So I think that proves that as long as you know what you're doing, and give it enough time to get used to this lens (which I intend to do), it is very usable wide open.
Ooops. I was talking about the 50mm f1.4 not the 1.2. My bad.
But edge to edge the 35L beats the 50L at all f stops. In the center its about even.
Sneakyracer wrote:
The 35L is a much better lens mechanically and optically. Its good at f1.4 where the 50 is unusable. But, if you like amd want the 50mm focal length then its a moot point.
For this, I disagree. 50L is much better in terms of build quality (if mechanically you mean its build). 50L has weather seal but 35L does not. And 35L has a feel of plastic. 50L is a very nice looking and solid lens.
Optically I don't think 35L is that good either. It is fine, but definitely not the top notch of Canon L.
Jul 29, 2012 at 03:15 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
So I think that proves that as long as you know what you're doing, and give it enough time to get used to this lens (which I intend to do), it is very usable wide open.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
So why don't you sell it and buy another 50mm lens? There are many and you have been complaining about 100 times on this lens?
This comment is very akin "if you don't like X (pick your favorite political battle) why don't you move to another country" (mistaken "patriotism"), and as such doesn't really warrant an explanation. Just because something is "good enough" or "the best" doesn't mean it can't be improved. You will improve things only by questioning their goodness and challenging yourself (or in this case, the manufacturer) to do better next time, not by bending over backwards and asking for more. Being citizen of three countries I can tell you none of them is perfect. As someone who lives in two countries yourself, you probably have the same experience, but likely don't bash either of your countries.
As for complaining 100x about the lens - firstly, it's not been even half as many times; also, in the 50L image thread you will see that I have also contributed in a positive sense. I believe constructive criticism is a necessary component of both a democracy as well as an open market, and I will continue to criticize the 50L, and most other things, to my heart's content; unlike others I will (and have) also provide acknowledgement of the good.
From Lloyd Chambers (digllloyd) website where he tested the 50L with the 5D3 yesterday. This is just the headline:
"Just published in Making Sharp Images is an extensive study of focus shift with the Canon 50mm f/1.2L on the Canon 5D Mark III.
This study is also cross-posted in DAP: study of focus shift with the Canon 50mm f/1.2L on the Canon 5D Mark III (in DAP).
Canon users shooting the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L will find this study immensely instructive. The most common complaint about the 50/1.2L is that it is “soft”. This is absolutely incorrect (it is very sharp), but the culprit is a very strong focus shift. However, the “soft” statement is absolutely true if one fails to compensate for the focus shift.
For many lenses (especially ƒ/1.2, ƒ/1.4, ƒ/1.8 lenses), by far the most important lens parameter determining lens sharpness is focus shift. Which is why many controlled tests are completely ignoring the most important performance issue! A sort of 1.735 children thing, or being half pregnant. Know your gear.
Focus shift and what to do about it are discussed in detail in Making Sharp Images.
The shocking image sharpness differences caused by focus shift. That the 50/1.2L is a very sharp lens, but “in the wrong place” unless one compensates for the focus shift.
That with increasing DSLR resolution, focus shift can be THE dominant factor in determining actual image sharpness.
Nikon and other brand photographers should take the time to read this study, as there are plenty of Nikon (and Zeiss and Leica) lenses with focus shift.
thinkpadfans wrote:
Yes you are right. I am just waiting on the 35L II to come out. for 50L, which I still have, I usually just shoot at F2. I think shooting at F1.2 and F1.4 is hard. For 35L. It just has too many small problems for me to keep it.
Until it is, you may want to try the Samyang 35/1.4 which is superb.
Lars Johnsson wrote: From Lloyd Chambers (digllloyd) website where he tested the 50L with the 5D3 yesterday. This is just the headline:
"Just published in Making Sharp Images is an extensive study of focus shift with the Canon 50mm f/1.2L on the Canon 5D Mark III.
This study is also cross-posted in DAP: study of focus shift with the Canon 50mm f/1.2L on the Canon 5D Mark III (in DAP).
Canon users shooting the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L will find this study immensely instructive. The most common complaint about the 50/1.2L is that it is “soft”. This is absolutely incorrect (it is very sharp),but the culprit is a very strong focus shift. However, the “soft” statement is absolutely true if one fails to compensate for the focus shift.
For many lenses (especially ƒ/1.2, ƒ/1.4, ƒ/1.8 lenses), by far the most important lens parameter determining lens sharpness is focus shift. Which is why many controlled tests are completely ignoring the most important performance issue! A sort of 1.735 children thing, or being half pregnant. Know your gear.
Focus shift and what to do about it are discussed in detail in Making Sharp Images.
The shocking image sharpness differences caused by focus shift. That the 50/1.2L is a very sharp lens, but “in the wrong place” unless one compensates for the focus shift.
That with increasing DSLR resolution, focus shift can be THE dominant factor in determining actual image sharpness.
Nikon and other brand photographers should take the time to read this study, as there are plenty of Nikon (and Zeiss and Leica) lenses with focus shift....Show more →
I only shot it wide open (this is why I buy fast lenses) so no focus shift in my case. I also compared AF to MF and there was no difference. Mine was soft. And if you look at PZ, it's the same there.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Jul 30, 2012 at 03:32 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
It's not a big deal for me. At the distance I use the lens it doesn't affect me when shooting.
I could of course quote you writing : Name one other fast prime that has this issue. And as Lloyd write in the review. Fast lenses from Canon, Nikon, Zeiss and Leica have similar issues
Lars Johnsson wrote:
It's not a big deal for me. At the distance I use the lens it doesn't affect me when shooting.
... which very well may have to do with your style or subject matter of shooting. If someone shoots at 3-4m+ or always wide open, no focus shift to speak of. Others who shoot at f2 and 1-2m, major pain.
I could of course quote you writing : Name one other fast prime that has this issue. And as Lloyd write in the review. Fast lenses from Canon, Nikon, Zeiss and Leica have similar issues
That is true. But in that thread you nor anyone else could show a CANON lens with anywhere near the same amount of shift. Its regrettable that some Zeiss or other brand lenses have the same issue, but at least on this forum you will see 100 Canon 50L lenses for every single Zeiss 50 lens, if not less. So that explains a bit why you hear a bit more bitching about the 50L than any other of the listed lenses.
I did not read the Lloyd Chambers article but I did google for focus shift.
As I understand, the main problem is caused by the fact that you focus with an aperture that's wide open ( eq. f1.2) and (might) get a focus shift because you use a smaller aperture (eq. f2.8) !?
Using it wide open "solves" this partly ?
Interesting, I had no idea.
This is a personal preference thing. I love 50mm plain and simple. So who cares which is best between 35 & 50. IMHO you either need 35 or 50 or both. After you sort that out just buy what FL suits you.
I could supply an answer as inscrutable as your question and simply type: "neither"
Instead, I'll suggest that you might give at least a little context. No lens is better than any other lens without such a context. It is kind of like asking, "Banana or shovel. Which one do you prefer?"
