Are Canon’s Ultra-fast 50mm F/1.2L and 85mm F/1.2L II Worth All That Extra Money?

Are Canon’s Ultra-fast 50mm F/1.2L and 85mm F/1.2L II Worth All That Extra Money?

1967 1106 Jeb Inge

“Significant” is a word I would use to describe the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM and Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM; in aperture, in weight, in prestige and price. That last metric, price, is the most significantly disparate factor when we compare these ultra-fast lenses against their sibling lenses of equal focal length. I wanted to find out if these two f/1.2 lenses were really worth what they cost, or if they are merely status symbols for photographers with a chip on their shoulder, or more money than sense.

I’m a rare bird, in that I generally dislike anything with Canon’s name on it, despite using Canon gear in my work exclusively. This bias is baffling, considering that I’ve made some of my favorite images with their cameras and lenses. I use the 24-70 f/2.8L II and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II on my 6D body almost five days a week in a wide variety of photographic applications, including for portraiture, product photography, snapshots and reportage. This camera and its lenses are superb pieces of gear, and they’ve admittedly helped me put a roof over my head and food on the table.

But I feel no love for them. Aside from the Canonet, I’ve never felt excited by anything with Canon’s name on it. Respect and trust are two things I feel deeply for Canon; they revolutionized photography with the EOS 650 and ushered in the era of truly masterful autofocus technology. But even as their EOS line changed the very landscape of professional cameras, when it came to things like style and product design, the brand is uninspiring. Even worse, as their characterless machines took the lead on sales, other companies fell into line, a marching line that ended in a world of bland DSLRs and nearly identical lenses. Even their website is a case study in boredom; Nikon’s sales may be comparatively weak, but at least their website is fun, informative, and aesthetically playful.

In short, Canon has made photography more clinical and less adventurous. That’s great when you’re making a living and need deliverable, consistent photos. But it also means I seldom choose a Canon camera when I’m taking a random walk or hitting the road for a weekend adventure.

Enter the 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2. When I first saw these two fast prime lenses I had to pause and admit that I was experiencing noticeable twinges of excitement. Here were products from Canon that I actually wanted to shoot.

I knew from the experience of shooting in terrible lighting that an extra half stop of speed can be a huge help when it comes to shooting handheld between 1/60 and 1/125 of a second. That fast glass’ price tag of $1,299 was pretty staggering, especially when compared to the f/1.4 and f/1.8 fifties, which cost $329 and $125 respectively. That’s $970 for an extra half stop in the case of the f/1.4, and $1174 for an entire stop in the case of the f/1.8.

Part of that extra cost must surely come from extra materials; it takes a lot of glass to achieve f/1.2, and with 8 elements in 6 groups, the 50mm weighs close to 600 grams. That’s more than double the 290 grams of the f/1.4 and more than three times the 162 grams of the f/1.8. Both the 1.2 and 1.4 focus as close as 45 cm, further than the 1.8’s minimum distance of 35 cm.

I’m the absolute worst when it comes to testing technicals specifications of lenses. The thought of taking identical photos of something at every aperture to test subjective measurements like contrast and sharpness bores me to tears. There are people out there who enjoy it, and thank goodness for that. But I will never be one of them. So be warned that what I’m going to say about the 50mm and 85mm f/1.2s is largely couched in physical interaction and intuition.

Having said that, the f/1.2 is the greatest 50mm lens I’ve ever used. Shooters always seem to want lenses that are faster than f/2, but in truth, we use these fastest apertures less than we might think – sharpness is usually at its best somewhere around f/8. But with Canon’s 50mm f/1.2, images shot at every aperture are just stunning. But the lens’ personality really comes out when we open beyond f/2. The vignetting and contrast at 1.2 is simply sublime and even has that swirly awesomeness made famous by Russian lenses. Wide apertures are usually advertised as being conveniences during bad or low lighting — something to fix a problem. With this lens I actively want to shoot wide open, not because the light has compelled me to choose it, but because of just how wonderful this lens renders at f/1.2. Pick a roll of 200 speed film, and with this lens you can shoot all day no matter what happens with your light.

On a physical level, I took the weight of the lens as an advantage. I’m not much for straps, so I’m used to holding heavy gear for long periods of time. I’ve done it long enough that lighter gear almost feels bizarre. The f/1.2 on my 6D feels absolutely perfect — an ideal marriage of dimensions, weight and balance.

The situation feels less ideal when my camera’s wedded to the 85mm. Talk about a chunky boy — the 85mm f/1.2 is the reason husky jeans were invented. That said, there’s less difference in size and weight between Canon’s three 85mm lenses than exists between the three 50mm lenses, and a smaller gap in cost as well. Of the 85mm lenses, the 1.2 weighs in at 1025 grams, with the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM and EF 85mm f/1.4L IS USM weighing 425 and 950 grams respectively. The 1.2 costs $1,849 to the $1,599 of the 1.4 and $349 of the 1.8.

