IraGraham wrote:
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
A1) It's irrelevant to this discussion.
A2) Not really. It's not the size of the wand it's the magic of the magician. A decent SLR doesn't help you with composition. Marketing has and always will have a place in business, mind you a decent SLR doesn't help you with marketing either.
A3) Utter nonsense. By your logic neither will the 85 L offer an advantage over the f/1.8, or a 35 f/1.4 over the f/2. Discerning clients see it. Oh and by the way the 50mm f/1.4 has very pronounced barrell (at around 1m subject distance and less at least) - maybe you should look a little closer at your images?
Ira we don't need to get into a debate over this. I'm a pro and I demand MUCH more from my gear than a hobbyist. I appreciate that the lens is stellar for you - but it don't cut it for me. How hard is that to accept?
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 pushed the shutter button 3-4 times before shooting. It seems like I get significantly sharper results by focusing this way. Sadly it often means the moment is gone when I shoot.
I must ask... do you have AF lock mapped to your shutter release or not?
on my camera, i have it mapped to the * button. i can't say i've ever noticed your focusing trick in action, but i do habitually use my shutter to meter around a scene prior to exposing. perhaps it's just for people who have AF lock set for the shutter button as well...
hauxon wrote:
I pushed the shutter button 3-4 times before shooting. It seems like I get significantly sharper results by focusing this way. Sadly it often means the moment is gone when I shoot.
If one has a MF focusing screen and/or very sharp vision, repetitive actuation of a loose ("imprecise", to use a more proper term) AF drive should eventually yield a critical focus......the key is to recognize it as such and only then shoot. While the 50 f/1.4 does focus sloppily, I have seen similar behaviour even with ring USM lenses.
(Some day I hope to obtain a combined camera/lens AF control diagram so I would not have to guess any longer who is doing it to whom. )
I'm having a tough time understanding the logic here. The 1.2 is a $1600 lens folks. The 1.4 is a $315 lens. The 1.2 is more than 5 times as expensive.
My Ford F250 cost me $30,000. For $150,000, I could have elected to buy the Ford GT instead.
The GT has a 5.4 liter, and so does my truck. They are both Fords, and they are both available in the same dark blue that I ordered my truck in.
I live in Rhode Island. If I ever went zero to sixty in 4.5 seconds I'd be in Massachusetts. I don't have any roads that I can drive 180mph on, and the GT doesn't come in a 4WD model, so winters would be a real %#@&!. Furthermore, I challenge you to get even one bail of hay into the GT.
I guess my point is that, for less than 1/5th the cost, the F250mm 1.4 is a super value, a super performer, and a damn good lens. I'd bet most of the precious memories of my little baby girl have been taken with this lens, and the $1285 dollars I saved by not buying the 1.2 is a nice start to her college fund. Let's compare apples to apples here...
dinoadventures wrote:
would it mean less to you if it were taken with a polaroid?
Not at all, but it would be a lot harder to reproduce and distribute to the family and friends...and it probably wouldn't be around for my daughter to show her daughter some day in the future. This will.
sskoutas wrote:
I'm having a tough time understanding the logic here. The 1.2 is a $1600 lens folks. The 1.4 is a $315 lens. The 1.2 is more than 5 times as expensive.
My Ford F250 cost me $30,000. For $150,000, I could have elected to buy the Ford GT instead.
The GT has a 5.4 liter, and so does my truck. They are both Fords, and they are both available in the same dark blue that I ordered my truck in.
I live in Rhode Island. If I ever went zero to sixty in 4.5 seconds I'd be in Massachusetts. I don't have any roads that I can drive 180mph on, and the GT doesn't come in a 4WD model, so winters would be a real %#@&!. Furthermore, I challenge you to get even one bail of hay into the GT.
I guess my point is that, for less than 1/5th the cost, the F250mm 1.4 is a super value, a super performer, and a damn good lens. I'd bet most of the precious memories of my little baby girl have been taken with this lens, and the $1285 dollars I saved by not buying the 1.2 is a nice start to her college fund. Let's compare apples to apples here...
I'd have to agree that the price seems rediculous at first, but there are many advantages of the new lens...if it lives up to its hype that is. Let's say it's as good optically as the 85mm 1.2L, with the same AF as the 85 1.2L II or slightly faster. Here are the positives:
AF is more accurate (the 50 1.4 is notorious for having innacurate focus) and consistent
Better build quality (dust and water resistant)
Much sharper wide open (which is the whole point for lenses like this)
More impressive looking (i know this sounds really stupid, but clients actually think of you more highly if you have 'bigger' gear.).
shallower DoF (although that's not really a big issue, it's fairly close).
Most people don't use the 50mm 1.4 at 1.4 because it's so soft for larger prints, and because it has CA issues and such. the CA can be fixed to a degree, but the softness cannot. if the 50mm 1.2 is sharp at 1.2 and tack sharp at 1.4 or 1.8, it would have incredible importance to the wedding and portrait shooters.
Agreed, it's no where near the most expensive lens the lineup. B&H has 10 Canon lenses more expensive than this one, including the 85 1.2, the 14 2.8, and a bunch of lenses roughly the same price. And that's just current lenses, not older ones that seem to go up in value. And a normal lens is going to get a workout for most people that acutally buy one so if its on the camera a lot, its an even better deal. My 24-70 gets a workout and is worth every penny of its $1,150 and the 70-200 at $1,700 lives on my second camera at every sporting event, is often the primary lens used, and is constantly doing its job no matter what the weather, if it gets dropped (I dropped it from 5 feet and it bounced around on the concrete for a while...did not hurt it a bit, light rain without a cover, beach shooting...sandy environs), would not even consider selling either one.
)