It's not like their forcing you into buying a 50L, they'll still have the other 50's.
So instead of everybody buying 50 1.8's and 1.4's, they'll sell some 1.2's as well. The people who don't want to spend that much, won't; the people who do, will. Either way they'll make a sale and the buyer gets what they want. Win-win.
Gino02GT wrote:
It's not like their forcing you into buying a 50L, they'll still have the other 50's.
So instead of everybody buying 50 1.8's and 1.4's, they'll sell some 1.2's as well. The people who don't want to spend that much, won't; the people who do, will. Either way they'll make a sale and the buyer gets what they want. Win-win.
Right. And Forum like this would be really boring.
This is a Gear forum. Every single dime has to be justified. If one doen't like it, don't come on board.
Pondria wrote:
Right. And Forum like this would be really boring.
This is a Gear forum. Every single dime has to be justified. If one doen't like it, don't come on board.
I agree 100%
And the people who critique a lens don't like to spend a lot of money on expensive gear
That's the silliest thing I ever heard.
So People who like to spend a lot of money on expensive lenses overspend and then try to justify the reason they spent so much?
I don't buy that.
Like Pondria said "This is a Gear forum. Every single dime has to be justified."
Do you know what it would cost to design and make an f1.2 lens? Do you know what Leica or Zeiss or even Nikon would sell an f1.2 lens for? When you put these things into perspective you will realize that Canon's pricing of these lenses is NOT outrageous.
They KNOW that these lenses will not sell like hot cakes, and they have priced it to be sure that they don't lose money on it - and they won't. The 85L is doing just fine, I believe, and so will the 50L. Meaning Canon will be happy, and those who must have an ultra-fast lens will be happy. So I still say it's a win-win.
Sprout Crumble wrote:
By what stretch of the imagination is that a win situation for anybody?
Canon lose a sale and the photographer doesn't get the kit he either wants or can afford.
The pricing and availability of lenses, for example, is a balancing act. There has to be a demand for it, as with both the new lenses, and they have to be available at a price the majority of the target market can afford, definitely NOT with the new lenses.
I'd have thought that getting kit into the largest amount of users hands while turning a decent profit would be Canons overwhelming priority. Given recent pricing, its obvious a low sales, high profit approach has been taken. Shame and very short-sighted. ...Show more →
bobbytan wrote:
Do you know what it would cost to design and make an f1.2 lens? Do you know what Leica or Zeiss or even Nikon would sell an f1.2 lens for? When you put these things into perspective you will realize that Canon's pricing of these lenses is NOT outrageous.
They KNOW that these lenses will not sell like hot cakes, and they have priced it to be sure that they don't lose money on it - and they won't. The 85L is doing just fine, I believe, and so will the 50L. Meaning Canon will be happy, and those who must have an ultra-fast lens will be happy. So I still say it's a win-win. ...Show more →
I'm sorry, but what exactly is it about a 50/1.2 that makes it expensive to design and build compared to, say, the 70-200/2.8IS ? Leica or Zeiss are not comparable, they're ultra-low volume products and Nikons last 50/1.2 sold for around $650.
I can't believe that, even if its worth it on a personal level to a particular photographer, that in strict comparitive terms you believe the price of this lens isn't outrageous. Its a 50mm lens FFS. A simple, unambitious optical design with highish potential sales. Nothing more. It sells for the price of over 20 50/1.8s or 5 50/1.4s.
I've said it before, but I remain completely gobsmacked that given the lens design, the historical prices of this focal length and in comparison to other lenses in Canons own range that $1600 for this lens can be considered anything other than blatant profiteering.
By the way, the 85L II price was an even more blatant rip-off so using that as a comparitive example doesn't really cut it and you have again equated happiness with people who must have a fast lens and again, totally ignored the fact that the pricing has reduced the people who 'must have a fast lens' and can afford it from loads to a tiny minority.
I also totally agree with what others have said here. Being able to afford this lens doesn't make it right. Lenses should be worth the price asked to the widest range of people. This lens doesn't fulfill that criteria by a long way. Its a terrific $900 lens and a good $1000 one (assuming its actually any good). At $1600 its an irrelevance to all but a tiny minority.
and do a save picture of the mtf charts of the 50 1.2L and the 50 1.4, and put them side by side and compare, the mtf actually appears to be better for the 1.4. So it appears that that you are paying $1100.00 USD for 1 F stop. Maybe the AF is a little faster I can't say, but what a price difference. I know that my 1.4 does a great job. For a price of maybe $500.00 or $600.00 I could be tempted for the low light ability, but honestly just shooting the 5D at 3200 and a little Neat Image would do the same job.
