I had a gap in my lens line-up and decided to try the new 50mm L. I put the 50mm 1.2L to the test for an entire weekend of shooting and I have to say, I am a little disappointed.
I've used the 50mm f/1 which was an absolute delight, accurate focus and really amazing build. The new 50mm f/1.2 has less glass and is more compact, not quite as solid as the 50mm f/1 or the 85mm f/1.2. The colors were rich and I was satisfied by the bokeh. The focusing speed is definitely faster than the old f/1, however it is no speed demon. I'd say it's on par with the 28-75mm Tamron (albeit silent). My main quibbles are both sharpness and focus accuracy.
My copy of the 50mm f/1.2 vs. the copy of my friend's 50mm f/1.0, the f/1.0 is sharper in the center at the same f/stops. Furthermore my f/1.2 has focus issues even in daylight with moderate contrast subjects. I had inconsistent focus where the lens would backfocus randomly even using non-center AF points at f/1.8-f/3.5 (on tripod)
I am returning the f/1.2 and this is frustrating. I would gladly pay a little more for Canon to get it right. Better sharpness and accurate focus please! YMMV.
I had the 50 1.2L for about three weeks last year before returning it.
As far as I'm concerned, the 50 1.2L is more than a disappointment, its a scandal. And it's just as scandalous that Canon refuses to acknowlege it despite myriad reports.
I guess with the recall on the 1d3 now, there is even less chance that the 50 1.2L will be addressed by Canon. How many recalls can the marketing group live with?
I love the colors from the 50 f/1.2, but the focus (I'm assuming that's the problem with mine) just makes it a pain. I still have mine, but it's going away.
I don't like "testing" stuff; the "every aperture in all lighting conditions vs. every other 50mm lens known to man" junk. Blechhhh! I want to put it on my camera, shoot the images I want and get good results. I've been able to do that with all other lenses, but not the 50mm f/1.2. I'll stick to the 50 f/1.4 and save the money.
The 85L I and II are worth owning with the Mark 1 being the best buy on the used market. The 50L is not in the same league IMO.
CMOS wrote:
I had the 50 1.2L for about three weeks last year before returning it.
As far as I'm concerned, the 50 1.2L is more than a disappointment, its a scandal. And it's just as scandalous that Canon refuses to acknowlege it despite myriad reports.
I guess with the recall on the 1d3 now, there is even less chance that the 50 1.2L will be addressed by Canon. How many recalls can the marketing group live with?
Well, in the last 2 years they've had trouble with the 24-105L, the 70-300 consumer lens, the 1D3, the 50L (not admitted). I think that's a large enough proportion of new releases to make me sit up and take notice, but perhaps not for them.
I'm sad about the 50 f/1.2. I wanted to like that lens, but at this point, I can live without it.
It seems apparent, that the 50mm f/1.2 has issues that are not isolated. I don't understand what went wrong considering the 50mm f/1 was a good lens design to start with. Especially since they seem to have made advances in manufacturing (e.g. 70-200mm f/4 IS).
In regards to the 85mm f/1.2, what a magnificent lens. I have used both the Mark I and Mark II version and there is no discernible difference in IQ. The bokeh is slightly BETTER with the Mark I version, so yes it is an unbelievable bargain.
Canon should take the 85mm f/1.2 and shrink it to a 45mm f/1.2. That would make me a happy camper. Especially with the 1ds III around the corner. The 50mm f/1.2 is just not up to snuff and its weakness will be even more pronounced with the new camera.
The real problem with the 50 1.2 isnt the lens at all. Its the owners of this lens who continue to apologize for it! There are a lot of users who say something like "the lens is great IF you do ..."
Why would Canon ever attempt to fix the lens as long as people are willing to accept a less than perfect lens? Think about it, it took MONTHS of complaining by LOTS of people on some prominant forums for Canon to admit and begin to fix mkIIIs.
Canon will never have to admit or fix the apparent focus shift problem of the 50L simply because the owners are making excuses for them. And it is really a shame because I would pay top dollar for a 50L to work like it should.
canerino wrote:
DISCLAIMER: I have never used the 50 1.2.
The real problem with the 50 1.2 isnt the lens at all. Its the owners of this lens who continue to apologize for it! There are a lot of users who say something like "the lens is great IF you do ..."
Why would Canon ever attempt to fix the lens as long as people are willing to accept a less than perfect lens? Think about it, it took MONTHS of complaining by LOTS of people on some prominant forums for Canon to admit and begin to fix mkIIIs.
Canon will never have to admit or fix the apparent focus shift problem of the 50L simply because the owners are making excuses for them. And it is really a shame because I would pay top dollar for a 50L to work like it should.
most people don't complain because most don't notice there is a problem i.e. shoot @ 3ft f2.8. Its typically not a consistent problem in real world shots either. Just my opinion, Ive owned the lens for about a year now and its one of my favs. Just my 2 cents
canerino wrote:
DISCLAIMER: I have never used the 50 1.2.
The real problem with the 50 1.2 isnt the lens at all. Its the owners of this lens who continue to apologize for it! There are a lot of users who say something like "the lens is great IF you do ..."
Why would Canon ever attempt to fix the lens as long as people are willing to accept a less than perfect lens? Think about it, it took MONTHS of complaining by LOTS of people on some prominant forums for Canon to admit and begin to fix mkIIIs.
Canon will never have to admit or fix the apparent focus shift problem of the 50L simply because the owners are making excuses for them. And it is really a shame because I would pay top dollar for a 50L to work like it should.
ward1066 wrote:
most people don't complain because most don't notice there is a problem i.e. shoot @ 3ft f2.8. Its typically not a consistent problem in real world shots either. Just my opinion, Ive owned the lens for about a year now and its one of my favs. Just my 2 cents
Why on earth do you want a lens that produces mush at f/2.8 and under 10'? I can't for the life of me understand that, and if I can't use the lens the way I want to use it (meaning all apertures are fully functional) why keep it? I guess $1,100 is not a great deal of money to some, but don't you at least want a decent product for that amount?
