A 50mm prime isn't a niche lens, though. Canon does pretty good business with their 50 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4. What makes the 85L and the 50L etc. niche is that they only fit into the niches of pros and amateurs who can afford them. This is no impeachment of their quality -- just their market. There really is plenty of opportunity for Sigma or whomever to make a great set of primes and undersell Canon.
But there is a risk for them getting into pro quality primes -- as I'm sure you've observed here there are a lot of people who will only buy L-glass if they can help it. So If Sigma hypothetically made an equal quality 50 f/1.2L for $800, some people would still pay $700 more to have the Canon L version, right?
Sam Bennett wrote:
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?
I wouldn't buy it because I don't want to worry if it will work with the next body Canon puts out.
DrPablo wrote:
A 50mm prime isn't a niche lens, though. Canon does pretty good business with their 50 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.4. What makes the 85L and the 50L etc. niche is that they only fit into the niches of pros and amateurs who can afford them. This is no impeachment of their quality -- just their market. There really is plenty of opportunity for Sigma or whomever to make a great set of primes and undersell Canon.
Again, I think you're wrong. If the opportunity was there Sigma would be taking it, that's my point. It's not as though fast primes are a new concept - the market has been there for a long time.
DrPablo wrote:
But there is a risk for them getting into pro quality primes -- as I'm sure you've observed here there are a lot of people who will only buy L-glass if they can help it. So If Sigma hypothetically made an equal quality 50 f/1.2L for $800, some people would still pay $700 more to have the Canon L version, right?
Yes, but even more people will say "The Canon's twice as much? What a rip off! I'm taking the cheaper one!" - we see it with the 30/1.4 even though it apparently can't actually achieve consistent focus for a lot of people. The reason that many of us opt for the Canon options is because they're better, period. There will always be the pixel peepers who say "The Sigma is just as sharp!", disregarding keeper ratios, etc. - but Canon knows what the pro contingent has come to expect from them. The bottom line is that Sigma cannot produce the same level of quality - and I'm talking about the whole package, not just the glass - that Canon does with their Ls and charge significantly less. If they could, they'd be eating Canon's lunch - and they're not even coming close.
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.
Chris
Actually it's 2 1/3 stops, but who's counting?
You do realize that they make a credible 50 f1.8 for $90? I mean, that's one stop slower....
But then, that's equally irrelevant, isn't it?
My post simply pointed out how Canon seems to be passing on an opportunity to spread some normal lovin', by rather inexplicably niche-pricing this lens. Fast fifties are fun, and (in my mind anyway), a basic photographic tool. If this upgrade were priced aggressively (more as an overdue f1.4 replacement), it could very well be the flagship *must have* low-light prime in their lineup. In which case they might sell hundreds of thousands.
jcbenner wrote:
I was waiting for a 50L lens that is sharper than the 50mm f/1.4 (above f/2) and one that had higher build quality. I'm sure this offering has higher build quality but the MTF chart has me a bit worried....
If the sharpness is on par with the 85L I will definitely buy one.
For 50/1.4 comparison: the chart says that at f/8 the 50/1.2 is much better at the corners for saggital lines (and a little bit worse for meridional lines) than the 50/1.4. It says nothing about 50/1.2 at 2 neither at 1.4.
I think Nikon sells an all metal, manual focus 50mm f1.2 for less than $600 new.
Canon should not price the new 50 above $800 at the most. Heck a few months ago a new 85mm f1.2 cost me $1500!!! Killer lens. 50mm are much cheaper to make fast. In fact its probably THE cheapest focal length to make fast and good.
Nill Toulme wrote:
This looks like a brief hands-on report in Swedish(?). Can anybody provide an intelligible Swedish-->English translation?
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
I'll try... Ugh, it sucks to translate one's third language into one's second language. I'm sure the Swedish here will skin me alive.
Here we go:
-------
More L to the people
Today, more and pricier lenses are bought than ever. To meet the demand, Canon issues a new L lens today. That is, a lens of their most exklusive and weatherproof series. We had a close look at the newcomer.
There used to be a time when 50mm was considered to be an unneccessary focal length. The "normal lens" is squeezed between the wide angle zooms and the tele zooms. But the smaller sensors in cameras like the 10D or the 20D render the 50 a fast people's telephoto.
For many years, a 50mm L lens has been sorely missed (freely translated). In the beginning of the Eos era there used to be a really heavy lump, the 50/1.0, which was very much like the 85/1.2 I regarding construction and form. But that lens was no big seller and many said that one was forced to use the largest aperture in order not to experience angular DOF circles (don't know the English word here, they mean the OOF highlights I think).
