So what's the big deal? We've all been told countless times that those little scratches and cracks on the front lens element don't show up in the pictures. Just slap it on the body and go shooting.
But seriously Roger, please let us know if you are successful in getting a working 1.0 out of this and your burned out copy.
Canon, if you're listening...PLEASE. I'm begging you. Bring this design back. Bring it back and make it even better.
I would pay up to $4,500 for a new 50mm .95/1.0L with improved optics (good as the 85L) and faster AF. Never cared for sharpness or the terrible bokeh from the current 50 1.0L.
joeisayo wrote:
..... Never cared for sharpness or the terrible bokeh from the current 50 1.0L.
I am happy with mine - imo, 50L1.0 AF is faster and optical performance is the same as 85L1.2 and ofcourse only in 50mm instead of 85mm. It is all about finding a good one....1st hand experience supprise here AWESOME BOKEH TOO It's a beautiful lens...pin sharp & excellent colors....yes, no joke here.
RCicala wrote:
None. We don't do security deposits. The renter (like almost all of us) is a standup guy. We'll work out some payments when we figure out what the cost is. He'll actually be OK since we should be able to create a new one in house for the cost of the broken one.
If he had the rental insurance, would that have covered it? If so, that would mean you have to eat the cost right?
onegreatcity wrote:
I worked with 'dang video guys' for nearly 25 years and never witnessed such carnage. Sorry for everyone's misfortune in this case...
For some reason, at the football games I've covered, if someone on the sideline is going to get plastered by a football player running/diving out of bounds, it's a video guy. I guess with those wide-range video zoom lenses (not the huge ones on mega-tripods), as one zooms wide to keep the action in the frame, it's easy to forget that 'objects are closer than they appear.'
Roger, your reconstruction would make an interesting blog post!
Working on a Subaru Forester commercial, I witnessed the camera pick up start driving before the camera man was ready. He had a 24mm Panavision lens on his knee. It fell off, and rolled out of the back of the truck. I'm pretty sure I saw the director holding back tears.
I feel your pain (almost). What a sick feeling. Sorry for your loss.
rscheffler wrote:
For some reason, at the football games I've covered, if someone on the sideline is going to get plastered by a football player running/diving out of bounds, it's a video guy. I guess with those wide-range video zoom lenses (not the huge ones on mega-tripods), as one zooms wide to keep the action in the frame, it's easy to forget that 'objects are closer than they appear.'
Roger, your reconstruction would make an interesting blog post!
I remember in NASCAR, an infield photographer was shooting a car that had hit the wall and slid into the infield. It hit the photographer. He saw it coming, but through the lens, it didn't seem close enough to be a factor yet. He was planning to move but thought he had time. Nope. He got airborne. Maybe something to remember when a bear is coming after you!
Maybe with the IR focusing assist, in the future the camera can measure the camera subject distance and flash a message, "Warning: Object in lens is a hell of a lot closer than you think!"
Just slap it on the body and go shooting. 
AWESOME BOKEH TOO 