I got another low light AF-improvement idea that's pretty cheap... how about mounting an ST-E2 and using it for its AF assist light? It's still cheaper and it'll help a 50 1.4's focus accuracy.
and do a save picture of the mtf charts of the 50 1.2L and the 50 1.4, and put them side by side and compare, the mtf actually appears to be better for the 1.4. So it appears that that you are paying $1100.00 USD for 1 F stop. Maybe the AF is a little faster I can't say, but what a price difference. I know that my 1.4 does a great job. For a price of maybe $500.00 or $600.00 I could be tempted for the low light ability, but honestly just shooting the 5D at 3200 and a little Neat Image would do the same job....Show more →
I could understand the whining about price if Canon were planning on dropping the 50/1.4 from the lineup, but they're not. They now have 4 50-mm prime lenses on the market at 4 different price points. That should provide ample choice for any budget.
10DFT wrote:
Economics 101, fall semester. Sign up now!
I could understand the whining about price if Canon were planning on dropping the 50/1.4 from the lineup, but they're not. They now have 4 50-mm prime lenses on the market at 4 different price points. That should provide ample choice for any budget.
Sprout Crumble wrote:
I'd have thought that getting kit into the largest amount of users hands while turning a decent profit would be Canons overwhelming priority. Given recent pricing, its obvious a low sales, high profit approach has been taken. Shame and very short-sighted.
Well you're wrong. They've done their research, this is a pro lens for professionals or discerning amateurs. If you want/need the lens, this is the price of admission. End of story.
I would have payed at least 50% more for this lens without hesitation. At USD1600 it represents great value for what it can deliver and will have paid for itself with just one job.
SoundHound wrote:
F1.2 It is not 1 stop faster than f 1.4-it is 1/2 stop faster.
Actually it is almost certainly only 1/3 stop faster - at least that is how my 85 f/1.2L behaves (when comparing f & time values in Av mode, using a constant image), and even then the pictures shot wide open are darker than the other ones with comparable f (1.4 ... 2.8) & time value combinations. So my 85 f/1.2L II is best described as a 1.3 lens.
But the perceived value of both of these lenses is not in the f stop difference - to generalize a bit, it is in the fact that they are L lenses. Everyone votes with their own money (or lack of it) whether he really WANTS those lenses. I am not participating in the argument of who absolutely NEEDS them.
Of all the comments on this lens (which I've begged Canon to make for at least the past two years), the one piece of information that has me concerned is Canon's published MTF chart. I don't expect an f/1.2 wide open to match a 1.4, but with all the hype about "superb" performance, I'd expect it to look a lot closer than it does. I'd also hope for f/8 to exhibit closer matching of saggital and meridional readings. That should affect bokeh, in theory. Canon's charts are apparently based on theory anyway, and if the new L in actual use gives suitable image results along with good AF and typical L build, I'll grab one and never look back at all the critiques.
So when are those privileged journalists going to start publishing test results from early production samples?!
Sprout Crumble wrote:
I'm sorry, but what exactly is it about a 50/1.2 that makes it expensive to design and build compared to, say, the 70-200/2.8IS ?
Simply that they will only sell a small fraction of the number of 70-200mms built. That means fewer lenses to offset research and development, tooling etc.
Leica or Zeiss are not comparable, they're ultra-low volume products and Nikons last 50/1.2 sold for around $650.
Well I think that the 50L falls into exactly the same category as the Leica and Zeiss products - it will be fully hand assembled and checked, and may even be more expensive to build given its AF componentry and faster design. As for Nikon, their last f/1.2 was a manual focus lens released years ago I believe, hardly a fair comparison. When you compare pricing of other recent Nikon lenses I think you could comfortably assume its price would be similar.
I can't believe that, even if its worth it on a personal level to a particular photographer, that in strict comparitive terms you believe the price of this lens isn't outrageous. Its a 50mm lens FFS. A simple, unambitious optical design with highish potential sales. Nothing more. It sells for the price of over 20 50/1.8s or 5 50/1.4s.
I've said it before, but I remain completely gobsmacked that given the lens design, the historical prices of this focal length and in comparison to other lenses in Canons own range that $1600 for this lens can be considered anything other than blatant profiteering....Show more →
The historical prices for ultra-fast lenses of this focal length was actually considerably higher. When released in September 1989 the 50mm f/1.0L cost JPY 358,700, or approximately US$2,473 at the exchange rate of the day, in todays terms that comes to $3,895 using CPI over the same period.
By the way, the 85L II price was an even more blatant rip-off so using that as a comparitive example doesn't really cut it and you have again equated happiness with people who must have a fast lens and again, totally ignored the fact that the pricing has reduced the people who 'must have a fast lens' and can afford it from loads to a tiny minority.
The 85L II price increased because Canon had again spent money redeveloping the lens. Accordingly they had additional R&D costs to recoup. When first released in September 1989 the lens cost JPY 170,700, or US$1,177 ($1,842 in today's dollars). However at the current JPY exchange rate of 117 that equates to US$1,458 or current value $2,296. Personally I feel that this demonstrates that Canon's pricing has been consistent.
I also totally agree with what others have said here. Being able to afford this lens doesn't make it right. Lenses should be worth the price asked to the widest range of people. This lens doesn't fulfill that criteria by a long way. Its a terrific $900 lens and a good $1000 one (assuming its actually any good). At $1600 its an irrelevance to all but a tiny minority.
