yellowducky wrote:
Boy, I have to say, it is disappointing to see the majority of these posts. It just reads like a 'I must bash it because I can't afford it' thread. No one has actually even seen a physical specimen, taken a shot with one or done a comparison to anything else and yet already it 'looks soft' based off a chart, anyone that buys it is clearly a fool with too much money being exploited by the man, it can't possibly be worth the money etc etc etc.
I have been following threads on what people would 'like' and high on the list was a redesigned 50mm L series prime. Lo and behold, out one comes. Is it expensive, yup, will you pay that price in a shop, not likely. Do you absolutley need it, nope. But it is an option (and those are nice to have last I checked) on top of a 50 f1.4, a 50f1.8 and a 50 f2.5 macro. And yet to read this post the provider of this nice array of lenses is just out to screw us all because they don't price the newest latest developed top of the line lens in the 50mm group for what, 500 bucks? Then the whining would be 'why doesn't it focus faster' or it isn't as sharp as the xyz or something else.
Ah no wonder envy is supposedly the Devil's favorite sin - it is just too easy to succumb it would seem. Inevitably I expect lots more 'I will be happy with my 1.8 for 1500 dollars less' and 'an extra stop for 1200 dollars is not worth it'. In some cases this may be true but the tone of the messages thus far are more 'I want it but can't afford it so since you can afford it I hope you choke on it so I am actually better than you cause I paid less or much less for something similar'.
How about passing judgement until we actually can 1) see some shots 2) see some real street prices 3) see if it is the fastest focusing lens in the lineup 4) has some great bokeh etc etc rather than just bashing the latest things for no apparent reason I can see. If you don't like prices, don't buy, if you don't need the speed, don't buy. Easy right? It isn't like a global conspiracy against anyone of us individually; it is a company developing a product trying to satisfy a niche and make money to continue developing new products going forward. That is all there is too it....Show more →
Well said. The sniveling on this thread is something to behold. .
bad_doggie wrote:
sounds like a story meant to convince yourself to buy one ... (1) you have an 85 f/1.2, why didn't you use that? (2) are these moments with your kids worth the cost of a 50/1.2, which you can't yet buy, but not worth the cost of a 50/1.0, which you can buy now and presumably would increase that percentage even more? (3) use the focus assist from your flash!
perhaps the reason he didn't use the 85 1.2 is because it is not an eos lens, but rather a canon fd mount....take a closer look at his signature.............
i agree with johnny bravo...yellowducky has summed this thread up best.....
"sounds like a story meant to convince yourself to buy one ... (1) you have an 85 f/1.2, why didn't you use that?"
(1) The FD 85 1.2L is a truely remarkable lens, but my F1 N is loaded with Kodachrome 64! Very nice for manual focusing not so good with shooting handhelds at night.
" (2) are these moments with your kids worth the cost of a 50/1.2, which you can't yet buy, but not worth the cost of a 50/1.0, which you can buy now and presumably would increase that percentage even more?"
(2)Well the 1.0 might be worth the price, but not if you can't afford it.
(3) use the focus assist from your flash!"
(3) The picture mood you get from the light of a candle is very different from the light you get using flash.
Thanks for the thoughts. I have been convincing myself to get the 50 1.2L since long before it was announced.
you can use the focus assist from the flash without the flash itself firing during exposure. that's pretty much the only way i ever use the built-in flash on my 20d. (pop up the flash, set CFn "flash does not emit".)
Vistek, Toronto has the 50 f/1.2 listed at $1,800 CAN, availability Oct.1,06.
I thought the Announcement said Nov.06 ?.
(Please note, this post should not be construed to represent an endorsement of Vistek by the post author.)
I am afraid I have no choice but to buy a 50L since my 50 F1.4 is soft in the center at 1.4 (not a focus problem!). I don't always have the luxury to move around to frame so I need a fine, fast hi-quality 50. Canon are no fools so I exepect this new lens to have some important qualities besides 1/2 more maximum stop. I would expect the 50L stopped down to 1.4 to be much sharper and faster focusing than my 50 F1.4.
10DFT wrote:
I would think that the new lens will have better distortion characteristics than the present 50/1.4 (which has a bit of barrel distortion).
I'd say so too, but even if it did not, that would not be a show stopper.
However, if the lens has poor IQ @ f1/2-1.4 that would sort of torpedo its raison d'etre. I hope Canon boys were imbued with that sort of a sentiment when they were design-building the lens.
The way I see the problem, Tommy, is that Canon knows how to build good lenses 85 mm and up. Below that FL they seem to be experiencing design and fabrication difficulties. Two typical examples are wide open image softness and that dreaded copy-to-copy IQ variability.
handheld wrote:
I'd say so too, but even if it did not, that would not be a show stopper.
However, if the lens has poor IQ @ f1/2-1.4 that would sort of torpedo its raison d'etre. I hope Canon boys were imbued with that sort of a sentiment when they were design-building the lens.
True - a bit of barrel distortion is significant in architectural photography, but I'm not sure that the 50 is the lens for that purpose anyway. I'd think that the 45/TS or wider would be more appropriate.
BTW, I took Nathan67's stairway photo from another thread and rotated it a bit straighter. Indications along the left edge are that it is straighter than the 1.4. The right edge was hard to judge as I think the center stairway structure isn't perfectly straight.
