 |
|
|
eoseosfan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 5, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, high-contrast images even at F1.2
|
|
Cons:
|
Autofocus problems (see bellow).
|
|
|
Re the comments below regarding focus issues:
According to Japanese user web sites, this lens has the following problem with auto-focusing. Some users have complained to Canon. They have acknowledged this problem but claim it is a "design feature".
The spherical abberation of this lens when focused to close distances is apparently large (according to Canon, this is because this lens, unlike the 85 mm/F1.2, has no floating element). Due to this spherical abberation, the focus shifts at different aperature stops. So while autofocusing works perfectly at F1.2, the image goes out of focus when other aperature settings are used. The only way to fix this is to manually focus, WHILE stopping down using the preview button. There were speculations in these user web sites as to how this problem could be solved: either the lens design has to be changed to minimize the spherical abberation, or the lens focus algorithium has to be charged to compenstate for thsi focus shift depending on the F-setting.
|
|
 May 5, 2007
|
|
jdos2
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: May 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Decent optical quality (fine quality images with good detail)
Good flare control
|
|
Cons:
|
Price for the performance
Focusing questions
Canon's support infrastructure ("no focusing issues here")
|
|
|
I've taken several thousand pictures with this lens before coming to any firm-ish commentary, any firm-ish decisions.
The build quality is good, but not outstanding. The focusing ring has a disconnected feeling that is typical of anything else in the EF line of lenses- when compared to well dampened lenses. It doesn't squeak while focusing, unlike my 35mm f/1.4.
Optically it's good. In comparison to the 50mm f/1.4 it has much less veil flare which makes pictures taken at f/1.2. Images taken wide open have better detail and acutance; images appear sharper and with more detail. The edges are a bit loose, though, and coma is pretty obvious. All these cure themselves once the lens is stopped down a touch. The lens is good for images wide-open, when it hits focus.
Focus? On a 5D at near distances (think: across the table of a restaurant in low light!) the <i>system</i> becomes rather unreliable. Some pictures are sharp, some aren't- with a back-focus quite obvious. Easily repeatable. Canon, on the other hand, offers no solution, and denies anyone has ever called with the same complaint.
Focus (or mis-focus) is quite quick, and not notably different from the f/1.4.
Finally- just a word about the price. It's an expensive lens. You'll know if you need it by the aperture- if you need another 1/2 stop wide open, the only choice is this lens. That's really the bottom line. Canon isn't known for making outstanding "standard lenses" (their 50mm f/1.4 constantly tests worse than other Large Manufacturers, with corner sharpness and veil flare worse than most), and this one is only a step above that. Sadly, the focusing issue makes this lens even harder to rationalize if one likes to take pictures at close range and wide open, exactly where this lens is supposed to be used.
For $800 it is a great lens, a good value (though it would take $500 to be as great a value as the 50mm f/1.8!). For $1,000, less so. For $1,200 it's becoming quite hard to rationalize, and for $1,600, it's worse yet. Remember, for all that money, one is also buying a pixel or two of purple fringing, too. It's obvious on speculars, and it DOESN'T get better stopping down.
Time will tell if this lens is a classic. It doesn't have the immediate appeal of the 35mm f/1.4, which isn't really optically better but has a nicer (generally) drawing. It doesn't quite get to 85mm f/1.2 level either. It's a funky lens with a too-wide barrel in between Great Lenses.
I'll keep the lens. I like it more that the 50mm f/1.4: I like the flare qualities (including the greatly reduced veil), the included hood, the contrast, and the drawing. The lens is indeed a step above the f/1.4 for me, though the step is quite pricey.
---Canon review ends here---
Leica fans: This is no Summilux/Noctilux beater. Think: First version of the Summilux 50mm and you'll have an idea of what's going on here, except in a huge and bulky package that doesn't reliably focus closely on some bodies. I had better luck with the MP and Noc. Always.
|
|
|
May 3, 2007
|
|
Hacker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 24, 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 92
|
|
Review Date: Apr 19, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Marginally aster tocusing than the 50 f/1.2, very good contrast, well controlled flare and robust build.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slight CA.
|
|
|
Overall a very capable lens. Some focusing issues if subject/object is near but compensated with good contrast, brilliant colors, and excelllent flare control.
