I can't believe the 48 page thread on this JUST released lens. I can't believe I have resisted commenting on the stupidity of this thread this long, and yet succumbed just now, of all times. I blame Kentucky Bourbon. What's your excuse ?
JeffBowser wrote:
I can't believe the 48 page thread on this JUST released lens. I can't believe I have resisted commenting on the stupidity of this thread this long, and yet succumbed just now, of all times. I blame Kentucky Bourbon. What's your excuse ?
lol
some one gave me a couple of Bushman's Premium Quality Lager... that's my excuse
lol
I would still like this new lens although it's too expensive for my taste... I just had the very same thought as Gilles above... the 135L is $900.... why oh why ??
I think Kentucky Bourbon and Bushman's Premium Quality Lager are over 5 time the price of Malt Liquor and that getting drunk on Malt Liquor has better sharpness at the edges.
mfoto wrote:
I would still like this new lens although it's too expensive for my taste... I just had the very same thought as Gilles above... the 135L is $900.... why oh why ??
Morten, do a psychological reversal here, that might help :
rather than bemoaning the price of the 50 f/.1.2, count your blessings for having access to a relatively inexpensive lens of the 135L caliber.
If I was Canon, I'd make you pay a few $100 more for it. Yeah, the canadian way, eh !
Yes sir, Canon have priced some of their lenses philanthropically in the past.
Lensbaby may be worth trying...and if we keep it quiet, not many will find out...but then again reading this novella, looks like a lot of FM'ers won't be buying this lens anyway
so u think ur competitors won't find out about the 50/1.2? hmm, how much to keep my mouth shut?
The lensbaby was so 2004...Had one of the first ones off the lot from Craig...
Look, the idea is simple...
My style of shooting is dependent on not being noticed.
This lens will give me another 1/2 of light (or so), to play with, which means I will have to use my flash less, and/or use High ISOs less.
This will allow me to capture more true moments, which in turn, will allow me to book more clients.
Therefore, the lens is Priceless, as long as it is sharp wide open and fast focusing...
Most attractive thing about this lens to me is weather sealing. If I remember correctly, the 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 85/1.2 and 85/1.8 are all un-sealed. Mind you, the price is way out of my range for a walkaround lens.
bad_doggie wrote:
expecation ran high. disappointment runs deep.
Based on what? That it's not good enough (when we've not seen more than 1 pic from it), that it's too expensive (when we don't know what it'll sell at) or that it's not what people want (when plenty of people here seem interested)?
Lord Fluff wrote:
Based on what? That it's not good enough (when we've not seen more than 1 pic from it), that it's too expensive (when we don't know what it'll sell at) or that it's not what people want (when plenty of people here seem interested)?
to me personally, a combination of the above: its not enough of an improvement over the 50/1.4 to justify the cost - to me. based on the one pic and the mtf chart, and on the fact that i already do own the 50/1.4, the 60/2.8 and a 17-55 that cover this FL, that it def won't replace the 60 in cases where f/2.8 is practical. so its only an "upgrade" to the 50/1.4, my least used lens (after the 100/2), which is pretty much there for indoor, low light when the 30/1.4 is too short and the 85/1.2 is too long. that's not a whole lot of useful cases for me, especially if it doesn't perform much better than the 50/1.4. weather sealing won't really matter, cuz it rarely monsoons indoors. and the extra half stop isn't *very* significant, because of the shallow DOF.
put it this way: there are many lenses i'd probably get more use of for that $1600. 24/1.4, 28/1.4 or 200/2.8 come to mind. heck, i think i'd actually get more use from a 70-200 f/2.8 IS for that price, and - ya know - i've had zero urge to buy that lens cuz i know i'd never use it.
now contrast that with the 60mm. i had a 50, i had an 85. nevertheless - after a little internal debate with myself - bought this anyway, cuz its such a spectacular performer.
anyway, that's how i think. i know others probably feel like that extra stop is the cat's pyjamas or that another lens in the "holy trinity" is like growing another testicle, sure to attract the ladies/gents, yadda yadda. whatever.
actually, lately i've been thinking that i want to get myself something really small, a p&s, to keep in my pocket for when i don't otherwise have my camera. (i think if cartier-bresson was a young photographer today, he'd be carrying a p&s.) decisions, decisions. that's moving to the top of my list. but 50/1.2 would only fill a niche, for me, and that niche is probably adequately filled right now anyway, and this would hardly be an upgrade. kinda like the choice of upgrading from my 20d to a 30d. would be nice but rather pointless.
A little OT, but what ISO where those two pictures on the Swedish site taken with? I see a hot red pixel on the guy's left eye on the 85 shot so I'm assuming at least 800 since it's a 5D.
Clayphish wrote:
Looking at Canon's online sample image [...]
it looks a lot like what I see coming from my Takumar SMC 50mm f/1.4. Lets see if I end up wrong once the full size images hit the net.
I'm trying to find the Takumar SMC 50/1.4 MTF, and eventually the block diagram, for my pleasure looking at MTFs. Anybody knows where is could be? Thanks.
I've been looking at the specs but can't seem to find if it has Internal focusing like the 35L, in which the lens doesn't change length. Anyone know about this?
Looking at the 50/1.2 block diagram, it seems to me there is little freedom of movement of the rear elements (between diaphragm and the right end). But it could be ...
Yeah, the canadian way, eh ! 