rscheffler
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
mbailey wrote:
6. In real world shooting I get a surprising number of keepers given the obvious systematic problem with the lens. Are there so many variables in a real world shooting that we can't control that this focusing problem gets lost part of the time?
This is pretty much my assessment of the 50 1.2. I spent over an hour in the store testing it with one of my 1DIIN bodies and saw the same back focus problems discussed throughout this thread. At very close distances, less than one meter, working under very controlled parameters, AF results indicated back focusing. MF on one point and varying the f/stop from 1.2 to 5.6 showed a shift in the plane of focus progressively farther behind the initial point of MF. (BTW, the camera was tethered to a laptop and images were examined on the computer, not the camera's LCD). This was discouraging to see.
However, after analyzing numerous spontaneous images made around the store, including relatively tight head shots, I found AF was nearly always spot on. For this reason I decided to take the lens as is and try to learn its quirks.
I've had it now for almost a month and find AF results at 1.5-2m and farther are nearly always more accurate than my attempts to MF. At closer distances I haven't really noticed AF inaccuracy, but at those distances it's also a lot easier to accurately MF, which I tend to do out of habit carried over from the 85 1.2 (I find it's usually much faster & easier to MF off centre subjects than focus & recompose... I absolutely do not trust the off centre AF points with fast lenses). At the minimum focusing distance though, it is clearly evident in the viewfinder that AF back focuses - and also evident in final images. Here I'll use MF almost always.
My lens is UU1200 with ser# 714xxx.
BTW, I've been using the Ec-S screen now for a year and have found it extremely invaluable with the 85 1.2. It also seems to work well with the 50 1.2. I would highly recommend it for these fast lenses, though I will add that I personally don't find much difference in focusing acuity between it and the standard screen with 2.8 lenses and slower. As well, those unfamiliar with the "S" screen should be warned that it is somewhat darker than the standard screen, particularly with lenses slower than 2.8. Some may find it to be intolerably dark, though I still use it with f/4 lenses.
|
I think we should collectively, as a community, make our voices heard to Canon. I know a lot of us are past our return period and are stuck with what we have. So it's either Canon addresses the issue and fixes it, or we're stuck with a lens that doesn't perform optimally at every level. 
Most of us probably forgot you posted that. 