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2007
|
|
Wojtek Rychlik
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 19, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Better than its predecessor 50mm f/1.0
|
|
Cons:
|
Problems with autofocus
|
|
It's one of the sharpest Canon L lenses that I've tested. Even at f/1.2 is very sharp on the edges (see the test on http://pikespeakphoto.com/canonlenstst2.html and click on appropriate links to see the actual photos), approaching maximum theoretical resolution on a full frame camera Canon 1Ds Mark II. The only disturbing thing is that autofocus misses about 2 inches from 4 feet (overshoots). I agree with others that the problem is less apparent with the distance, and it auto-focuses perfectly when the subject is far away. Vignetting and local distortions at the sides much less apparent than in it's larger f/1.0 predecessor, except that the barrel distortion is 2x larger (about 1.6%). If not this autofocus flaw (Canon technicians did not acknowledged about this general problem and recommended exchange!) I would not hesitate to rate it at 10. The actual optics quality even surpassed my expectations.
|
|
|
Apr 19, 2007
|
|
Sierra Trekker
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 216
|
|
Review Date: Apr 12, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid, size, fast, bokeh, versatility, pop etc.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit pricey..........
|
|
|
I like this lens.......it is fast, accurate, the colors pop and it is well built. I haven't had any of those focusing problems that others have said they had......perhaps it is a body issue. The lens works great on my 1DsII without any effort but requires more patience with the 5D focusing system. I bought this lens because I wanted to get back to where I started in photography with a standard 50mm lens as my main stay zooming with my feet. It works for me.
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2007
|
|
PhotoproX
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 6, 2007
Location: Albania
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 6, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
+ build quality
+ painterly bokeh at close distances
|
|
Cons:
|
- misfocus
- softness
- CA
- value
|
|
|
This lens does have focusing issues on my 5D that Canon service was NOT able to fix.
Both the 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 (Mk.1) I had for a direct comparison were sharper and much less troubled by CA, even stopped down.
Wide open at 1.2 - and this is the aperture people buy this lens for - chromatic aberration is everywhere and whatever is in focus isnt sharp. No competition to other Ls like the 85/1.2 or 35/1.4 which are very good at their widest aperture.
I can not recommend this lens until Canon comes up with either a firmware fix or a Mk. II. If you want a fast standard lens better get the 50/1.4 or the wider 35/1.4.
|
|
|
Apr 6, 2007
|
|
kaop
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 66
|
|
Review Date: Apr 2, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,449.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
-Excellent focal length on FF
-Build quality, but not as nice as the 85L
|
|
Cons:
|
-Poor value
-Front element prone to dust. Require filters
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 2, 2007
|
|
Lioncub
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2007
Location: China
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
bokeh, color, contrast, sharpness wide open, build quality, aperture blades
|
|
Cons:
|
cost, autofocus
|
|
|
I've put this lens with a 400D/Rebel XTi to a test in a flower exhibition. With beautiful bokeh, exceptional contrast and color, sharpness wide open and flare control, it really proves itself a professional grade lens. Or the other way round, the CMOS sensor of the 400D/Rebel XTi is quite demanding on good optics.
Autofocus problems have been encountered on some photos if the subject is quite near the focus on your previous photo taken. The reason may be due to moving large amounts of glass at the front end of this lens and the shallow DOF. With a result the lens' slower focusing speed cannot keep sync with the faster focusing system of the camera.
Though the best razor sharpness is between f/2 to f/2.8, you would probably use the f/1.2 and f/1.4 of this lens most often. Until now, it is the best portrait lens available for the 1.6x FOVCF camera bodies.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2007
|
|
lord_malone
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 496
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2007
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
All pros previously listed
|
|
Cons:
|
AF backfocus problem confirmed
|
|
This is a follow-up to my previous review of this lens.
I initially stated that I had no focusing issues with my copy, but must now join the ranks of those who do. Without getting into too much detail, I will say that the lens does have focusing problems at a focusing distance of approx. 1.5 to 3 meters (give or take). This lends to the popular belief that the lens is optically inferior (not as sharp) as the 50 1.8 or the 50 1.4. The backfocusing is readily apparent on 5D and 1D series bodies, all of which have a more complex focusing system. It has been shown that bodies that don't have advanced focusing systems like the Rebel XT, the lens focus is spot on. You can read the entire evolution of this here...
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/467828
I would still rate this lens a 10 based on optical performance alone. When manually focused, it has proven to be optically superior to its less expensive brothers. However, the autofocus miscommunication with certain bodies seems to be the Achilles' heal of this otherwise fine lens. I'm keeping hope alive that Canon will resolve this with a firmware update.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2007
|
|
_ea_
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 30, 2005
Location: Slovakia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 13, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1.60
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
bully build, fast AF, new lens, tack sharp and f/1.2
|
|
Cons:
|
aberration, price
|
|
|
Exceptional lens, excellent build - bully tough, but not too heavy. AF is fast, comparable to 35mm f/1.4 but some hunting appears at night or very low light. Circular aperture creates beautiful bokeh blur. Moderate green aberration is present at f/1.2 on bright edges. Surprisingly sharp at f/1.2 and tack sharp at f/2.
Lens for a lifetime.
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2007
|
|
Triple
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 5, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp from 1,6 and up, good and very usable from 1,2, great AF speed and accuracy, smooth focusring, colours/contrast and bokeh, belongs between the 35/85/135 L range.
|
|
Cons:
|
Another L that makes you wanna buy more red rings :-)
|
|
|
It was a lot of money to upgrade from a 50mm 1,4 but the colours and bokeh are stunning.
