handheld wrote: Because that EF 50mm f/1.4 was the only true COPROLITE LENS I have ever owned. (For Google scholars' benefit, that's fossilized turd.) Wide open to f/2.2 that "thing" was even worse than the worst examples of EF 50 f/1.0 images I've seen. Now, Bad Doggie, you tell me.....how bad can that be !
enter 50 @ 1.4 in the first drop down, and say 24 @ 1.4 in the second. when you roll over the image, you'll see the 24 @ 1.4 test. this will show that you still do own a coprolite, a more expensive one.
Alex53 wrote:
If you read the luminous landscape, it says not only that the 50mm f1.4 focuses faster, but that the two lenses will be virtually undistinguishable f2 and smaller.
I don't buy fast lenses to stop down. I get them to shoot wide open. So I don't care what it does at f/2 or f/8.
cwphoto wrote:
You have to be kidding, the 50mm f/1.4 is VERY underwhelming...
Not according to : the-digital-picture.com , luminous-landscape.com or Popular Photography magazine reviews. I am not sure what kind of a copy that you have, but I would return it immediatly.
bad_doggie wrote:
enter 50 @ 1.4 in the first drop down, and say 24 @ 1.4 in the second. when you roll over the image, you'll see the 24 @ 1.4 test. this will show that you still do own a coprolite, a more expensive one.
I trusted you to know better. Internet education is probably better than no education. However, I'd say first hand experience is best.
handheld wrote:
I trusted you to know better. Internet education is probably better than no education. However, I'd say first hand experience is best.
well even for first hand experience, i have to be motivated to try it. since the 17-55 is so good, anything overlapping that range will have to be either faster or significantly better for me to even make an effort. actually, probably faster AND better. the only lens that maybe tempts me is the 35/1.4. but its size and weight temper my enthusiasm. now if canon were to produce a nice (= small + sharp + fast) ef-s 20mm and 28 or 30mm, i might be interested. for now, i think i have more than enuf lenses to keep me happy until the next great revolution in optics.
Edited by bad_doggie on Sep 04, 2006 at 09:17 AM GMT
bad_doggie wrote:
well that FL does nothing for me, and i have it pretty well covered from f/2.8 up on zoom. if there was a good fast 20mm i'd be interested, especially if it weighed less than 2 lbs. :-P
Depends how good you mean, some people let their thirst for the best get in the way of getting on with photography, but my Sigma 20mm f/1.8 gives me very good results.
Alex53 wrote:
Depends how good you mean, some people let their thirst for the best get in the way of getting on with photography, but my Sigma 20mm f/1.8 gives me very good results.
speak of the devil, i was just trying that lens out a little over a week ago. i guess my conclusion (for me) was that its not so overwhelmingly good that i'm going to get it now. if i really *needed* a fast wide lens, i'd probably have it. but i think there are so many cases where the choice would be between that and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and the latter would usually win out (IQ and IS helping); so i'd really just have it for the faster shutter indoors. and since i rarely even use the 30/1.4 that way, i can wait. ymmv.
i don't think its really just thirst for the best, for me. i don't like to lug around a lot of lenses, so if i know i'm going to have only 1 or 2 or 3 with me, something like this will get left home alot if its not competitive with other stuff that i have. and right now, that means offering something i don't get from the 60, 135 or 17-55.
It amuses me to read lens reviews that in a very cavalier manner give high ratings to lenses which become "sharp" only when stopped down.
I'd like to see their reviews if a lens like 70-200 f/2.8 became "sharp" only if zoomed back to 150 mm and lower.
FL and speed of a lens have one thing in common: they are both exceedingly expensive to upgrade. Am I too demanding when I say that a lens which does not deliver the upgrade quality is not worth the money ?
If the 50 f/1.2 continues the tradition of the 50 f/1.4 regarding softness at large apertures, I'd say Canon will have produced yet another coprolite. However, I trust the lens will be good, i.e., worth the money.
IraGraham wrote:
Cheesy 50 1.4. What are you talking about. The 50 1.4 is one of the finest 50mm lenses made. It doesn't get any sharper than the 50 1.4, if it isn't sharp enough for you i don't know what is. The 50 1.4 resolves higher than any 13 or 17 megapixel camera sensor can. Yes, the 50 1.2 is way overpriced. It should cost arond $900. I hear it doesn't even focus as fast as the 50 1.4. So the only benefit is the "L" designation. It reminds me of the overpriced 85 1.2 II. Yes, I had one, but returned it when my 85mm 1.8 was equally as sharp for all practical purposes and far more consistant focussing. My common sense would not allow me to keep it. If the 50 1.2 is sharper than the 50 1.4 it will be soo slight that you would need to blow up an image 600% in photo shop to see the difference. The only person who care about the 50mm 1.2 is another photographer. I say......................lets just go out and shoot! Forget wasing our money on gear that will not help your photography and more than what you already have in your camera bag. If i need 1.2 I will just up my ISO with my trusty 50 1.4 and call it a day!...Show more →
" The 50 1.4 is one of the finest 50mm lenses made." ! Why then do people put 50mm Ziess and Leica glass on their FF Canons? It's no where near "one of the finest 50mm lenses made."
It's not sharp wide open, it is cheaply built and a dog to focus in low light just where you would use it and noisy to boot.
handheld wrote:
I trusted you to know better. Internet education is probably better than no education. However, I'd say first hand experience is best.
i suspect u just dismiss that internet resource cuz it doesn't agree with your conclusions. but really, its a very useful tool: pick any two lenses, any apertures for them, and compare the exact same image (by rolling over the image). very useful.
