EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

Home · Register · Search · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

Pre-order new Rokinon 16mm f/2.0 ED AS UMC lens

Pre-order new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM lens

Bower 35mm f/1.4 price dropped to $379

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell
1 2 3 end

Archive 2011 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

J.D.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

Okay, I wouldn't! But it depends on which version you are talking about:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/nfd/data/50-100/nfd_50_12l.html

BTW although it's only a question of degree, the 50mm f/1.0 rear element is a bit more exposed than the 85mm f/1.2 is.

Dec 14, 2011 at 07:48 AM

Ed Sawyer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

The FD 50/1.2 is a better lens and better design in several ways than the EF 50/1.2L. If they had made an AF version of that lens (FD 50 1.2L) it would have been great but they didn't and the EF 50 1.2L suffers for it.

the 50/1.0L is a statement piece, Canon did it to show they could. That's worth a lot, to them as a company.

the bokeh is much better at f/1.1 and 1.2 than at 1.0, which is not surprising. Most lenses have edgy bokeh wide-open , which becomes much smoother a stop or so down.

-Ed

Dec 14, 2011 at 04:40 PM

fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

Hardly just a statement, it's much more than that, at least IMHO.

And while stopping down does improve contrast, like the vast majority, if not all, lenses, it's contrast wide open is far from being "very low". Again, IMHO.

100% crop, wide open, shot as jpeg, SOOC with no PP at all.
No sharpening added, no contrast boost.
Also note this was shot with an 18MP 1.6x crop sensor, which, many say, puts a lot of stress on lesser lenses.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Edited on Dec 14, 2011 at 05:10 PM · View previous versions

Dec 14, 2011 at 05:04 PM

fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

double post

sorry

Dec 14, 2011 at 05:07 PM

mttran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

fraga wrote:
Hardly just a statement, it's much more than that, at least IMHO.

+1, Canon signature all over on this lens

and much less compared to this slower one

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Mint-Leica-Noctilux-50mm-f-1-2-w-orginal-filter-12503-hood-50-F1-2-/250953470138?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item3a6dfe10ba

Dec 14, 2011 at 09:28 PM

J.D.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

Ed Sawyer wrote:the 50/1.0L is a statement piece, Canon did it to show they could. That's worth a lot, to them as a company.

I agree completely with the first bit but not necessarily with the second. In fact, the first part of your comment neatly sums up what it took me a lot longer to say.

If you want to make something worthwhile to the company then it needs to be seriously market tested before it's done so that it stays the course. Designing and constructing a lens like that is no small undertaking and I doubt if the benefits showed in the end. Canon get a lot of their reputation from their super teles so a lens like this would have limited impact, IMHO.

Incidentally, this lens is not really the dream lens it would appear for those who get off on bokeh. Some of the OOF effects are downright ugly:

http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/bokeh/bokeh.htm

Onion rings anyone? Almost reminiscent of the much-derided mirror lens.

Again, I don't want to appear to be bashing this lens. As an engineering achievement it is almost unique but its use is limited.

Dec 15, 2011 at 05:45 AM

sirimiri
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #7 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

I disagree, the block diagrams of the 50 FD 1.2 (aspherical) and the 50L EF 1.2 are different.
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/standard/ef_50_f1.2l_usm.html?p=2
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/50mm.htm

J.D. wrote:
Okay, I wouldn't! But it depends on which version you are talking about:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/nfd/data/50-100/nfd_50_12l.html

Dec 15, 2011 at 06:50 AM

J.D.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

Alright, it's a different design. You win.

Dec 15, 2011 at 07:04 AM

anorphirith
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

how is smooth bokeh better than rough ? I think it adds a lot to the photo, but it's each one's own preference
the pictures look very awesome, it's a whole different 50mm

Dec 15, 2011 at 09:33 AM

J.D.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

anorphirith wrote:
how is smooth bokeh better than rough ? I think it adds a lot to the photo, but it's each one's own preference
the pictures look very awesome, it's a whole different 50mm

So all the stuff people say about "smooth, creamy bokeh" goes for nought because this is a $3000 lens? I don't personally give a rat's about bokeh because it does not play a significant role in my photography. I've always thought of it as looking at the hole rather than the doughnut. I posted that link because it shows something of that lens which I would generally expect to be totally at odds with what most bokeh freaks get off on.

