Did I miss something? I haven't really found any posts of value in this thread except bickering.
Are there any actual image samples somewhere on the net? Are there any real facts other than the press release?
The only thing I believe at this point is that if this lens is any good (for the price) then the price of the 50mm 1.0 is going to plummet. Sell while you can guys....
Thanks for the posted images jpfy. Seems rather nice from these images but hard to judge unless seeing more of course.
foto-z wrote:
$1600? What was Canon thinking? (that's a rhetorical question) There are so many potentially more useful lenses Canon could have worked on.
A cynical exercise in marketing hype.
I agree with you in a way. But this thread has 2 times more posts than the 70-200/4 IS thread. Seems like the folks here think it might be useful (or at least interesting).
As I see it is very logical for Canon. The 50mm focal length is a popular one. While the 50/1.4 is a nice lens it's not up to the standars professionals (and serious amateurs) come to expect from Canon. Even if it does not kill the 50/1.4 performace wise it will only show how good the 50/1.4 is. I really hope this is what Canon is thinking because I want 'em to make a 20mm f/1.8 L next
jamesf99 wrote:
Are there any actual image samples somewhere on the net? Are there any real facts other than the press release?
Very few images yet. The first one I saw were by Michael Reichmann in www.luminous-landscape. It is not a review, but a short report of trial shooting only with a pre-production version. He says that it is a very nice lens that focuses almost as quickly as 50 f/1.4.
Koivulehto wrote:
Very few images yet. The first one I saw were by Michael Reichmann in www.luminous-landscape. It is not a review, but a short report of trial shooting only with a pre-production version. He says that it is a very nice lens that focuses almost as quickly as 50 f/1.4.
Thanks. I had read that before but forgot about it. I'd really like to see how this lens performs, but it's going to have to be exceptional for me to buy it. I shoot FF and own the 50 f/1.4 and 85L, so I tend to think there are other lenses I'd like to purchase first. If I could get a 100-400 f/4 for $1400 that would go in my bag right away.
The 50mm lens designs has been accomplished some decades ago. It is not hard or expensive to make a 50mm and newer computer designs seem to offer little in this focal length. So if the Canon 50L F1.2 compares to its 50 F1.4 as the Nikkors do/did:
The Nikkor F1.2 was more expensive and somewhat softer that the F1.4 which was better than the slower bargin 50s which were the "Kit Lenses" of their day. So you really didn't want to mount a Nikkor F1.2 unless you were going to use it at F1.2 because the 500 F1.4 was better at any other F stop.
So unless Canon goofed with the simple mature lens technology of their 50mm F1,4 we should expect just what the new MTF charts seem to show. That is, a well made lens with 1/2 Fstop of extra speed which does not quite equal the IQ of the F1.4-depressng!
foto-z wrote:
$1600? What was Canon thinking? (that's a rhetorical question) There are so many potentially more useful lenses Canon could have worked on.
A cynical exercise in marketing hype.
Hmmm, there might be other reasons. Historically, the best 50mm lens was a brands showcase lens - the sharpest, fastest, most perfect lens - for a lot of reasons, perhaps mostly to due with the concept of "normal" focus length perception and perhaps also due to the relative ease with which such a showcase lens can be built to 50mm.
Before this came along I had decided on an EF35mm f/1.4L as I missed having a 'fast fifty' (okay, 56 mm fov equivalent on my 30D). Now I must wait to see this 50 performs before getting the 35 altho the 50 works out to an 80mm fov for me which is ideal for dreamy portraits (trite?) and available light candids just like in my Leica/ 85mm f/1.5 Summarex days.
Liscia wrote:
Before this came along I had decided on an EF35mm f/1.4L as I missed having a 'fast fifty' (okay, 56 mm fov equivalent on my 30D). Now I must wait to see this 50 performs before getting the 35 altho the 50 works out to an 80mm fov for me which is ideal for dreamy portraits (trite?) and available light candids just like in my Leica/ 85mm f/1.5 Summarex days.
Just got a 35mm 1.4--it lives up to the hype, and is a sweet lens. Mine seems very sharp wide open and the colors and contrast are gorgeous. Plus the price seems to be dropping on these. I got mine for $900 shipped on ebay, and keh has one for $1100 or so.... I'm using it on a 5D so it's a wide, but would be a sweet 'normal' on a crop camera, way better quality than Sigma 30mm which I had.
Sprout Crumble wrote:
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.
Millsbury I'm sure the 35L will suit me just fine and I shall have one as
I don't expect the new 50 will be any better - probably worse. Just
holding out a little longer for test results as I have no pressing need for
either. 35L for sure, 50L maybe.
Nowhere Man wrote:
Wow, that is a ludicrous statement indeed!
NM
Call it what you will but it's the way it is. His attitude is typical of a hobbyist who wants the best gear but can't support it with a related income. So they bag the supplier for not pricing it so everyone can have one.
Bloody pathetic. No wonder there are bugger-all professionals at FM - having to put up with rants from narrow-minded hobbyists, I don't blame them.
I was at the EOS400D Philippine launch earlier tonight and somehow I managed to wrangle an EOS 400D off someones hand. It so happens that the lens attached to it was an EF 50mm F1.2L.
So I took off the guys 580EX flash from the camera, as well as his CF card and replaced it with mine. I then ran off to the models ( him running after me, realizing I just took off with his baby :grin: )
I managed to fire some shots. All available light. 50mm F1.2 full open. ISO200 ( the ISO100 images were on that other guys CF now I realize. :sad: )
randyat wrote:
I was at the EOS400D Philippine launch earlier tonight and somehow I managed to wrangle an EOS 400D off someones hand. It so happens that the lens attached to it was an EF 50mm F1.2L. [...]
Any experience you may have noticed with respect to AF speed in that low light? You thought it was fast enough, or slowish, or whatever else?
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.
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...
This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read! Any owner of any L lens is quite able and free to comment or criticise their lens, this is the value of such a forum. There are numerous pro's on fm and personally speaking, their advice is invaluable and perhaps from time to time, they find our 'keen amateur/semi pro' experiences helpful too!
But back to the lens! As an owner of the 85/1.2 L II, yes it is an expensive piece of glass but it has allowed me to be so much more creative in my photography. If in the future I have a requirement for a 50/1.2 then I would buy it without a 2nd thought as long as the image/lens quality is up there with Canon's other top lenses!
>> The AF was fast. Well it was worlds faster than the 50mm 1.8 and a lot faster than the 50 1.4
That's contrary to other people's statements and a refreshing one to boot. Now, if only someone will be kind enough to toss one in my direction so I can give you all some serious info...... :-)
The IQ of model in blue looks a lot better than the brown toned images of the performer. An interesting report-real data on this new lens which is hard to find among the speculation and not so on the point comments.
