Review on Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens, black by Adam Orlowski ᠌

I compared native 50 / 1.4, there was also Sigma 35 / 1.4 and much more (40 / 2.8, 85 / 1.8, different 70-200, etc. ), but these 2 fixes are the closest. Basically, everyone scolds the lens, but I still decided to buy it to replace 50 / 1.4, which I got with its constructive, crooked autofocus, low contrast and soap even on the ancient 5d (on modern ones, of course, there’s nothing to even say). I took it from my hands, after I found traces of an autopsy (if I had seen it right away, I wouldn’t have bought it), so I don’t pretend to be a standard. In short, I thought it would be a little better than 1.4. But no. At 1.2 it is quite sharp, even sharper than 1.4 by 1.4, not to mention the sharpness of 1.2 by 1.4. It hits the target clearly, there have never been AF misses (on 1DX), which was unattainable with 1.4 (at least do something to it, it's crooked, I had 2 pieces - they are all like that). At 2.8, the sharpness is comparable to the 100/2.8 macro, which is a dermatologist's dream. We are talking about the center, of course, but in fairness the lens is not for landscapes. I don’t like fifty kopecks, not my focal one (though I must admit that children turn out just right for it), but I liked this one. It is definitely better than 1.4 in clarity, background blur, contrast, and color. Approximately like 70-200 (at comparable F values). Autofocus is slow, it’s even noticeable how when the lens is raised to the side, the motor rotates more slowly than the other, and if you point it down, then vice versa (horizontally in both directions is the same), because the lenses are healthy and heavy. He has a hole the size of a bayonet. In terms of monumentality, it is comparable to 70-200 / 2.8, although the build quality is of course worse. The lens is old, it needs an ate for a long time, but Canon has never made a normal fifty dollars in its history and, it seems, will not do it. I even learned how to make widths, but with 50mm it’s a real disaster. I didn’t compare it with sigma 50 / 1.4, but there was 35 art, something similar, but fifty dollars will be a little nicer in the picture (probably purely due to the focal length). As for the price, I don’t know, it’s far from the most expensive, it’s worth the money, there are a lot of inexpensive ones on the secondary market.