Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
  

Archive 2015 · Rumored: 50L II with floating element

  
 
Dpedraza
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Rumored: 50L II with floating element


kezeka wrote:
The AF and the rendering are what push me away from Sigma lenses. If Zeiss lenses are the most "poppy" "3D" whatever lenses, then Sigma lenses are the polar opposite. Their Art series has gobs of resolution but the photos draw/render in the most boring drab ways possible. Subjects with the 35A just don't stand out to me compared to the 35L I used to own, much less the Zeiss 35's. The Sigma 50A is the exact same from what I have seen on the flickr pool when I skimmed through those images. They just don't seem to get that
...Show more
I agree about the 50L I like the rendering. I bought it over the 50mm Art for my 6d. It's not the sharpest lens out there but the rendering is why I bought it. I didn't buy either 35mm options. If I would have I probably would have bought the 35L. Like you mentioned the rendering there's a certain aspect not seen in the Art lenses. Most people just want the sharpest lens they can have. If I had to do it over again it would probably still be 50L over 50A. When you mentioned the Zeiss lenses there are people who say the zeiss lenses aren't worth the hassle of MF and that they aren't worth the extra premium you pay for them.



Apr 04, 2015 at 05:47 PM
kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Rumored: 50L II with floating element


Dpedraza wrote:
I agree about the 50L I like the rendering. I bought it over the 50mm Art for my 6d. It's not the sharpest lens out there but the rendering is why I bought it. I didn't buy either 35mm options. If I would have I probably would have bought the 35L. Like you mentioned the rendering there's a certain aspect not seen in the Art lenses. Most people just want the sharpest lens they can have. If I had to do it over again it would probably still be 50L over 50A. When you mentioned the Zeiss lenses there are
...Show more

I have owned a number of Zeiss lenses over the last few years and thoroughly enjoy the image renderings and build quality of their lenses but as you said, the MF is a very real problem in many situations. Regardless, they essentially stand as the definition of great rendering. Though the 55 Otus was a disappointment in terms of rendering, they seem to have sorted this problem out with the 85 Otus.



Apr 04, 2015 at 08:12 PM
Beni
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Rumored: 50L II with floating element


leftcoastlefty wrote:
So the Canon f/1.2 costs a whopping $1550, has focus shift issues and generally sucks. Photozone called it “less than thrilling” and I think they were being polite. The general consensus around here seems to be that it occasionally delivers outstanding results, but often fails. (One of my favorite images was shot with one that I rented.)

The Sigma, by contrast, costs $950, is optically and mechanically superb, and with maybe 2% of users complaining that it doesn’t focus well. For example:

I don’t understand why you would use continuous AF with this lens. Continuous AF is basically asking the camera
...Show more

Rather indicative of todays photographers. Good=sharp, preferably to the corners wide open. The 50L is not even as sharp as the lowly 50mm 1.4 stopped down. It does however have magical, beautiful rendering and lovely colour. That is what you are paying for. If the 50 ART is anything like the 35mm ART we have in our studio, it's incredibly sharp and contrasty and totally lifeless. Perfect for still life. I wouldn't begin to use it for people. It takes a lot of money, size, weight and glass to put together a lens that renders like the 50L, the IQ=sharpness crowd just don't begin to get it.

A version with good focusing would be wonderful. I had the usual troubles with mine, you end up as someone said, doing MA for a specific aperture, distance and lighting. If it had a decent manual focus ring I'd have kept it when I moved over to the A7r despite its size. I miss it, it had a wonderful magic to its rendering.



Apr 05, 2015 at 01:38 AM
kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Rumored: 50L II with floating element


Beni wrote:
Rather indicative of todays photographers. Good=sharp, preferably to the corners wide open. The 50L is not even as sharp as the lowly 50mm 1.4 stopped down. It does however have magical, beautiful rendering and lovely colour. That is what you are paying for. If the 50 ART is anything like the 35mm ART we have in our studio, it's incredibly sharp and contrasty and totally lifeless. Perfect for still life. I wouldn't begin to use it for people. It takes a lot of money, size, weight and glass to put together a lens that renders like the 50L, the IQ=sharpness
...Show more

If you don't mind using adapters and like the 50L, I would recommend giving the Nikon 58/1.4 G a shot. It is a magical lens but has similar AF problems as the 50L. I would bargain that the MF ring probablys works better than the 50L though.



Apr 05, 2015 at 02:10 AM
Jim Levitt
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Rumored: 50L II with floating element


leftcoastlefty wrote:
The market for a quality 50 has been filled by the Sigma Art.


But the market for a high-quality 50 that doesn't weigh a ton has not.



Apr 05, 2015 at 02:30 AM
leftcoastlefty
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Rumored: 50L II with floating element


Jim Levitt wrote:
But the market for a high-quality 50 that doesn't weigh a ton has not.


Maybe weight is a necessary requirement for a quality 50?

I phrased that as a question because it is. The Sigma Arts are heavy and most reviewers love their tank-like qualities (I’m not talking about IQ or AF quality here). And the same for the Zeiss lenses. But the Canon 100mm Macro L is not all metal and it is perfectly adequate, even ideal, for travel. Personally, I can’t stand the feel of the Zeiss lenses, love the 100mm, and am perfectly fine with the Sigma Arts. For right or wrong, heavy has become synonymous with quality. So maybe weight is a necessary requirement for the successful marketing of a quality 50mm lens.



Apr 05, 2015 at 11:51 AM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Rumored: 50L II with floating element


The Sony/Zeiss FE 1.8/55 likely has the best compromise of rendering, sharpness, contrast, size, and weight out of a modern AF normal prime. It's the one native lens that makes that system truly appealing, to me at least.

Yet it's not as well corrected as the 50 Art or Otus 55, or even Nikon's 58/1.4G in certain measurements, and it certainly doesn't render as well as the 50L or 58G, if unique rendering is what you're after, and at f/1.8 it's not going to give you the subject isolation of the faster lenses, nor the speed (especially compared to the 50L).

Canon would do well to tweak the 50L to modern standards; at 50MP, there will be no tolerance for focus shift or performance that doesn't approach perfection across the frame at f/8-f/11, nor will the very prevalent longitudinal CA be welcome.

Canon will have to approach the 50 Art's level of correction without making a lifeless prime. Do that, and they will knock it out of the park!



Apr 05, 2015 at 02:23 PM
1       2      
3
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.