I'd much rather put that money into a lens I can use without manually focusing while simultaneously pushing the DOF preview button, holding the camera steady, measuring how far from the subject I am, making sure I'm not in the f/1.4 to f/2.8 range, praying to God I'll get a sharp image, and then having to eat crow when it comes out looking like I shot it with a holga.. Jeeze, what does Canon expect?
BTW - this is the first lens I've returned because it was a dog, and I've purchased many, many lenses over the decades....
Maybe Canon will just stop producing the 50 1.2L in a short while and let it die out quietly. They might simply say "sales were below expectations," as the probably are.
I've been shooting with my 50 1.2 as well All I can say is wow! On my Mark 3 this baby is a gem. Now I must admit that at 1.2 it is a little soft but hardly unusable. Because of it very thin dof wide open I find myself shooting portraits no more than 2.0. The colors and contrast match my 85L and 35L all the way. Also it's ability to handle flare is unmatched by all my other prime optics When shooting protraits I see the same detail as my 85L especially in the eyes and pores of the skin. Close focusing issues do not exsist. When I get a chace I'll post some examples. All I have to say is that I am extremly satisfied with my 50L and it a keeper for sure. This is a brand new model so maybe they fixed some of the earlier model issues. Anyways, hope this helps..
"Why on earth do you want a lens that produces mush at f/2.8 and under 10'? "
It doesnt produce all "mush" @f2.8 at less than 10 ft,,, the quirk that people have said they have seen is less than 4 ft and that is a problem that is seen probably 10% of "real world" shots .....no lens is perfect all all apertures and all distances. nobody seems to compalin how the 70-200 f4IS hunts like hell in low light,,that is a bigger issue to me but that is just the design of the lens.
I've not noticed the flaw in my real world pics but did recently test my 50L on a ruler and it did indeed backfocus. In reality the depth of focus at f/2.8-f/4 is thin but not razor thin, so most of the time eyes still land within the focus area. I still wish it was perfect. But for me the flaw hasn't been too much of an issue. That's why "we" the owners don't complain that much.
ward1066 wrote:
"Why on earth do you want a lens that produces mush at f/2.8 and under 10'? "
It doesnt produce all "mush" @f2.8 at less than 10 ft,,, the quirk that people have said they have seen is less than 4 ft and that is a problem that is seen probably 10% of "real world" shots .....no lens is perfect all all apertures and all distances. nobody seems to compalin how the 70-200 f4IS hunts like hell in low light,,that is a bigger issue to me but that is just the design of the lens.
It's not 10%, it's 100% reproducible. Here's some back focus examples:
I've seen people say it's only at minimum distance. It's not. I've seen it anywhere below 10ft. For people that love the lens, great, have fun with it. But this nonsense that there's nothing wrong with the lens or that it's a copy variation are silly. The lens design clearly produces this effect. It would be one thing if all fast Canon lenses did this but they don't. Only the 50 f1.2 has this defect.
(1) About the build:
Although the rubberized finish on the 85L (and 50 f/1.0) has probably a nicer tactile feel than the barrel finish of the 50 f/1.2, I would not say that the build of the bigger lenses is more 'solid' or rugged. If anything, the 50 f/1.2 focusing group is better guarded. Once a protective filter is screwed onto it, you have a compact and tight package.
Just for fun, I invite you to drop both lenses onto concrete and see which one survives better.
(2) Back-focus:
I do believe that most lenses are affected more or less so, within that dreaded copy-to-copy variation. However, if one does not do much of close up photography around f/2.0-f/2.8, the remaining lens performance is excellent IMO.
(3) Canon and us:
I would have been really impressed with Canon Inc. if they actually addressed that apparent lens backfocus anomaly in the lens literature. However, I don't think that's their MO. They generally let issues/problems like that "ride".
Over the years of using their products I have learned not to concern myself with Canon Corp and their ways at all. Instead, I focus on their products individually and acquire only those I consider to be worth my money, based on the product's demonstrated performance and NOT on the manufacturer's literature. I.e., no preordering here .
Therefore, if the 50 f/1.2 does not satisfy, we should perhaps simply move onto another comparable product which we see as a better value. God knows, the selection of EF mount lenses is fairly ample, especially if those out of production are considered as well.
I don't do bench tests. I shoot real world, and this lens backfocuses.
I own and have used almost 2 dozen lenses and none have had this kind of crazy focus problems.
Regarding build quality, the 50mm f/1.0 exudes quality. The 50mm f/1.2L feels like a reinforced 50mm f/1.4. Obviously I am not talking about dropping the lenses. I know you are jesting but I think you are missing the point. A Bentley can have a much better build quality or impression than a Toyota but it will still be mangled in a collission just like a much less expensive car.
In any event, when you are locked into a camera system, you want your manufacturer to make a product that works. If you work in an office building and the elevator is broken, of course you can take the stairs, but eventually, you want the elevator fixed. At least I do.
Yes there is an alternative, the 50mm f/1.0 and if I can find a good copy for 2K I'll buy it. What would make more sense is for Canon to make a lens that I know they can make, I would get a warranty and know the parts would be serviced.
ward1066 wrote:
Ok, I just grabbed a quick shot. The only available subject I had was my cat, sorry. Shot, f 2.8 at about 3-4 feet. Resized only. Heres what we think of your 50L rumors
It's not a rumor, that's sort of insulting to the people who are having problems. I bought the lens hoping I would get a good copy or that the focus problems wouldn't be an issue for me. They are and were. Luckily I used more than one lens for my shoots.
