fotografur wrote:
Only about 35% more then it should be. Should be around the price of the 24L & 35L.
The 50mm is the easiest lenses to design.
Example The 24-105L is a zoom. Which is harder to design.
With more glass.
And IS.
But of course what's the difference what it costs. Canon knows those who want it will buy it
d~
Right you are, in principle, it makes no difference.
Imagine you make a happy discovery of a good condition EF 50 f/1.0 in some hick town pawn shop, and you manage to buy it for $800. After using the lens for a while you decide to sell it because it does not suit your shooting style. Would you be asking $800 or perhaps $1000 for it so as to merely recoup your costs ?
Somehow I doubt that. I'think we'd probably see the lens listed on an eBay auction having the buy-it-now price of $4,299.00. And you know that the lens would sell faster than you can say "click".
Shane Canfield wrote:
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.
hmm. your story and your signature seem to conspire to work against your premise: you have $1k and $1.7k lenses that live on your camera. meanwhile your $2.1k 85L and $4k 200/1.8 (in your signature) get that much less use. unless you have 4 cameras and 2 necks. or maybe one neck the width of a small elm.
someone else:
The 50mm is the easiest lenses to design.
yeah but prices don't reflect cost to design but cost to construct (and then, on top of that, whatever the market will pay). molded aspherical lens. isn't that the first in an L?
handheld wrote:
Somehow I doubt that. I'think we'd probably see the lens listed on an eBay auction having the buy-it-now price of $4,299.00. And you know that the lens would sell faster than you can say "click".
yeah but the 50/1.0 is a special case: that's a market continually in search of the greater fool. like there are two on ebay right now:
both of which the sellers call minty; one that the seller values around $5500 and the other at $2500.
neither has any bids.
maybe the 50/1.0 market will turn out to be like the florida real estate market: pop!
and what someone above said about lenses holding their value or increasing in value. i don't think there's any evidence for that position. old precision optics, like good old manual focus lenses, are one thing. but electronics depreciates fast: how much is that dvd player you bought 2 years ago worth now? that ipod from 2003? your 2002 computer?
marry precision optics with depreciating electronics and what do you get? i think you can even argue that the difference between, say, the 85L mk1 and the 85L mk2 in price doesn't even reflect inflation and the decline of the US$ ...
bad_doggie wrote:
hmm. your story and your signature seem to conspire to work against your premise: you have $1k and $1.7k lenses that live on your camera. meanwhile your $2.1k 85L and $4k 200/1.8 (in your signature) get that much less use. unless you have 4 cameras and 2 necks. or maybe one neck the width of a small elm.
yeah but prices don't reflect cost to design but cost to construct (and then, on top of that, whatever the market will pay). molded aspherical lens. isn't that the first in an L?
...my particular usage does not affect the premise any more than how much I drive (and what gas milage what I get) affects what service stations charge for gas....unless the entire market behaves as I do, then, it changes pricing entirely regardless. But you do seem to understand retail pricing, which is a breath of fresh air in this discussion.
bad_doggie wrote:
yeah but the 50/1.0 is a special case: that's a market continually in search of the greater fool. like there are two on ebay right now:
both of which the sellers call minty; one that the seller values around $5500 and the other at $2500.
neither has any bids.
Oh they'll sell.....if the price is high enough someone will buy it.
The first seller writes:
"The 50 f/1.2.....is only a cheap imitation. Our tests indicate that this lens is not in the same quality league as the legendary f 1.0 we are offering hear (sic)".
There you go, now it has been tested and proven in NYC (naturally): the 50 f1.2 is a coprolite.
thebeginning wrote:
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....Show more →
The laundry list of ways that the 1.2 is (theoretically) better than the 1.4 is not at issue here. The issue is that they shouldn't even be used for comparison. The only similarities that these two lenses share are the labels "EF", "50mm", and "Canon" The price variance makes them incomparable.
I have no doubt the 1.2 will be a better lens. Just like my 16-35L is better than my 18-55 Kit Lens. They are apples and oranges.
Oh, by the way... I use my 50mm at 1.4 probably more than any other aperture setting. It's gotten me a lot of flashless, low-light shots that I'd never have gotten otherwise. Despite the introduction of it's rich cousin, the 1.4 should not be overlooked as a fabulous value lens.
johnastovall wrote:
I'll let you all know how the 50/1.2L stacks up against the 50/f/1.0. I have a 1.2 on pre-order with Amazon. Should have it in December.
johnastovall wrote:
I'll let you all know how the 50/1.2L stacks up against the 50/f/1.0. I have a 1.2 on pre-order with Amazon. Should have it in December.
Would like to know how it compares to the 1.0. December? Sheesh.
johnastovall wrote:
I'll let you all know how the 50/1.2L stacks up against the 50/f/1.0. I have a 1.2 on pre-order with Amazon. Should have it in December.
I suppose you are quite determined to do that sorta comparison. No way of trying to talk you out of it ?
I suppose you will fortify your soul accordingly which will allow you to face the results ....
Either way, even if the worst were to happen, you do know whom to turn to for comfort and solace, right ? Yup, the B&S Forum.
sskoutas wrote:
I have no doubt the 1.2 will be a better lens. Just like my 16-35L is better than my 18-55 Kit Lens. They are apples and oranges.
Why and based on what evidence? They're both non-IS wide-aperture 50mm lenses. Hardly apples and oranges. Its entirely possible the 1.4 will be just as good.
Too much credit is given for a better build and a red ring.
Sprout Crumble wrote:
Why and based on what evidence? They're both non-IS wide-aperture 50mm lenses. Hardly apples and oranges. Its entirely possible the 1.4 will be just as good.
Too much credit is given for a better build and a red ring.
Nah the new 50 L will be better in almost every measurable way - call it an educated guess or whatever you like
Do you want a wager on this? I'll even give you favourable odds...
Please take a moment to read the below review at the below link. It does mention the sensor resolution issue. There is another review that I am in the process of finding that goes more in depth about it.
This should be an interesting comparison. While the 80mm Planar outresolves any film put on the back of a blad, the 50 f/stop 1.4 does not outreslove the sensor in a 5 or 1 series body. Having said that it is a good little lens with better contrast and saturation than my 24-70 or either of the f 1.8s.
What is going to be interesting to me, is the comparison of the 1.4, not only in saturation, but blur, the blur of the 1.4 is just ok for me. So will the new lens be more like the comparison between the 85L and 85 f 18, much diff look and blur, or more like the 200Ls, the 2.8 and 1.8. The 2.8 will never be a 1.8 , but the overall look of the images past f 4 gets pretty darn close.
Oh they'll sell.....if the price is high enough someone will buy it.