SoundHound wrote:
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?).
Phil Bonner wrote:
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 trying to keep an open mind to the idea, but... I'm not really a stranger to fast lenses and narrow DoF, it's kinda "what I do". The fact is that even at f/5.6 that shots of the dogs simply weren't working, even when I was concentrating on every aspect of my shooting - there was plenty of light, I wasn't focus-recomposing, the subject wasn't moving, I wasn't moving in relationship to the subject, I was shooting stopped down, etc. All the conditions to get consistent shots was there, and it just wasn't happening. So, again... off it goes.
Phil Bonner wrote:
But if it can A1 Servo track roller derby, it sounds like it's pretty darn good.
This is the frustrating thing, because it really did seem to excel there. So this make me think: What's so different about this shooting vs. the shooting that gives inconsistent results?
Using AI Servo instead of One Shot
Focusing at a much further distance
That's it. When I try using AI Servo on close subjects, I don't get any better results (in fact, it's worse), so my inclination is to think it's more related to distance than anything else. One could argue that you're just seeing less backfocusing because of the increased DoF, but the results from shooting RollerDerby were too consistent for me to believe that.
Again, frustrating. At this point I feel like I don't have anything to lose by sending it to Canon, so... might as well.
Anyway, just to reinforce the "when it works, it works great" theme, here's some shots run through my usual DPP-workflow, including sharpening at web resolution. Not gonna break down the details, but everything's shot around f/2, between ISO 400-800, around 1/250th and assisted by a 580EX gelled down to Tungsten.
Lots of great color punch and sharpness in those last roller derby shots. The 1st dog eyeball shot looks like it is more fosused on the far eyebrow rather than the near eye.
Bruce,
In a strictly hetersexual anatomical sense, I'd say the camera is feminine and the lens is masculine.
Lots of great color punch and sharpness in those last roller derby shots. The 1st dog eyeball shot looks like it is more fosused on the far eyebrow rather than the near eye.
Yep, that's the problem. I was definitely focused on the near eye.
Michael, you have made several posts in this thread alone about Canon quality.
We know how you feel about this, enough is enough.
For the record, I have purchased several Canon bodies and lens going back to the film days, zero quality problems. I did drop a lens on a concrete sidewalk, sent it to Canon service with a note describing what happened. Lens was under warranty, repaired at no charge.
Purchase a Leica M8 and go over to the Leica User Forums and gripe about it, it will give you a fresh perspective on how to complain effectively.
jonbrach wrote:
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......Show more →
Ask yourself if you would buy this lens if there were no such things as internet forums.
I've brought gear to Canon Irvine on several occasions and have only praise for the work and also for the courtesy that the staff there has provided. The work was lens/camera calibration.
In fact Michael's complaint is the first that I have seen here on FM about Canon Irvine. To the contrary I've seen many, many posts praising the Irvine facility.
I do not doubt that Michael percieves a problem.
But It's best to take things on balance.
For example, I wish my gear never needed calibration. However, on balance, it seems natural/inevitable that things would tend to drift off the mark over time due to normal wear and use. How many 1,000's of times can a lens be auto-focused before the internal works develop a little slack?
Everytime I send my stuff in it comes back dead-on, and I check it very carefully.
Summary: The superbly built EF 50mm f/1.2L lens provides modestly sharper images with better out of focus blurring (bokeh) at f/1.4 and f/2 and is much more resistant to flare and internal reflections than the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens. This improved performance come at the cost of increased size, weight and a greater than 5-fold higher cost. The f/1.2L lens does not focus faster or more accurately than the f/1.4 lens. Corner sharpness is lower and chromatic aberration is greater with the f/1.2L lens.
Summary: The superbly built EF 50mm f/1.2L lens provides modestly sharper images with better out of focus blurring (bokeh) at f/1.4 and f/2 and is much more resistant to flare and internal reflections than the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens. This improved performance come at the cost of increased size, weight and a greater than 5-fold higher cost. The f/1.2L lens does not focus faster or more accurately than the f/1.4 lens. Corner sharpness is lower and chromatic aberration is greater with the f/1.2L lens.
You got me at "The f/1.2L lens does not focus faster or more accurately than the f/1.4 lens." I figured that would be the case. And for now with my 30D the 35L and my 50f1.4 suits me fine. (And together these both cost less then the 50L)
I think I'll hold on to my f1.4 for now :0)
Thanks for the review William. You're one of the few here who has input I respect :0)
>> Thanks for the review William.
Ditto. The new lens appears to be absolutely pointless except for the flaring improvement. Why the heck would Canon even bother if it's going to make an "L" that's no better than an existing non-L? I don't get it.
>> You're one of the few here who has input I respect :0)
Well, I wouldn't go *that* far...
Thank you William!
That does it for me. 50L is officially skipped! Long live the Trinity
50 is one of the easiest focal lengths to manufacture. It should be a real star! f1.0 or even faster and very sharp wide open (even sharper than 35L and 85L designed years ago).
What we're getting instead is basically a better build 50 f1.4. Too bad.
I wanted to buy this lens, but as it is it would stay in the bag most of the time just like my 50 1.4.
One more example IMHO that given the resources they have Canon is not developing anything exciting or high quality.
fotografur said: Thanks for the review William. You're one of the few here who has input I respect
My feelings exactly. Thank you very much William. There is finally an objective test. So far, we mostly heard that "I like this lens and that what it matters".
You guys are funny. Dismissing the 50/1.2 with it's 5 times higher price because it's not 5 times sharper than the 50/1.4 wide-open is like dismissing the 1D MKII because it doesn't have image quality 5 times better than the XT.