It should be noted that the 85 1.4 being discussed isn’t available yet, but the spec sheet makes buying the 1.2 even harder to justify. For almost $300 less money you get a lens with image stabilization, a minimum aperture of f/22, a closer minimum focusing distance (85 cm to the 95 cm of the 1.2), fourteen elements in ten groups (to the 8/7 of the 1.2), 9 diaphragm blades (8 on the 1.2) and less weight.

Considering all of that, the only way to justify a 1.2 over the new 1.4 would seem to be image quality. From my experience, that’s probably not going to hold up as an argument either. I admittedly had far less time with the 85mm than I have the 50mm but I wasn’t floored by much of what I saw.

The 85mm is a solid, well built lens — even more so than the 50mm. It’s sharp across the aperture range and contrast is great, especially at the close distances in which it would mostly be used. But once you get it on your camera it’s obvious that it’s not a general-use lens. Focusing on any lens at f/1.2 is a challenge. The plane of focus is so narrow that focusing, recomposing and shooting is an impossibility. Add the weight of the 85mm and focusing goes from challenging to obnoxious. The fact that the lens front focuses means its autofocus takes slightly longer than other lenses — a real shame when your wrists are buckling.

When it comes to the Canon 85s, the truth is that the f/1.8 is just as good a performer as the f/1.2 at a fraction of the cost and weight. In every respect it is a more practical lens. The fact that the new f/1.4 seems destined to be even stronger on the spec sheet than the f/1.2 (and at a lower cost) calls into question the very need for the f/1.2. If you’re spending that much money to exclusively shoot portraits at f/1.2, then you’re insane.

I set out to find out if these two ultra-fast lenses are worth their relatively high price tags. In regards to the 85mm, I say it’s resoundingly not. Shooters would be much better served to spend far less money on the practical f/1.8, or wait until the new f/1.4 releases. Either of these lenses simply make more sense.

It’s a different story with the ultra-fast 50mm. Were I forced to pick one lens to use for the rest of my life, I would choose this lens without hesitation. That’s in spite of not particularly loving Canon, and not particularly preferring the 50mm focal length. But the images this lens produces are unbeatable. Technically outstanding and aesthetically unique, it turned f/1.2 into a destination aperture rather than a retreat point for my photography. For once, I was frustrated that my shutter speed couldn’t get high enough rather than it being too low. What a great problem to have.

Get the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM at B&H Photo

Get the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM at B&H Photo

Follow Casual Photophile on Facebook and Instagram

[Some of the links in this article will direct users to our affiliates at B&H Photo, Amazon, and eBay. By purchasing anything using these links, Casual Photophile may receive a small commission at no additional charge to you. This helps Casual Photophile produce the content we produce. Many thanks for your support.]

Jeb Inge

Jeb Inge is a Berlin-based photographer and writer. He has previously worked in journalism, public history and public relations.

All stories by:Jeb Inge
  • Well, my favorite 50mm lens is still the Nikkor AI-S f1.2 … no autofocus of course, but I prefer this older look of a lens (and fits perfectly on my FM3a or FE) than the designs of more modern AF lenses… and the results in sharpness and bokeh are absolutely stunning! I agree about the uninspiring design of Canon cameras in general, even if I have a wonderful and beautifully designed Canon camera in my collection, the Canon P… but it was made a long time ago…

    • Has there ever been an autofocus lens that’s better looking than a manual focus lens? That would be an interesting debate!

  • Are the Canon lenses fast enough? When you consider that in the 1950’s they were making an f0.95 lens and Leica currently does, is f1.2 special enough? Admittedly, in comparison to the Leica 50/f0.95 Noctilux at $10,750, the EF50/f1.2 looks positively cheap. The Noctilux is a very special lens but one has to consider its bang for your buck factor is questionable. Would a Canon 50/f1.0 sell? I am sure it would.

  • To my jaded eye, the prices of these Canon lenses are ‘cheap’. A slower, made by Cosina in Japan Zeiss 50 1.5 manual focus lens runs about $1500. And the Leica stuff – oi!

    • Same here. When Jeb sent me this piece I was amazed to read the prices of the 50mm F/1.4. Canon is hard to beat, on price.

    • Which Zeiss 50/1.5 costs 1500$? Not the Sonnar (1261$)..or do you mean the Milvus Distagon 50/1.4 (1091$)?

      • Might be referencing the Sony Zeiss 50 1.4 Planar… $1500 or so. I have it – and it’s freaking brilliant, amazing and not very well known or reviewed.

