handheld wrote:
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) ?
I'm not inclined to live that close to the cutting edge. I will stand back a couple of steps and let others lead.
If y'all guarantee the lens to be good, I'll take that as two valuable, positive reviews.
10DFT wrote:
I'm not inclined to live that close to the cutting edge. I will stand back a couple of steps and let others lead.
If y'all guarantee the lens to be good, I'll take that as two valuable, positive reviews.
I have the same good feeling about the 50 f/1.2 as I had about the 17-55.
Besides, it will be several more months before a statistically meaningfull lens asessment starts to emerge from the built-like-a-tank-dreamy-creamy- bokeh haze.
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 →
Sorry for going a lil off topic, Hrannar how do you achieve a focus like that with the 1.4!!! That's some of the sharpest i've seen of a human eye unsharpened (at such distance). Achieving it at 1.4 is utter insanity!!! If this is deemed totally off topic, can someone open a new thread to continue this focus/sharpness discussion? Thanks!
I am actually slightly interested in this lens. However, more for a far distant purchase... or a Christmas gift. (If my wife is History surfing, please note.)
I loved the ability to shoot at f/1.2 with a 50mm on my 5D (Zuiko 50/1.2... now sold) and often wished it was packaged in a usm/L body of bright mf glass. However, moving to FF, I've actually favored more of a 35-85-135 or 200mm setup.
If I stick with a 1.3x 1Dwhatever mark, I'll pick one up for those rainy, humid day shoots. Many a day in sunny, humid FL. Heck, if the 400D proves to pack a light weight punch, this lens might really shine with such a small package. (Note to my wife, if you're reading, the 400D is the same as a Digital Rebel Xti. No, I don't have that one either, but you may really like the size of that one. )
fotografur wrote:
I'll probably pick up the new 50L, but can't really complain what this $300
50 f1.4 can do :0)
Exactly the same boat I'm in. I will most probably pick up the 50L eventually, but I have never had any complaints about my 50mm f/1.4. I am always surprised at how many people really dislike this lens!
IraGraham wrote:
Not according to : the-digital-picture.com , luminous-landscape.com or Popular Photography magazine reviews. I am not sure what kind of a copy that you have, but I would return it immediatly.
I think I'll trust my own judgement better than some magazine reviews, obviously my standards are higher.
I sold it months ago when I heard the L version was coming. If you can live the flaws more power to you - I (and more importantly my clients) cannot. YMMV.
This is the part that baffles me...when the 55 1.2L AL in FD came out it was 1400$!!! Back when you could buy a really nice car for that price! The later new-FD mount 50 was (if I remember right about 3000$ in the early 80's.
(FYI the really rare 28 2.8 AL in FD mount goes for 800$+ these days...try that with an EF lens...appreciation? ALL (read this word) EF lenses have an expiration date on them, like in Logan's Run, because they all have electronics in them, and, someday the 200 1.8 will be on EBay for 50$ because you can take it apart and make a telescope out of it. It'll be junk, for real.)
Years later (1985), I traded a pretty nice Camaro for that 55 1.2 AL for use with my old-F1 to shoot bands. From those charts I know that the old-FD lens kicks this lens's butt...but, like one guy said, its a "Halo" lens.
John DeLorean made his name at Pontiac. He spec'd the GTO, and made all the dealers buy at least one...many people came in looking at it and magically drove out with a station wagon.
This is the GTO type of lens...this has all been hashed out, in the whole Leica/CZ crazy last year, and guys like Guy Mancuso dumped a lot of Canon gear and are on Leica digital backs for that ULTRA nice look.
Another point: Why doesn't Leica have 1.0 lenses in their SLR line? Because they can't figure out a way to make them up to their standards! Its an intrinsically difficult problem. I guarantee you can find a pile of vogtlander lenses in leica mount that will kick this lens's butt...but so what? Horses for courses.
People down-talk the 28-300L I just got, and, man, that lens is getting the job done for me!
The fact that the new lens will have a molded element (with random abberations in it due to pressing glass while cooling) tells me all I need to know about this lens. I am seriously considering the Pentax K100 just for the smc P-FA 50mm F1.4 and their built-in VR. Some guys I know have tested it and its a no kidding solution! Their high-ISO performance isn't up to Canon
Pressed glass is for Fenton, not Canon. In this day-and-age of automated processes, its disappointing.
G.
p.s. I can stand to only use the 50 1.4 in the dark-abyssal-type environments I shoot bands in, and, if I could, I'd toss it...its embarassing (and I have an OK one!) compared to the Sigma 20 1.8!!! In these dark rooms with non-pro type lighting, the fringing, the colorcasting, all that is ok, just not the bogus AF...that's what the ST-E2 is for, but, it freaks out some people!
p.p.s. Metal FD lenses do better when a punk rocker (1982 vintage) spits on you and your lens and you box his mouth with the F1+55mm.
Edited by losloslos on Sep 05, 2006 at 02:03 AM GMT
I sold it months ago when I heard the L version was coming. If you can live the flaws more power to you - I (and more importantly my clients) cannot. YMMV.
I am amazed at how the second something new comes out, what was previously the "standard" becomes instant rubbish. In all the ratings I have seen, including this forum, the 50 1.4 is considered an excellent lens. Now that we have another option, those same people who rated the lens excellent now hate the lens. Give me a break. No "client" looking at images side by side from the 50 1.2 and 50 1.4 could tell a difference between 30x40 inch prints from both of these lenses. The new 50 1.2 will be mostly needed by photographers that like to have the newest gear and bragging rights. Not necessarily anything that will be noticable to clients. Are these clients the same "clients" I saw in Sam's Club yesterday and Wallmart last week, copying copyrighted portraits!
Thats how much they care about the highest quality image!
