Alf,
If you want to see why they have so many lenses, why don't you call them and ask? I don't find this situation any stranger than B&H having 1D2s by the buttloads when no one else did 2.5 years ago.
I do know Pro Photo advertised a Canon rep show / seminar there a couple of weeks ago. Maybe their Canon rep made them a deal while he was there?
Who knows, but I doubt there is anything sinister going on. I got emails from B&H, Pictureline and Canoga within the last week advertising that they got batches of 50Ls in...of course they sold fast....
I was on lots of different lists.
So other companies are definitley getting them...however they may be severely backordered at larger companies.
Pro Photo on the other hand being small, may have some extras...however with a price like this...they are selling lots I'm sure.
BTW, Pictureline...a reputable dealer in Utah is selling their 50Ls for $1499.
I filled out the pre order form on the Pro Photo Supply about 3 hours ago, just received a call from them, they received a new supply yesterday, I ordered one.
That is pretty good service, and the price was lower than the others I have looked at.
I'll do some real world type testing and some indoor benching. If I don't like it, it will be sold, but I don't expect that based on sample pics and comments here and elsewhere.
If I sell, the cost to me will be about a 1 day rental charge.
btw, the Pictureline price went up to $2099, they are probably out of stock.
rockitman wrote:
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...
i don't find it that odd...many retailers, do not have online order processing for lots of reasons...one is cost to maintain and the second is it is often a PITA!.....two of my favorite and the most reputable photo retailers i deal with- fotocare in nyc and allen's camera in pennsylvania do not have on line ordering...yet you can call them and get great service and place an order by phone...
as it relates to pro photo supply, i have bought several items from them-including the 50 1.2 and have been buying from them for quite a while...i have found them a pleasure to deal with- and sometimes they have better prices-as was the case with the 50 1.2 and the 24-105 than many retailers including b&h......given the fact that i was also one of the first people who posts here to get the lens in hand, i know that i was not sold a returned lens...as big as b&h and adorama are, they are not always first to receive merchandise...regards
Did a similar thing when I ordered my 35L from BH. Clicked on the 24L which was next to 35L. Paid with paypal to use the funds from a couple of items I sold. You don't want to hear the nightmare I went thru to correct that mistake.
I think the oval shape is very natural for any/many lenses & highlights which hits the lens in an angle. I have been interested to understand the actual physical reason for the clipped edges of the highlights, whether round of oval, and that has been reasonably covered in this thread.
For me, the practical meaning of the clipped edges is very very close to zero - I only found them from my 85L after trying deliberately to produce them. And the practical meaning of the oval/round shape is exactly zero - for me at least.
Everybody seems to be concerned about sharpness and while that is important I think this lens will be worth it (mine should arrive next week) for other factors:
+ weather seal (yes, it matters even for many non-pros)
+ reliability (compared to the 50/1.4, which sometimes decides not to focus)
+ IQ (contrast, color, and yes, sharpness)
I just ordered mine from Pro Photo Supply. They have one left as of 4 P.M. PST. Will report on the lens and Pro Photo Supply when the lens arrives.
>so in your opinion, lenses like the 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 600L, 300L 2.8 suck?
No, that's not what I said, but for someone who considers themselve a "true connoisseur of the nuances of fine imagery" I would expect that you realize that there are finer lenses than what Canon has to offer, even if you'd have to pay a lot more for them than those "holy" L's.
IMO you go with Canon more for the system, not because they make the most refined and beautiful lenses in the world...
FWIW, I just got my new 85L and tried it on the Xmas tree. Footballs galore! Lots of clipped footballs & spheres too. Bokeh is really smooth though, so while I don't understand why this happens (technically), it's there when wide open.
Well, what will make me decide between the f/1.4 and f/1.2 is only focus accuracy and consistancy (not speed). And what I read cannot make me decide yet...
My 1.2L is on order. My 1.4 has been the most dissapointing lens I've ever owned. the focus wide open hit or miss. 4 occasions where the AF unit disengages and needs repair. Id did it again yesterday. I'm done with that POS.
A friend got his 1.2L 50 this week, and I handled it. Build quality is wonderful, solid. Manual focus has a very fine, precice feel. The couple of snaps I made with his DsII looked terrific.
