I am lucky to live close-by to Canon Irvine. In the days that they still did it for free, they told me to bring in my camera and all my lenses for a "courtesy" calibration.
They said that it is not uncommon that they can use some fine tuning to zero them in.
For example, the cumulative effect of both a camera and lens, both borderline within standards but slightly front/back focusing can be consistently crappy performance - zero out of 100 shots in-focus.
After seeing the nice/acceptable wide open sharpeness of both Sam and weekh's tests, I believe it's prudent to reserve judgemnent until Sam gets his back from calibration.
For the record, I appreciate weekh's admitting mistakes and re-doing and revising his test results - shows both his personal integrity and that of his testing.
After evaluating the chart, the 50mm 1.2 L to my eyes seem to be sharper than the 50mm 1.4 at every aperture.
Isn't the mouseover the 1.4 lens? The arrow at the top points to the lens selected, I think.
If I have that right, the poor performance of the 1.2 can't be attributed to focus, as it does not sharpen up quickly as the lens is stopped down.
Perhaps Canon produced some dogs in the initial production run, as I doubt these results are anywhere close to their published (theoretical) MTF chart for the 50 1.2.
This test shows the 1.2L to be significantly softer than the 50 f/1.8 as well as the 50 f/1.4 lens at the same aperatures. This is getting difficult to explain away.
I too noticed the 50L is softer then the other 2 50s. I already have a 1.8 lens, so I was hoping the 50L would be better then that. Im hoping to make a choice between the 50L and the 1.4 lens within a week, but somehow I doubt I'll decide by then. Canons rebate program ends at months end and I already have 1 entry, so if Im getting the 1.4 I better do so soon. I was hoping the 50L would compare against the 1.4 from f2 and above, but it doesn't look good so far. I just hope all it is -is a bad batch of lenses.
CMOS wrote:
Can anyone comment on how the 50 1.2L compares to the 50 1.0L?
Maybe that is a more appropriate comparison?
I'm sure Gary (ghuff) will pipe in, but in case he doesn't - his 50/1.2L is sharper than his 50/1.0L was. Of course, this is when the 50/1.2L focuses correctly.
IMO, The new 50L compares very favorably with the old 50L. For me it is a good improvement in many ways. (and I liked the old 50L)
1. The old 50L was usable at f/1 but extremely soft. See my original example gallery at: http://www.pbase.com/ghuff/new_50l_f12
One of the shots there was with a 50L f/1.0. The new 50L is a great improvement in the sharpness regard.
2. The old 50L sharpened very substantially and very quickly, and by f/1.6 to f/1.8 was a good performer. AT normal apertures above f/2, it was average sharp.
3. The old 50L had a little too much harsh contrast for my taste (it was made in the film era)...kind of like the older 85L...so a little changing of coatings technologies seemed to help for digital sensors.
4. The old 50L had EXTREME coma with pinpoint lights (like Christmas tree lights). This newer 50L still has some, but it is MUCH better behaved in that regard.
5. Bokeh with the old 50L tended to be a little more harsh, but it still had footballs and chopped circles.
6. This new 50L is much lighter.
7. The new 50L is some sharper after stopping down than the old one...
8. The new 50L is FTM focusing, the old one was like the old 85L when focusing...by wire and only when switched to manual.
9. The new 50L seems to have less red-green CA...(not purple sensor fringe/bloom) than the old 50L lens.
10. The new lens is weather sealable....more or less.
11. Service parts will be available for longer on this new lens...than the old one.
12. The new lens is MUCH more economical for me than the old one. My 50L cost $3250 originally. I sold it for around $3300 3 months ago and bought the new 50L and put about $1800 back in my pocket. So, I am a happy camper.
My perspective is different than most folks who ask themselves if they want to spend lots more for a 50mm...because for me...I spent much less and got a better performing lens!
Hey, it may not be quite as sharp as this or that...but it compares favorably and seems to compliment the 35L and 85L. The photos have similar color and contrast from all 3 lenses.
My new 50L is currently at Canon having focus work done, like Sam's. But in 4 years of shooting Canon...they have not let me down. And I'm sure they won't this time either. It's unfortunate, but it happens....no biggie.
I think rbraun (Rene) can also describe his experiences with the original 50L vs the new 50L.
I can sum things up but I might disappoint some of you wanting measurable and technical answers.
The new 50L is better than old 50L in these areas:
Size and Weight - the new 50L is lighter and smaller and therefore more portable
Full Time Focusing - FTM on the new 50L - this is a huge advantage if you really work this lens in darkness where you also need to manual focus.
Price - the new 50L is cheaper
1.0 - well here is where the new 50L loses :-)
Images - no idea. I love the results from both of them. My belief is (and I think I'm delusional) that the 50L's render color, contrast and overall images in better way than the 50 1.4 and 50 1.8. The problem is that I never really hunted this down to prove it. I was just happy.
Now if you have suggestions please post them here. It seems I have a very good copy of the 50L. It blows away my copy of the 50 1.4.
Test was performed with a 5D mounted on a tripod (Bogen 3021/3047), using mirror lookup, AI Servo focusing, pressing half way to focus and using a 2s timer. This is a test of center sharpness. I will do a new and more complete test including corner sharpness and also compared to the 50/1.8.
There are a ton of other possible tests, and I may do some more later, now though, I am going out to have some fun!
ward1066 wrote:
interesting how the Ai servo preformed better, I think Sam said he noticed that too. Thanks for posting. Did you order it from B&H?
For shooting with a tripod the focusing mode probably doesn't matter that much, but when hand holding at f/1.2, AI Servo is better (for me) because it is too easy to move the camera a few mm back or forth, thus throwing it out of the focus that was obtained in One Shot mode.
I bought it from Pro Photo Supply. They were easy to deal with and had a decent price ($1467) considering how fast this lens sells out. I also bought a Hoya Super HMC 72mm filter for $59.
Thanks Henrik! Some varied bokeh comparisons would be greatly appreciated by me
(come on... I want to love this lens... I want to buy it... I just am not being convinced that I will love it and don't want to spend $1600 on a lens and just feel that it is ok)
Well, with all the controversy I had to see for myself... :-)
After receiving a new copy of the 50L today I tried a bunch of shots at f/1.2, f/1.8, and f/2.8 on both a 5D and a 30D, with the same results across the board on 12 shots per camera. Every time, the shots at f/1.2 and f/2.8 were reasonably sharp, though not as sharp as I typically see coming from the 85L. And every time, the shots at f/1.8 were soft (seemingly out of focus). This seems in keeping with other, more scientific tests, as well as more casual results from various owners.
The thing I can't tell is whether it's an optics issue or an AF issue, especially since I suck at MF. Where oh where is my split prism, Canon! I did try, however, and bracket-focused a few shots. It sure seemed like I was able to get my subject into proper manual focus (albeit painfully), yet AF could never quite get it right -- though it did get closer at f/1.2 than f/1.8.
What does this all mean? Probably not much for you guys, but for me it means I'll need to get much better results when I try again with daylight. If not, this may turn out to be the shortest time I've ever held onto a lens...
