handheld wrote:
Where the heck have you been all this time, Sam ? They are both f/1.2.....see, the same difference. Low light photography rules indiscriminately. .
Maybe he just knows something we don't. The new X body is going to have a reverse crop option: -1.6 at the push of a button so your 85mm shot becomes a 50mm. Woo hoo!
So far, from what I have read from Canon on this version of the 50mmL it will be ideal for sports photographer shooting basketball indoors. Much faster focus than the old 1.0, better and faster focus than the 85 1.2, either version, and the ability to focus more accurately at 1.2 instead of 1.4 or 1.8 like the current 50mm's. I do not like the price, and the DOF will be very very narrow for fast moving action, but aslong as this ring type USM works fast, could end up replacing both my 50 and 85 1.8's.
Now you're talkin'... I just hope (a) it ships in time for most of b-ball season and (b) we get some good hands-on reports before then to tell us whether that is really the case.
I'm a normal fan who has been awaiting the arrival of a 50L (or an upgraded 50 f1.4)for six years. And yup, the initial price is a bit of a shocker. The comparison to the 200 f2.8L seems at least somewhat valid to me. If they can sell a sharp, fast-focusing, colorful 200mm for $650, why can't they do the same at 50mm? Aren't normal lenses supposedly the easiest to engineer and manufacture? Apparently not....
This is not, intrinsically, a niche tool. There are a lot of people who would love to buy, use and recommend a great fast normal lens, for all it's great fast normal virtues. It only becomes a niche product by virtue of clearly being priced as such.
There are a lot of 50mm EOS options, all of them good, none of them great. This should be the great one. Shut down the 50 f1.4 line, ramp up the L line, price them aggressively and crank `em out to a (soon to be) grateful public.
If it pans out I'll finally have a fast fifty for my 30D. I've long pined for my old FD55mm f/1.2AAL which was stolen from me many moons ago and if it's anything as good as that then I have no worries. I can't say I was overly impressed with what I've read over the years about the now discontinued EF50 F/1.0 and I hope it betters it and frankly the $$ people want for used ones seems silly and is certainly something I could never justify paying.
I'm a crop sensor guy with no FF plans and this lens will equate to 80mm @1.6 which is an ideal portrait focal length for someone 'old school' like me.
I CAN'T WAIT!!!
One other thing I think you will see here is the sports shooters will all buy this lens. Ever walk down the line of photographers at an NFL game or Tennis match? They all usually have three bodies with a lens on each. Usually a 400 2.8IS or 300 2.8IS on one, a 70-200 2.8IS on a 2nd, and a 50 1.4 or 1.8 on the third. The other thing you might notice is that the 3rd body is usually covered with a cloth or something to protect the lens from the elements when the weather turns bad (I know they have weather covers for the long lens/body combo too, but the 50 seems to allways be covered). I think these guys and gals will all have one of these as soon as they're available.
I loved my FD 50 1.2L which cost about 3 times what my FD 50 1.4 cost. The L was clearly better wide open, but about the same in terms of sharpness stopped down past about 4.0. The results may be similar here, time will tell...
I have been putting off getting a 50 and may still go for one of the lesser expensive versions, but this one makes me want to take a good look
Phroad wrote:
I'm a normal fan who has been awaiting the arrival of a 50L (or an upgraded 50 f1.4)for six years. And yup, the initial price is a bit of a shocker. The comparison to the 200 f2.8L seems at least somewhat valid to me. If they can sell a sharp, fast-focusing, colorful 200mm for $650, why can't they do the same at 50mm? Aren't normal lenses supposedly the easiest to engineer and manufacture? Apparently not....
This is not, intrinsically, a niche tool. There are a lot of people who would love to buy, use and recommend a great fast normal lens, for all it's great fast normal virtues. It only becomes a niche product by virtue of clearly being priced as such.
There are a lot of 50mm EOS options, all of them good, none of them great. This should be the great one. Shut down the 50 f1.4 line, ramp up the L line, price them aggressively and crank `em out to a (soon to be) grateful public....Show more →
You do realize that it's a lot easier to make a 2.8 lens versus a 1.2 lens right? I mean, that's 2 1/2 stops faster.
When I heard this was coming out I got nervous and started to second guess my 50/1.4 purchase.
Never mind.
