|
|
Barry Pehlman
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 905
|
|
Review Date: Sep 25, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,599.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp @ f1.2, well made, great bokeh, low-light shooting without flash.
|
|
Cons:
|
Subtantial weight for a 50mm, DOF awareness
|
|
This lens silences all the concerns of Canon's other 50's. The f1.2L is wonderfully made... exudes confidence, and features USM, better flare control, beautiful bokeh, and precision manual focus control. It's quick, quiet, and does the job in low-light. Indoors this lens can be used with candle light (FF @ f1.2 w/1600 ISO).
I think this lens is a slight modification of the one first released in Dec. 2006. I believe Canon quietly corrected any back-focus issues the following year just as they did with the 24-105 f4L IS (flare) when it was first introduced. I found no problems with AF or back-focus on this version when tested on a tripod. Luckily we didn't have to go through a "II" version and a subsequent price increase to correct this mistake.
The f1.2L becomes a project until you get used to using razor-thin DOF. There isn't much room for operator error as I found out. Using the multiple focus points on the 5D seemed to make matters worse. I recommend using only the center focus point. I tested the f1.2L against the 50 f2.5 compact macro and found that the macro has a slight edge (@100% crop) when both are focused accurately, but macro, or super close-up photography is not the strength of the f1.2L, although it's not half bad when pushing the limits of the DOF scale.
The big concern with this 50mm seems to be the price. Yeah, I balked at it too, but there really is no quality, alternative f1.2 that works effectively with the Canon system. Sure, you can hook up a Sigma or an old Olympus manual version, but they all have their drawbacks in the focus/metering department, and none of them are all that great until stopped down a bit.
Can you do without this lens? Absolutely. The f1.4 version @ f2 is fine and probably fulfills the needs of most photographers ...and it will save you lots of money. I chose the 50 f1.2 because I like the quickness of shooting without flash. I am tired of waisting time setting up speedlites on brackets or lightstands for mundane subject matter...like family shots at Christmas. :-) The f1.2L is the closest thing to freedom from all that.
|
|
 Sep 25, 2009
|
|
njomany
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 23, 2009
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 23, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, reasonable weight, f/1.2
|
|
Cons:
|
Price
|
|
When I first bought this lens I was disappointed with the result. It seems there's some backfocus. It was until I play around with AF microadjustment then I never look back. This lens is now mounted on my 5D Mark II about 90% of the time.
For you guys who are experiencing soft or backfocus, visit http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2009
|
|
Haring
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 11, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Sep 11, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
price and focusing
|
|
I used this lens for low light photography. I sold it. I don't regret.
Nowadays I use 35mmL along with a 85mmL. Theses are much better. The 35mmL is even better on a crop frame body, I am not kidding.
Focusing is not as good as the 35mm L. I had a lot of blurry images.
You can see a few pictures in the portfolio for the engagements section:
www.haringphotography.com
Buy the 35mm L.
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2009
|
|
minty1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 9, 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 27, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,199.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Fast, Bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
Price but then you get what you pay for
|
|
Well this lense blows my 24-70mm away for sharpness. I put this on my 1ds mkIII and was blown with the image I got. I think this will be my prime for weddings its so good. I know many people got the lense with a back focus issue but mines fine and I would really recommend this lense to anybody. I,m sure this will make me money!
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2009
|
|
ginalind
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 22, 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 22, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,300.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality; colour, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Price
|
|
I was very sceptical when I purchased it, after reading all the bad reviews.
Being a happy amateur, it did take some time learning to use it (and I still have my fair share of misses), but the "hits" are just beautiful pictures.
The 50L "creates" light, the pictures have more vivid colours than what's there in real life, and the pictures are tack sharp from around f/1.8.
I have not noticed any backfocus issues on my 5D.
For me personally this focal length is perfect for most situations. Paired with my 135L, I feel equipped for everything.
It's well built, but not too big and heavy.
The price in my country is... too high. Despite that, I don't regret upgrading from the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4.
The 50L helps me to be a better photographer. I love it!
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2009
|
|
ginalind
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 22, 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 22, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality; colour, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Price
|
|
I was very sceptical when I purchased it, after reading all the bad reviews.
Being a happy amateur, it did take some time learning to use it (and I still have my fair share of misses), but the "hits" are just beautiful pictures.
The 50L "creates" light, the pictures have more vivid colours than what's there in real life, and the pictures are tack sharp from around f/1.8.
I have not noticed any backfocus issues on my 5D.
For me personally this focal length is perfect for most situations. Paired with my 135L, I feel equipped for everything.
It's well built, but not too big and heavy.
