pookipichu
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
|
 p.1 #9 · Canon 50mm 1.0L Short Review | |
adamM wrote:
The tree branch shot doesn't really come across as sharp to me.. but without seeing it next to other lenses, it's hard to say.
Since the 50mm f1.0L is such a slow focuser, you have to ask if manual focus + AF confirm isn't a reasonable alternative. For those who grew up shooting on MF, i bet many would prefer MF over a really slow AF. I know i would.
I'd hazard to say the Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2 blows the doors off the 50mm f1.0L in terms of sharpness, contrast, CA, flare and bokeh. I know, it's one stop slower and 8mm longer... Not a direct comparison, and i think herein lies the point: There is no direct comparison ! The 1.0L is an utterly unique lens. A direct comparison cannot be made. However, my angle is that there are compromises at the bleeding edge; performance, price, which make it questionable (to me) to own, over a number of 'almost' equivalents.
So much of this is subjective. I'd much rather take my Rokkor or a couple of 50mm f1.4's over the 1.0L for 'better' bokeh, with understandably different DOF characteristics. I don't mind manually focusing, and realize that not everyone shares this thought.
With the recent improvements in DSLR high ISO performance, fast lenses aren't so much employed as much for 'getting the shot' as they used to be, and are more for their bokeh abilities. Slow AF, doughnut bokeh and a high price-tag are three pretty major compromises for that last stop of performance, which doesn't pay the bills like it used to with crappy 400 iso film.
Isn't photography cool? Such an interesting mix of logic and art, technology and creativity. If you love that lens, it's all that matters.
I've never used the rokkor and cannot comment, but if someone in the NYC area has one, we can shoot together. I'd like to see the rokkor handle challenging highlights. I'm not talking about a few twinkly LED lights, or a flower with some twigs behind it, I'm talking about sharply glinting metal, blown out highlights through tree branches, high contrast.
The 50Ls, 85L, 200L and 70-200L are all considered to have good bokeh, and yet all have the "donut" bokeh that you find objectionable. The Noctilux is 5+K USD, and has a vortex like bokeh. The 50L is not a good value, the Tamron 28-75 is a good value. But you need the tools you need. Your 70-200 IS is very expensive, especially in Australia.
My colleague has 35K of Leica equipment, 2 film bodies and a handfull of lenses, everything is relative.
And as for high ISO, I shoot ISO 100 95% of the time. I prefer fast lenses over high ISO.
Leon Noel wrote:
One of a kind lens, thank you for sharing  . I guess I should also browse Nikon forums more often to see if a user review of Nikkor Noct pops up for comparison.
When it comes to a search for lowlight lenses in the standard range, I agree the bokeh is one of the most discernable feature to ask for, outside sharpness and color signature. And your experience with the 50/1L seems like a revelation.
Is CA bad wide open? Especially with 100% crops? I'm not sure if that's purple fringing in the 1st tree branches shot and a hint around the lamp edges in the bokeh shot.
I've been shooting wide open almost exclusively and I can say conclusively, it varies. CA ranges from negligible to bad. I did not do any CA correction in the branches. Bad CA occurs when the dynamic range of the sensor is exceeded drastically. When I shot in Grand Central Station at f/1.0 and 1/40s to lift the shadows, the window panes purpled. If the exposure is within range, then CA can be non-existent to 3 pixels. Heavily contrasty blown highlights lead to bad CA of 5-7 pixels.
Edited on Feb 25, 2008 at 05:47 AM
|
