Sprout Crumble wrote:
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.
You aren't a pro are you Mick? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but with all due respect you have no place dising pro glass when you ain't a pro...
Sprout Crumble wrote:
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.
Canon is a private company not social help organization. You have now four 50mm lenses to choose from $75 to $1600 plus TS-E 45/2.8 to back them up. In fact I love to use a camera model that can be served with such a variation for my favorite focal lengths!
For a decent pro studio $1600 is a pocket money spent and earned before morning coffee.
cwphoto wrote:
You aren't a pro are you Mick? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but with all due respect you have no place dising pro glass when you ain't a pro...
Frankly, thats the most ludicrous comment I've ever read on these forums.
You need to make your living at photography to comment on the value of an L lens?!!! Since when are L lenses 'pro' lenses? They're simply optics built to a higher physical standard, using more expensive lens elements. In what way is an 85L more 'pro' than an 85/1.8? In what way is a 300/4L or a 24-105L 'pro' at all? In what way isn't a 17-55/2.8 not an L. Lets face it, its optically a better lens than the 24-70L.
You need a reality check mate. The old pro/amateur boundaries have blurred to non-existence and lenses simply aren't viable if they're focused on a tiny group of people. There's bugger all particularly 'pro' about a 50L FFS and as a consumer and keen amateur that buys the damn things with my own money, I have AT LEAST as much right to 'dis' an L as anybody else. Oh, and for the sake of the record, a red ring ain't a guarantee of quality. If current trends continue it'll never again be a guarantee of value.
hmm. I would consider selling my 50mm1.0 to acquire the 50mm1.2 and have some spare change. I like the smaller size of the lens. My 50mm1.0 has performed great and the shots I get with it are terrific but the size and full time focusing are appealing.
cwphoto wrote:
You aren't a pro are you Mick? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but with all due respect you have no place dising pro glass when you ain't a pro...
cwphoto wrote:
You aren't a pro are you Mick? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but with all due respect you have no place dising pro glass when you ain't a pro...
cheeze, L stands for "Luxury" - what do pro's need luxury items for? I think they should be prohibited from owning L glass ;-) !!
I’m late for the party in this thread (been busy). However, it’s nice to see Canon producing a new fast prime that so many people have been wanting. MTF charts don’t tell me what I want to know: 1)Is the 1.2L sharper with better edge performance at f/1.4 and f/2 than the f/1.4 consumer lens; and 2) Is autofocus speed and accuracy on an EOS-1 series body substantially better ?
I’ll bet the 1.2L has the performance edge that many of us have been hoping for and can’t wait to get my hands on a copy.
Of course I’d be ecstatic if Canon were giving the lens away. However, they spent a lot on research and development and production preparation for this lens. Price seems pretty reasonable compared to the 85mm f/1.2L.
hauxon wrote:
90 pages of whining about the price. Any more images or hand on experiences?
Yes, and I am really interested in a comparison with the f/1.4:
hauxon wrote:
90 pages of whining about the price. Any more images or hand on experiences?
Normally I dont contribute to threads like this, but after reading about 15 pages, my patience ran out.
Hauxon's words above were stolen from my mouth!!! We need some images from this lens and experience with focussing speed and accuracy. Let us hold our judgments till we at least have these.
I do think, it is a good thing that we have one more choice. I am a firm believer in the market. IF the market doesn't support the price, it will fall or the lens will be pulled...
I handled one today at the shoreham airshow in the UK along with the new 70-200 f4 is. Was well built, fast autofocusing (although it was a bright day). I will include a couple of the snaps (I mean that, they were just snaps) I took sneeking my CF card into the 5D demo body.
It was a good size, had a nice feel to the focus ring (not focus by wire but like conventional USM) gave an incredibly bright viewfinder.
Ther is one image at f1.2 and another at f5 you can see them here I am sorry there are not more my CF card was already nearly maxed out.
I noticed that CA too on reexamination. I am not sure if its a production copy but I think it would of been. The canon rep seemed very helpfull and they are having an full open day at the shop on Mon (park cameras, burgess hill, uk). As I said I only managed to take a quick couple of shots (just those too) befor my card was full. It was an air show and I have just sorted though 800 images.
The autofocus was almost instant. Build quality good. I just wish I had more images to show you.
BTW I was very impressed with the 70-200 f4 is. Lovely lens with virtually no change in size from the non is.
I am certainly going to look at this lens when it comes out.
However if it does not offer improved performance (resolution) over the 1.4, I don't need the weather-sealing/build quality/faster focussing, badly enough to warrant the cost
I would find all those as icing on the cake if the IQ had something to offer - and that's a wait and see
I remember that I was disappointed when I got the 50mm FD 1.4 that it was LESS sharp than the 50mmFD1/.8
I also remember being dissapointed that the 35mm 1.4L wasn't sharper than the 17-40 zoom @ 35mm ( it does have other advantages)
It could be though that it just has a 'quality' to its images that warerant the cost despite not showing a higher resolving power - would be a shame though
Well said, Hrannar! 