Does this shift in preference mean the much-maligned mirror lens might make a comeback?

Sorry, I don't mean to sound nasty. It's a personal preference in the end.

Dec 15, 2011 at 09:40 AM

Fr3d
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

Finally a thread where the 50 1.0 looses over the 1.2 ... how else could you all survive not owning the 50mm 1.0

P.S.: Also I'm looking for a box

Dec 15, 2011 at 09:52 AM

wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

It's strange how you "don't mean to sound nasty" or "don't want to appear to be bashing this lens," yet that's precisely how you do come across, in particular in your choice of words.

Let's get something out of the way here. The EF 50/1.0L was never an exceptionally sharp lens. That was not its design goal, nor was it to provide superior bokeh. The design goal was to make it the fastest-aperture autofocusing lens ever made, with reasonable imaging performance so as to produce acceptable images on film, when 35mm format photographers may not have had other options to achieve the kind of low-light performance that they desired.

But if we are to be fair about what this lens actually does, and how it measures up optically to other fast 50mm primes (and in particular its successor the 50/1.2L), then we should ignore the price tag and its present market value and look at the actual performance. And when you do, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. If you looked at the tests that were provided in the earlier link, you would see that it is actually quite sharp in the image center, perhaps even a little better than the 50/1.2L at comparable apertures. The bokeh is not good stopped down due to the straight-bladed aperture, contrast suffers wide open, and the two precision aspherical elements were not manufactured with the kind of technological know-how that Canon employs today. But just like the 50/1.2L, 90% of the reason to use it is to use it wide open, where a cheaper lens simply cannot go. And that is ultimately why the lens is what it is.

It's strange how people seem to enjoy complaining about the existence of specific lens designs. In my view, there are really very few "bad" or "unworthy" lenses. Some lenses are legitimately "bad" because they have a design defect that causes them to break easily, or there was an oversight that resulted in an unintended optical flaw. But nearly every lens has something going for it, from the cheapest piece of plastic to the most exorbitant luxury glass. That someone took the time to design it, consider its utility, and bring it into production, is something worth celebrating as a contribution to consumer choice, something that expands the photographer's expressive possibilities. And when a lens stops being produced, we lose out.

When you look at something through the narrow scope of your own immediate perspective, you stop seeing opportunities for growth and change. The 50/1.0L is not without flaws; however, these are largely consequences of the period in which the lens was designed and manufactured. Should a similar design be produced today, it would be a much improved lens. It may be a specialist design, but it is not merely some overpriced novelty or status symbol. And while it may be somewhat irrationally exuberant to covet this lens, it certainly deserves respect and a balanced view, undistorted by unrealistic expectations.

Dec 15, 2011 at 10:49 AM

fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

J.D. wrote:

Incidentally, this lens is not really the dream lens it would appear for those who get off on bokeh. Some of the OOF effects are downright ugly:

http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/bokeh/bokeh.htm

Onion rings anyone? Almost reminiscent of the much-derided mirror lens.

This is not directed specifically at you, J.D.
I'm just using part of you post to give mine a start.

The lens has a tendency to display a very characteristic bokeh.
Not smooth and buttery, like the lenses which are usually praised for having great bokeh.
But just like the unique aperture, I think it defines the lens. A "trade mark", if you will.

When I bought mine I was expecting this bokeh to show on most pics.
In a way, I like it. It's different. Unique. It's the lens "finger print" and clearly identifies it.

I was in for a surprise though: it usually only shows in quite specific circumstances.
I can take 100 pics and not have this nervous, busy "brokeh" on a single one.
I was actually surprised by this and, quite honestly, somewhat disappointed.
So when I do get it, I am glad. Even at screen size, I can clearly tell the pic was taken with this lens.

