Unfortunately the bummer about trying to do a focus accuracy test at 6' is that it's difficult with the size chart I have and the 8MP MKII - there's not enough resolution to really make a solid determination of how accurate it is.
At 4' I'm still seeing backfocusing. With the f/1.8 test, out of 5 shots (de-focusing and re-focusing between each shot) 3 were severely backfocused, one was slightly backfocus and one was "acceptably" in focus...
Backfocusing...
In focus...
Taking these with a grain of salt since the practical shots seem okay, but there you have it...
mfurman wrote: Thank you Gary. As I have already said, your lens seems to be the best out of the ones I saw.
Hi Michael, if they can get the backfocus business settled (or at least get a direction)...I think I'll be very happy with this lens. My lens seems very sharp wide open in most actual uses....and very similar to my 85L in color, contrast and sharpness.
This lens is probably a ploy by Canon to confuse us measurebators and pixel peepers!! It works poorly when trying to test it...but good in actual use!
Hi Sam...your focus tests are what I see also...except maybe to a lesser degree. Actually, I think Canon helped mine some at Irvine....but it still does not seem to be quite right.
I'm not an expert, but I read lenses are optimized for a certain distance/range. (example: Leitz Summicron for close range 0-15 ft, Leitz Summilux for long range :15ft to infinity)
Maybe on wide aperture lens, it has a more "dramatic" effect??
Edited by Cedric Bertin on Dec 09, 2006 at 03:05 PM GMT
Sam Bennett wrote:
..... I'm happy to say out of a few dozen shots everything seemed fine. I don't think these shots are super sharp for f/2.0 (I think my 85/1.8 would be sharper) but they're not bad - and the bokeh is quite nice.
.....
At almost five times the cost of the 85 f1.8 and being a 50mm lens (sharpest and easiest to make) I would expect better.
I'm I being unreasonable. I don't think so. Still on the fence about this lens. I think my 50f1.4 copy is just too darn good. Waiting for more owners to shop up :0)
Thanks everybody for posting what they have so far. Appreciate it :0)
Here are my thoughts after seeing most of the available tests. I was quite excited by ghuff's results but the rest was problematic to say the least. The new 50 f/1.2 does not meet my needs although I am certain that it would have been better if I tested it myself. I would like to thank very much all, whose tests I benefited tremendously from.
Here are my reasons.
I wanted 50 f/1.2 L not for f/1.2 at all. It is not reasonable to expect that we would gain 1/3 stop when going from f/1.4 to f/1.2 but regardless of that I do not need this lens for low light (for what I need it, IS would give be better results than even f/1.0).
I want it to:
- be sharper in f/1.6 - f/2.8 than 50 f/1.4 (good copy)
- autofocus reliably and precisely in the same aperture range and at different distances (but mostly in close range - less than 6 feet)
- have nicer bokeh
- be very good "out of the box"
In other words, I would like to reliably achieve sharp, selectively chosen image of some details.
I do understand that an f/1.2 would have some additional challenges to meet these needs but it is not worth for me to spend $1300 over 50 f/1.4 if the above expectations (even if not realistic) are not met.
Yes I understand Michael. I also know this thread should be about hands on with the lens but I'd like to add there is no, absolutely no reason this shouldn't be priced at $1100 like the 35L and 24L.
mfurman wrote:
I do understand that an f/1.2 would have some additional challenges to meet these needs but it is not worth for me to spend $1300 over 50 f/1.4 if the above expectations (even if not realistic) are not met.
Edited by mfurman on Dec 09, 2006 at 09:51 AM GMT
Yep the 50mm f1.2 is overpriced by a huge margin. Im really glad I got my 85mm f1.2L mk1 new for $1500..
That the 50mm 1.2 costs the same is ridiculous. 50mm lenses are much much cheaper to make than equally fast short teles (85-100mm) or moderate wide angles (35mm).
Nikon offered an all metal MF 50mm f1.2 for like $600 up to not to long ago...
fotografur wrote:
Yes I understand Michael. I also know this thread should be about hands on with the lens but I'd like to add there is no, absolutely no reason this shouldn't be priced at $1100 like the 35L and 24L.
d~
There *is* a reason that it should not be priced at $1,100: It's an easier lens to make than either the 24L or 35L and actually should be priced under $1,000. If the 50L had turned out to be an exceptional performer (which, at this point it doesn't seem to be), I might consider stretching to buy it, but at $1,600... What was Canon thinking?
Maybe after this weekend. Frankly I find it dismaying that people are already writing the lens off. I don't think any of us have enough information to draw conclusions at this point. Gary's lens does seem to be sharper than mine, so I would like to find out why before I draw conclusions. It could be attributed to shooting conditions/technique just as easily as it could be attributed to a fault with the lens itself.
Anyway, as I've been saying... I'm going to wait until I get some solid real-world use under my belt with this lens before make any solid decisions about it.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Maybe after this weekend. Frankly I find it dismaying that people are already writing the lens off. I don't think any of us have enough information to draw conclusions at this point. Gary's lens does seem to be sharper than mine, so I would like to find out why before I draw conclusions. It could be attributed to shooting conditions/technique just as easily as it could be attributed to a fault with the lens itself.