Frankly, when using it for portraits, especially of kids who move around a lot, I've started to use f/2 to get a bit more depth of field. A head shot at 1.4 just has too little depth of field for my tastes.
I was sort of hoping that Canon was going to take a high road and do something that might seem really odd at first. Come out with a 50/2L. Sound Crazy that the L would be the slowest? But I give up the improved performance that would be world class. If they could make a 50/2 that could beat a Leica Summicron, I think that they would have something there. Make it $8-900 bucks
$1600 bucks! Only pros and DOF and bokeh obsesors are going to be in line for this.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
I have said this on this board a hundred times . price should ALWAYS be secondary to the work you do
There is a price-value relationship with every professional (and personal) expense.
If they charged $2000 for the 50 f/1.2L would it be worth it? $5000? $10,000?
The question is not just one of the work you do irrespective of price. The question is how much better will your work be -- and therefore is the price justified.
A lot of amateurs, myself included, will buy L-series lenses when they're priced right. Like the 17-40 and the 70-200 f/4, for instance.
As soon as Canon prices something at $1500 they lose people like me who just can't justify the difference in price. I bet there would be thousands of amateurs willing to pay $900 for an L-series 50 prime.
In other words, the price-value relationship is much different when one's revenue is one's enjoyment of the hobby.
DrPablo wrote:
There is a price-value relationship with every professional (and personal) expense.
If they charged $2000 for the 50 f/1.2L would it be worth it? $5000? $10,000?
The question is not just one of the work you do irrespective of price. The question is how much better will your work be -- and therefore is the price justified.
Hence "secondary". Guy's statement assumes that there is a great value in the lens for your work. If there isn't, it's a moot point.
Schlotkins wrote:
You do realize that it's a lot easier to make a 2.8 lens versus a 1.2 lens right? I mean, that's 2 1/2 stops faster.
Yes, but it's not 2 1/2 times as much glass.
f/# = focal length divided by aperture diameter.
so f/2.8 on a 200mm lens is 200 / 2.8 = 71.4
f/1.2 on a 50mm lens is 50 / 1.2 = 41.7
So the maximum pupil diameter on a 200 f/2.8 lens is actually nearly twice as large as on a 50 f/1.2 lens. In other words, the 200 f/2.8 actually needs more glass than the 50 f/1.2.
Just compare the lenses you already have. Look at the rear lens element of your 50 f/1.4 compared with your 70-200 f/2.8.
I love the 85L and the 35L. Both are very sharp and very contrasty wide open which is where I like to use them 85% of the time. These two L's are kinda pricey, but they definitely deliver. I do not regret paying the somewhat heavy price for them. They are worth it. I also own a very sharp copy of the 50mm f1.4 and the 50mm f1.8 Mk I.
The 35L was my most used lens on a 1.6x FOV sensor like the 30D. Probably because it provided a field of view close to the 50mm on full frame. The 85L is superb because of the beautiful velvety bookeh it provided. I see/hope the 50mm f1.2L as just right for my needs. I would go for this lens if it has qualities similar to the 85mm f1.2L or the 35mm f1.4L.
With a 50mm f1.2L for around $1500-$1600, it would be worthwhile to have a low light prime with a nice shallow DOF which would mean my 85L would take a backseat to the new lens.
I shall wait to see if the 50mm f1.2L is worthy by letting someone else test it out and reading reviews and opinions. After waiting for about 6 months after it's release, I will rent it out if possible and if it is a good lens, it will find it's way in my camera bag.
With the 50mm f1.2L going for $1600 compared to $4000+ for the 50mm f1.0L, for me it's exactly what I've been waiting for. Smaller and cheaper than the 50mm f1.0L
I've said it before, and I'll say it again... if Canon's lenses are significantly overpriced, then you'd be seeing very comepetitive products from other lens manufacturers. The fact that you don't proves that Canon's lenses are positioned at a market rate that makes sense for such niche products.
Does that mean only pros will be able to buy them? Probably. Does that matter to Canon? Not really.
DrPablo wrote:
I don't know, I think it's pretty clear that the target market for Tokina, Tamron, and Sigma is consumers and not pros.
You think if Sigma put out a full-frame 50/1.2 tomorrow with the same quality as a Canon L for $800, they wouldn't sell any? Why do you suppose they don't try to market to pros?
Low light photography rules indiscriminately. 
.