The new 50/1.2 has an extremely large aperture, but the lens is still pretty adequate for being so extreme. It is not as huge as the 50/1.0 or the 85/1.2. Surely a 50/1.2L is bigger than a 50/1.2, but still not so large that the size feels especially remarkable (my translation sucks, they mean that it's still okay to handle even though it's so fast). The filter size is 72, just as that of the 85/1.2. On the other hand, the amount of glass in the lens is considerable.
AF of the 85/1.2 was very slow. In the new version which came in spring, the AF is 1.8x faster. The new 50/1.2 is still evidently faster than the AF on the 85/1.2 II.
Another feature that distinguishes the 85 from the 50 is the weatherproofing. The 50/1.2 communicates distance info to the E-TTL II flash system, something that the 50/1.4 can't do.
The price of 15.700 Swedish crowns should discourage a part of those who had hoped for a fast portrait telephoto for their 30D. The price is however the lenses only drawback.
Brent Ward wrote:
I'm a little dissapointed after comparing the 50's mtf to the 85 1.2's mtf. The 85 looks much better.
More of a surprise is that the 50 1.4 mtf looks slightly better.
I'd say that at f/8 (only place to really compare MTFs, the other is "wide-open") the 50/1.2 curves look much better for saggital lines, especially at corners.
Sam Bennett wrote:
The bottom line is that Sigma cannot produce the same level of quality - and I'm talking about the whole package, not just the glass - that Canon does with their Ls and charge significantly less. If they could, they'd be eating Canon's lunch - and they're not even coming close.
Perhaps that's true, which is why I was careful to say a 'hypothetically' equal lens. Equal build, equal focusing mechanism, equal quality control, etc. And if it's true that Sigma just can't make a prime marketable to pros, then Canon can arbitrarily charge $2000 for the 85 f/1.2L because they have a monopoly -- there's no market force to push the price lower.
I think Canon owns the market on inexpensive primes as well as elite primes, and that's the thing. The 50 f/1.8 might not be what you'll take to shoot a wedding, but show me another lens for $75 that is anywhere near as good. The 50 f/1.4 is a big step up from that and also very affordable. So in the realm of 50mm primes there's just been nowhere for Sigma to go. What were they going to market one as better than the Canon 50 f/1.4 and charge $800? No one would buy it. This is also true with 85mm lenses -- just no opportunity for anyone to break in against the 85 f/1.8 (even though parenthetically my copy of it is horrendous).
But then take a look at 100mm primes -- there you actually do see some very good third party competition from both Sigma and Tamron (the 105mm and 90mm respectively). Great quality lenses, fast, and inexpensive. But again, not specifically targeting a pro market.
petrescu wrote:
I'd say that at f/8 (only place to really compare MTFs, the other is "wide-open") the 50/1.2 curves look much better for saggital lines, especially at corners.
I would rather take Leica's approach to MTF's wide open, 2.8 and 5.6 and design for best preformance wide open.
sleepwalker33 wrote:
I would have bought this lens if it cost up to 1,000 but sadly at 1,600 with POOR MTF results, and lacking weather sealing this lens is just pathetic.
There are much better choices for the money.
What's poor MTF to you? They look reasonably better to me, compared to 50/1.4, at f/8. f/1.2 vs f/1.4 can't be really compared but even then they look better. Check only the saggital (solid) lines and mostly towards the corners. Don't compare this MTF to a tele, or to an EF-s, or to a 2.8...
Sprout Crumble wrote:
Well if it lowers production costs its certainly not reflected in the MSRP. Robbing gits. Unjustifiable price IMHO and one thats made a potentially great selling lens into an irrelevance to the vast majority of us.
Agreed, it is going to have to SERIOUSLY outperform the 1.4, which I don't think will happen.
But I buy fast lenses to shoot wide open in low light not at f/8.0.
Right, Leica makes some nice lenses with complete data about them
I just disagree that 50/1.4 MTF looks better than the 50/1.2. The only curves in these two MTFs that can be compared are at f/8, and the saggitals at f/8 do look surprisingly better, especially at corners.
That the 50/1.4 curves at 1.4 look better than 50/1.2 at 1.2 then I'd say it's normal. What I'd like to know is how does the 50/1.2 perform at 1.4, and that MTFs don't say.
I'm sure the Swedish here will skin me alive. 