The price in my country is... too high. Despite that, I don't regret upgrading from the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4.
The 50L helps me to be a better photographer. I love it!
|
|
|
Aug 22, 2009
|
|
schizom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 19, 2009
Location: Austria
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Aug 19, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
speed, bokeh, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
none so far
|
|
i purchased this lens only recently, and after an afternoon-long testing on my 5d for immediatly viewable results i put the 50 f/1.2 on my eos 1v - and that is where it will stay for a long time now. this just is a wonderful lens and works perfectly in combination with the 1v. forget about the canon/sigma 50 f/1.4... none of the above work as smoothly and precisely as the 1.2; to me (besides the 35 f/1.4) it is is the perfect working tool, especially for my street and night shots.
if you have any doubts about this lens, erase them by just grabbing one and starting shooting.
|
|
|
Aug 19, 2009
|
|
h4y4sh1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 27
|
|
Review Date: Aug 2, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Bokeh, build, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, Focus shift ( easily correctable)
|
|
The Bokeh is really smooth. Wide open the sharpness is less than that of the 85L, but it's comparable to my 35L.
A little bit of pp in photoshop will fix it though
Shooting at MWD wide open is really hard with this lens, since, the DOF is really thin.
The focus shift issue is there, if you use the centre AF point. But since, I almost always use the outer AF point, It's not a big deal for me.
If you use the centre AF point often, you might be disapointed with this lens.
|
|
|
Aug 2, 2009
|
|
Derek Stanton
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 3, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Jul 24, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,399.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality. Speed (aperture). Bokeh. Good/Reasonable sharpness at 1.2, but ONLY if you can calibrate it with your specific camera.
|
|
Cons:
|
AF speed. Size/weight. Cost. I have no idea if it will work with my film cameras, as they can't be optimized/calibrated to this lens. Inconsistent focus. Either good at near range OR infinity, but probably not both.
|
|
"Too much ignorant bad hype about this lens.
Probably initial copies from Canon were more problematic, as I've tested 3 copies in 8 months before ending up with this one, which was significantly better than all others. I would be reluctant to buy it if I didn't have MF adjustment on my camera."
The "bad hype" is not "ignorant." It's actually pretty well-informed. And, you're contradicting yourself by then admitting early copies might have been more problematic and that you had to try 3-4 copies to get one that worked. That's not the mark of a successful product.
There seem to be a few different reasons why there's so much conflicting information/ratings/reviews on this lens.
• Maybe early performance was different.
• There IS significant sample variation.
• Later Canon bodies have lens calibration features that enable the lens to work more closely to spec.
• There is sample variation, as well, in the 50/1.4, with which most people compare the 50L
None of those factors has anything to do with "ignorance." They're simply sets of conditions that affect individual consumers.
So, my 'review?' I'm not going to post a review, as i've only today received this lens. My comments, however, are related to my current experience versus the experience i had when i tried three different copies upon the lens' release.
I bought the 50L about a month after it was introduced. My camera at that time was the 5D (v.1). The first lens just plain was awful on that camera. I returned it, and tried two others. The second performed exactly the same as the first. Neither could focus accurately at 1.2 - 1.4. Can't remember if it was a front- or back-focusing issue. The third lens, though, finally DID focus accurately. Problem was, it was still softer than my old 50/1.4 Canon. I returned the third lens, as well. Just couldn't justify that kind of cost for a lens that was 'crippled' as far as sharpness was concerned, versus the older, cheaper lens i already owned. So, that was that.
At the beginning of 2009, i bought the 5DMkII.
I subsequently bought the Sigma 50/1.4. I wanted better bokeh than the Canon 50/1.4 and better performance from 1.4-2. The Canon suffers from halation effects wide open. The Sigma was pretty good, but i also had to try two samples to get a good one, and even then, it was only optimal after i dialed in the lens calibration feature. The Sigma was about as sharp as my trusted Canon 50/1.4, but with markedly better bokeh.
But, i began seeing 'nice' images from Canon 50Ls, and thought i should try again, now that i could calibrate the camera+lens combo. I hoped that feature would get the lens to work well, and/or that later-manufactured products had been somehow 'fixed.' So, having set up the 50L with the 5D2, i'm keeping the 50L. It's still not perfect. It seems you can only optimize it at either near or infinity.... Since i want to use it for 'people,' i've calibrated it that way, but the lens is still not as good (consistently) at infinity as the other two 50s. With that, i can deal.
What kind of 'rating' is valid for this thing? I don't really feel it's fair to assess it that way. Anyone saying it's a 9 or 10 lens, but also acknowledging the issues isn't really being objective. A rating that high suggests there can be nothing better. A low rating may be accurate for That Particular Reviewer with His Particular Equipment, but is it an accurate assessment of This Particular Item?
