10DFT said: 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.
I think that all agree that 17-40 L is a well built lens. It costs $680
Assuming that the optics of this lens is not worth anything, we can conclude that the glass of 50 f/1.2 L is worth $900. It is more than 135 f/2.0L. I know that this is oversimplification but I cannot see that reason behind the price of 50 f/1.2L lens. By the way, I understand that the development of this lens has to be included in the price as well.
Well, I'm not comparing the 1.4 to the 1.2 (no longer own a 1.2), but I tried my 1.2 today. And it seems acceptably sharp. Doing a box test, which is prone to my own user error, I tried to compare my 35 and 85 to the 50, something I never would have done before. That said, my subjective test told me that the 85 was sharper, not surprising given an 85mm lens is supposedly easier to make, and that the 1.4 was perhaps just a tad sharper wide open, but perhaps more prone to slight focusing deviations, which surprised me (only noticable at 100, some of the time). But that was splitting hairs.
I do wish I had a 1.4 to test against, although, really, why should I even bother.
Overall I'm happy with the lens. I wish the front element didn't move in and out -- but it focuses fast enough, and seems sharp enough. It is a better focal length, took some nice quick pics of the family when I was playing around, and it seemed very nice.
I will note, that this is a lens that was tested (relatively extensively) already -- so you've all seen shots from it. So my shots won't add anything.
There was a large contigent of bashers for the 16-35L, 24-70L, and 5D, in particular harping on poor qc at Canon. I have purchased all 3, and have very pleased with performance, sharpness, etc. on all of 'em
I have seen enough positive on the 50L to order one, supposed to be here Friday. If I have to eat my words, either return or sale are options, but I doubt if it will come to that.
There is a tempest in a teacup going on in the Hands On M8 thread in Alternative, M8 v 5D. Kind of like here with 50L v the other 50s
Harvey Moore wrote:
There was a large contigent of bashers for the 16-35L, 24-70L, and 5D, in particular harping on poor qc at Canon. I have purchased all 3, and have very pleased with performance, sharpness, etc. on all of 'em
I have seen enough positive on the 50L to order one, supposed to be here Friday. If I have to eat my words, either return or sale are options, but I doubt if it will come to that.
There is a tempest in a teacup going on in the Hands On M8 thread in Alternative, M8 v 5D. Kind of like here with 50L v the other 50s ...Show more →
Iam thrilled with mine. I bet you will too. Many of nay-sayers dont own the lens.
10DFT wrote:
I love it, but there were frequent verbal battles about it when it first hit market. On this very forum.
I found Jonbrach's claim humorous also, and the most frequent accusation at the time was that the 5D was being praised by owners to justify the outrageous cost...sounds familiar, doesn't it?
As a matter of fact, 5D was introduced at CAN$4300 in Canada. Now the price is CAN$3150 - 700 (rebate). I find this difference as outrageous as the current price of 50L.
Heh, I know this is going to open up a whooooole can of worms, but I did my final tests for myself before I send the 50L off for calibration (yes, I'm still sending it). These tests compare my beloved 35L with the 50L.
The series I'm going to show is interesting for a few reasons which seems pretty relevant to a lot of talk going on right now:
It shows the variation that occurs with all lenses.
It shows the primary flaw in "phone book" or "brick wall" tests that attempt to gauge sharpness with a flat surface.
It shows how easily it is to confuse "unsharp" with "out of focus".
It somewhat debunks the "The 35L is tack sharp wide open!" meme I keep hearing.
Test background: All shot with a 1D Mark II on a tripod with a 580EX off-camera firing through a small softbox, ISO 100, 1/250th second. Cheating and using E-TTL instead of manual flash. Processed in DPP with 5600K color temperature, Neutral Curve, a slight bump in blacks, Saturation +1, Sharpness 2. Needless to say, I could sharpen these much more in DPP without getting artifacts, but I tend to not do that, so... there. Every shot is de-focused, then triggered through a tether to EOS Utility which focuses and then takes the photo.
What's shown in each image is the "worst" and "best" shots from the series to show the variation that occurs naturally in all lenses every time you focus.
The setup: a combination of images and lines on a 4x6 print, wrapped around a pill bottle. The eye is used as the focus point:
Canon 35/1.4L @ f/1.4
Canon 50/1.2L @ f/1.4
Canon 35/1.4L @ f/2.8
Canon 50/1.2L @ f/2.8
Needless to say, the things that spring out are that the 35L front-focuses a bit (which I knew already) and the 50L backfocuses majorly. It seems to me that given a "good" 50L, it will easily be as good a performer as the 35L.
Very good and interesting test. There is one picture that I would call sharp: Canon 35/1.4L @ f/2.8 "best".