I would not want this "feature" on all my lenses, though. I would not want it on any other lens, in fact.
Because when I'm looking for it, I reach for this lens.
The other times, I prefer the smooth bokeh which gathers more consensus as being more pleasing and attractive.

But I would just like to state that when people who have never used this lens claim that the bokeh is like this or like that, they should have the notion that the bokeh is in fact, generally speaking and in practical terms, like most other lenses of similar focal length, at least most of the time.
It's only under specific circumstances that the signature bokeh stand out.

People also should note that the lens is "just" a 50mm. Even at 1.0 aperture, the "buttering" of the bokeh will always be somewhat limited, given the relatively short focal length, regardless of the intrinsic lens design, specially if the background is close to the subject.
People assume the huge aperture will make the background disappear just for itself, while, under many circumstances, the focal leght can, in fact, play a more predominant role than the actual aperture used.
As an example, I have taken portraits with very, very smooth bokeh at f/4 and f/5.6, where the backgrounds just melts away, even if it's relatively close to the subject. They were taken at 400 and 500mm and at these focal lengths one can make the background disappear much better/easier than with the 50 1.0 or the 85 1.2 wide open.
To achieve this with the 85 and specially with the 50 you have to get really close to the subject and, preferably, have the background somewhat far away from it.
Sometimes people forget that focal length does play a huge role in smoothing out the background and, sometimes, even more than the specific aperture.

I'm not saying this is the ultimate lens. Far from it.
In fact, it can be quite frustrating to use.
For instance, getting the focus spot on can be challenging and, when taking candids (portraits, for instance), you can loose what would have been great pics because of them being OOF.

I just feel it gets a bad rep and, again IMHO, doesn't deserve it. At least the good copies don't.

J.D. wrote:
Again, I don't want to appear to be bashing this lens.

You're not.
It's your opinion, you displayed it very well and you are perfectly entitled to it.

Edited on Dec 15, 2011 at 11:41 AM · View previous versions

Dec 15, 2011 at 11:36 AM

J.D.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

wickerprints wrote:
It's strange how you "don't mean to sound nasty" or "don't want to appear to be bashing this lens," yet that's precisely how you do come across, in particular in your choice of words.

I don't. I just get frustrated by inconsistency and some of the current paradigms. You can ignore the hell out of my posts if you like.

The design goal was to make it the fastest-aperture autofocusing lens ever made, with reasonable imaging performance so as to produce acceptable images on film, when 35mm format photographers may not have had other options to achieve the kind of low-light performance that they desired.

I would not dispute this for a minute. However, I also agree with the previous poster who pointed out that it was something of a showpiece for Canon.

But just like the 50/1.2L, 90% of the reason to use it is to use it wide open, where a cheaper lens simply cannot go. And that is ultimately why the lens is what it is.

I flipped past the earlier bit of this section because it's irrelevant to the point I'm making. This point you make here is the one I have the problem with.

A professional colleague of mine was in East Timor during the INTERFET years and thought that he might have had a use for such a lens. He was also using a 200mm f/1.8. Given what he was doing at the time, I could understand it.

For a lot of others - and again, this is a matter of personal preference - it comes down to this thing of shooting everything wide open for the sake of...shooting everything wide open.

That is not photography IMHO.

It's strange how people seem to enjoy complaining about the existence of specific lens designs.

I didn't complain. All I tried to do was to put this lens into context.

And when a lens stops being produced, we lose out.

Canon simply replaced it with a new f/1.2. Now, before you say it, I know that's not f/1.0 but until you actually measure it in transmission stops, we will never really know what the comparative capabilities of these lenses are.

The 50/1.0L is not without flaws; however, these are largely consequences of the period in which the lens was designed and manufactured. Should a similar design be produced today, it would be a much improved lens. It may be a specialist design, but it is not merely some overpriced novelty or status symbol. And while it may be somewhat irrationally exuberant to covet this lens, it certainly deserves respect and a balanced view, undistorted by unrealistic expectations.