Actually, we should be thrilled that Canon still is prepared to show its commitment to professional photographers by investing R&D into such low volume designs. Profit is in lenses for the masses - if they break even on this lens after development costs I would be very surprised.
This thread really reflects the venting on a lot of the internet.
Too expensive, not good enough, a ripoff, haven't seen it, haven't seen what it can do, don't know the actual price, Want it but don't want to pay THAT.
It's a cutting edge lens even though the basic specs aren't different than that of the fastest lenses made in the 50's. It'll be low volume with careful assembly and testing with lots of R&D behind it. It'll be just the right lens for some people; let them buy one. If you feel that you don't get value for your money; pass.
I've bought a dinky little 50/1.4 ASPH for my Leica-M's that cost a lot more even though I already had an F/1, and I feel happy about doing so. I've bought a Canon EF 50/1.4 that I'm not happy with. I'm not sure I'll replace it as I don't use that focal length on an SLR nearly as often as 35 or 85, but the value in the Canon 50/1.4 wasn't there for me, whereas in the Leica it was.
I know one person who has tested the 50/1.2L, and based on his thoughts I'll probably pass, but his criteria are not exactly the same as mine.
The main thing is, wait and see. If you really need (or want) a lens of this spec, wait for the real price, read some tests, try it out, and then decide on value. Then it's yes or no, and away you go. That's all.
Henning wrote:
I know one person who has tested the 50/1.2L, and based on his thoughts I'll probably pass, but his criteria are not exactly the same as mine.
Antony wrote:
Simply that they will only sell a small fraction of the number of 70-200mms built. That means fewer lenses to offset research and development, tooling etc.
The reason this lens won't sell is because its appalling value. At a sensible price this would've been a decent volume lens. An online seller I use has real-time sales charts and the 50/1.8 has never been off the top slot. Its a popular focal length at a decent price. While its clear the 50/1.2 has to be more expensive, the price being asked is outside of any reasonable expectations. Canon appear to have deliberately made this a niche lens when it need not have been.
Well I think that the 50L falls into exactly the same category as the Leica and Zeiss products - it will be fully hand assembled and checked, and may even be more expensive to build given its AF componentry and faster design. As for Nikon, their last f/1.2 was a manual focus lens released years ago I believe, hardly a fair comparison. When you compare pricing of other recent Nikon lenses I think you could comfortably assume its price would be similar.
On the contrary, prices for the AF generation have not risen to any great degree in general and again, the 50L has exceeded the precedent set even by Canon in the past.
No, its not comparable to Leica/Zeiss in any sense. Its a mass produced item in comparison and there is nothing unusual about the design at all. I can't imagine a more bog-standard AF unit than the one in the 50L, probably virtually identical to the 24L, 35L, 85L etc
The historical prices for ultra-fast lenses of this focal length was actually considerably higher. When released in September 1989 the 50mm f/1.0L cost JPY 358,700, or approximately US$2,473 at the exchange rate of the day, in todays terms that comes to $3,895 using CPI over the same period.
Irrelevant. Firstly the 50/1.0L was a genuinely niche design and never meant to be other than a showcase item. Certainly wasn't bought for its performance.
Secondly, extrapolating prices over time never results in meaningful figures. There are simply too many other variables. Stick to today. Use the 135L as a comparison for example. A bigger and harder to manufacture optic with a heavier duty AF unit and potentially lower sales. Yet its half the 50L price. Can you explain that? I can't.
There's no way the 50L should be priced above the 24L or the 35L, both at least as hard to manufacture and both lower selling. Or the 24TSE. Ultra low volume, masses of components, complex design and an L lens. Yet its how much?
Honestly mate, try justifying the 50L price using other lenses in Canons own range. Its hard to.
The 85L II price increased because Canon had again spent money redeveloping the lens. Accordingly they had additional R&D costs to recoup.
A $500 increase to cover a lens coating change and a faster AF unit? Ridiculous and about the only lens in the range to make the 50L look a bargain. Seems to me Canon are trying to recoup the R&D costs on the first ten sales......
Actually, we should be thrilled that Canon still is prepared to show its commitment to professional photographers by investing R&D into such low volume designs. Profit is in lenses for the masses - if they break even on this lens after development costs I would be very surprised.
This lens will likely remain in the range for 10-15 years and if it wasn't going to be a decent earner, it wouldn't have been developed in the first place. Nor is it a low volume design. Its price tag has made it low-volume, not its focal length or engineering effort.
If Canon are showing its commitment to professional photographers, then why not give them what they continually ask for; decent wide primes, IS on the 400/5.6L, long telephoto zooms etc instead of lazy warm-overs of existing lenses?
We've had the 24-105L. Everything else has been either an EFS or a tweak of an existing design. Wheres this 'commitment'?
I mean, how many were clamouring for a slightly faster focusing 85L?
If one doen't like it, don't come on board.
.