rhorta wrote:
...is something I'd never imagine I'd write, but here it is.
A couple of weeks ago I decided to give up trying with my current 50/1.2 and asked for a replacement. That request has a very high chance of being honored, but the show ain't over until the fat lady sings.
During the last 6-7 months I've been using that 50/1.2L almost exclusively, with a fair amount of frustration, but in the mean time also getting a feel for its quirks etc, so also learning to control it.
Now I miss the lens.
I miss the focal length (which I always thought of as secondary to 35mm or 85mm) and character (while I thought it to be inferior to the 85/1.2).
So with all this frustration came enjoyment, even if hidden.
Breitling65 wrote:
Aren't you one who didn't suggested this lens to anyone arguing with me? Actually I sold mine too since ...
Don't know, doesn't ring a bell.
OTOH, I didn't sell mine, I am in the process of getting a replacement from Canon (knock on wood and chanting some spells and walking around three times etc etc etc).
So, I've been using the 50 1.2 heavily recently (4 engagement sessions, 3 weddings, 1 fashion shoot) and the thing seems to focus just fine at all distances, similarly to my Sigma but faster to focus. Very enjoyable, I have a 2009 date code I believe. I should have specified, that image posted above was @ 1.2 but it was also studio lit so the effect is a bit more dramatic.
Long story short - I've maybe had great luck, but both my Sigma and Canon 50mm's have been great.
I I sold my 1.2 and miss it, but I am getting better consistency with my new sigma, and have used it exclusively with four engagement shoots. It is so easy, reliable, and amazingly good looking!!!
patrickphoto wrote:
I I sold my 1.2 and miss it, but I am getting better consistency with my new sigma, and have used it exclusively with four engagement shoots. It is so easy, reliable, and amazingly good looking!!!
Intriguing, then - why do you miss the L again? Is it the difficulty, unreliability or bad looks?
I like the look Stan! I think it looks very 'classic'. It does piss me off at times though.
After you waxed lyrical about the 24L II I got that and it's way easier to use and focus is totally consistent but I prefer the 'look' of the 50L, when I get an in-focus shot.
I'm getting a lot better with it now so I know when it's the lens and not me now and the 24L has kinda taken it's place a lot of the time. I would never sell the 50L though.
My above comment was aimed at patrickphoto, specifically aiming at his three comparisons to the Sigma - and mainly intended as the (usual, unavoidable) stab.
rhorta wrote:
What can I say the @*%@#&&@ grew on me
it grew on you...like a slime mold on a dead tree.
I kid, I kid.
On a more serious note, I do recall how intensely frustrated you were about the 50/1.2L. And no, I did not think you would ever say such a thing. But if anything, this thread says more about you and your willingness to accept challenges to work with and grow beyond the limitations of your tools, than it says about the lens itself.
I think that attitude is more indicative of a good photographer than any dollar amount of sales or number of gallery showings.
mttran wrote:
+1, the 3rd dimension of Canon light an unique look from the 50f1.2
You should show this to some of the turkeys in the alt forum. If you said it was from a Zeiss or Leica they'd piss their pants and tell you why Canon could never make a lens with such 3D capabilities.
jeremy_clay wrote:
So, I've been using the 50 1.2 heavily recently (4 engagement sessions, 3 weddings, 1 fashion shoot) and the thing seems to focus just fine at all distances, similarly to my Sigma but faster to focus. Very enjoyable, I have a 2009 date code I believe. I should have specified, that image posted above was @ 1.2 but it was also studio lit so the effect is a bit more dramatic.
Long story short - I've maybe had great luck, but both my Sigma and Canon 50mm's have been great.
How about showing us a shot from 5-6 feet away at f/2.5, or f/2.8, or....
Sure would like to see even one example that isn't soft (as in Vaseline soft). And NO PP, in ACR turn sharpening off completely. Let's see the unvarnished truth as it were.
Use a tripod if you want. I did.. Absolutely no difference. Use 1 series AF, 5 series, or even the new 7 series... It was so bad I couldn't believe it at first, but I eventually came around to acknowledging it.. I still can't accept it though..
Pixel Perfect wrote:
You should show this to some of the turkeys in the alt forum. If you said it was from a Zeiss or Leica they'd piss their pants and tell why Canon could never make a lens with such 3D capabilities.
Superb shot.
Yes really good Leica/Zeiss glass. Canon could never do that
The most important thing to me to come out of the lens is how the photos look as a whole... and I love the look! I'm happy to lose a little sharpness (which can be added in again) to get the bokeh and feel of the shots from it at f1.2.
jamesf99 wrote:
How about showing us a shot from 5-6 feet away at f/2.5, or f/2.8, or....
Sure would like to see even one example that isn't soft (as in Vaseline soft). And NO PP, in ACR turn sharpening off completely. Let's see the unvarnished truth as it were.
Use a tripod if you want. I did.. Absolutely no difference. Use 1 series AF, 5 series, or even the new 7 series... It was so bad I couldn't believe it at first, but I eventually came around to acknowledging it.. I still can't accept it though..
So it's *no* sharp stopped down, you mean? I have a servo series all in great focus, but they're @ 1.4
Is this 6 ft? Is servo @ 1.2 good or bad (honestly, I'm not sure what the story is behind 1.2's aside from 'focus shift', but I do not know the details about what that is)
walking fairly briskly towards cam, servo, @ 1.2. USMed for the web resize but no other fixes/adjustments (the watch shows some of that 1.2 purple fringing the shirt, too, a wee bit)
Actually I sold mine too since ... 
the shirt, too, a wee bit)