 50K for the stop difference? You be the judge.

dude. i think you can never compare the two lenses kasi sa price pa lang sobrang layo na. so depende kung ano kino-consider mo. if budget is not an issue for you get the f1.2. f1.8 is enough for me. it's one of the most "sulit" lens of canon. :)

Yeah -- the 50mm 1.2 is by Canon official price retails for around ... ta dah ... P75,950 and in Hidalgo should be be a little less pero still a bit pricey .... sigh. Beyond my wildest dreams for now ... till I win the lotto.

Getting the F1.2 just for low light is ill informed IMO.

That missing stop you won't get using a F1.8 can easily be addressed by increasing ISO.

If you mentioned you were looking for paper thin DOF or you plan to cover stakeouts for cheating spouses maybe I'll believe you need it.

To All:

Thanks for the replies. P75k is like buying a new DSLR. I'll go first with f1.8. = )

Answering your query, go for the 50 1.2L. It would set you back thousands and thousands of pesos but you get the benefit of an L-grade lens.

But if cost is a factor in your decision-making, then the 50 1.8 would be a wise choice. Not L but optically superb.

i think the more realistic comparison would be between the 50mm 1.4 vs. the 1.8.

Based on the response, seems like a rookie driver asking which is a better ride to work - a hyundai or a lamborghini.

The 50/1.2 is a specialized tool. Like all tools of this kind, they are a bit pricey compared to the plain vanilla ones and would require certain skills to use proficiently. Furthermore, the applications for which it is designed for are not one would shoot daily/frequently.

If all one sees of the lens are that it is L-grade and has twice the speed vs the 1.8, my suggestion is to go for the plain vanilla one. The additional performance of the lamborghini would be wasted.

Im planning to buy 50mm Lens for Indoor shooting maybe you could give me some advise on this? thanks!

If you really love 50mm (about 80mm on a cropper), then go for it. But it is very, very, very, very, very, expensive. So, you better love that focal length a lot because, you'd get more applications if you put your money on a 16-35 f2.8L or 24-70L. But of course, they have different uses, so it may not be fair to compare them optically. But still, you will find more use for other types of lenses than the 50 f1.2L.

Others have recommended a 50mm f1.8 mk2. Very cheap but sharp. You could go a bit better if you really love 50mm's by getting the 50 f1.4. It's about P18k if I am not mistaken. You get 2/3 stop advantage, a better bokeh (6 or 7 blades?), better AF speed, etc. It's not as good as the L, but it's not as pricey either, and it will do the job for most situations.

A 3rd alternative is to go 85mm f1.8 usm. I know it's not 50mm, but if your goal is portraiture and you want that bokeh, I think this is the better prime. To me, the 50mm is iffy even with a cropper camera. But I guess it's a matter of preference.

I have the 50 f1.8 mk2 and the 100 f2 usm. To me, this combo works best. I've been using these the past 3 weeks together with the 10-22 ef-s and it has worked like a charm for me. I use the 10-22 and the 100 f2 more, than the 50. Also the 50mm mk2 has muted colors and its AF is iffy in tough lighting situations. Not very good at flares too. But it is very sharp and it has saved my butt in low light situations. Got it for P3,500 3 years ago, and will not let go of it because its a lens that is sharp and useful to get you out of some situations. besides, it's too cheap to let go, then when you want one again, you'd spend P4k to get one again? So, in spite of its limitations, I keep it.

While my 24-105L is still out for calibration, I have gone back to the zooming by the feet to get things. A bit more of work and there are times, you can't really do that, but the reward is that primes are really very, very, very sharp and the bokeh is so soft and blurry that it's all worth it. You do get some type of shots that even an L zoom can't do well.

raul gives a new vs thing. between 50mm 1.4 vs. the 1.8. of the two, which is best lens to buy?

@ Arnel - thanks for the car comparisons, mostly all of us, we have some priorities and having a L lenses are nice to have...even we know that the quality of those glasses are at par...we know that the price tag is really way way too costly..practicality wise you'll settle for a reachable price lens...= )

@ Sir Mel Enriquez-thanks for a wonderful reply it really gives me some infos how pick my next lens. =)

@ Sir Mel Enriquez-thanks for a wonderful reply it really gives me some infos how pick my next lens. =)

No, problem, Joelh. Glad to be of help.

Now, IF you really are a 50mm guy (80mm in a 1.6x crop camera), best to save up and get the f1.4 version. The f1.8 mk2 can be iffy and unpredicatable in certain lighting situations (e.g. backlight) and it does flare (veiling) in backlight situations. Has nasty ghosting too if you use it with strong light sources such as the light in a soccer field and you are shooting against it. But it is cheap and sharp. If you think you can resell it again for a slight loss (e.g. 500-1,000 the original price), you can give it a try.

I am not a 50mm guy. I prefer 60mm for a cropper. Unfortunately, that is an ef-s macro and I don't like the f2.8 and the fact I can't use it on a 35mm FF later on. So, I went with the 50-100mm route. Some chose the 35mm-85mm-135/200mm route for primes. I went for the 100mm because I get a 140mm f2.8 usm with a decent 1.4x TC. I kill two birds in one stone. Plus the 100mm f2 is my length for indoor sports and other low light stuff that really cuts very close to the face or pulls the subject in when they are over 25ft away. I can switch to the 50mm prime or use a 24-70/100 zoom for other apps w/c need less FL.

Basically, I use the primes for low light, and highest quality shots where sharpness is paramount, and also for the bokeh (if I want to have a remarkable dissolved background blur). I also consider my 10-22 a prime because it is really very sharp. Besides, there really isn't any 10mm prime to compete with it. So, I really have a 10-22-50-100-140 combo for primes. And I have used this set up for events, some sports and it has worked well.

The 24-105L rounds up the all around use without sacrificing quality. Later on, I plan to get a 70-200 f4L IS (or f2.8L IS) to cover my mid-to-tele end.

So, plan your lenses as a system. Sure you start somewhere. I started with the kit. There was a time, the sharpest lens and the best in low light I had was only the 50mm f1.8 mk2! And we had to shoot a calendar so I used that often. That's how I realized how weak my kit lens and the 75-300 IS and my 28-105 lens was. I saw why people got L lenses or high quality optics like the tamron Di series. The 28-75 Di for example virtually had no flare and had strong contrast and color compared to my 28-105 usm.

So, you plan and build your dream system in time. You do so to address the weakness. Don't worry if it takes a long time. Sometimes it's even better. There was no 10-22 or 24-105 before. I went the tamron route before these lenses. Neither was there a 70-200 f4L IS.

If you realize that the P68k 24-70L f2.8 is your correct lens, best to save up for it. Or go interim with a tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di, till you have the money for it. So, the 50 f1.2L is expensive! But if that is what your shooting style and preferrence is, save up for it!!! Just use something else for the meantime.


So, by waiting, you sometimes get the benefit of the new lenses being introduced. Even that 50 f1.2L is new. I bet if you wait 1 year, that U$1,600 lens will be around U$1,300-1,400. That is, if you really into 50mms. :)