Those stops are rounded. If you want to be exact he difference between f 1.0 and f 1.2 is one half a stop and from 1.4 to 1.8 is two thirds of a stop.
In the end it's hardly worth getting excited about for myself though because much under f 2.0 isn't useable in 95% of shots and takes away more than it gives.
But people have to feel like it's a big deal if their car goes 122 miles and hour versus 118 of the next guys piece of junk - so I guess it's to be expected that people get up in arms and think they can't be proper photographers if their lens is lacking a few mph, err, I mean f-stop fractions.
No focal length is boring or all focal lengths are boring and somebody needs a new hobby. It is one thing to need a range of focal lengths for a specific field such as bird photography. However, if one needs a certain focal length to get excited, regardless of subject matter, then it is a gimmick.
This, I would say, looks like an amazing lens. Shame about the price - I don't expect true pro glass to be cheap, but does it really NEED to be that expensive? Couldn't they just go for a little more VOLUME to bring home the bacon?
bad_doggie wrote:
to be honest, i think that much of the sigma quality control issues and AF issues that come up on these boards are just these perpetuated web memes that have much less foundation in fact than they sound. for example, i'm currently testing out a sigma 20/1.8. again, i don't see the problems everyone complains of. besides, canon doesn't have anything comparable, so it merely comes down to a question of whether its better than nothing.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to a brick wall, but I went through 3 copies of the 30 1.4 that all had the exact same problem. I sent the 3rd in for repair. They had it for 4 weeks before I got it back, because they had run out of the spare parts to fix the problem!!!! I took a survey here and over 40% had problems with that lens.
Just because you do/did not have problems does not mean others have the time or inclination to deal with problems. The 30 1.4 is a fine lens, but it is a reduced image circle lens, and the niche 50 1.2 is not. There is no comparison. Canon can price this high because they know the people who want lower end 50s or 35s can buy them, but the people who really want the high end need to pay the price. It's not an analogy, it's how things work.
If you keep on thinking only from your own limited perspective then you will never appreciate those that run businesses that cater to several different types of clients. Canon is a corporation that is trying to sell trillions of baubles to the masses while simultaneously elevating the high-end. By the way, they are a hugely successful company and criticizing them will take much more than your perspective because they have stats and millions of happy users on their side.
Canon is clearly not a monopoly, there are many other vendors for people to choose from. The fact that people choose Canon more than others (and their market share is actually increasing while more competition is entering) shows that people are willingly choosing Canon. And most people who are getting screwed or reamed or whatever hyperbolic term you want to use don't keep coming back for more.
If the imaging is in the Leica/Zeiss class of wonderful, it would be worth the price to me... but I fear that the real motivation was just the speed... and f1.2 isn't all that exciting for me and how I shoot... besides, I do have a Summicron to shoot on my Canons when IQ is of paramount importance... small, light, wonderful and only $300.
i was talking for me, moi, someone who has bought outrageously expensive lenses (85L mk2), expensive niche lenses (70-300 IS DO), overly expensive zoom lenses (17-55 f/2.8 IS) when they offer what i need. however, i'm also sufficiently frugal that i'll stick with what works when it works, and not just buy it cuz it has a red ring. hence sigma 30/1.4. probably sigma 20/1.8. very likely not 50/1.2.
and anyway, i know i'm in the minority. cuz i sure do hate those big white lenses.
Edited by bad_doggie on Aug 24, 2006 at 12:18 PM GMT
I think the primary purpose of this lens is low light photography and portraiture work It probably is optimized for wide open or large aperture settings where it will be worlds better than the other 50s.
I don't understand why people are complaining about it's corner performance wide open. Surely you're not going to spend $1600 for a normal prime to shoot a brick wall at F1.2 or landscape shots. It's not what this lens is designed for.
If people have actually used simular lenses (85L) and shoot the type of shots these lenses are intended for (extremely shallow DOF portraiture with smooth Bokeh and retain good color), then most of them will appreciate their existence. I think the price is steep but fair.
dingster wrote:
If people have actually used simular lenses (85L) and shoot the type of shots these lenses are intended for (extremely shallow DOF portraiture with smooth Bokeh and retain good color), then most of them will appreciate their existence. I think the price is steep but fair.
the 85L has many uses beyond portraiture. its just that indoor sports photography is not one of them. but to use it only at f/1.2 ... well, you're missing alot.
Talia wrote:
Please forgive me if this has been discussed previously ...
Do you expect the AF for this lens to be fast like 35L, or relatively slow like 85L?
I'd say in between, although not expecting miracles. I think the AF speed problem in principle to solve with these superfast front focusing lenses is in precision drive of heavy glass elements.
However, Canon might have departed from the 85L type AF drive design in which case any extrapolation from the old becomes 'shaky".
Edited by handheld on Aug 24, 2006 at 05:36 PM GMT
bad_doggie wrote:
the 85L has many uses beyond portraiture. its just that indoor sports photography is not one of them. but to use it only at f/1.2 ... well, you're missing alot.
I'm not saying it's only intended to be used that way but it is optimized for that purpose. You can shoot indoor studio with it stopped down or a variety of other type of shots. However it won't have that much of an advantage over the other lenses in that case.
Large aperture is where the other lenses are lacking and the 85L shines. IMHO most of those who pay the premium for it is looking for the performance gain in that area. I just think expecting a 50 or 85 to be tack sharp from corner to corner wide open is unrealistic and not practical.
Canon FD 50/1.2L
Marketed October 1980
Original Price 90,000 yen
Lens Construction (group) 6
Lens Construction (element) 8
No. of Diaphragm Blades 8
Minimum Aperture 16
Closest Focusing Distance (m) 0.5
Filter Diameter (mm) 52
Maximum Diameter x Length (mm) 65.3 x 50.5
Weight (g) 380
Canon FD 50/1.4
Marketed June 1979
Original Price 32,000 yen
Lens Construction (group) 6
Lens Construction (element) 7
No. of Diaphragm Blades 8
Minimum Aperture 22
Closest Focusing Distance (m) 0.45
Filter Diameter (mm) 52
Maximum Diameter x Length (mm) 63 x 41
Weight (g) 235
The 50/1.2L and the 50/1.4 price ratio 26 years ago was roughly 3:1.
As it is now the price ratio is about 5:1 - but for the extra premium you do get improved construction, weathersealing, FTM and (hopefully) better AF. So the price is steep, yes, but not insane as some suggest.
The only thing that puts me off about this lens is that Canon couldn't (wouldn't?) make it more compact... and the fact that I can't afford it
Dingster, I think that the results from that shot are not bad considering that fast glass is always at a disadvantage in design. But give it a bit of time and all the people that pony up the bucks to buy it will be telling everyone that it is tack sharp and that soft shot IS sharp and woderfull. So why not beat them to it and just look at the shot and call it "tack sharp" .... a bit ahead of time.
