I have seen the "II" designation at several websites on that lens for several months, since it was introduced. Obviously it is a mistake, because Canon's website does not list any such lens.
Although, one could almost make a case for the new 50L being a "II" designation....as there was already a 50L. But it was an f/1 of course.
Speaking of the 50/1L, has anyone seen a comparison of this beast against the new 50/1.2L ?
Out if sheer useless interest (not that I'm in a position to buy either f/1 or f/1.2) I'd like to know how they compare. And what the average resale price of the 50/1L lenses does, now that there is a possible lighter cheaper alternative.
Having owned both I will tell you that the 50-1.0 has very little value. I like sharp lenses and it was anything but sharp. The 50-1.2 is better but still not sharp.
I like pictures that dont look like water paintings.
looscanon wrote:
I got mine at Pro Photo Supply -- Portland, Oregon for $1467.72. Cheapest price I could find on the internet. If anyone is interested.
These guys scare me in one regard. They make you fill out a backorder form, but then magically have a bunch in stock the next day. How is it they're the only ones in the country with such a large stock? B&H, Adorama, and the other big names have zilche and you gotta wait for resupply. It makes me wonder if they're reselling used/returned ones as new? How reputable are these guys?
alfarmer...they have no other form to fill out besides a backorder form. If you'll look...they have no place for direct interactive web orders...so what else could they do?
Also, these lenses have only been out on the general market 2 weeks....how would they be getting recycled lenses in that short of a period
I'll bet they have a good return policy...if you get one and don't like it....did you ask them?
EOS20 wrote:
So for all those who have this lens, Was it worth the money??
Absolutely. This lens is clearly going to be my first choice for Roller Derby and I expect it will excel at "box shots" in FlyBall - a big money-making shot that I do not have a good lens with which to cover it currently.
EOS20 wrote:
So for all those who have this lens, Was it worth the money??
Yes.
For that matter, the 1Ds was worth the $7999 I paid shortly after it was introduced, even though it's now worth a small fraction of that amount. This lens is likely to hold its value far better, and right now, in my hands, it does what I need it to do.
And no, I don't aim for photos that look like like watercolor paintings.
The Rebel XTi and kit lens are probably great for a lot of people, and the 50/1.4 is a terrific value in spite of all the gripes about its build quality.
Horses for courses.
A Leica M8 or DMR and 50/1.0 Noctilux must be great for some photogs, and if you can quickly MF a Zeiss 50/1.4 on a Canon body, more power to you.
I'm glad Canon made this lens, and glad that I bought one.
hauxon wrote:
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.
Didn't ask them about return policy, as they just left a message. I'd still like to know how it is these guys wound up with so much inventory when very few of the big players seem to have any. Doesn't this seem odd to anyone else?
mh2000 wrote:
hmmm, you almost have to question whether the true "connoisseur of the nuances of fine imagery" would waste their time with Canon lenses.
so in your opinion, lenses like the 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 600L, 300L 2.8 suck I beg to differ. I will agree they are hurting on the very wide end. My Zeiss 21 rectified that issue for me though...
Didn't ask them about return policy, as they just left a message. I'd still like to know how it is these guys wound up with so much inventory when very few of the big players seem to have any. Doesn't this seem odd to anyone else?
ALF
odd...yes, not to mention the fact they don't even have online ordering. I went to their site last night and was amazed at how unuseful it is for lense/camera sales...
fourfa wrote:
you guys would panic if you saw a Leica Noctilux image. Non uniform light shapes are standard with very large aperture lenses, get over it.
MikeZ wrote:
I’m a little bit surprised by the number of people interested in 50L who never heard about the “Cat’s Eye Bokeh” or the fact that some of the highlights will be cut off by the mirror chamber.
Let’s just say, that if you didn’t see this in 50L, 85L or other ultra fast prime pictures there would be something wrong with the lens or the laws of physics.
