I can 100% guarantee that 85L mkI's extend out when focusing in -- and that you're supposed to bring it back to infinity (flush) when storing. I don't know about mkIIs, so if you've got a mkII that could be it -- since I simply have not seen a mkII.

85 L MK II also extends when focusing. I'm sure of it since my brother has one.

85L mkII also pushes back and forth a lot of glass, and yes, it does extend the inner barrel while focusing closer. The barrel and the glass doesn't rotate while focusing, so perhaps that counts for internal focusing, but the movement for sure shows outside as well.

If your 85L stays the same size then it's BROKE!

Gene


jamesf99 wrote:
cactusclay wrote:
jamesf99 wrote:
No it stays the same size just like the 85L.
My 85L extended out.


Hmmmm. Funny, but my 85L and 85 f/1.8 stay the same size. I'm thinking you're misremembering or are you talking about the FD mount 85 (a lens I didn't own)

Even though I've used the lens on a 1DsMkII, you can confirm that it stays the same size for yourself by going to the Canon site. It uses internal focusing.to move the glass.

Yup. I was way wrong; and that's with a capital WRONG.I finally got off my lazy butt and mounted the 85L. It actually moved when focusing.... Imagine that.

I've been using other lenses so much I forgot but was sure it didn't. So now I'll have to retract my unequivocal statement that the 50 f/1.2 doesn't move too!

I don't know why but I just hate this.

Koivulehto wrote:
On page 4 of this same thread we are now on Uusilehto wrote this:
It doesn't change dimensions but there's an inner tube that moves during focus. Like on a 17-40L for instance. I didn't look closely but I think the inner tube moved about 1cm total from end to end.

Yakim Peled wrote:
I don't know why but I just hate this.
Me Too! Wait, I forgot, what was it we were hating again?

Edited by cactusclay on Nov 12, 2006 at 03:28 PM GMT

cactusclay wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
I don't know why but I just hate this.
Me Too! Wait, I forgot, what is it we were hating again?

Yep, it was unclear to me as well, but I guess it is either
- the fact that 50L f/1.2's inner barrel moves slightly while focusing,
- the idle babble we keep on in this thread without getting the lens in our hands
- or the fact that Jamesf99 didn't remember that his 85L extends while focusing

Yakim has been active to post, so we will find the true cause in due time.

Perhaps the point of confusion is that unlike some. The 85 will only move when the power is turned on to the body it is mounted to. First time I mounted mine I thought it was broken . .until I powerd up the body that is.

Regards,
Randy

randy, that's because the 85L is focus-by-wire.

it's an electronically linked AF system. It was in a couple old EF L's like the 28-80L.

The 24L, 35L, 85/1.8, and 135L focus internally. The 50/1.4 extends the barrel. So does the 85LII (in addition to requiring camera power even for MF, as already noted). The really amazing creature is the 70-200/2.8L, which focuses and zooms internally. I think some of Canon's cheap zooms even rotate the front element when focusing.
Where does this leave the 50/1.2L? I'd like to think that for weather sealing it would have internal focus, but since all the "previews", including Michael Reichmann's, rate the focusing speed as only moderate, I'd almost bet that the folks who got the impression when they handled it at shows that it extends the barrel are, unfortunately, correct.
There, I've added my bit to the speculations. However, everything I said at the start about which lenses do what was verified by handling those seven lenses just now.

Koivulehto wrote:
cactusclay wrote:
Yakim Peled wrote:
I don't know why but I just hate this.
Me Too! Wait, I forgot, what is it we were hating again?

Yep, it was unclear to me as well, but I guess it is either
- the fact that 50L f/1.2's inner barrel moves slightly while focusing,
- the idle babble we keep on in this thread without getting the lens in our hands
- or the fact that Jamesf99 didn't remember that his 85L extends while focusing

Yakim has been active to post, so we will find the true cause in due time.

It's the first....

This thread should be renamed "No Hands on EF 50/1.2L Speculation, Comparison, Wondering and Predicting". Not too many "Hands-on" reports.

Edited by looscanon on Dec 18, 2006 at 11:44 AM GMT

looscanon wrote:
This thread should be renamed "No Hands on EF 50/1.2L Speculation, Comparison, Wondering and Predicting". Not too many "Hands-on" reports.

you forgot, "nickel-and-diming" for people who say it's too expensive.

It's not "nickel-and diming", it is too expensive -- by Canon's own definition. For 1/5th the price you can get an f/1.4 that's most likely just as good or better. Other than people who lust after lenses and rich people, who needs the extra 0.2? Exactly.

The only lens more ridiculously priced is the 85mm f/1.2, but it's more-significantly fast than its "low" end counterpart. It's AF is significantly slower, however, so it's not just a question of money.