Anyway, as I've been saying... I'm going to wait until I get some solid real-world use under my belt with this lens before make any solid decisions about it....Show more →
Hmmmmmmm...
Why would they write it off?
Many copies back focus
Many copies not sharp
Many copies get less sharp from 1.2-5.6
One copy out of many is somewhat sharp
Focus is miss and hit 8 out of ten times.
Lenses brought in for repair cant be fixed and there is a 2 month wait for a new one.
Well there you have it. Seems fine to me. Another quality Canon product.
This is just a sample from one photo forum on the internet, Max. It is hardly a representative sample of every 50L made to this date. It is what it is. People who are happy with a product generally do not jump on random internet forums to exclaim about how happy they are about something. Negative feedback always comes first.
Your problems with getting a fix or a replacement mere days after a product is released are totally predictable. You took a chance, you're paying the price. Get over it.
Sam Bennett wrote:
This is just a sample from one photo forum on the internet, Max. It is hardly a representative sample of every 50L made to this date. It is what it is. People who are happy with a product generally do not jump on random internet forums to exclaim about how happy they are about something. Negative feedback always comes first.
Your problems with getting a fix or a replacement mere days after a product is released are totally predictable. You took a chance, you're paying the price. Get over it.
Your over looking one fact. These forums contain tons of buyers that buy canon products. If the lens was good the buyers with good copies would post that as well.
I know I would.
Think about it, what are the odds of having one of the largest forums with buyers who have only bad copies of the lens? The odds should be a 50/50 good/bad here. There is no reason to think that just because its a internet forum that somehow the odds have tilted towards only bad copies.
Maybe we'll see a firmware update. There was a firmware update awhile back pertaining to the the 85L and 580EX combo (the update was not focus related). Before that (around 24 months ago) there were updates for the 1D2 which improved Servo Focus (some people felt that update compromised single shot AF). The 50L 1.2 is sharp at all apertures when manually focused, so the problem seems to be the AF portion and not the optical part. Maybe Canon needs a better calibration standard for the lens and/or we'll see some firmware updates. In the meantime send emails to Chuck Westfall to make sure this is on Canon's radar screen.
madmax200 wrote:
Your over looking one fact. These forums contain tons of buyers that buy canon products. If the lens was good the buyers with good copies would post that as well.
People have been posting that they have good copies, although not everyone has been posting samples. But why should they? Some people have better things to do.
madmax200 wrote:
Think about it, what are the odds of having one of the largest forums with buyers who have only bad copies of the lens?
This is by no stretch of the definition of the "largest" photo forums on the net.
madmax200 wrote:
The odds should be a 50/50 good/bad here. There is no reason to think that just because its a internet forum that somehow the odds have tilted towards only bad copies.
Your bias is identifying these issues as "bad copies" (meaning, they're performing out of spec). That doesn't mean they're bad copies. I may not have a bad copy. The jury is still out on my lens, as far as I'm concerned - I think you should step back and consider why you might be labelling my lens as a bad copy.
Sam Bennett wrote:
People have been posting that they have good copies, although not everyone has been posting samples. But why should they? Some people have better things to do.
This is by no stretch of the definition of the "largest" photo forums on the net.
Your bias is identifying these issues as "bad copies" (meaning, they're performing out of spec). That doesn't mean they're bad copies. I may not have a bad copy. The jury is still out on my lens, as far as I'm concerned - I think you should step back and consider why you might be labelling my lens as a bad copy. ...Show more →
The fact that your "not sure" you have a good or bad lens cracks me up.
When I bought my 85-1.2 I was sure it was good.
Same goes for my 500,135, 24-70, 200-1.8, 70-200IS.
But your welcome to compare yours to the other pictures posted so you "can decide".
As far as Fred M's site being small. I can go anywhere in the USA and people are members of FM and some have even seen my panos. So either its a small world or your under estimating this forum.
Well im off to another saturday of shooting all my canon boxes. I have them all lined up in the driveway and Im waiting for sunset.
Hahahaha
Edited by madmax200 on Dec 09, 2006 at 10:31 AM GMT
Max, sorry I'm just unable to get my panties in a ruffle because my camera cannot AF consistently on a page in a phonebook. I don't do a lot of product photography at f/1.2, so it's not really applicable to what I do. I will assess the quality of the lens in the environments I bought to use it in, period.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Max, sorry I'm just unable to get my panties in a ruffle because my camera cannot AF consistently on a page in a phonebook. I don't do a lot of product photography at f/1.2, so it's not really applicable to what I do. I will assess the quality of the lens in the environments I bought to use it in, period.
I understand. But if you dont test your lens first how will you know.
I am leaving for 6 weeks to travel several different countries. Do you think I want to find out when I get home that my new 50mm lens was back focusing? DOH!
I test them here and then use them in the field. If they cant focus on a well lit girl standing still in a flower shop what are the chances of having them work right at sunrise or sunset on distant objects.
I shoot multi-row panos and stitch. I shoot for extreme detail. The last thing I want is a lens that is OOF.
It works poorly when trying to test it...but good in actual use!