FYI, Amazon now states availability after Dec. 25.
"Availability: In stock soon. Order now to get in line. First come, first served.
Hurry, order now and we'll ship this item when it becomes available. You can cancel your order at any time. Your credit card will not be charged until we have shipped your order. This item will arrive after December 25th. For delivery after the 25th, we recommend FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See more on holiday shipping. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available. "
I've seen the 85L tack sharp wide open......
It may be just me but I'm still not seeing anything great here. I really want too. Yes I want to buy this lens, but I don't just want to buy it for its build and focusing speed only. I want to use it wide open and I want it to be sharp there. I don't buy the reasoning of these L primes not being sharp wide open either. My 35L was razor sharp @ f1.4.
The first thing I do is bench test a lens. If it passes then I try and use it for shooting. It must be bench test sharp first. It better be at least as sharp wide open as my 50f1.4
Andy wrote:
Just to muddy up the works, I actually show that the 50 1.4 is sharper in one example
Did you isolate it in a way that shows it isn't a focusing issue? What is your process for arriving at every image you compare? Do you de-focus, take one photo and whatever you get is what you compare?
I plan to use the 50 with a tripod in a still life assignment. I will post results. The problem is that I haven't decided on how to arrange and shoot the assignment so it might take some time before I get the shots.
I've posted a review of the 50L. Took about a day to show up on the board.
In testing with high contrast targets, near the center of the frame, the fine detail at f/1.2 is already at the limit of what the sensor can record for the 1D2. Stopping down increases contrast noticeably, but the detail is already there. As expected, f/16 begins to show some loss due to diffraction. Otherwise, I feel that I've gained a useful extremely wide aperture, with no compromise in results at the mid-range apertures. Corner results at f/1.2 show some curvature of field, but who would shoot detailed flat subjects with the lens wide open?
I am hearing excuses and justifications for this lens. IMO, for $1,600 this lens should be *sharp*, wide open. Period. I think that Canon should have made a 50 f/1.4L, that would have been better, in every way, than the current 50/1.4, and priced it at $1,000. They would have sold a truckload.
gearhead5 wrote:
I am hearing excuses and justifications for this lens. IMO, for $1,600 this lens should be *sharp*, wide open. Period. I think that Canon should have made a 50 f/1.4L, that would have been better, in every way, than the current 50/1.4, and priced it at $1,000. They would have sold a truckload.
Hi Gearhead5,
I am certainly not giving any excuses for owning the lens. I puchase my lenses because I want it, Remember most of the shots shown are taken at ISO 640 or higher and hand held in low light. If I was really concern I would have used a tripod and done various tests.
I sell most of my 16x24 prints for Aus$495 - $800 and nobody says to me it is not tack sharp. I don't really think my 300 f2.8 IS or 600F4 IS is tack sharp wide open either and infact I don't care. All I know it takes great pictures in real life, just like my 35L, 85L, 135L etc. Who cares go buy the lens and shoot real life photos and enjoy.
Actually, thinking about it, the only person that I give excuses and justification for purchasing the lens is to my wife
pcho wrote:
Remember most of the shots shown are taken at ISO 640 or higher and hand held in low light. If I was really concern I would have used a tripod and done various tests.
Perry
Exactly...can't believe the walmart $$$ thing has come up again...
Why is no one complaining about the price of the 600 f/4 or the 300 f/2.8
It irritates the heck out of me that the 600 f/4 and 300 f/2.8 are do darned expensive. If they were a lot cheaper I'd have the 600 for sure, and I might even still have my 300.
rockitman wrote:
...can't believe the walmart $$$ thing has come up again...
Why is no one complaining about the price of the 600 f/4 or the 300 f/2.8
I guess no one complains about the price of Canon's long telephotos because they are all acknowledged to be outstanding performers. On the other hand, I haven't seen a rave review of the 50/1.2 from anyone, anywhere.
I own a lot of "L" glass, so don't tell me about the "walmart $$$ thing". I was looking forward to the 50/1.2 and, while the $1,600 price of this lens is not an impediment, the relative price is certainly giving me pause. Tell me again why this lens is priced $1,300 more than the 50/1.4.
gearhead5 wrote:
I guess no one complains about the price of Canon's long telephotos because they are all acknowledged to be outstanding performers. On the other hand, I haven't seen a rave review of the 50/1.2 from anyone, anywhere.
I own a lot of "L" glass, so don't tell me about the "walmart $$$ thing". I was looking forward to the 50/1.2 and, while the $1,600 price of this lens is not an impediment, the relative price is certainly giving me pause. Tell me again why this lens is priced $1,300 more than the 50/1.4.