I've never seen pictures that demonstrate any significant, real difference between these two Canon 85mm lenses. As long as this thread's about conjecture, I predict the new 50mm will show even less difference from the f/1.4 version. But there will be plenty of people who blew the extra money claiming the emperor is fully-clothed.

And for the record, I'm totally open to being proven wrong. Show me some side-by-side pictures that justify the extra cost and I'll be on-board. I've just not seen any thus far for either the 50mm or 85mm.

ALF

Here's some actual hands-on experience, and even some intelligent comments:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/richardspics/288781257/

Thanks, Jess. Is there more than the one picture there taken with the f/1.2? I didn't immediately see any, but the interface is confusing so I could've missed it.

FWIW, I don't see anything in that picture that my f/1.4 doesn't do consistently. Here are a bunch of pictures taken with my 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8:

http://www.farmerclan.com/CES2006

ALF

ALF, are you saying that your 50 f/1.4 focuses consistently (!) in f/1.4 - 1.8 range and is sharp below f/2.0?
Just a question

ALF, I think he only posted the one shot, and small web versions will never reveal the optical quality of a lens in any case. I would also agree that the 50/1.4 can produce extreme DOF isolation of a subject when you can nail the focus.
My interest in his post was mostly because of his comments on focusing speed and feel of the lens, based on having it in his hands. Discussions of how much advantage (and disadvantage) an ultra wide aperture lens offers over very wide and somewhat wide versions of the same focal length* tend to become pointless after a while.

* e.g., 50mm f/1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.5

Guys, keep in mind what Jeff said at the beginning of this thread:

Jeff wrote:
Please folks, try to keep this thread on topic and the idle 'chatter' to a minimum, so that the thread can hopefully become a valuable resource for those looking for real-world info on this new lens, provided by those that actually own it. Feel free to provide image examples, 100% crops, and any relevant details about the lens, especially in relation to the either the EF 50/1.0L and EF 50/1.4 lenses.

I just think that if we are to compare 50 f/1.2 L with 50 f/1.4, we should first establish if 50 f/1.4 is really a "f/1.4 lens". In other words, is there only half stop difference between them. I do hope that 50 f/1.2 is actually going to work in the 1.4 to 1.8 range. We should also rember about build difference between these lenses and ETTL II compatibility issue.

Photon wrote:
ALF, I think he only posted the one shot, and small web versions will never reveal the optical quality of a lens in any case. I would also agree that the 50/1.4 can produce extreme DOF isolation of a subject when you can nail the focus.
My interest in his post was mostly because of his comments on focusing speed and feel of the lens, based on having it in his hands. ...

Yes, there is only one image, and by clicking the All sizes magnifying glass you can see the 1280 x 850 version. That version shows that the shot is not really sharp anywhere - the focus was possibly in the 1Ds left side (and in the guy's camera bag's shoulder strap), but like quite often with 1/80 s and 50 mm, there is slight blur everywhere. However, the guy's whole head doesn't look bad at all, considering it is all out of focus.

Of course, the photo tells nothing about the lens, but of the difficulty to catch comparison-quality shots in a hurry.

Sam Bennett wrote:
Guys, keep in mind what Jeff said at the beginning of this thread:
Jeff wrote:
Please folks, try to keep this thread on topic and the idle 'chatter' to a minimum, so that the thread can hopefully become a valuable resource for those looking for real-world info on this new lens, provided by those that actually own it. Feel free to provide image examples, 100% crops, and any relevant details about the lens, especially in relation to the either the EF 50/1.0L and EF 50/1.4 lenses.

Sam, I'd agree, except that there's been enough passage of time that any hands-on experience seems worth noting. Jeff can start yet another sticky thread when copies of the lens are actually owned by FM members.

mfurman wrote:
I just think that if we are to compare 50 f/1.2 L with 50 f/1.4, we should first establish if 50 f/1.4 is really a "f/1.4 lens". In other words, is there only half stop difference between them. I do hope that 50 f/1.2 is actually going to work in the 1.4 to 1.8 range. We should also rember about build difference between these lenses and ETTL II compatibility issue.
In a lab test of the 50/1.4 from about 7 years ago, it measured as f/1.47, right at the 5% spec error limit of the Japan Institute standards. Will the 1.2L be closer to it's stated aperture? We'll see.

Koivulehto wrote:
...by clicking the All sizes magnifying glass you can see the 1280 x 850 version. That version shows that the shot is not really sharp anywhere - the focus was possibly in the 1Ds left side (and in the guy's camera bag's shoulder strap), but like quite often with 1/80 s and 50 mm, there is slight blur everywhere. However, the guy's whole head doesn't look bad at all, considering it is all out of focus.

Of course, the photo tells nothing about the lens, but of the difficulty to catch comparison-quality shots in a hurry.
Agreed.