Canon 1DsII, 85mm f/1.2L Mark I, 100 ISO, 1/20sec @ f/1.2, tripod, remote release, tripod, MLU, no Filter.
Focused on the candle. The lights are those tiny white Christmas lights on a houseplant in the background.
Just thought I'd add this to the discussion. The oblong out of focus light points are not unique to the new 50mm 1.2. The old version of the 85mm 1.2 exhibited the same characteristic, as does the Mark II. As you close down to f/2.0 it goes away.
Okay, had a few minutes to snap some low ISO images. Feeling a bit better about sharpness with these more distant shots. However, focus accuracy is still a major concern... out of 8 consecutive shots, these were the only two that were in focus. I was rushing since I want the dog to be in the same position and was refocus each shot (on his left eye), so it could be user error... but still a little disconcerting... both of these photos are using Sharpness 2 in DPP. Which is funny since you can already see mazing on the second shot - dog hair's a bitch.
ISO 100 (but pushed +1EV in DPP), f/1.2, 1/125th with Tungsten-Balanced Flash bounced off ceiling:
ISO 100 (but pushed +1EV in DPP), f/1.6, 1/100th with Tungsten-Balanced Flash bounced off ceiling:
is the zeiss 50mm 1.4 that great? i tested one and it didn'tseem any sharper or better in any way than the canon 50 1.4.
umbromedia wrote: Can anyone name a single lens manufacturer whos top 50mm is sharper than their top 80mm/85mm/90mm? I can think of only one.....Leica M 50 1.4 Asph
Leica is a great example, but to be honest there are a few 50mm's that out perform their 85mm counterparts.. Even Canon has done this.. The FD 50mm 1.2L was sharper than the FD 85mm 1.2L.. Not by much, but it was... I'm sure the Nikkor 58mm Noct is much much sharper than the AIS 85 1.4.. And I'm willing to bet the Zeiss 50 1.4 is sharper than the 85 1.4 as well.. Anyway, all of this is just talk.. The question is, is this particular EF 50 1.2 sharp enough to lay out the extra cash over the price of the 50 1.4.. I for one really expected it to be on par with the 85 1.2, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be in the same class.. There is still some doubt weather or not this has been archived, time will tell I guess.. Now my question is, assuming maximum sharpness is the desired goal, would it be better to go with a Leica R 50 1.4 Summilux and an adapter, or the 50 1.2L....?...Show more →
Sam Bennett wrote:
I have no idea. I'm definitely not a big proponent of the "bad copy" theory that seems so popular in some circles, but this is a first production run so it's possible they still haven't dialed production in sufficiently.
As for samples from shooting this weekend, I will definitely be sharing.
Here you are some sample pictures. No processing at all, just converted to jpeg. All shots focussed at the right eye on the end closes to us. I am very impressed with lens
Canon 1DsII, 85mm f/1.2L Mark I, 100 ISO, 1/20sec @ f/1.2, tripod, remote release, tripod, MLU, no Filter.
Focused on the candle. The lights are those tiny white Christmas lights on a houseplant in the background.
Just thought I'd add this to the discussion. The oblong out of focus light points are not unique to the new 50mm 1.2. The old version of the 85mm 1.2 exhibited the same characteristic, as does the Mark II. As you close down to f/2.0 it goes away.
Cheers,
David
I think you post is an important reminder to all the complainers. The oval bokeh thing is there too with the mighty 85L, haven't heard anyone "worry" about that. Of the posted images it looks to me that the color, sharpness, contrast and bokeh are very similar to the 85L witch is exactly what we all wanted, right? Constant back or front focusing is a different issue, but to me it seems like the optical quality is very good.
I'm beginning to wonder.
Assuming the same shot, is there a lens which will not produce that oval bokeh?
For the sake of argument let's restrict this discussion to Canon EF lenses e.g. 35/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2 etc.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Assuming the same shot, is there a lens which will not produce that oval bokeh?
