Sorry about that. I haven't shot basketball, so if it's any consolation it may not be right for that kind of action.
I wonder if one could train oneself to yank it back into the right range with a quick manual adjustment?
I doubt it would be worth it since I don't think it would be any faster. As I said, it's a rare thing when I'm shooting. I'm not really concerned about it.
10DFT wrote:
Also, I don't agree with his verbal commentary on the "fringing" on the 1.2's bokeh. It's certainly a smoother bokeh than the hard edge of the 1.4's wide open, but I wouldn't confuse the diffused edge (even with color separation) of the 1.2 with the fringing that is related to ordinary chromatic abberation. What I would call this a deliberate designed 'softening' of the edges of the bokeh. This lens appears to have been designed to produce nice smooth edges to the OOF highlights, and that design shows in the much smoother rendition of the out-of-focus lights in the image compared to the 1.4....Show more → I don't think I'm confused... To me, it's right there in front of my eyes, plain as day (one page behind here, folks)... the 1.2L produced a *much* harsher green fringing, wide open, than the 1.4 produces, wide open. Smoother on the 1.2L? I'd say, splitting hairs. But to me, there's no arguing about the green fringing or the chopped circles. Bummer.
Alright, here's a sample of series of a tracking shot with both myself and the subject moving - not a real fast dive at all, but she was definitely coming towards me, and the lens tracked great. I'll let the photos speak for themselves... (these were processed in Lightroom with custom WB, Sharpness 25, De-Noise 25, Brightness 50, Contrast 55, blacks cranked a little)
50/1.2L @ f/2, 1/250th, ISO 800, 580EX gelled with a Full CTO filter
50/1.2L @ f/2, 1/250th, ISO 800, 580EX gelled with a Full CTO filter
50/1.2L @ f/2, 1/250th, ISO 800, 580EX gelled with a Full CTO filter
Interesting discussion about the new 50L - I've just spent the last half hour reading through all the posts from about page 50 on.
The thing that would concern me most is that some people are finding their lens doesn't appear to focus accurately. Whatever the lens, this is the first thing I'd want to verify. If I suspected the focus was off, I'd take it out in good light and do a series of test shots at a wide aperture of objects at different distances (fence posts, road signs, whatever). Maybe as an added check against operator error take some additional shots, in the same conditions, with a different lens you are more familiar. Afterwards, surely it would be possible to tell if the shots were in focus by viewing at 100% or more in photoshop?
If a significant number were out of focus then the lens would be useless to me - I just wouldn't feel I could trust it on a 'real' shoot.
Coming home to find a lot of your shots are out of focus must be one of the most disappointing things for a photographer. I would definitely expect the new 50L, a standard prime lens, to be a good performer in this respect. I'd only start thinking about colours, contrast, etc when I am satisfied it can get pictures in focus.
Sam - nice pictures of the roller-skaters (are they taking part in a game here?)
John Black answered the chopped highlight circles yesterday...2 pages ago.
"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."
Either way you cut it, if you have circular lightsources that cause chopped out-of-focus highlights, then somewhere along the light path there is something in the way. Either internal baffles, the lens barrel itself, or possibly the entry to the chamber. (I didn't think about the last one initially.)
The horizontal and/or vertical straight cuts from the bokeh shapes are likely the chamber opening, the circular cuts causing highlights to appear like footballs/eyes/rugbyballs are from internal baffles or the inside of the tube.
And no, it is not a fabrication or calibration issue, it's inherent to the lens- and mount design.
elluDe wrote:
Interesting discussion about the new 50L - I've just spent the last half hour reading through all the posts from about page 50 on.
The thing that would concern me most is that some people are finding their lens doesn't appear to focus accurately. Whatever the lens, this is the first thing I'd want to verify. If I suspected the focus was off, I'd take it out in good light and do a series of test shots at a wide aperture of objects at different distances (fence posts, road signs, whatever). Maybe as an added check against operator error take some additional shots, in the same conditions, with a different lens you are more familiar. Afterwards, surely it would be possible to tell if the shots were in focus by viewing at 100% or more in photoshop?
If a significant number were out of focus then the lens would be useless to me - I just wouldn't feel I could trust it on a 'real' shoot.
Coming home to find a lot of your shots are out of focus must be one of the most disappointing things for a photographer. I would definitely expect the new 50L, a standard prime lens, to be a good performer in this respect. I'd only start thinking about colours, contrast, etc when I am satisfied it can get pictures in focus.
Sam - nice pictures of the roller-skaters (are they taking part in a game here?)
