Canon marketing know about the "compensation" phenomenon......boys and men strutting their 1Series cinderblocks with a stovepipe of a lens on them ....mmmm....heaven !
(I said "boys and men" because I think women photographers are not as susceptible to the "size" affliction.)
Lately I think canon has been making some bad moves on lenses. I thought the 85 Mark2 had no reasonable improvement over the first. And the 50mm 1.4 was already very spectacular, unless if I had a blessed copy. I also don't see the reasoning behind the very expensive 70-200 f4 IS. I'd prefer to see a high-end telephoto Zoom ala the sigma 120-300 or nikon 200-400.
shadowoa wrote:
Lately I think canon has been making some bad moves on lenses. I thought the 85 Mark2 had no reasonable improvement over the first. And the 50mm 1.4 was already very spectacular, unless if I had a blessed copy. I also don't see the reasoning behind the very expensive 70-200 f4 IS. I'd prefer to see a high-end telephoto Zoom ala the sigma 120-300 or nikon 200-400.
Perhaps I am wrong, but wasn't the 85mm f/1.2 II a rework to eliminate lead in the glass? The price increase from the original reflects the current status of the Yen-Dollar exchange rate.
bad_doggie wrote: 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.
Iffy AF, terrible distortion, soft under f/2, poor contrast, yada yada.
..about Canon EF 50/1.2 from Luminous Landscape:
"Autofocus is moderately quick and silent, though not quite as quick as the 50mm f/1.4."
I have been using a couple of very cheap primes (EF 35/2 and EF 50/2.5) a lot lately. My bet is that they would be enough picture qualitywise, or even by ergonomics, for quite a many readers here. Pompous, big fast prime is looking good on 1 -series body and will attract a lot of gear oriented people, as the length of this thread suggests
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.
I have no lust for 50mm lenses (don't like this focal length) but if I did, it was a good enough reason for me not to purchase it. I had the 50/1.4 and it's low light AF was not that great. A far cry from the 85/1.8 USM. Paying so much and not get fast AF? Not in my case. BTW, that's also the reason that the 85/1.2 (both versions) are not in my dream list.
I'm spoiled, I know.... :-)
Yakim Peled wrote:
Paying so much and not get fast AF? Not in my case. BTW, that's also the reason that the 85/1.2 (both versions) are not in my dream list.
I'm spoiled, I know.... :-)
Yakim, the focus speed issue is a 'red herring' (both models). AF is more than fast enough on the Mk1 as a portrait lens (unless your subject keeps trying to escape ) and I've used mine to shoot sport too (BMX, skateboarding). Infinity to 2m - yes that takes an eternity, but if you ever take more than one frame at roughly the same distance, the speed is fine.
I advise you to steer clear of the 85L. Avoid it. I tried one in a shop. Then I had to rent it - just to see. Then I saw the results. And I HAD to have one, more than any other lens I've tried.
This is personal issue, I know, but I accept no less than 85/1.8 USM equivalents. BTW, I tried a friend's 35/1.4 USM L and was very impressed with it's AF speed.
Yo Timmy, If you meant to say that L series lenses were distinguished by inclusion of fluorite elements, then you'd be subscribing yourself to a common fallacy.
Fluorite elements are really a feature of supertelephoto lenses, AKA "big whites". A somewhat peculiar exception to that rule are 70-200 f/4 and 100-400 lenses.
For what it's worth, if the focus speed is close to the 50/1.4 that's fine for me. Sure, I'd prefer it was as fast as the 85/1.8, but as long as the focusing is accurate and reasonably quick, it will serve my purposes.
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.
Well, if Michael is correct then a lot of the fanfair will die down pretty quickly. Canon set a precedence with it's 85mm f/1.2 L (and now MkII) for image quality at max. aperture and has bumped up the AF speed with the MkII, so if the new 50 f/1.2 isn't as sharp wide open, or as fast AF as the 85 MkII then it's going to lose it's appeal to me very quick, but hopefully Canon has considered this and will be addressing those issues with this lens.
Another thing to consider about Michael's review is that both the lens and the body it was tested on were pre-production units, my guess (or hope) is that the 50 f/1.2 L will AF quicker on a 1 series body than on the consumer grade XTi...
Again, until real post-production lenses start shipping all we can do is speculate, so I'll be curious once a trustworthy source gets one and conducts real world experiments with it. Until then, I'm going to continue shooting with my other lenses and doing my best to take wonderful images
) and I've used mine to shoot sport too (BMX, skateboarding). Infinity to 2m - yes that takes an eternity, but if you ever take more than one frame at roughly the same distance, the speed is fine.