I have no overall rating. It really depends on YOU. For me, only time will tell if it's worth the price difference over the Sigma.
Build quality rating is 8-9. The manual focus ring could be better, compared to old manual focus lenses, but compared to AF lenses, it's pretty nice.
Re: Price - well, again, against what are we comparing it? I just paid $1150 for a manual focus Voigtlander 50mm f1.1. The Canon has AF, but is (slightly) slower. I suppose the price makes sense. But, i also have a Nikkor 50/1.2 AI-S, which i bought new for about $700. Same speed, but also without AF. I'll not complain about the 50L's price, but i wish it were closer to $1250. With that, i'd have felt much better about it.
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2009
|
|
nazdravanul
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 2, 2008
Location: Romania
Posts: 108
|
|
Review Date: Jul 14, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing colors/contrast, extraordinary look of OOF areas, excellent build, practicality.
|
|
Cons:
|
A little soft from 1.2 to 1.8.
|
|
The focus shift (visible mostly at MFD between 2.8 and 4) is there but you have to learn to deal with it. A lot of other 50s and various other lenses have it. It's nothing extraordinary. It's a design trade off for that incredible look of the OOF areas. It is so much better than the 85 and even a little better than the 135 in that department, for my taste. Only the 200 2 IS creates more spectacular background blur , for me  .
It is a lot easier to handhold and focus in poor light than the 85 L. I prefer it's colors/contrast to the 35 L, and also I prefer it for close portraits in tight/crowded spaces.
I just wish it was sharper between 1.2 and 1.6 (1.8), even though I will not hesitate to shoot it there, if needed.
Too much ignorant bad hype about this lens.
Probably initial copies from Canon were more problematic, as I've tested 3 copies in 8 months before ending up with this one, which was significantly better than all others. I would be reluctant to buy it if I didn't have MF adjustment on my camera . Well, after discovering this feature on my late 1d3 I will not buy another AF camera without it, as it makes all my AF lenses look so much better .
|
|
|
Jul 14, 2009
|
|
Bosman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 7, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,374.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Bought it love it yum!
Great color and contrast, fast focus, the answer to my 85 F1.2 woes.
|
|
Cons:
|
not negative but wish the lens cap was like the 85mm F1.2's
|
|
Still working on the confidence at F1.2 but will see about micro calibration on the Mark 3 when it gets back from Mack Camera Repair for a dead sensor. too bad the 5d doesn't have micro adjustment. That is one reason to buy Canon cameras after 2008-2009.
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2009
|
|
EyeBrock
Online
Image Upload: On
Registered: Dec 3, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 482
|
|
Review Date: Jun 24, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Great build, great bokeh, best 50mm Canon make, looks sexy and works very well with the 5D2.
|
|
Cons:
|
The shallow DOF makes it a bit of a learning curve to use at first.
The silly reviews some people have made on it.
|
|
I originally gave a review of this lens on my 20D in Feb 2008. I have a 5D2 and the two make a very happy couple.
This lens is well built, fast and just a great bit of kit.
Because of the extreme negative chatter and the unfathomable low numbers some have given this lens I continually pixel peep and use the MA function to check it.
The lens is fine.
Although focussing is more accurate using live view MF at 10x on lens charts, if you want to mess around with lens charts.
I found the factory settings to be the best on my 5D2 and the 50L.
I’ve tried the Canon 1.4 and this is a better all around lens. Sure the 1.4 is a lot cheaper but that’s reflected in the build quality. This lens just feels right and I’m a big fan of the 50mm perspective on full frame. On a crop, this lens doesn’t shine.
On sharpness, at F1.2 it’s not as sharp as my other lenses at F2.8 and F4. (Nah, talk about stating the obvious!)
Those expecting a lens at 1.2 to be as sharp as an ‘L’ zoom at 2.8 have unrealistic expectations and should spend $6000 on a Leica MF lens instead of polluting the results for this lens review with ‘3’ and ‘4’ or ‘6’. Silly marks indeed.
At F1.6-1.8 it’s a lot sharper and it gives a kind of dreamy look at 1.2-1.4, great for portraits of people who are not looking for every crinkle and crease to be displayed.
F2 up it’s well sharp. The bokeh is just beautiful and this lens spends the most time on my 5D2, edging out my “L” zooms. Plus it looks very nice, (shallow of me eh?).
The average mark should be 9+ if the 1.4 get’s a 9.
This is the best 50mm Canon make and its worth a 10. Some people need to stop being silly.
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2009
|
|
|
