ward1066 wrote:
despite the mixed reviews, seems like they are selling like hotcakes. B&H sold out already
I really dont pay a lot of attention to negative reviews.
Exactly. All the gearheads & geeks will need to see for themselves. Canon knows this. That's why the price is nuts at first and goes down over time. They have to lower the price over time because the market becomes saturated.
Expect a crapload of them on sale here and eBay in a few weeks...
alfarmer: Exactly. All the gearheads & geeks will need to see for themselves
Being a geek and gearhead, I am tempted to buy this lens myself (I cancelled my order a couple of weeks ago). I just want to see why some of you like this lens so much. It has to pass my test of sharpness though (three copies of 24-70L that many here adore, never did). I mean at > f/2.8 as well
Well, the 24-70 isn't really known for sharpness. It's known for delivering consistent results through excellent build quality, weather proofing, and the most consistent focusing around. In contrast, the 17-55/2.8 IS is known for sharpness, but for many people it's simply not an option for practical reasons. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but sharpness isn't everything.
I like the 50L because it delivers excellent images when it works - good sharpness, excellent bokeh, excellent color rendition and consistent focusing even in difficult conditions. Beyond that, it has the pro build quality I would expect from L glass with the added bonus of weather proofing, which means that it can shooting in conditions where a 35L or 85L would be put at risk. The bottom line is that (focusing issues aside) its a lens that I feel I can rely on - unlike the 50/1.4, which I feel I couldn't.
I'm sure that once my focusing issues get worked out this will be one of my favorite lenses.
To me saying sharpness isnt everything is like saying my car doesnt steer too well but the brakes are excellent.When one is buying an expensive L lens i have to assume that they expect it to be very sharp..i mean sharpness is one of the more important characterisitcs about a lens..isnt it?If im buying the kit lens perhaps one overlooks some sharpness issues,but when buying a 1600 hundred dollar L lens?...i have both the 35L and the 85L and both of them are as sharp wide open as many other lenses stopped down..why should this be and we would excuse the 50L?....Please understand i would actually buy the 50 if it turns out to be better than the anecdotal evidence thus far suggests,in fact im not asserting that it isnt sharp because I do not own it,Im simply reacting to those who are saying it isnt sharp and the general argument that some have that sharpness isnt that important!
A lens that can do all of the things listed above but isn't sharp is not an outstanding lens...it is a flawed lens that does some things well at the expense of sharpness.I cant imagine anyone would run out to buy a lens knowing it isnt sharp ahead of time no matter its other attributes.Sharpness is not everything and i completely agree that given 2 lenses of similar sharpness the other attributes become the deciding factor....that given the sharpness must be present to consider it an outstanding lens.i again go back to my automobile analogy..who would buy a mercedes or bmw knowing ahead of time that it had handling problems etc.?for the price you expect the car to do everything well,not some things.At least i do or i look to a different model or manufacterer
jonbrach wrote:
A lens that can do all of the things listed above but isn't sharp is not an outstanding lens...it is a flawed lens that does some things well at the expense of sharpness.I cant imagine anyone would run out to buy a lens knowing it isnt sharp ahead of time no matter its other attributes.Sharpness is not everything and i completely agree that given 2 lenses of similar sharpness the other attributes become the deciding factor....that given the sharpness must be present to consider it an outstanding lens.i again go back to my automobile analogy..who would buy a mercedes or bmw knowing ahead of time that it had handling problems etc.?for the price you expect the car to do everything well,not some things.At least i do or i look to a different model or manufacterer...Show more →
Jon, you don't need to resort to auto analogies for this argument. The fact is that people make these decisions every single day with lenses - the most obvious decision between Zooms and Primes. Zoom users by and large make a decision between ultimate sharpness and the advantages of using a zoom, which proves my point. If sharpness was the most important thing in the world, I wouldn't own a 24-70/2.8L - but it isn't, and I do.
It is impossible for any lens to do "everything well" - look at the continual debate between the 85Ls and the 85/1.8 - it will never be resolved because of the design considerations involved. I don't own the 85L because the focus speed is unacceptable to me. That doesn't mean it's anything less than a fantastic lens.
In any case, you're pushing your point as if the 50/1.2L had poor sharpness to begin with, which it doesn't as William has displayed already quite well.
If the lens is sharp then there is no discussion and i will buy one...as for your suggesting the fact that zooms aren't as sharp as primes and we factor that into our buying decision..accepted..but this is a prime and we expect it to be sharp..anyway enjoy the lens
Sam Bennett wrote:
William verified that the lens is A) sharper than the 50/1.4 (even at f/1.2), B) has better bokeh than the 50/1.4. I can't recall if he commented on the color rendition, but in my findings it's significantly better than the 85/1.8 (which was similar to my 50/1.4, iirc) and is what I would come to expect from L glass like the 35L and the 135L, both of which have great neutral color rendition.