I would like to thank you for your extremely valuable contribution to this thread. Your posts are making me re-think my decision about 50L. I am waiting for the results of your lens calibration.
Thanks Michael, my pleasure. Other things to note from my test: At around 5ft, focusing with AI Servo gave rock solid results. However, 5ft with One Shot was all over the place. This seems to reflect my experience with the RollerGirls where the AI Servo shots at distances around 10ft were rock solid and extremely sharp, while shooting One Shot close up is really iffy. Very frustrating, but at least my "objective" testing seems to match my more practical results.
So basically, I'm of the opinion that I have a lemon. This is going to be a killer lens if Canon can rein in the focusing issues.
It seems that there is an additional error in Mr. Weekh'w test. The kitchen sink looks much better at F1.2 than F2.0. I can assure you that is not the case with my 50L and, unless he has a very strange defective in his lens (hard to know how you would go about designing such an anomoly) or his lens. As for the tiny flower I really don't know how you can see much on a 72dpi screen 3/4 inches across. Again: This is a very sharp/contrasty lens as compared to the 35 and 135L at near max apertures.
>Yes there's more to a lens then sharpness, but sharpness first for a L prime.
Adequate sharpness first, yes, but beautiful bokeh second so you feel good shooting the damn thing wide open. I hate shooting my 50/1.4 anywhere near open because of the jarring bokeh... and while the 50L looks to be a little better, it is hardly a "bokeh star" by any stretch of the imagination... so sad!
It's a shame that the lens has not proven to worth all the $$$ people spent for it..
I have seen many test that actually show the 50 1.4 having better IQ.
Not one test but several test from several different copies.
I sure would be upset if I forked out for one..
I guess there will always be a 50 1.2L MII...
I have seen several people selling their 50 1.2 after a couple of hours of testing it...
WOW.
Anybody else feel the same way?
Snook
Considering that I know of several 50/1.2Ls that have backfocusing problems and that many people appear oblivious on how to set up a good sharpness test, I have to think that the lens' main problem at this point is poor QC. It seems quite likely that a lot of the "unsharp" 50/1.2Ls are actually misfocusing and need to be repaired or replaced.
SoundHound wrote:
It seems that there is an additional error in Mr. Weekh'w test. The kitchen sink looks much better at F1.2 than F2.0. I can assure you that is not the case with my 50L and, unless he has a very strange defective in his lens (hard to know how you would go about designing such an anomoly) or his lens. As for the tiny flower I really don't know how you can see much on a 72dpi screen 3/4 inches across. Again: This is a very sharp/contrasty lens as compared to the 35 and 135L at near max apertures.
kitchen sink is on the CA test.
The images that u see are almost at 100% cropped.
Will the CA behaviour change if I were to make the minor focus adjustment?
QUOTE
>Yes there's more to a lens then sharpness, but sharpness first for a L prime.
Adequate sharpness first, yes, but beautiful bokeh second so you feel good shooting the damn thing wide open. I hate shooting my 50/1.4 anywhere near open because of the jarring bokeh... and while the 50L looks to be a little better, it is hardly a "bokeh star" by any stretch of the imagination... so sad!
UNQUOTE
QUOTE
>Yes there's more to a lens then sharpness, but sharpness first for a L prime.
Adequate sharpness first, yes, but beautiful bokeh second so you feel good shooting the damn thing wide open. I hate shooting my 50/1.4 anywhere near open because of the jarring bokeh... and while the 50L looks to be a little better, it is hardly a "bokeh star" by any stretch of the imagination... so sad!
UNQUOTE
I totally disagree with these statements. If you want ultimate sharpness get a macro lens. The whole reason for getting an f1.2 lens is the 1.2 aperture, for depth of field control and bokeh - but most importantly, for the extra bit of f-stop that will help you (and the camera) see better for critical focusing so you miss less shots, especially for very low light shooting, where even f1.4 is highly questionable. If you don't do a lot of low light shooting you don't need this lens.
Sam Bennett wrote:
Considering that I know of several 50/1.2Ls that have backfocusing problems and that many people appear oblivious on how to set up a good sharpness test, I have to think that the lens' main problem at this point is poor QC. It seems quite likely that a lot of the "unsharp" 50/1.2Ls are actually misfocusing and need to be repaired or replaced.
I always wondered if these fast primes front/back focus a slight amount if they might still be within tolerance according to Canon standards. With razer thin DOF's at 1.2 aren't we supposed to manual focus anyways to fine tune it? Isnt that why they put the smooth focus ring on the 85L? Will a couple centimeters of back/front focusing show up in everyday shots? With my front focusing 35L I never really noticed it too much unless I was taking pics of lens boxes, but I sent it in anyways because it bothered me. Just my 2 cents.