At the end of the day, we must all buy what works best for us. I however feel the need for fast apertures lenses is sometimes overly stated. Yes, i shoot at 2.8 often. But the need for 1.2 or 2.0 is only used rarely in the real world and is often not worth the added price. This is coming from someone whom has a good amount of fast lenses in his arsenal. And have worked professionally for over 15years. I am not a Jonny come lately photographer trying to make a fast buck on the weekends.
bad_doggie wrote:
i suspect u just dismiss that internet resource cuz it doesn't agree with your conclusions. but really, its a very useful tool: pick any two lenses, any apertures for them, and compare the exact same image (by rolling over the image). very useful.
Well yes, it's a neat tool, perhaps for someone who is researching a new lens to buy.
handheld wrote:
Well yes, it's a neat tool, perhaps for someone who is researching a new lens to buy.
It's quite useful for that purpose, although it's usefulness is related to how one selects lenses which are to be compared.
For example, when a buyer is looking for a mid-range "normal" 35 mm format lens, they don't generally compare a 24 mm lens to a 50. Rather, they would likely compare one 50 mm lens to another, or perhaps to a 35 mm or 85 mm lens. And if they, by chance, compared the 50/1.4 to the 50/1.8, 50/2.5 Macro, 35/1.4, 85/1.8, or 85/1.2, they might find that wide open, the 50/1.4 is lacking in terms of contrast and sharpness.
Hopefully, they'd also look at numerous other tests and comparisons around the internet so that they could get an idea of each lenses' other characteristics such as color saturation, bokeh, distortion, flare, and such to get a good idea of the lenses' overall capabilities.
Finally, they'd take in all that information and consider it in terms of their photographic needs and budget before making a purchasing decision.
When the 50/1.2L gets around a bit, and a fair amount of testing has been done, I will be the one gathering information on its performance.
10DFT wrote:
For example, when a buyer is looking for a mid-range "normal" 35 mm format lens, they don't generally compare a 24 mm lens to a 50. Rather, they would likely compare one 50 mm lens to another, or perhaps to a 35 mm or 85 mm lens. And if they, by chance, compared the 50/1.4 to the 50/1.8, 50/2.5 Macro, 35/1.4, 85/1.8, or 85/1.2, they might find that wide open, the 50/1.4 is lacking in terms of contrast and sharpness.
and comparing the primes to the zooms. in my case, e.g. how useful is the 24L to me, if i already have a 17-55? but like you said, there are other parameters other than just sharpness and contrast. (although those images do give a good idea bout those, and CA, and center/edge performance.)
and even comparing a 50 to an 85 can be useful. not like comparison shopping, sure, but to compare something unknown to something u do know ... they do give me a good idea why i always go to the 135 or 60 first, then the 17-55, and why the 50 is rarely used.
johnastovall wrote:
" The 50 1.4 is one of the finest 50mm lenses made." ! Why then do people put 50mm Ziess and Leica glass on their FF Canons? It's no where near "one of the finest 50mm lenses made."
It's not sharp wide open, it is cheaply built and a dog to focus in low light just where you would use it and noisy to boot.
Are you shure you've had one or even tried one? It is not soft wide open. I actually think it's quite sharp at f/1.4.. It is however somewhat difficult for get sharp results at f/1.4 because of the insanely thin DOF and somewhat inaccurate focusing. I actually think that the hit-n-miss focusing is the 50/1.4 biggest fault and would be the only thing driving towards getting a 50L someday. But it is resonably sharp at f/1.4.
After reading you comment I decided to take a test shot to see if it was as soft as you say. My daugther at f/1.4.
The 100% crop is straight from the RAW converter with no sharpening applied. Looks pretty sharp to me. This is of course not an extreme corner from a FF sensor but I think I'd not be shooting much at f/1.4 that would need perfect corners.
Maybe not the finest 50mm ever produced but still a resonably good lens (at least in my opinion).
Hrannar
Edited by hauxon on Sep 04, 2006 at 09:16 PM GMT (Reason: typo)
10DFT wrote:
When the 50/1.2L gets around a bit, and a fair amount of testing has been done, I will be the one gathering information on its performance.
Hmm...so you seem unwilling to be part of the avantgarde.
What if Fstop and I were to guarantee you that the lens will be good (99% confidence level) ?
hauxon wrote:
Are you shure you've had one or even tried one? It is not soft wide open. I actually think it's quite sharp at f/1.4.. It is however somewhat difficult for get sharp results at f/1.4 because of the insanely thin DOF and somewhat inaccurate focusing. I actually think that the hit-n-miss focusing is the 50/1.4 biggest fault and would be the only thing driving towards getting a 50L someday. But it is resonably sharp at f/1.4.
After reading you comment I decided to take a test shot to see if it was as soft as you say. My daugther at f/1.4.
The 100% crop is straight from the RAW converter with no sharpening applied. Looks pretty sharp to me. This is of course not an extreme corner from a FF sensor but I think I'd not be shooting much at f/1.4 that would need perfect corners.
Maybe not the finest 50mm ever produced but still a resonably good lens (at least in my opinion).
Hrannar
Edited by hauxon on Sep 04, 2006 at 09:16 PM GMT (Reason: typo)...Show more →
I know this topic is about the new 50L but we all seem to be comparing it to the 50 f1.4
Nice shot Hrannar.
I agree. I posted a test shot earlier under this thread with my 50 f1.4 and it's sharp wide open too.
Some people remind us they have the money to throw at 50 f1.0L lenses while knocking what they couldn't accomplish with less.
Maybe they'll be able to focus a more expensive lens better
I'll probably pick up the new 50L, but can't really complain what this $300
50 f1.4 can do :0)
