Original 50L f1.2L thread (edited)

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

1 2

end

Archive 2008 · Original 50L f1.2L thread (edited)

Lars Johnsson
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #1 · Original 50L f1.2L thread (edited)

kkdd wrote:
Keep in mind that even people like William Castleman *thought* they had a good lens, right up until he went and did some specific tests. http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/backfocus/backfocus.htm

The same is true for Bryan Carnathan from The-Digital-Picture.com
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Now I'm not saying everyone that claims they are satisfied with their lens has a defective one. Who knows they are maybe exceptions or in the case of newer lenses even silently fixed. But it wouldn't surprise me if some of the people claiming to have a good copy actually have a bad one that just doesn't give them problems for what they are using it for. For example, Castleman was shooting sports with his and was satisfied, but he confirmed later that his lens was backfocusing.

He was able to duplicate backfocus at 18 inches focus distance after trying hard

Jul 17, 2008 at 06:33 PM

Galibier
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #2 · Original 50L f1.2L thread (edited)

Carnathan's and Castleman's observations appear to be the same as mine: they can detect focus shift at very close distances if they test for it, but the focus shift doesn't affect their real-world shooting. Note also that Castleman detected focus errors in the two other lenses he subjected to close-focus testing, his 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 -- lenses he used (and continues to use) without issue. Do these test results make the lenses "defective" or "bad" even when the lenses work well in real-world shooting? I do not doubt those of you who have had bad experiences with the 50/1.2, but if my lens works well for me as I use it, I care very little whether testing for flaws reveals a flaw.

Jul 17, 2008 at 06:57 PM

mfurman
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #3 · Original 50L f1.2L thread (edited)

DoubleNegative: I only have 41 pics (out of quite a lot more) online, shot with the 50L - but they cover a variety of situations from macro

This is the the first time, I heard of Macro usage for 50 f/1.2 L

Jul 17, 2008 at 08:05 PM

DoubleNegative
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #4 · Original 50L f1.2L thread (edited)

mfurman wrote:
This is the the first time, I heard of Macro usage for 50 f/1.2 L

I know, it seems odd doesn't it?

I've used the 35L (too short a working distance), the 50/85L (nice) and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, among others. A set of tubes goes a long way!

Jul 17, 2008 at 08:31 PM

Sven Jeppesen
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #5 · Original 50L f1.2L thread (edited)

Jon Uhler wrote:
I too am having a love affair with mine....

Jon

http://www.flickr.com/photos/harleypugs/

I also love the 50/1,2

Jul 18, 2008 at 06:14 PM

gazzajagman
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #6 · Original 50L f1.2L thread (edited)

Is all this realy a surprise to Canon? No I think not...every sub 85mm L prime since the late 70's has had a floating element. In fact Canon like to brag about their superior "floating" designs in Lens works III. The problem seems to have originate from from the 50 f1.2L ancient optical design. It's a re-cobbled 55mm f1.2 from the early 70's. Which was pre-floating element design. Canon have wrapped a pro build, modern AF, weather sealed structure around some really old optics.
In fact a lot of Canon's 50mm are longer, nearer 55 and 60mm.

Jul 18, 2008 at 07:47 PM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #7 · Original 50L f1.2L thread (edited)

gazzajagman wrote:
Is all this realy a surprise to Canon? No I think not...every sub 85mm L prime since the late 70's has had a floating element. In fact Canon like to brag about their superior "floating" designs in Lens works III. The problem seems to have originate from from the 50 f1.2L ancient optical design. It's a re-cobbled 55mm f1.2 from the early 70's. Which was pre-floating element design. Canon have wrapped a pro build, modern AF, weather sealed structure around some really old optics.
In fact a lot of Canon's 50mm are longer, nearer 55 and 60mm.

So tell us a few of those canon 50mm lenses that are 55 and 60mm......wich ones are they

Jul 18, 2008 at 07:54 PM

gazzajagman
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #8 · Original 50L f1.2L thread (edited)

The 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2. Compare them to the Sigma 50mm f1.4, there's a noticable jump in focal length.

Jul 19, 2008 at 02:41 AM

Photon
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #9 · Original 50L f1.2L thread (edited)

gazzajagman wrote:
The 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2. Compare them to the Sigma 50mm f1.4, there's a noticable jump in focal length.
The Sigma may be "short". I'm sure there's fractional variation in focal length from one sample to another, but I recall a Canon 50/1.4 testing out at just about 51mm, nowhere near 55mm.

Have any manufacturers produced a 50 - other than a macro - with floating elements? Canon introduced it in the WA lenses because it allowed wide aperture designs without excessive focus shift. I'm sure a floating element could improve the design of the 50/1.2, but it certainly isn't needed as much as it is in the 24/1.4.

I'd still welcome a firmware solution in the form of slight focus adjustment based on aperture and subject distance.

Edited on Jul 19, 2008 at 03:44 AM

Jul 19, 2008 at 03:37 AM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #10 · Original 50L f1.2L thread (edited)

gazzajagman wrote:
The 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.2. Compare them to the Sigma 50mm f1.4, there's a noticable jump in focal length.

No they are not 55-60mm as you wrote. I know the exact (effective focal lenght) on all Canon 50mm lenses except the 50/1,2. But I own the 50/1,2 and haven't noticed any big difference from the others. Here are the numbers. And most lenses from all brands are not exactly 50, 100,300 or 500mm like the numbers on the lens say. Zoom lenses are a lot worse also.

50/1,0 L----52mm
50/1,4-------51mm
50/1,8 II-----51mm
50/2,5-------50mm

Edited on Jul 19, 2008 at 05:30 AM

Jul 19, 2008 at 05:30 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 end