Well, define "same shot". I've done tests between the 50/1.2L and the 35L for this, but the problem is that it's impossible in my mind to recreate the "same shot" - either you shoot from the same place with each lens, giving a wider-framed shot for the 35L, or you move closer with the 35L to get similar framing, but perspective changes. How that influences being able to judge the shape of highlights, I don't know. But it doesn't feel like a fair comparison. It seems like the only really fair comparisons in this case would be the 50/1.0L, 50/1.2L, 50/1.4 and 50/2.8.
Sam, just wanted to let you know I'm waiting with bated breath for your roller derby report. I'm sitting here with credit card in hand for a new high school basketball lens...
I'll chime in on the football/rugbyball shaped out-of-focus highlights:
That looks to be an issue with the light path not completely fitting inside the lens at wide open apertures. Those OOF light rays that come in close to the center axis are not affected, those further away from the center are. All with an apparent cut-off at the outside. (Not taking into the equation the highlights that come from non circular light sources.)
One explanation for this is that the light path at wide apertures strikes a baffle or the inside of the lens barrel itself. This would cause the very thing you see: more light cut off from the OOF highlights, the further out they are.
... and I hate to add this to the post, but if it's true then this is a design issue, not a bad-copy issue. Either a baffle, or the lens barrel itself isn't wide enough at a critital part of the light path.
Nill Toulme wrote:
Sam, just wanted to let you know I'm waiting with bated breath for your roller derby report. I'm sitting here with credit card in hand for a new high school basketball lens...
It's not looking good so far. I'm about 90% sure the problem with my copy is simply a backfocusing issue. What I'm going to do is shoot warm-ups and review before the bout starts. If I'm winding up with a large degree of OOF shots due to focusing (which virtually never happens with the 85/1.8 I normally use) I'll probably not use the lens for the actual bout photos, since this is a paying gig.
Nill Toulme wrote:
BTW, you need to update your sig. ;-)
Let me just say, as soon as I get my 5D back from service, I will be getting this lens. I tested out a copy at a local camera shop, and I must say this damn thing is sharp. It's definitely sharper than my 50 1.4 below f2, and I may even be sharper than my 35 1.4. And I found the focus to be quite fast, in the same league as my 35L. However, I did notice the odd highlights with some f1.2 shots and the christmas lights they had hanging about the shop. Just out of curiosity, I took some shots of my christmas tree at 1.4 with my Fuji S3 and the sigma 30mm.....oval highlights towards the edge of the frame very much like the 5D 50L combo. I then went onto Pbase and searched for wide open shots with point light sources in the background for the 50 1.4, the 85L, and the 35L. First, let me say, I realized just how rare it is that you acutally come across this type of situation....I'd say about 5%, or less, of all the shots on Pbase for these lenses had this combination of conditions. Second, almost all the shots I found for all of these lenses exhibited some type of highlight distortion as you moved closer to the edge of the frame.
It seems that this type of phenomenon occurs all the time, its just that this new lens is under so much scrutiny and the early samples provided by the forum members just happended to exhibit the "problem" that people have become overly concerned. Thats my take anyways. Like I said I'll be picking up this lens as soon as I get my camera back.
Max, you really need to chill out. This is an unfortunate fact of modern manufacturing. I would hope that a $1,600 lens would be free of such issues right out of the gate, but I knew I was taking a risk by buying the first run. C'est la vie. Getting your panties in a bunch isn't going to change anything.
This is the reason why I will never buy the first production runs of an Apple product ever again. Got majorly burned on a MacBook. Again, I would hope Canon would have better QC, but at this point it would appear they don't.
Tentacle said: One explanation for this is that the light path at wide apertures strikes a baffle or the inside of the lens barrel itself. This would cause the very thing you see: more light cut off from the OOF highlights, the further out they are.
I agree that this is not a huge issue although my family Christmas photos would always included some form of lights.
Please look at this:
My version so far appears to be focusing fine. No backfocusing as far as I know. I've only had it for a day. Tried low light focus yesterday and the unscientific test makes me think that it is better than 1.4 version of the lens but not better or equal to 35L. I'm looking towards shooting something good with it and have a project lined up for it.