Also this is the only 50mm from Canon were its a pleasure to use the focusring.
This lens is gonna be a lot om my body because its very versatile, the lack of zoom is small if you see whats possible with the fast aperture!
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2007
|
|
pcmur
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
The color and bokeh are excellent. Wide open can get that hairline focus for fine art, fashion and product photography.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price is steep.
|
|
|
After shooting in low indoor lighting wide open, am pleased enough to justify the costly purchase. The color and bokeh of this lens, and selective focus possibilities are wonderful. The 50L does belong in Canon's best lineup of lenses...the 85L, 135L and 70-200 2.8L.
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2007
|
|
3ABX03
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality is amassing,
|
|
Cons:
|
None so fur
|
|
Fantastic lense. If you have money just get it. You will not be disappointed
http://www.pbase.com/image/72634829
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2007
|
|
matsuib
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1333
|
|
Review Date: Jan 2, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,450.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Bokeh, color, contrast, sharpness (generally), autofocus reliability.
|
|
Cons:
|
Need a filter to weather seal; not as sharp as my 85 1.2, cost, cost, cost.
|
|
|
I really think this is a lens that takes a bit getting used to, and so I may be premature writing a review a few hundred shots and a few weeks into my ownership of it.
A lot of attention has been paid to sharpness and cost -- my experience with sharpness is that it's not quite as sharp as my 85 (not surprising, but a person could wish, can't they). But it's more than usable at 1.2, and I get more keepers at 1.2 and 1.4 than I do with my 35L at 1.4. For portrait shots, eye lashes and discrete eye wrinkles are very visible wide or near wide open.
In addition, the color and constrast produced by the lens are among the best I have seen. While post processing can make up for this, it certainly makes my life easier.
Finally, I've not had any focusing problems. The focusing is pretty quick, and near lightening when compared to my mk I 85L. Even wide open, it's been very accurate on a 5D.
|
|
|
Jan 2, 2007
|
|
SoundHound
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 14, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5282
|
|
Review Date: Dec 30, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Finally a lens to match the quality of my 35, 85 and 135 Ls.
|
|
Cons:
|
New issue cost.
|
|
|
After one evening of shooting 200+ images (at F2.0 and below) I trust this lens-I have learned not to trust my 50mm F1.4 under the same conditions.
|
|
|
Dec 30, 2006
|
|
alfarmer
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Aug 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1858
|
|
Review Date: Dec 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,499.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
f/1.2, "L" build quality, bokeh, contrast & color, sharp at f/1.2, size & weight, internal zoom
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost, sharpness, AF consistency/accuracy
|
|
|
Taken completely out of any other context and evaluated on its own, this is a very nice lens and one I would recommend. For many, myself included, the 50mm focal length is very useful for many things and the speed of an f/1.2 lens is likewise handy. Add to that the great build quality of this lens and the (IMHO) nice size & weight considering what's built into it, and the new 50L really shines. Users of existing Canon 50mm lenses will appreciate the much nicer bokeh and internal-zoom construction as well.
The only issues I've had are a problematic AF/MF switch, which seems to have gone away but leaves me worried, and sub-optimal sharpness and AF consistency/accuracy. The cost is no small barrier either, and when one considers the context of other Canon lenses it brings into question the value proposition of this new 50L.
For example, the 50mm f/1.8 costs an infinitesimal FRACTION of the 50L and comes with plenty of optical quality (sharpness, AF). It's clearly lacking in the bokeh & build quality departments, though, and those things certainly have value. Those issues are addressed with the moderately-price 50mm f/1.4, which also provides more speed. The f/1.4 still has build issues, however, such as the cheap-feeling MF ring and lens extention during focusing.
While the 50L is sharp wide open and this is probably very important to most potential buyers, it actually seems to lose sharpness between about f/1.8 and f/2.8 -- at least my copy does. Moreover, the AF accuracy/consistency doesn't seem to compare well with the f/1.4 version. I simply got more consistently-successful results with the latter.
Another factor in the value equation is Canon's own track record and how that affects one's expectations. Most people would expect the 50L to perform on the same level as the 35L and 85L, for example, but that was certainly not my experience. Therefore one simply must question Canon's rationale at this price point.
So the bottom line is what you've already heard several times -- this is a great lens to buy if the following things are important to you:
* The 50mm focal range at ultra-wide aperture
* Having the best contrast & color
* Internal zooming
* Build quality
* Bokeh
It would not, IMHO, be a good investment for those happy with their 50mm f/1.4 lenses. If they already work well for you, I'm not convinced the new 50L offers you enough improvements to justify the steep price increase.
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
167
|
308399
|
May 9, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
81% of reviewers
|
$1,419.14
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.38
|
7.03
|
8.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
