I'm somewhat torn about mine. I like the IQ, but it is difficult to use near wide open in darker more difficult conditions -- more so than my 85 1.2, which generally beats it across the board. I get more noise, which is likely an exposure issue, but still, it's harder to control. I didn't get the lens for shooting in ideal lighting conditions....
I went out a few nights ago and shot incredible pictures in a jazz club here in nyc...the lighting was terrible ...i used my 85L v2 and shot everything wide open and i was truly amazed as to not only how wonderful the pictures came out but also the % of keepers i got...i used the 5d for what it is worth...as i've mentioned before i really wanted to buy the 50L but comments here along with reviews like the new one at the-digital-picture which i greatly respect...make it impossible for me to do so at this time....the review isn't terrible,it simply is very similar to all of what ive read here in the forum from those owning the lens....perhaps if the 85L wasn't so damn good lol!
for what it is worth my guess is that the adorama price decrease will be followed quickly by more cuts and Im guessing that early in the new year the lens will be routinely selling for 1200 dollars or so..just my guess
Thanks for posting the link for the review by the-digital-picture.com.
I would agree with most of the characterizations of the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L, but I did NOT find that the 50 1.2L was sharper than other Canon L primes at the same aperatures.
I did some tests (focusing chart+tripod+remote relase+MLU) against my 35 1.4L (canon calibrated) and, at 1.4, the 35mm lens was considerably sharper than the 50 f/1.2L.
Paid $1467 shipped 2 weeks ago at Pro Photo Supply in OR 2 weeks ago
I am very pleased with the performance of this lens. Low light work, normal light, focus, sharpness etc.
I would rank it only slightly under my 35L, better than 85 1.8. Don't have an 85L to compare with.
I have seen comments re it is not 5x better than 50 1.4, it is not a linear relationship in improvement.
I am going all prime, plan to sell my 24-70L and purch a 135L soon to complete the set. 85L II some time in the future.
Have done one paid shoot using the 50L mostly, and overall performance was impressive. I did practice f1.2 focus technique for a day or so before the "keeper" % was satisfactory from a focus standpoint.
Thanks for this information. I called B&H and they will match the Adorama price so you just saved me $100! Also, if you're a NAPP member, you get free shipping at B&H.
After much anticipation, I finally bit the bullet and bought the 50 1.2. I tried it at three locations. The lenses at the first two locations were sharp, but backfocused about 50% of the time. The lens at the third location functioned perfectly, as a matter of fact, after about 35 shots or so at 1.2, it has not missed even one. Here's a link to some pics I shot on a brief trip to Harvard square. All crops unsharpened.
Reading a few pages back got me curious about how the following combos would look. Both were handheld snapshots in hopeful attempt at preserving the same scene.
Definitely shows the softness of the lens, though very nice bokeh. It's an issue for heavy croppers (such as me) because, as your examples show, the effect is more noticable cropped.
While not as sharp as it would be stopped down a touch, I would say they are quite sharp considering they are completely unsharpened in pp. If you look at this crop http://www.pbase.com/spendthrift/image/72266690 , you can see that moire is starting to show on the small words, Also look at the size of the image it came from...I find it amazing you can read the words on the list. these crops with minimal sharpening would look quite nice. Anyways, I guess is sharpness is subjective to a certain degree
I'm going to agree with Evangelos on this one, those examples should sharpen very nicely. Looks like a nice copy of the lens.
It's hard to please you guys...
If one makes photos available sharpened...then some say that they need unsharpened photos for judgement.... then if you put them out there unsharpened to begin with...then some say...it's soft.
I'm sorry but I don't see any softness of your lens. Looks great to me. The only softness I see is the 1600 ISO noise which really isn't that bad. I think people's definition of sharp is definitely subjective and some will never see any lens as sharp once they make up their minds, for whatever reason, that they don't like it, especially a very expensive one. Some of the criticism this lens has gotten seems completely unwarranted from the photos that people here have been kind enough to submit. I think the 50L is an excellent lens and if you can't afford it DON'T BUY IT. But I think to knock this lens because it is expensive is ridiculous and to see softness in every picture submitted at f/1.2 is absolutely ludicrous.