Edited by IraGraham on Sep 05, 2006 at 07:23 AM GMT
IraGraham wrote:
I am amazed at how the second something new comes out, what was previously the "standard" becomes instant rubbish. In all the ratings I have seen, including this forum, the 50 1.4 is considered an excellent lens. Now that we have another option, those same people who rated the lens excellent now hate the lens. Give me a break. No "client" looking at images side by side from the 50 1.2 and 50 1.4 could tell a difference between 30x40 inch prints from both of these lenses. The new 50 1.2 will be mostly needed by photographers that like to have the newest gear and bragging rights. Not necessarily anything that will be noticable to clients. Are these clients the same clients I saw in Sam's Club yesterday copying copyrighted portraits!
Thats how much they care about the highest quality image! ...Show more →
1) I never rated the lens excellent, I've always thought it was poor. I had this view way before the new 50 was announced.
2) Who is Sam and how is that relevant to me?
3) I'll repeat: maybe not your clients, but MY clients complained about the obvious barrell distortion on a product shoot a few years back.
4) I obviously don't know how the new 50 L will fare, but the f/1.4 is not up to MY par. If the new one doesn't perform it will get the boot too.
5) The 1.4's focus is too hit and miss. I need more reliability.
6) It may be bragging rights for most, but some of us get paid for this gig - it's called competitive advantage.
cwphoto wrote:
1) I never rated the lens excellent, I've always thought it was poor. I had this view way before the new 50 was announced.
2) Who is Sam and how is that relevant to me?
3) I'll repeat: maybe not your clients, but MY clients complained about the obvious barrell distortion on a product shoot a few years back.
4) I obviously don't know how the new 50 L will fare, but the f/1.4 is not up to MY par. If the new one doesn't perform it will get the boot too.
5) The 1.4's focus is too hit and miss. I need more reliability.
6) It may be bragging rights for most, but some of us get paid for this gig - it's called competitive advantage....Show more →
1) A client copying a copyrighted photos is relavent to you if you are in business.
2)The photo business is more about marketing now that eveyone has a SLR. Have you noticed how everyone is a photographer now?
3) Believe me, the 1.2 is not going to give you a competative advantage. I client does not care or even know what you are talking about when you speak of the advantages. And by the way. The 50 1.4 does not have barrell distortion.
Edited by IraGraham on Sep 05, 2006 at 07:31 AM GMT
IraGraham wrote:
I am amazed at how the second something new comes out, what was previously the "standard" becomes instant rubbish. In all the ratings I have seen, including this forum, the 50 1.4 is considered an excellent lens. Now that we have another option, those same people who rated the lens excellent now hate the lens. Give me a break. No "client" looking at images side by side from the 50 1.2 and 50 1.4 could tell a difference between 30x40 inch prints from both of these lenses. The new 50 1.2 will be mostly needed by photographers that like to have the newest gear and bragging rights. Not necessarily anything that will be noticable to clients. Are these clients the same clients I saw in Sam's Club yesterday copying copyrighted portraits!
Thats how much they care about the highest quality image! ...Show more →
(1) Some of us have been dissatisfied with the 50 f/1.4 all along. For one, I got rid of mine well before the 50 f/1.2 was announced.
(2) It's kinda hard to compare images from the 50 f/1.2 and the 50 f/1.4 at this stage. However, I do hope that the new lens' IQ will be significantly better at large apertures. As far as the lens build and operability goes, I think any debate would be superfluous even at this early stage.
(3) Many of us amateurs do not even care if our clients could tell a difference in IQ.....because we ain't got any clients, no one to please with the new lens IQ but ourselves .
Thus if your partucular 50 f/1.4 copy does the trick for you and your customers, that's great, plus you've saved yoursef $1,600. Good enough reasons to be happy, I say.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Same here. I got rid of mine as soon as I compared it to the 50/1.8.....
Good for you, Yakim, enjoy the lens in good health.
(Incidentally, I'd like to snatch a 50 f/1.8 MkI when I come accross a good deal. The metal lens mount obviously makes no difference in IQ......it's strictly sentimental value, for old times' sake. )
IraGraham wrote:
2)The photo business is more about marketing now that eveyone has a SLR. Have you noticed how everyone is a photographer now?
3) Believe me, the 1.2 is not going to give you a competative advantage. I client does not care or even know what you are talking about when you speak of the advantages. And by the way. The 50 1.4 does not have barrell distortion.
Edited by IraGraham on Sep 05, 2006 at 07:31 AM GMT
True, the 50mm f1.4 is good enough for me. I primarily work in the advertising industry, yes, the highest paid type of photography, and most of the work is not about the gear but about the Production and Vision of the Images. Most of my equipment costs go into lighting gear, profotos aint cheap but are good. They make me money since I sometimes rent it out to visiting photographers. Its the standard in the industry, yes my alien bees work but I havent made one penny renting them out since nobody wants to rent them, the profotos however have made me thousands of dollars in rent. Most so called photographers dont have a clue about lighting or about setting up and managing a large production.
Basically the 50mm f1.2 is overpriced, way over. Im keeping my 1.4 and buying another profoto head!
Sneakyracer wrote:
True, the 50mm f1.4 is good enough for me. I primarily work in the advertising industry, yes, the highest paid type of photography, and most of the work is not about the gear but about the Production and Vision of the Images. Most of my equipment costs go into lighting gear, profotos aint cheap but are good. They make me money since I sometimes rent it out to visiting photographers. Its the standard in the industry, yes my alien bees work but I havent made one penny renting them out since nobody wants to rent them, the profotos however have made me thousands of dollars in rent. Most so called photographers dont have a clue about lighting or about setting up and managing a large production.
Basically the 50mm f1.2 is overpriced, way over. Im keeping my 1.4 and buying another profoto head!...Show more →
?
