randyat wrote:
The AF was fast. Well it was worlds faster than the 50mm 1.8 and a lot faster than the 50 1.4 (i have no idea how it compares to the 50 1.0 :P)
[...]
Thanks for the AF report. This confirms some expectations and infirms others. If I remember correctly, in this thread there is one rg report saying AF was slow, another report saying the AF was so-and-so, both compared to 50/1.4.
This thread contains very valuable data, but is so difficult to browse or search.
Alistair101 wrote:
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!
An insignificant sample when compared to the amount of pros whom aren't on FM. FM is overwhelmingly hobbyist, which is why you get fools upset about having to pay pro prices for pro-grade glass.
i understand this was purely a marketing statement- but on the Canon Japan page's announcement for this lens, didn't they say it had a new/superb focusing algorithm/unit/capabilities? like, the fastest focusing short prime yet?
All the other focus "tests" seem to be based on pre-pro models, maybe this was a production sample and it's got the bugs worked out?
randyat wrote:
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: )
Thanks for posting these! Live band shots show great promise of the lens at f/1.2
cwphoto wrote:
An insignificant sample when compared to the amount of pros whom aren't on FM. FM is overwhelmingly hobbyist, which is why you get fools upset about having to pay pro prices for pro-grade glass.
I have to agree that you are in the small minority of pros who bother to hang out at FM. I would have to also say that you are probably in the small minority of professional photographers who are also primodonnas. It is a shame that your rather correct observations are cloaked so deeply with arrogance that the message is lost.
To continue a bit from thoughts of Timbop: I am always sorry to see people losing their temper and good manners on these threads (like the incident concerning Jwil recently). I think I know how awkward it is for the "loser", since it has happened to me so many times in real life, with my loved ones.
Personally I recommend mild sedatives, and then you can even drink coffee
timbop wrote:
I have to agree that you are in the small minority of pros who bother to hang out at FM. I would have to also say that you are probably in the small minority of professional photographers who are also primodonnas. It is a shame that your rather correct observations are cloaked so deeply with arrogance that the message is lost.
I don't see it as arrogance as much as I see it as frustration and I seriously doubt he's the only pro that is feeling this frustration of late.
Brent Ward wrote:
I don't see it as arrogance as much as I see it as frustration and I seriously doubt he's the only pro that is feeling this frustration of late.
I guess it is frustrating for a pro when a late of amateurs complain that Canon's new lens prices have been $1200+ lately. But, he doesn't have to read the comments, and if he only wants to converse with pros he should chat elsewhere. It may have come from being annoyed, nonetheless I don't like being called a fool.
timbop wrote:
I guess it is frustrating for a pro when a late of amateurs complain that Canon's new lens prices have been $1200+ lately. But, he doesn't have to read the comments, and if he only wants to converse with pros he should chat elsewhere. It may have come from being annoyed, nonetheless I don't like being called a fool.
Nor does anyone else. There really is no need for name calling.
I was referring to the connotation frequently associated with Prima Donnas. That is, one who is assured of personal superiority. I don't know you, so I could only judge by the tone and content of your comments. I know you didn't name me, either, but I am among those amateurs who is "disappointed" in the pricing of new canon glass these days. Therefore, I am guilty by association.
To be honest, though, I agree with you that f/1.2 glass SHOULD be expensive, and so the 50 is not really ludicrous. The 70-200/4 IS and 17-55IS are another story, considering the 17-85 and 70-300. Perhaps the problem is that the 70-300 is such a great bargain, as are many of canon's older designs. For an amateur, I still have reasonable options to the pro glass: 35/2, 85/1.8, 400/5.6, etc. But, I am concerned about how much longer those options will be available. There is no doubt that some day soon each of those will be replaced, and probably with something twice as expensive. Since I don't get paid for for the photography I do, this is actually a problem for me.
OK, this is hilarious. I just switched over the the denver/new england game after responding with my last post and not 10 seconds after switching the channel John Madden said "well the wide receivers are the primadonnas of the football world". It's stupid, but I just had to share it.
User randyat sent me two full size samples of the images he posted earlier. If you want to inspect them for full-size crops to check for details and resolution, here's the link to my blog entry:
markku wrote:
User randyat sent me two full size samples of the images he posted earlier. If you want to inspect them for full-size crops to check for details and resolution, here's the link to my blog entry:
.........