The way I see the problem, Tommy, is that Canon knows how to build good lenses 85 mm and up. Below that FL they seem to be experiencing design and fabrication difficulties. Two typical examples are wide open image softness and that dreaded copy-to-copy IQ variability.
Well, I'd say that the 35L is quite excellent, and I've had good results from the 24-70. The 16-35 struggles around the periphery at wide apertures, but I've yet to find anything better that is wider than 24 mm despite going through 3 different brands of 20 mm lenses and a 17-40.
My 24/TSE is pretty good, but it has the dreaded canon CA (though not nearly as severe as a couple of consumer zooms I've had).
But in general, you're right. Canon needs to improve the 24/1.4L, the 28/1.8, the 20/2.8, and the 14/2.8L. I've had 2 of those 4, and I don't have them any more. Still have the fisheye though!
10DFT wrote:
So do I, the 15 mm lens is OK.
I have been agonizing over the 14L for some time....still do not know which way to swing....some say it's good, quite a few folks are less than impressed (especially for the money !)
The 24L....some mixed feelings about it out there...however, I am very pleased with mine.
The 35L....a really well regarded lens by most folks.....however, mine just does not have that requisite IQ wide open, thus it leaves me cold.
And you are right, CA is something else that even consistently decent and sharp Canon WA's can suffer from real bad. My 24 f/2.8 is a good example of that. Very sharp and nice from wide open down...but watch those high contrasts especially at large apertures !
In a nutshell, I am not saying at all that Canon's normal and WA lenses are all bad, I have been merely suggesting their performance on the whole is spotty in comparison to the lenses 85mm and longer. ...Show more →
SoundHound wrote:
I am afraid I have no choice but to buy a 50L since my 50 F1.4 is soft in the center at 1.4 (not a focus problem!). I don't always have the luxury to move around to frame so I need a fine, fast hi-quality 50. Canon are no fools so I exepect this new lens to have some important qualities besides 1/2 more maximum stop. I would expect the 50L stopped down to 1.4 to be much sharper and faster focusing than my 50 F1.4.
Hi Bruce.
I wonder if there are a lot of bad copies of the 50f1.4 out there or do I have a great copy. A lot of people I know love their f1.4. I have no problems with mine. I use it all the time @ f1.4 and it focuses fast and just fine.
Not for fast moving sports, but I don't think the new 50L is going to be blazing fast also.
I'm I wrong to think these are sharp? I shot them @ f1.4. I'm wondering will the 50 L be that much better @ f1.4. I don't have the L yet but I feel pleased this lens only cost me $300 brand new.
Oh what to do
Johnny Bravo wrote:
The sniveling on this thread is something to behold. .
This is NOTHING in volume nor intensity in comparison to the spine chilling, gut wrenching, sphincter dilating, bladder bursting, cystoscopic drama which is played on the general Photokina rumour thread.
The one thing I notice with my 50 1.4 and with the image from fotografur above is the bokeh, it is not very pleasing and this is one thing that should vastly improve with the L lens...
No one ever said the Canon 50 1.4 was optically an inferior lens....at least not anyone who uses it for a living. My biggest complaint along with many others is the lens has really lame construction and has possibly the worse AF mechanism ever put in a Canon prime lens.
fotografur wrote:
I am afraid I have no choice but to buy a 50L since my 50 F1.4 is soft in the center at 1.4 (not a focus problem!). I don't always have the luxury to move around to frame so I need a fine, fast hi-quality 50. Canon are no fools so I exepect this new lens to have some important qualities besides 1/2 more maximum stop. I would expect the 50L stopped down to 1.4 to be much sharper and faster focusing than my 50 F1.4.
The 1/50L is softer than the 1.4/50. You would be dumping $3000 and gaining nothing.
It's also huge. You're much better off sending your 1.4 to Canon and having them adjust it.
SoundHound wrote:
Hi Bruce.
I wonder if there are a lot of bad copies of the 50f1.4 out there or do I have a great copy. A lot of people I know love their f1.4. I have no problems with mine. I use it all the time @ f1.4 and it focuses fast and just fine.
Not for fast moving sports, but I don't think the new 50L is going to be blazing fast also.
I had to return two examples of the 1.4/50 to my dealer, until I got one that was sharp.
The first two were soft at any stop and distance, regardless of manual or autofocus.
Overall it is is a very nice lens, in the same class with the Zeiss 1.4/50 and older pre-ASPH Leica1.4/50 Summilux-M.
I've heard several stories about Canon lenses having QC problems.
It seems that many pros send their new lenses to Canon and have them dialed in on an optical bench. Sounds like a PIA and it really shouldn't be this way, but then again these lenses are mass-produced.
I'n interested in the new 1.2/50, because it is weather sealed and probably a better performer than the 1.4, but it looks huge and that's a problem for me.
I shoot rock concerts all the time and currently use a 50mm f1.8II and a Sigma 20mm f1.8
Not that I am unhappy with the results but even these fast lenses are sometimes not fast enough and the 50mm f1.2 sounds like a dream.
I'm willing to save up for it, but before I do so I'd really like to know if its going to be worth it. Do people already have/use this lens? Samples? Is it prone to flair? It can be a big issue at rock concerts.
