•Hands-On• EF 50/1.2L
/forum/topic/467828/83

1       2       3              83      
84
       85       end

urbahn
Registered: Apr 13, 2005
Total Posts: 114
Country: United States

pcho wrote:
roli_bark wrote:
I've read several people posting here, that this lens is a Fiasco.
Not sure how to relate to this.


I reutrned mine. Sometimes the focus is good and sometimes it back focuses. When I increse F stop, it back focuses even more. My dealer had the same problem when they tested it.

Look at picture below, I focused my sons left eye and the right eye is in focus and yes I checked the focus point in breezebrowser and the centre focus point was on his left eye.

Make your ouw judgement

Perry








Isn't the DOF razor thin wide open at close ups? The photo seems fine to me, but the AF had to take some decision what part to focus sharply. My experience is that when I'm complaining about a lens it's mostly me overestimating DOF.


Sam Bennett
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Total Posts: 4731
Country: United States

Jan, he was focused on the eye on the right-hand side of the screen. That doesn't look off to you



pcho
Registered: Dec 25, 2002
Total Posts: 1878
Country: Australia

urbahn wrote:
pcho wrote:
roli_bark wrote:
I've read several people posting here, that this lens is a Fiasco.
Not sure how to relate to this.


I reutrned mine. Sometimes the focus is good and sometimes it back focuses. When I increse F stop, it back focuses even more. My dealer had the same problem when they tested it.

Look at picture below, I focused my sons left eye and the right eye is in focus and yes I checked the focus point in breezebrowser and the centre focus point was on his left eye.

Make your ouw judgement

Perry








Isn't the DOF razor thin wide open at close ups? The photo seems fine to me, but the AF had to take some decision what part to focus sharply. My experience is that when I'm complaining about a lens it's mostly me overestimating DOF.


Sam Bennett wrote:
Jan, he was focused on the eye on the right-hand side of the screen. That doesn't look off to you


Thanks Sam and Jan as Sam said I focussed on the right of screen and his left eye. This is not the only picture that displayed this kind of a result.

Also my Dealer did similar test and concluded there was something wrong with the lens. It was not just me. Believe me I did the test on a chart with camera on a gitzo tripod and was using cable release. Took pictures at different F stops then I did similar test with 4 other L lenses 35L, 85L, 135L and 300L and they were all perfect except the 50L. No one wanted the 50L more than I and I kept convincing to myself that the lens was OK for over a month until I kept getting inconsistant results. In the end I had to give it up.

Perry


Sam Bennett
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Total Posts: 4731
Country: United States

Apparently my 50/1.2L is back from Canon (2nd trip) and waiting for me at the shop. Not sure if I'll have time to grab it tonight, but I'll let you guys know.



Sam Bennett
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Total Posts: 4731
Country: United States

So, Canon acknowledged that "something was wrong" with the lens and that they subsequently fixed it. In brief tests around the store at f/2.8 it appears to be focusing correctly, but I'll have to wait a bit until I can do a full test.



John P Mulgrew
Registered: Dec 10, 2005
Total Posts: 4493
Country: United States

[Well, if you don't have the lens, then why defend it.]

Guess it's also true if you don't have the lens then don't slam it.



hahr
Registered: Sep 30, 2004
Total Posts: 2121
Country: United States

good to hear, sam.   keep us posted.

-erik



eeprete
Registered: Jun 05, 2004
Total Posts: 3733
Country: United States

Looking forward to it as well, Sam.



Sam Bennett
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Total Posts: 4731
Country: United States

Hate to break it to you guys, but the lens appears to be performing only marginally better than before. It seems to be better in practical shots, almost identical on the test chart, but still no where as accurate as the 50/1.4.

Going to do some more practical stuff, but I'm about 85% sure I'll be returning it tomorrow.

Gary - FWIW, I did tests at 3ft and 5ft and it didn't seem like the lens was starting to front focus. Don't think I have time to throw together a more formal setup.



ghuff
Registered: Feb 21, 2005
Total Posts: 459
Country: United States

Sorry to hear it Sam.

Well, maybe someday this issue will get all straightened out by Canon.



ward1066
Registered: Feb 04, 2005
Total Posts: 2563
Country: United States

What did the work order say? Did they do anything besides adjust best focus?



pcho
Registered: Dec 25, 2002
Total Posts: 1878
Country: Australia

Sam Bennett wrote:
Hate to break it to you guys, but the lens appears to be performing only marginally better than before. It seems to be better in practical shots, almost identical on the test chart, but still no where as accurate as the 50/1.4.

Going to do some more practical stuff, but I'm about 85% sure I'll be returning it tomorrow.

Gary - FWIW, I did tests at 3ft and 5ft and it didn't seem like the lens was starting to front focus. Don't think I have time to throw together a more formal setup.



Sorry about the news Sam.

I remember when I first received the lens at work (for obvious reasons ). I brought my camera to work, got my secretary into the office, shut the door and took pictures of her at f1.2, focusing on the eyes. Downloaded to computer and the eyes were blur. Took more pics at f5.6 and f8 and her eyes were blur as well, Then I put flash on camera and repeated test. Results, eye were blur again . Thats when I felt my lens was backlfocusing.

Perry



Sam Bennett
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Total Posts: 4731
Country: United States

Sounds like they were pretty vague on the work order. I'll ask to see it when I go in tomorrow.



Sam Bennett
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Total Posts: 4731
Country: United States

Didn't bother with the work order, but it sounds like they didn't give specifics.

Anyway, the lens has been returned. I have a 90mm TS-E on order and bought a new tripod/head/angle finder for some macro stuff I'm getting into. I'll try again with the 50L if/when Canon releases a statement about the problem and fixes it.



AlpineMan
Registered: Apr 28, 2005
Total Posts: 1018
Country: United States

So is this back focusing problem common to the 50mm f1.2L?



hahr
Registered: Sep 30, 2004
Total Posts: 2121
Country: United States

yes.



Nill Toulme
Registered: Sep 05, 2002
Total Posts: 9365
Country: United States

Just another experience update... I'm also using mine for low light high school basketball, so far more or less exclusively at f/2. I couldn't be happier with it — so much so that now I can't shoot with my 85 f/1.8 anymore.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net



Photon
Registered: Jan 19, 2003
Total Posts: 9926
Country: United States

Nill Toulme wrote:
Just another experience update... I'm also using mine for low light high school basketball, so far more or less exclusively at f/2. I couldn't be happier with it — so much so that now I can't shoot with my 85 f/1.8 anymore.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Nill, I just looked through the Druid Hills HS Bball pics - outstanding work!
Do you work near one basket, using the 50 for action near you and the 200 for stuff on the other end of the court? Since I see some 200mm shots at f/2, you must have the 1.8L.



Nill Toulme
Registered: Sep 05, 2002
Total Posts: 9365
Country: United States

Thanks! Yes exactly. In that gym I was able to shoot ISO 1600 at one end, the usual 3200 at the other, in either case, as always, 1/400 at f/2.

But I've bought some strobes...

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net



hahr
Registered: Sep 30, 2004
Total Posts: 2121
Country: United States

nill, we'd expect your 50L to work as advertised under those conditions.   the issue is at close focus and not at longer distances like sports.   william castleman said his copy was perfect because he was only shooting sports.   once he tested close up he noticed a problem.

either way, if it works well for your intended use then enjoy it and don't look back.

-erik



1       2       3              83      
84
       85       end