I'm still trying to figure out if the focus consistency of the 50/1.2L is better than the f/1.4. The AI Servo'd Roller Derby shots were very consistent - more consistent than my 85/1.8 - but shooting in low light around the house, the consistency doesn't seem very good compared to the 35L and 85/1.8.
This lens has caused me a lot of difficulty as i read all of the posts here....I have the 50 1.4 and have been looking forward to replacing it with a stellar and much improved 50mm L..this lens on paper looked very promising and i have been waiting patiently for its introduction.I own the 85L and absolutely love it,in fact it is my favorite lens..and i am a bit of a nut when it comes to this stuff so i own a hell of a lot of lenses...i hoped that this new 50mm L would be an obvious winner like the 85L,it certainly is priced like it should be.I have been about to purchase it several times and held back because of the mixed reactions of those who so far have received it and commented on it.Im willing to pay the high cost if the lens is one of those special lenses,im not willing to plunk down a fortune just to say I own an L lens...Im confused as to whether or not this lens is or is not a worthy improvement over the 50 1.4 ...i sure hope the verdict becomes clearer in the near term...
I wonder if, like the 85L, the 50 f/1.2L takes some time to get used to shooting. It sure seems to have grown on Sam but now it appears he is going the other way...
I'm perfectly content using the 85L in more contemplative, slower paced photography.
As far as focus speed and accuracy, it sounds like this is between the 85L and the 35L, with the 135L being the quickest/most accurtate.
But if it can A1 Servo track roller derby, it sounds like it's pretty darn good.
ghuff: Thanks! It's the Mk2. I had issues with the Mk1 I'd tried before and wanted to eliminate a few variables this time around.
As for the 50L debate, it probably does take some getting used to. I'm still a bit hit 'n miss with the 85L because I'm using it primarily wide open. Once I use it for "real" portraits, etc. I'll probably stop it down to around f2 or f/2.2. My guess is it'll be easier to control at that aperture.
As someone who's also had a love/hate relationship with the 50/1.4 I'm going to try out the 50L for myself. Reading others' experiences is useful, but the only way to know if it works for you is to try it out. I could try to do some side-by-side shots, but I'm leary of doing them because they wouldn't be "scientific" enough.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, my problems with the 50/1.4 are, like others, the inconsistent AF and seeming softness wide open. But it's sure been a lifesaver in a lot of situations. If the new 50/1.2 doesn't have that "L" crispness to it, however, I'll likely stick with the one I have. Because aperture-wise, it's not that big a leap...
I just received my copy. For all the anticipation it looks quite ordinary compared to any other L lens. The objective lens is lost within the 72mm filter diameter while it, thankfully, is so much lighter and smaller than its 85mm sister (aren't lenses feminine rather than masculine?).
It's so expensive that I think we all have a lot of expectations. I am not sure why it has to cost so much more than the 135L, etc. Tomorrow I get a chance to test it for the purpose I bought it for-low light action photography. After examining the typical 200+ shots I am sure I will have a good idea how useful it will be. I will be satisfied if it looks as good @ 1.4 as my 50mm F1.4 does at 2.0. I hope I'm not expecting too much.
So, after much hemming and hawing, testing, re-testing, practical testing, loving and hating... I've decided to send mine to Canon for calibration. My issue with backfocusing at distances less than 6 feet or so seems pretty persistent, making the lens pretty unreliable. Hopefully they'll be able to sort it out before our season starts back up in mid-January.
The final straw was a series of photos I took of one of the dogs on a walk this afternoon. Even shot at f/5.6 and with stringent attention to focus point, stability, etc. none of the series were in focus. This was no where near the minimum focus limit, btw.
Canon 1D MKII, 50/1.2L @ f/5.6, 1/1250th, ISO 100
Oh well. Looks friggin' great when it focuses properly though.
Here's a bonus shot of Saucer, this one looks alright, although Lightroom's sharpening algorithm's freaking out on the individual hairs a bit. The lens looks like it's backfocusing slightly here, not nearly as bad as in the other shots.
Folks the lens can produce BOTH types, oval-y and round.