Absolutely true and the exact point I've been trying to make. Yes: it was a remarkable design for its time but IMHO it seems the cost/performance equation doesn't stack up against the f/1.2 as well as you might expect. Just to be able to manufacture a lens like that is an equally remarkable achievement. My gripe about it is much the same as the 200mm f/1.8 in that the examples you occasionally find in the market place are IMHO, overpriced for what they are. Yes, there is intrinsic value in them but they need to be placed into context for their true photographic value to be realised and sharpness and bokeh tests simply do not give the full picture. Not by a long way.

Incidentally, before anyone says it, market value is market value. I can't argue with that. All I'm trying to do is make sure people's expectations are not unrealistic.

Dec 15, 2011 at 11:38 AM

sirimiri
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

Hey, I was curious, too!

J.D. wrote:
Alright, it's a different design. You win.

*Soup Nazi voice*
No floating element for you!

Dec 15, 2011 at 06:09 PM

J.D.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

sirimiri wrote:
Hey, I was curious, too!

J.D. wrote:
Alright, it's a different design. You win.

*Soup Nazi voice*
No floating element for you!

ROFL!!

Good comeback!

Dec 15, 2011 at 09:17 PM

deepbluejh
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

wickerprints wrote:
It's strange how you "don't mean to sound nasty" or "don't want to appear to be bashing this lens," yet that's precisely how you do come across, in particular in your choice of words.

Let's get something out of the way here. The EF 50/1.0L was never an exceptionally sharp lens. That was not its design goal, nor was it to provide superior bokeh. The design goal was to make it the fastest-aperture autofocusing lens ever made, with reasonable imaging performance so as to produce acceptable images on film, when 35mm format photographers may not have had other options to achieve the kind of low-light performance that they desired.

But if we are to be fair about what this lens actually does, and how it measures up optically to other fast 50mm primes (and in particular its successor the 50/1.2L), then we should ignore the price tag and its present market value and look at the actual performance. And when you do, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. If you looked at the tests that were provided in the earlier link, you would see that it is actually quite sharp in the image center, perhaps even a little better than the 50/1.2L at comparable apertures. The bokeh is not good stopped down due to the straight-bladed aperture, contrast suffers wide open, and the two precision aspherical elements were not manufactured with the kind of technological know-how that Canon employs today. But just like the 50/1.2L, 90% of the reason to use it is to use it wide open, where a cheaper lens simply cannot go. And that is ultimately why the lens is what it is.

It's strange how people seem to enjoy complaining about the existence of specific lens designs. In my view, there are really very few "bad" or "unworthy" lenses. Some lenses are legitimately "bad" because they have a design defect that causes them to break easily, or there was an oversight that resulted in an unintended optical flaw. But nearly every lens has something going for it, from the cheapest piece of plastic to the most exorbitant luxury glass. That someone took the time to design it, consider its utility, and bring it into production, is something worth celebrating as a contribution to consumer choice, something that expands the photographer's expressive possibilities. And when a lens stops being produced, we lose out.

When you look at something through the narrow scope of your own immediate perspective, you stop seeing opportunities for growth and change. The 50/1.0L is not without flaws; however, these are largely consequences of the period in which the lens was designed and manufactured. Should a similar design be produced today, it would be a much improved lens. It may be a specialist design, but it is not merely some overpriced novelty or status symbol. And while it may be somewhat irrationally exuberant to covet this lens, it certainly deserves respect and a balanced view, undistorted by unrealistic expectations.

Perfectly stated.

Dec 15, 2011 at 09:20 PM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

John, it ain't easy to challenge our friend Sirimiri in such matters. I think he has a copy of the entire Canon Museum lens archive on his cell phone memory.....for a fast-fingertip retrieval

Dec 15, 2011 at 09:23 PM

mttran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

I don't know about the other but i've rather amplified the light than boosted the noise.

Dec 16, 2011 at 12:42 AM

digitalbug30d
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · EF 50mm f/1.0L...for a day.....

still dont care for the "Prickly bokeh" of the f1.0..

Dec 16, 2011 at 12:45 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end