Ron, it's interesting because your sample shows something I've been struggling with, which I can see even though the images are resized. You've got the same exposure, yet the 50L appears to have more noise than the 85L. Granted, this is high ISO, but I've found more difficulties dealing with noise on my 50L than with my 85L. Have you found that to be the case at all?
Oh -- nevermind. I see that the bodies are different. Didn't catch that the first read. Guess the noise are my own incompetence at exposing the lens thus far.
I'm going to agree with Evangelos on this one, those examples should sharpen very nicely. Looks like a nice copy of the lens.
It's hard to please you guys...
If one makes photos available sharpened...then some say that they need unsharpened photos for judgement.... then if you put them out there unsharpened to begin with...then some say...it's soft.
My 2 cents.
Alright, added a fullsize sharpened pic, and some crops of sharpend pictures....keep in mind these are shot at f1.2....don't expect miracles!
Evan & Gary: Not miracles, just sharpness that cuts. ;-)
FWIW, I was comparing to the 85L at f/1.2. It still just seems sharper to me than the 50L pics I've seen. I suppose I should get off my butt and post samples of what I mean, but it's been a full-time job going through all the Christmas shots. Only two folders left, yaaay! Of course then they'll hit me with New Years stuff...
I do want to mention to the contrary, however, that this 50L is already growing on me. Even though it's got some issues (as I've mentioned earlier), I really like the build and feel of the lens. And I don't know about yours but mine has whisper-quiet AF that seems quite fast enough, at least compared to the 85L. Very seximous.
Canada still has the cheapest prices on this lens. Its lowest here is $1520 (which is what I paid) which works out to (with todays exchange rate) $1310 US. So US stores could lower the price still to come closer to the Canadian prices.
These aren't any kind of formal test, but were something I did for myself to see how the lens performed in crappy lighting conditions at high ISO (800 in this case). All images were given the same recipe in Canon DPP for white balance, though for some reason it looks like there's variance.
They're RAW files processed with 0 color & saturation change, but a sharpening of 2 rather than zero. I wanted to pick a minimal number, but I always sharpen a bit more and the images do sharpen up. Each image is also best-of-three, center crop.
This test was done after taking a bunch of "regular" shots and, although it wasn't my intention, confirms something wanky between f/1.4 and f/2.2-to-2.8. Or am I the only one seeing what appears to be great sharpness & color at f/1.2 and f/2.2, but not in-between?
I wasn't doing a 50/f1.4 comparison, but for kicks I shot that lens wide open at the same subject to see what would happen. Looks pretty decent to me, clearly rivaling its 5X more expensive big brother. Not sure why people complain about this lens wide open, but maybe I just got lucky with a good copy.
For reference, here's an image taken wide-open with the 85L-II:
It was also taken with indoor lighting, though the lighting wasn't quite as harsh (diffused sunlight instead of tungsten). As you can see, the letters which are in focus are freakin' CRISP, matey. That's what I've come to expect from "L" lenses and it's why I'm a tad disappointed with 50L sharpness. It should be on-par with its cousins for the price.
Sorry for the lame toy subject, but I don't have a kitty. :-)
Ron, a very nice comparison. The 85L has obviously stronger blur, both in the background and in the foreground (= bottle). In the post size the tricolor fleece looks very similar in both shots, but her eyes twinkle more sharply in the 85L shot. Did the light change between the shots, or is the 50L shot's focus somewhere else, like in her nose?
Agreed. I tried to search for those posts to include as quotes and provide some context but I think they were removed? It was discussion about the two focal lengths on FF and 1.6 crop. I was intrigued and saw the opportunity to quickly grab some shots when my youngest was bothering mommy while napping.
I can set up a test to isolate any of the primes on a single body if that's beneficial to anyone. I really like the 50 on the 5d - it's true what they say in that you can pretty much "foot zoom" to 35 or 85.