How dare you threaten the L clubs ego. The lens has to be good for Gods sake its an L lens. Im looking at the recent so called in focus shots and see a lack of detail.
Maybe its because of the 8 megapixel or slow shutter/high iso but Im not seeing anything great as far as detail goes.
OK, I stated on Friday that Canon would get back to me today on how to proceed with the backfocusing issue that I see under certain conditions. They have instructed me to send it back to Irvine for a closer inspection. I'll send it overnight and hopefully should have it back by the weekend.
I'm sure Canon will step up to the plate on this one and figure it out. If others of you have this issue I would urge you to let Canon Irvine know (Chris is who I have been speaking with) so that they can get this under control and get past it as quickly as possible.
While I don't think that I am unique in this issue since I have seen others that have reported it, I'm not sure that all 50Ls have it either....so it may just be part of a particular batch...or bad parts....or a batch from a particluar calibration machine...or who knows what. Sending this to them will help find where the issue is.
Is no one else disturbed by the green fringes around the highlights? My 35L does the same thing and I find it pretty disturbing, it's evident even on 600 pixels web size shots. Sent it in for calibration and it came back the same. So I guess it's probably normal, perhaps an artifact of UD or aspherical glass or some such. Anyone know?
Considering Andy's showing two different apertures here, I'm not sure how we're supposed to interpret the result. The 50/1.4 shot shows the same problem to a minimized degree. My question would be: What does the same shot with the 50/1.2 look like at f/1.4?
The interesting thing in all of this is that people seem to be surprised that the 50/1.2's sharpness is not significantly better than the 50/1.4's. I don't quite get this, because the 50/1.4 has always been pretty well respected in the sharpness department, particularly once stopped down a little. It seems like the consensus is that the 50/1.4's deficits were in build quality, focus consistency, bokeh, color rendition and it's propensity to cause interference banding with AI Servo on the non-1 Series Canon bodies. The 50/1.2L seems to have addressed most of the problems very well - it's quite sturdy (and also has the added bonus of weather sealing), seems to have very consistent focus (on the "good" copies, at least), has fantastic creamy bokeh even when stopped down and fantastic neutral color rendition. Whether its better in the interference banding department remains unknown of course, but my guess is that since it has true USM that it won't be as prone to it as the 50/1.4 and will be more along the lines of the 35L and 135L which will also cause the problem occasionally in my experience.
So, the bottom line seems to be... if you're interested in buying the 50/1.2L to have a really sharp lens, don't bother. If you're buying it to have a 50mm with great overall image quality in a bulletproof package that will give you consistent results in a wide range of conditions for years to come, then this is probably the lens for you.
Sam Bennett wrote:
The interesting thing in all of this is that people seem to be surprised that the 50/1.2's sharpness is not significantly better than the 50/1.4's. I don't quite get this, because the 50/1.4 has always been pretty well respected in the sharpness department, particularly once stopped down a little. It seems like the consensus is that the 50/1.4's deficits were in build quality, focus consistency, bokeh, color rendition and it's propensity to cause interference banding with AI Servo on the non-1 Series Canon bodies. The 50/1.2L seems to have addressed most of the problems very well - it's quite sturdy (and also has the added bonus of weather sealing), seems to have very consistent focus (on the "good" copies, at least), has fantastic creamy bokeh even when stopped down and fantastic neutral color rendition. Whether its better in the interference banding department remains unknown of course, but my guess is that since it has true USM that it won't be as prone to it as the 50/1.4 and will be more along the lines of the 35L and 135L which will also cause the problem occasionally in my experience.
So, the bottom line seems to be... if you're interested in buying the 50/1.2L to have a really sharp lens, don't bother. If you're buying it to have a 50mm with great overall image quality in a bulletproof package that will give you consistent results in a wide range of conditions for years to come, then this is probably the lens for you....Show more →
Hi Sam,
You have summed it perfectly. Thats one of the reasons why I have not purchased the 50mm F1.4 and when the 50L was released I purchased it. True there are bad copies, it is always going to happen but overall I am very happy with mine. I thought I had focusing problems at f1.2 but I worked out the reason why it was happening. I was recomposing my shot after focussing and with such a shallow DOF it was disaster. I then shifted my focusing points instead
I haven't shot basketball, so if it's any consolation it may not be right for that kind of action.
I don't think I'm confused... To me, it's right there in front of my eyes, plain as day (one page behind here, folks)... the 1.2L produced a *much* harsher green fringing, wide open, than the 1.4 produces, wide open. Smoother on the 1.2L? I'd say, splitting hairs. But to me, there's no arguing about the green fringing or the chopped circles. Bummer.