  • To my eye, most Canon lenses since about the mid-late 70s tend toward “technical accuracy” but lack that je ne sais quoi that makes their photos endearing, in the way pretty much any Pentax manual-focus lens does. But that Canon 50/1.2 — wowwee-o-wow! Those photos are packed with character! They also have a 3-D effect. You want to reach out and touch them.

    • You’re totally right about that je ne sais quoi, Jim. I’d take the photos from the 50mm over those of the 24-70 and 70-200 any day.

      • You’re right about the je ne sais quoi of some Canon lenses and Nikon too for that matter. Some of their their lenses end up having something special in the images they produce, probably the manufacturers don’t know why either, it just happened. Unlike with Leica, that dreaminess and bokeh is dialed into the engineering design, they know how to make “je ne sais quoi”, that’s why they’re special and cost what they do.

  • I paid some serious cash for my k-mount Pentax 50mm f/1.2 lens, so it’s the only 1.2 I have used and can speak for. It’s lovely. So it’s worth it. For me.

  • I think it’s time for a CasualPhotoPhile Phast Phifty Shoot out!

  • I bought the 85 1.2L II when my daughter was born 6 years ago, and hand on heart, my favourite photos of her and family in general are from this lens wide open. It’s not just the cheesy super-shallow depth of field, but the really beautiful way that it renders. It’s a special lens when you’re shooting something you care about. But (and it’s a big but), I don’t use it nearly often enough due to weight. It’s a big lump to haul around. We have another kid on the way, so I’ll hang onto it for a few more years, but then I’ll sell it and get the new 1.4 or even the 1.8.

    I agree with all above about Canon being clinical. The lenses are more scalpel than paintbrush. But it’s hard to fault a company for being too damn good.

    • I first bought the FD 85 1.2L in 1986. Best lens I have ever used on a film camera. The color and sharpness unequaled. I just ordered an EF 85 1.2L II , and I hope it be as good.

  • THE 50… I feel the same way about my Sony Zeiss / Zony / Zeiss Sony 50 1.4 Planar. It’s just crazy good and “Leica-like” according to several reviews. Expensive but a fraction of the Summilux. The second-sharpest lens in the Sony Zeiss lineup and on level with the Milvus.

    THE 85…You sure? Man, I’ve not shot with it but I’ve sure admired the results. Some of the most beautiful portraits I’ve ever laid eyes on have been taken that 1.2.

    • I definitely didn’t have as much time with it as I did the 50, but the 50 still impressed me more. Im sure with the 85 you would get some really interesting portraits, but I just can’t see 1.2 vs 1.4 being big enough a difference to make me spend that extra moolah. And once that new 85 1.4 comes out even less reason.

  • What happened to the front element of the 85? Lovely set of lenses, I wish that Canon fix the focus shift issues of the 50 with floating elements or something

  • I know this post is a few months old but I was wondering if anybody has ever used the 50mm 1.2 on a canon eos 1n or 1v? I have been given a 1n and I may buy canon dslr later on but right now I want to invest in a top notch nifty 50. I use my fm2 all the time with my 50mm ais 1.2 and would like a canon equivalent. Input would be much appreciated

    • Hi Robert. I use the canon 50 /1.2 L on my eos-1v quite often. While an amazing piece if glass (and weather sealed), image results (on film) aren’t any better than what I get on my 50/1.4. In fact, sometimes I can’t even tell the difference between images shot on my cheap little 50/1.8 II (which is considerably lighter). I’d say that if you plan on the lens serving double duty eventually with a good dslr, it may be worth it, but if it’s just film, save your money and get the 1.4 version.

      • Hey Dustin. Thanks for the info. I am not much of a canon guy I have mostly nikon gear. My grandfather gave me the canon but he kept the lenses. I like the build quality of it and want to try it out! Like I said on my fm2 and F4 I use the nikkor 1.2 a bunch It does seem to render a little differently than the other 50mm from nikon. almost in the way that I use it as a small portrait lens. I think I may go with the 50 1.4 and push the film a stop if its lower light if you are saying there is not much of a difference. On film you don’t see much of a difference in DOF? thanks again

        • Sounds like your grandfather knew what he was doing. Canon glass is, well, Canon glass after all 🙂

          Truthfully, I think I’ve only shot the 50/1.2 L wide open once (on film), and even then, it was just a “let’s see what this looks like wide open” kind of a thing. I’ve never really needed the extra stop (on film) in my experience. While there might be minor differences between renderings, the chosen film stock is obviously going to have an impact on the results. Either way, DOF might be slightly “creamier” on the 1.2L wide open (maybe slightly sharper too), but for me, 1.2 just isn’t a practical aperture.

