hnordberg said: Ok, I will probably regret this....but my copy arrived today and just did a quick test. You can see the results here:
Thank you for the test Henrik.
I think that you have a poor copy of 50 f/1.4 - mine would have been much sharper starting at f/1.6. I would also like to ask you about sharpness comparison at f/2.8 and f/4.0 How about focus consistency?
alfarmer wrote:
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.
Take a look at the tests at the url below. In this test, the 50/1.2L was doing very well at f/1.8 and was right where it should have been in comparison to the other aperatures.
I cannot speak for others issues or others testing of this lens. I can say that for my lens, it sharpened through all successive increasing apertures just like one would expect. However, mine sometimes needed manual focus assist (in other words the AF system did not focus correctly) to get correct focus so that the change in apertures could be seen as expected. (this phenomenon was not consistent)
This occasional issue and the issue of backfocusing at less than 5 feet distance led me to send my lens in.
CMOS wrote:
Take a look at the tests at the url below. In this test, the 50/1.2L was doing very well at f/1.8 and was right where it should have been in comparison to the other aperatures.
dcmiller wrote:
Doesn't your link compare the 1.4 wide open to the 1.2L stopped down?
Yeah, that page happens to be a comparison, but that's just a conincidence. I was just showing a counterexample of a result where the 1.2L sharpened as expected at f/1.8.
CMOS wrote:
Yeah, that page happens to be a comparison, but that's just a conincidence. I was just showing a counterexample of a result where the 1.2L sharpened as expected at f/1.8.
But look at both at 2.8.
Heck, compare the 1.2L with the cheap 50 1.8, both at 2.8.
Perhaps my expectations are too high, but I expect more than what is shown.
But newsprint is near white. Contrast is a major factor in perceived sharpness. Newsprint should be manually metered to correct exposure, sine autoexposure will meter white to 18% gray.
gdeliz2 wrote:
Yes, it's supposed to be one of the easier focal lengths to design and there's no IS to complicate things. Nevertheless Canon has screwed up two recent designs, the 24-105L and 70-300 IS, so nothing is guaranteed except that they will eventually make it right if it not right from the get-go. If it's not a truly exceptional lens, I think Canon will get a lot of flack.
George Deliz
Told ya. $1600 is a lot to pay for no other advantage other than a slight speed bump and better build. I guess Canon just felt that there was a hole in the L line and decided to fill it. Canon certainly makes some superb lenses longer than 50mm so why would they put out something that just hurts their reputation? The recent 70-200/4 IS looks like a great lens and sells for a lot less than the 50L so what's going on with Canon? Who knows,maybe the design is a great one but the early production run is suffering QC problems.
it does seem to be moving quickly in the direction of a disappointment...i will wait to see reviews from serious magazines or sites....who knows,maybe canon will reissue lenses or recall them like they have been forced to do in the past...they cant be happy when word of mouth on a high end l lens is so mediocre...
Anyone else having trouble with the AF not working at all?
I don't know if it's just a broken AF/MF switch or what, but half the time when I put the lens on my camera and turn it on, the AF doesn't kick in. If I cycle power on the camera, AF becomes active. I always turn off the camera to switch lenses.
This also happens when I just turn the camera off and on again, with the 50L attached. I have the latest 5D firmware, and this problem doesn't exist for any other lens. It happened on the 30D too, fwiw.
What about when you turn the AF switch off and back on? The flaky switch on my 50/1.8 requires an extra nudge towards the ON position to get it to stay on reliably.(But the lens only cost $79.95 )
George Deliz
Took some "real world" shots (baby action) this morning with my 5D, ranging from f/1.2 to f/2.8, and performance seems acceptable with the exception of several where it back-focused. The shots that were in focus looked great. Interestingly, the wider the aperture the more accurate the AF seemed to be -- only one good picture at f/2.8.
FWIW, this leads me to suspect AF even more and optics even less because when the AF works the pictures are quite nice.
just about everybody who is posting concerning this new lens reports some sort of problem...many people sending the lens back to canon to be fine tuned and recalibrated etc....pretty clearly there is a problem of some significance..i am curious to see whether or not canon acts in some way to deal with this..2 lenses have been released lately..the new 70-200 4.0 IS which i own and this new 50mm L..I literally havent heard a bad comment concerning the 70-200,in fact it is pretty much universally praised...shouldnt the feedback be similar on the new 50?
I have no technical tests. No sheets of paper. Just got it out of the box and ran around my house. Husband's watching ESPN (and commented "that's little, you should've had a bigger lens for that amount of $$"), kids are asleep, bird is bored, cat is skeptical. But, I'm not a big believer in technical tests...I just want to see how it works in *my* particular hands. Mostly because, I want to see if it will work with me. If I see a problem developing for focus, I'll let you know.
So, here's some very boring, but indeed 50L shots. All at 1.2
)