madmax200 wrote:
I understand. But if you dont test your lens first how will you know.
It's not a question of "to test or not to test" but how you go about testing and how you interpret those tests. As I've shown, my lens appears to be pretty bad at testing on a test chart from <6' but if I go outside and shoot real targets from normal distances, it's absolutely fine. That tells me that all is not as it appears to be. I have no interest in shooting test charts for a living, so I will give less credence to those tests than I will practical ones. If I was seeing backfocusing on absolutely every shot, we wouldn't be having this discussion - the lens would be on its way to Canon.
The question of sharpness is a difficult one, of course. Assuming that focus accuracy has been determined to be good (which needless to say effects perception of the "sharpness" of a lens) then you have to say "is this lens sharp". Comparing lenses used in totally different situations is very difficult. I would say that Gary (and do a certain extent Joseph's) lens appears to be sharper than mine, but without doing identical tests under identical lighting with identical settings, identical processing and identical cameras it's really hard to say if one is better than the other. That ultimately is why object to labeling something as a "bad copy" - if you don't first know what a "good copy" is, how can you make that determination?
Needless to say the last problem is a hard one to "fix". It means being in the same room doing the tests, which with the small number of lenses out there is pretty impractical unless we start sending ours around. Personally I would be willing to send mine to William Castleman to compare to the lens I would presume he's already testing to see if the sort of variation in sharpness being implied here is really present.
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.
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.
Sorry your reasoning eludes me.
I agree. And price is part of the equation. Unless you're one of the first buyers of this lens and are here to try to justify it's value. Please do. I'm waiting and still not seeing it yet. I've been impressed with the 85L and seeing it go new for $1830 on Amazon blows the new 50L away. prove me wrong I'm waiting :0)
Funny thing that DPreview (which, like it or not, is a much bigger forum than this one) doesn't appear to have anyone there bitching about their new 50L. Maybe there are less guys there picking them up, but it bears consideration.
The new 50L is definetly sharper than the 50 1.4!
I just did some tests wide open close and medium range and saw very clear differences between the two lenses. BTW, the 1.4 is warmer.
Ok guys, I'm just about done with my testing. A link to a new PBASE sample gallery is below.
As stated before, short of the slight intermittent backfocus issue that is unexplained...I am happy with this lens. I feel sure that Canon will get the kinks worked out. They always do. This kind of thing is often seen with introductions of all sorts of complex products.
On to the test sample gallery....
I went out of town this morning to Lubbock, Texas about 120 miles south of where I live....
I always visit the local camera shop there...looking for used lenses. I took the new 50L with me. It created quite a stir, and they certainly were impressed with the lens.
While I was there, I decided to pop a few shots with their demo 5D body and my new 50L. The 5D seems to work well with the new 50L also. Is the backfocus issue there on the 5D? I could not tell that it was. But of course, I was using the lens in more normal circumstances.
I took a few inside shots with the 5D of one of the shops employees and a display rack. These were wide open at f/1.2. Using standard autofocus.
I also popped a few quick outdoor shots in a parking lot with my 1ds2 and the 50L of the Texas Tech stadium from across a freeway construction site. Around f/9 to f/11. Using standard autofocus.
(No comments about how ugly West Texas can be).
Guys...this lens is sharp, as far as I'm concerned. Honestly, I would be hesitant to let the doubts expressed on the forum keep me from trying one. You can always send it back. And, as for focusing issues? I'm sure Canon will work the issues out. After all, focus is a simple function of moving the elements mechanically. As for the lens optical design....it seems to do a very good job to my eyes.
Here's the pbase link. Click "original" for full sized images. These were processed with C1, threshold of 1 and level of 92. Compressed with Photoshop CS2.
I may get out this evening and shoot some Christmas lights as well.
I tested my 85-1.2 at 1.2 and it was sharper then my new 50 at f8 or f11 by a huge margin.
So much for being sharp. If taking a picture of a person standing 6 feet away isn't real world then I don't know what is. The lens I got sucks. Canon will replace it. I will probably sell the new lens NIB without opening it unless something changes here.
Ive lost my faith in this lens model. My 1ds2 never miss focussed with any other lens I own.
Nice gallery of shots there. Thanks for doing them and posting a link. Looks like your lens is working well. I think the new 50L will be a winner for Canon....
Oval bokeh is due to the light source's relative position to the lens. If the light is off axis, then the bokeh is oval. Imagine looking at circle head on - it would be perfectly round. then move right or left and the further away you get, the more oval it will look. Stopping down minimizes the oval effect because bokeh is also reduced. I can produce oval bokeh with 35L, 85L, 135L, 200L -- you name it, they all do it.
Another factor is any lens faster than F2 will have chopped bokeh circles. The top of the chamber and floor truncate the opening. Just look through the front of the 85L such the viewfinder illuminates the opening. You'll be able to see the top and bottom of the mount openings chopping the circle. Again, this has nothing to do with the 50L, it's the opening to the chamber.
John Black said: Another factor is any lens faster than F2 will have chopped bokeh circles. The top of the chamber and floor truncate the opening. Just look through the front of the 85L such the viewfinder illuminates the opening. You'll be able to see the top and bottom of the mount openings chopping the circle. Again, this has nothing to do with the 50L, it's the opening to the chamber.
Could you please explain if this effect is going to be more pronounced on 1.6 crop cameras?
Sam Bennett wrote:
C'mon guys, keep the thread on track. There's no lack of conversation on the price of this lens, there's no reason to repeat it.
Yor are right, tough to avoid though since the price of this lens seems to be a huge issue unfortunally. Lets hope Canon lowers its price, doesnt seem likely which is unfortunate and this lens will probably wont last too long in the lineup.
Canon does seem to receive the info posted on this and other Forums so lets hope they listen on this one. Not only in regards to price but the other issues.
I would like to know If the 50mm 1.2L suffers from purple fringing wide open when shooting metal objects. The 85mm 1.2L has that issue.
Appreciate your posts reviewing and testing this lens. I see enough positive to purchase, after I receive it I'll jump into the fray here with my impressions.
"Focus is a bit slower than other USM lenses, but not doggy like the first 85L. It's more deliberate. It doesn't just snap into place but moves slowly htere and stops. It almost seems like the speed is a design consideration so it won't overshoot, as I'm convinced the 50mm 1.4 does."
If so, what were the results?
Folks the lens can produce BOTH types, oval-y and round.