          Another thing to note is that most modern lenses are so optically perfect nowadays that “character” is hard to nitpick. The trait differences between your 50/1.2 nikkor ais and say a 50/1.4 nikkor ais (which I adore, btw) might be much easier to spot than the character delta of modern Canon glass (Film only. Digital is another can of worms).

          The 1.2 L and 1.4 EF are both great, but to be honest with you, I think the plastic 50/1.8 II is the best “bang for the buck” 50. The auto focus motor is faster and it’s a hell of a lot lighter. Sharp wide open too. I just picked up another one (like new) for $50. If it breaks (which it will, because this is my third one) I’ll just grab another.

          I hope that helps. Hit me up at (, and I’ll share some image samples with you.

          P.S., this is making me want to do a 1.2L vs 1.4 EF vs. 1.8 II shootout across the same film stocks in the coming months.

  • I use the 50mm 1.2L on my Sony A7III with a Metabones V adapter. Simply incredible images. With the latest firmware update, the Metabones V focuses this lens pretty fast, almost as fast as on a native Canon body.

  • Hard to believe this article passed me by when it came out… But then again I don’t always visit this site.. Be that as it may, I recently acquired a 85mm f1.2 EF II lens, specifically for a wedding I was going to shoot for a friend.. I’ve bounced around camera brands all through my life, starting with Pentax back in film days (because I couldn’t afford the Nikons), then Canon EF because I couldn’t focus properly (since fixed issue with contact lenses..).. then Digial came along and continued with Canon, where I started to get to know L glass.. owned the 50 f1.2 L and took some amazing pictures of my children with it. A friend lent me a 85 f1.2 once.. and it was love.. nay lust at first shutter press.. but my Canon camera went for an unscheduled stop in the sea.. and a combination of events led me to sell all my Canon gear (and L lenses) and jump ship to Nikon and their new full frame D700.. I love the Nikon bodies.. and some of the lenses.. But I still appreciated the Canon L glass.. A few more years and then I decided to move into Mirrorless with Sony.. neither Canon nor Nikon were taking it seriously.. and I really enjoyed being able to use all my accumulated glass on the Sony body. Never purchased a Sony lens.. BUT I came to hate the A7RIII with a vengeance. The colours looked wrong, the body was shit, the LCD coating came away almost immediately. Sony put the consumer into Electronics! So when Nikon FINALLY decided to make some decent mirrorless cameras.. I jumped ship AGAIN.. and almost simultaneously started picking up really cheap Canon L lenses, which people were dumping at firesale prices.. I couldn’t believe it.. lenses that had cost thousands were going for a few hundred. And so I bought all those lenses which as a young amateur photographer I had been too poor to own.. First a 35mm f1.4, then a 135mm f2.. then the 50mm f1.2 which I had already owned back in the day.. and this year finally the creme de la creme (literally.. the bokeh is creamy!) the 85mm f1.2. All that long story to tell you that I REALLY enjoy using these lenses today, many a year after they were made. I shoot them on a Canon film body, an old 1V.. as well as a 1DsIII, and lastly on my Nikon Z7ii. This last looks positively Frankensteinish.. BUT the results are phenomenal, orders of magnitude better than what I can achieve on the film or Canon digital.. Not that it matters, because when you are shooting with these lenses, the images just have an appeal to them that is unique, and so it doesn’t matter what box is behind the lens really. Certainly the Nikon makes it easier to nail focus and compose the way I like (subject in the extreme corners of the image mostly), whereas with the film and digital Canons the option of focus/recompose at f1.2 is not really possible.. but even when focus isn’t perfectly nailed.. there’s a poetry to the image that is present. I don’t remember ever stoping down.. why pay for f1.2 if you’re shooting at f2 or f8… use cheaper lighter lenses for that.. Actually I use my Nikon zooms when f2.8 is needed. No, these prime lenses are used wide open, and the lens I use the most is the 85 f1.2. Maybe because I’ve had it the least amount of time.. Next the 35, then the 50.. and a distant last is the 135.. which is a pity because this last one is a perfect portrait lens.. but I keep coming back to the 85. So the perfect marriage is my Nikon ergonomics with Canon glass.. and boy am I happy. Canon never really “got” camera ergonomics the way Nikon used to (less so on my Z7ii, though the Z9 is back on form); where Canon always shined though was in the lens department, at least in the L lens series. Not all L’s are created equally, and newer ones feel more “digital” and less organic, more clinical but also a bit souless.. Whereas the old L’s really shine with their imperfections and aberrations, especially when shot wide open. We photographers obsess over bokeh and composition and a million other details, but even a neophite can appreciate an image taken with a L lens.

Leave a Reply

Jeb Inge

Jeb Inge is a Berlin-based photographer and writer. He has previously worked in journalism, public history and public relations.

All stories by:Jeb Inge