Please no disrespect intended. I guess the $$$ characterization was inflammatory. My take...to soon to tell. There hasn't been enough ultimate sharpness tests on tripods yet, so saying the lense sux because handheld shots at 1/320th are not razor sharp at f/1.2 is dis-ingenuous, imo.
I think some patience is required here before final judgment.
rockitman wrote:
Please no disrespect intended. I guess the $$$ characterization was inflammatory. My take...to soon to tell. There hasn't been enough ultimate sharpness tests on tripods yet, so saying the lense sux because handheld shots at 1/320th are not razor sharp at f/1.2 is dis-ingenuous, imo.
I think some patience is required here before final judgment.
As I said, I was looking forward to buying this lens and I do realize that the jury is still out on its IQ. But, I am disappointed, thus far, at the results I have seen. I would have much preferred that Canon make a stellar 50/1.4L, rather than a potentially flawed 50/1.2L.
I have to say the 50L /1.2 is a great lense and probably should of had a lower price. But that didn't stop me from getting it. Now, I finally have a 50mm that makes me happy, worth the price in itself to me. I tried it side by side in some real world holiday shots, no test shots of boxes, charts, etc. against my old 50 /1.4 and my 35L. The 50 L /1.2 easily has equal IQ to the 35L and blew the 50 /1.4 images away. This was done on a 10D, 20D, 5D, and 1DMkll. The 50L also has much better AF and doesn't hunt in low light like the 50 /1.4 does at times, this is a huge thing for me. Mine is very sharp and has no signs of backfocusing, producing shots I'm very happy with. I'm really enjoying this lense! Those of you who have it, I hope you enjoy it as much as I am and those of you how don't have it yet, I hope you enjoy it when the price eventually lowers. Also, the 50 /1.4 doubles great as a hockey puck.....
gearhead5 wrote:
I guess no one complains about the price of Canon's long telephotos because they are all acknowledged to be outstanding performers. On the other hand, I haven't seen a rave review of the 50/1.2 from anyone, anywhere.
I own a lot of "L" glass, so don't tell me about the "walmart $$$ thing". I was looking forward to the 50/1.2 and, while the $1,600 price of this lens is not an impediment, the relative price is certainly giving me pause. Tell me again why this lens is priced $1,300 more than the 50/1.4.
Hi Gearhead5,
I don't want to go into a slinging match. It does not matter how much it cost. Canon thinks it can get away with selling it at 1600 and there are idiots like me who want to buy it thats my choice. If you want to wait an few months and buy it at 1300 thats fine too. It is a case of demand and supply and marketing strategy.
It is like people saying to me why buy the 1dsmk2 when the 5d is 1/3rd the price and has better technology. I just wanted a 1 series camera and I don't care if it cost more.
Go buy it and enjoy. Good luck and merry christmas tto you
I'm still waiting for my copy to arrive. I haven't decided if I will wait till April to pick it up (bonus check time), or get it now. I'm leary about getting this lens after reading through this post. I was hoping for something sharper then the 1.4 through its range. Only a few have mentioned this new lens does that. Others say its no better in that regard. I was hoping this lens would keep me from buying a Leica 50mm f2 or f1.4 lens. I did get a good deal on this lens at the store I ordered it from. They were able to price match another store and I got it for $1520 Canadian. I just hope my copy is not in the bad batch. I ended up selling 3 lenses recently since Im upgrading. As with others I want this new lens to be a good performer. At least I have time to make a decision to still get the lens or dump it in favor of the 1.4 lens.
Yeah, I think the lens looks pretty nice in the examples showing up here and there... just not $1600 nice nor nicer than my Leica Summicron-R... that's what I wanted... and I'm not seeing it. The 50L bokeh seems a little nicer than the 50/1.4... just not nicer than the Leica... oh well... I wasn't actually after f1.2 or sharper than my 50/1.4... just over all more pleasing. If f2 is fast enough for you, the Summicron-R 50 is a great bargain used/mint and a very pleasing lens... and probably sharper than any Canon lens at f2 (for the sharpness freaks). Summilux and Zeiss ninja star 50's are also faster nice lenses (the Zeiss a lot cheaper than the 'lux)... of course there is something to be said about AF )
I'll keep watching... maybe something will tip the balance. I'm still waiting for head to head apples to apples bokeh comparisons between the 50/1.4 and 50L... should be a super easy test to do... so why hasn't anyone done it? I'd appreciate the effort!
Ok one last try. I think the picture is sharper than those I took hand held but as for me it does not matter as I am happy with the lens. I am really enjoying this lens.
)