is the link where they state it's mechanical focus and it's also on the first page of this thread, i know it was stated 54 pages back.
Thank you very much. Indeed, the quote is "mechanical manual focusing".
Not a deal breaker/maker, but IMO that would be a good thing in some smaller ways......i.e., fewer electronic components to fail, the MF feels more "tactile" and direct (I've never liked the feel of the focusing ring on the 85L) and the camera does not have to be ON in order to retract the focusing barrel assembly for storage.
I don't get how its possible to have electronically linked FTM without a ring USM or 50 1.4 style-differential-based micro motor.
28-80L had focus-by-wire and you couldn't retract the focusing barrel without the body being on. additionally, you can't focus manually without power and the switch being set to manual. the ring just spins free and nothing happens. you can twirl it all day to no effect. i suspect it has ring USM because 50 1.4's micro motor won't have the torque to move the larger elements at a decent speed, and it won't be a significant-enough improvement over the previous generation to justify the change. without power from the body, focus by wire won't work without a physical linkage.
That's why the 28-80L i saw used at a photo store didn't move with the focus ring, it never occured to me that it was a mechanical linkage. the shop guy thought it was broken, i should have said how much for as is
On the other hand i'm not too impressed with the feel of the focusing ring on the 17-40 which is mechanical, it just feels fake and not substantial at all not damped like my 70-200
Hard to justify paying up $1600 dollars for a lens that's just a nudge faster than the 50 f/1.4. Circular aperture will be nice....IMHO, if you are spending the bucks, go for the 85 f1/2. Now that's a lens! No moulded elements either!
ashwinrao1 wrote:
Hard to justify paying up $1600 dollars for a lens that's just a nudge faster than the 50 f/1.4. Circular aperture will be nice....IMHO, if you are spending the bucks, go for the 85 f1/2. Now that's a lens! No moulded elements either!
1.2 is only a nudge faster then 1.8 also for $1800 more.
I think both lenses have there place. If the 50 1.2 has the magic contrast and saturation all L lenses have I think it might be time for me to get an upgrade.
indeed. it's an L! Everything you can say about the 17-55 ef-s .. it's damn sharp, but that is jut it. It isn't L. the 50 1.2 is. And besides, 1600 will be 1300 very soon ...
OO7MIKE wrote:
I'm happy with my 50/1.4 after seeing the price on that 50/1.2. But when I can afford it ..I will make the switch.
Me too. I'm very curious how much the AF of the 50/1.2 will be better. The AF of the 50/1.4 in low light could be improved IMHO. Better AF is a reason for me to switch.
ebeaydojraes wrote:
indeed. it's an L! Everything you can say about the 17-55 ef-s .. it's damn sharp, but that is jut it. It isn't L.
So ? Leicas and Schneiders are not L either.
Your camera is not a Mercedes-Benz.....which does not make it a bad camera, does it ?
In Holland they make some sweet chocolate but it's not Valrhona.
Conversely, the mere fact that the 50 f.1.2 has been designated as an L series lens does not constitute a guarantee that its demonstrated field performance will be judged as excellent. We do hope that it will.
trentchau wrote:
1.2 is only a nudge faster then 1.8 also for $1800 more.
I think both lenses have there place. If the 50 1.2 has the magic contrast and saturation all L lenses have I think it might be time for me to get an upgrade.
how big is a nudge? 1.2 is a half stop faster than 1.4. 1.8 is 2/3 stop above 1.4, so 1.2 is more than a full stop faster than 1.8 (1 1/6 stops).
ebeaydojraes wrote:
indeed. it's an L! Everything you can say about the 17-55 ef-s .. it's damn sharp, but that is jut it. It isn't L. the 50 1.2 is. And besides, 1600 will be 1300 very soon ...
lol. what does an L have, optically, that the 17-55 does not have? it has UD elements. it has aspherical elements. it has a circular aperture. it has ring-type USM, IF and FTM. and it has IS.
true, its not built like a tank. and does not have a red ring.
It seems that the AF of the 50/1.2 is not quite as quick as the 50/1.4. Hopefully, it is more precise.
He did note, however, that it was silent. The 50 1.4 isn't. That almost rules out focus-by-wire USM and micro-motor USM. Ring USM moving larger elements is what it sounds like to me.
On a much shallower note, I feel that is one attractive-looking lens!
edit: I just noticed that it appears to have a front focusing group like 85L. Driving a larger mass like that would slow down an AF system.
dinoadventures wrote:
He did note, however, that it was silent. The 50 1.4 isn't. That almost rules out focus-by-wire USM and micro-motor USM. Ring USM moving larger elements is what it sounds like to me.
When I think "50/1.2 has more glass than 50/1.4" it is not that much a difference as 50/1.0 vs 50/1.4, it's not like 50/1.2 vs 50/1.0. Here are some proportional block diagrams.
edit: I just noticed that it appears to have a front focusing group like 85L. Driving a larger mass like that would slow down an AF system.
Sorry, where was it noticed that 50/1.2 has a front focusing group, I'm interested. 85L moves all its elements except the rightmost element. 85/1.2 has more elements than 50/1.2, obviously more glass. Thanks.
85L moves all its elements except the rightmost. 50/1.2 has same filter size as 85L, so it may be that they have same USM torque. May also be that 50/1.2 moves all its elements except the rightmost. 50/1.4 moves all its elements. 50/1.2 has just a little more glass than 50/1.4.
50/1.2 has better chances to detect phase change than 50/1.4. 50/1.2 has ring USM, 1.4 has micro USM.
So let me speculate that overall 50/1.2 AF is faster than 50/1.4.
Yeah, probably more so in low light, I think so too.
Also, looking at the Swedish picture of the 50/1.2 from behind, it seems as if the rearmost element indeed does not move. Even if _all_ the other elements in 50/1.2 move then it seems the quantity of glass to move around is about the same as in 50/1.4. The 50/1.4 moves _all_ its elements.
It is not clear from the Swedish picture whether the front element extends or not; it turns or not. I'm not sure whether this is known from the announcements or not.
i meant that the front of the 85L changes position at different focus distances. From the picture on LL, I ascertained that something similar is in place on the 50 1.2L. All this proves is that there is no rear IF.
Sorry, where was it noticed that 50/1.2 has a front focusing group, I'm interested. 85L moves all its elements except the rightmost element. 85/1.2 has more elements than 50/1.2, obviously more glass. Thanks.
Thanks for the diagrams - they put things in "perspective".
I believe that both the 85/1.2 and the 50/1.2 have 8 elements each, though those of the 85 are considerably larger in diameter and at least on element is very thick. It remains to be seen as to whether the entire 8 elements move in the 50/1.2 (like the 50/1.4) or all but the rear-most element.
In comparing the diagrams of the 85 1.2L and the 50 1.2L which both feature a 72mm filter, it seems that the overall outside diameter ("fatness") of the 85 has an obvious origin in the large diameter of the glass elements. The 50 1.2 however does not seem to have large diameter glass elements to justify its excessive fatness.
for $1800 more.