It seems I got the same kind of opinion as yours.
I read carefully all the tests, here is my conclusion (for the 1.2 against 1.4):
- same AF (speed, accuracy)
- same sharpness (a bit better on 1.2-2.0 range for the L, I did not see myself difference beyond f2 between both lenses)
- better bokeh
- better flare resistance
- better color rendition
- weather sealed
- worst CA resistance
- five times more expensive
So, does it worth the x5 factor? Not really. The lens is a bit pricey. But think of it: why Leica lenses are so famous? For sharpness. Yes, sure, they are sharp. For bokeh? Absolutely. For color rendition? Yes again!!!
Please see again the pictures bteween 1.4 and 1.2: man, this mannekin is ten times more alive on the 1.2 pictures! Am I alone to see it?
For people, nice background blur and good lively colors (include contrast) is as much important than sharpness. What is important is the "feel" of your photographs. And a great bokeh, colors, contrast will be noticed much more than sharpness by a non-photographers. Just my opinion.
Of course, for $1500 I would expect to have a sharp lens (and with no AF issue), like everyone. Canon should sell consistent lenses at this price. But the 1.4 is sharp, and so is the 1.2. Maybe not razor sharp, but reasonably sharp.
See again the pictures between 1.4 and 1.2 L: to me, the differences are priceless.
Just my 2 cents (of an european Leica and Canon lover)
Cedric
EDIT: the only last thing I would like to know is the 1.2 L distortion. Is it better than 1.4?
Edited by Cedric Bertin on Dec 19, 2006 at 10:19 PM GMT
Sam Bennett wrote:
It is impossible for any lens to do "everything well" - look at the continual debate between the 85Ls and the 85/1.8 - it will never be resolved because of the design considerations involved.
This actually was resolved once and for all yesterday morning. The 85/1.2 was judged to be superior by a panel of photography, engineering, and optical physics experts from 14 countries including the USA and Japan. It really sucks too because I own the 85/1.8.
Dr. Ray wrote:
This actually was resolved once and for all yesterday morning. The 85/1.2 was judged to be superior by a panel of photography, engineering, and optical physics experts from 14 countries including the USA and Japan. It really sucks too because I own the 85/1.8.
Yes, I read that too, Dr. Ray. Quite amazing, particularly the part where the Holistic Optical Ethics panelist proved that the 85L actually focuses faster "in the sense of desire to achieve deep focus".
But seriously, Sam Bennett, I have to admire your persistent and consistent sensible posts. We probably won't convince anyone in the short term, but it doesn't matter. The lens will prove itself over time - and who knows, maybe it will prove my judgment flawed, but I'm not going to worry about it!
Thanks also to William Castleman for providing useful information and comparisons, as usual.
Thanks for a really nice test. I know the effort required. I also agree with your comments regarding the EF50/1.4 and the CZ P50/1.4. First comment about your test: the "cut edge" in the OOF highlight test is caused by the mirror in its upward position during the exposure. This indicates that the 50L has a broad light cone (geometry of the exit pupil). Second comment: the color fringing is of the LCA variety (longitudinal). While not ideal, this amount is fairly acceptable, and is equal to that of the P50/1.4. Unlike TCA (lateral color), LCA is quickly eliminated by stopping down.
alfarmer wrote:
Exactly. All the gearheads & geeks will need to see for themselves. Canon knows this. That's why the price is nuts at first and goes down over time. They have to lower the price over time because the market becomes saturated.
Standard Canon pricing practice, not only with lenses but with DSLR's as well. I remember when the 5D was, what, $3299. Then $3099, then 2899, and so on.
I don't expect as much drop with this lens as with a camera body. I don't think the margins on a well-built lens are as big as on a DSLR. Could be wrong, though.
Photon wrote:
But seriously, Sam Bennett, I have to admire your persistent and consistent sensible posts. We probably won't convince anyone in the short term, but it doesn't matter. The lens will prove itself over time - and who knows, maybe it will prove my judgment flawed, but I'm not going to worry about it!
Thanks also to William Castleman for providing useful information and comparisons, as usual.
I recall a similar thread or two about the 5D when it hit the market. Lots of people argueing against it, many in favor. But over time, most of the arguments have disappeared. The camera has proven itself to be a good performer, and has brought full-frame to many that wanted it (myself included). I suspect that you're right about the 50/1.2L - in a similar vein, it will prove itself to be a great performer.
I know the effort required. I also agree with your comments regarding the EF50/1.4 and the CZ P50/1.4. First comment about your test: the "cut edge" in the OOF highlight test is caused by the mirror in its upward position during the exposure. This indicates that the 50L has a broad light cone (geometry of the exit pupil). Second comment: the color fringing is of the LCA variety (longitudinal). While not ideal, this amount is fairly acceptable, and is equal to that of the P50/1.4. Unlike TCA (lateral color), LCA is quickly eliminated by stopping down.