Koivulehto wrote:
Did the light change between the shots, or is the 50L shot's focus somewhere else, like in her nose?
I think she shifted slightly between shots. If you flip back and forth between the two, you can notice the subtle difference. But as Harvey pointed out, the two bodies paint pixels in their own way.
Still talking about the 85L/50L shots: I can see that there is different amount of noise in the pictures with different bodies, but the difference of the light reflection from her both eyes hardly depends on the body nor the focal lenght.
In the 85L shot there is a sharp bar and a dot in both eyes, while in the 50L shot there is a less sharp bar only. Omission of the dot might be explained by her having turned her head, but if the focus was in her eyes in both shots, it would seem that the bars should be equally sharp.
OK. Now even I can see the focus and the reflections clearly - the dot is smaller in the 50L picture, but it is still there, and possibly sharper than in the 85L shot.
The text in the book in your garden shot is not only legible - it is very clearly legible.
In these contests the focus point is really relevant if you can guarrantee that you did not recompose or if the subject did not move. For picture of moving subjects (people) that is a difficult task.
All I can say after reading all the posts here and all the tests (Castleman's and The Digital Picture's) that Canon 50 f/1.4 is not that bad a lens. I know that this statement is not a revelation to anyone but since this older lens has been maligned so much, I believe that we should look at it a bit differently now. I got it back.
There are significant incremental improvements in the 50L over it's predecessors that give me more than enough satisfaction to keep it.
Focusing handheld at 1.2 and close range is demanding no matter what the lens. When I was practicing at 1.2, the time between focus lock and shutter release is critical when in af modes to minimize effects of the human body moving.
Not much different than the techniques used by riflemen when hunting game animals.
Harvey Moore said: There are significant incremental improvements in the 50L over it's predecessors that give me more than enough satisfaction to keep it.
I have no doubts that it may be the case but I would still like to see a single test showing that 50 f/1.2L is not less sharp than 50 f/1.4 at f > 2.5 (I mean f/2.8 etc). I am certain that some would say "sharpness is not everything".
Michael,
I spent some time browsing your galleries, nice work.
The key words in my analysis are "...give me more than enough satisfaction...", I do not presume to impose that on anyone else.
Some of the debate here on the 50L is starting to remind me of a more genteel version of the 85L v 85 1.8 wars that raged here a while back. I use the 85 1.8, but not enough to justify 85L cost. I do, however use 50mm quite a bit along with 35mm and 24mm. 24L is next on my hit list for landscapes.
I have seen the web postings of 50L tests that seem to make your point, but they simply do not agree with my personal results. At some point, "sharpness" is very close to equal between 1.4 and 1.2 versions. This is very difficult to see in web posts. Too many differences in post processing. The other factors of tonal graduation, bokeh, distortions, etc become, to me, with detail resolution, enough make the difference.
Harvey Moore said: Michael, I spent some time browsing your galleries, nice work.
Thank you very much, Harvey.
I have seen the web postings of 50L tests that seem to make your point, but they simply do not agree with my personal results.
I am still very much interested in getting this lens and often regret that I cancelled my order. I appreciate your comments and know that I will have to simply use the lens myself to see how good it is.
Michael, again... if you're expecting it to be noticeably sharper than the 50/1.4, you'll be disappointed. I hate to sound like a broken record but we keep seeing this over and over again... if you guys are assessing this lens on the pixel-peeping level, it's not the lens for you.
This really is a silly argument isn't it?Canon has many lenses that are top rated and unanimously praised such as the 85L and 135L and the 300 2.8 L to name but a few.They also have many lenses that are perfectly good lenses that please many people but fall short of that "special" category.The same holds true with cars or any other product group.I think what we have here is a situation where this new 50L has been reviewed by most so far as a good but not great lens.The 2 professional reviews i've seen thus far also say pretty much the same thing.That doesn't mean many people wont very much enjoy this lens,it just means that it seems to fall short of that "special" category.Those of us who are expressing disappointment were i think hoping that this lens would join the select group of Canon lenses that are unanimously praised and regarded as must have lenses.The disappointment comes from the fact that this lens seems to fall into a different category.Not a bad lens,just not a special one.I do not argue that the lens has its good points in many situations will prove to be outstanding.To those who own it,enjoy it..to those of us who wanted to buy it but haven't or wont....it is a shame!
Special is subjective and hard to define, and even the 85L doesn't universally hit that category. A simply search of the forum will reveal tons of 85 1.8 v. 85L posts, with many people making similar claims as the ones being made here (some by some of the same forum members participating in this thread I believe). Other lens hitting that category is the 70-200 2.8 IS, for a zoom, viewed by many as one of the best zooms, yet ridiculed by others as being not as good as the f4 and non IS f2.8 counterpart.
So maybe there are some, a few, or perhaps even just one or two special lens, but if it is really that small, that cannot be the standard.
The 85L receives a rating of 9.7 here on this forum..that seems to me to be pretty special..if the 50L received the universal praise that the 85L does i would buy it in a flash.....In addition,while the 70-2002.8 has a few complaints here and there i would say once again that if you read the professional reviews of the lens i think it also is pretty much universally praised..again i would be all over the 50L if it was in that category...read the 2 pro reviews out there on the 50L and then read the corresponding reviews of say the 35L,85L 135L etc...who knows?over time the performance or perception may change and i sure hope it does...perhaps a tweak by canon will make the next batch better?who knows?....
My 50 1.2L does this odd thing when focusing... it will AF to a certain distance setting, then it will instantly shift the distance by a tiny bit IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.
Anyone else see this happening? You can actually feel it. It's as if the AF overshoots and then rewinds a tiny bit.
Like it was already stated, "Special" of course is very subjective and somewhat difficult to define. However, some of what may be happening on this forum may have to do with the disparate bodies that people own on this forum. These bodies range from D30, D60, 10D, 20D, 30D, 5D, 1D, 1D2, 1D2N, 1DS2....and all have different crop factors and different pixel site sizes as well as different stages of imaging sensor technology / and image processing technology (Digic or pre-digic) and different AA filters. From my experience of owning 4 different bodies over a period of years with the same lenses, I found that a particular lens that did well and looked special on one body, did not especially do the same on another body. They may have been similar...but not EXACTLY alike.
It may be that with all the varied people and bodies on this forum using the same lenses...that some lenses may have a special look with certain combinations of bodies......and others, not so special.
Also there are peoples "preferences" of photo looks that factor into what is "special".
With all of these non-equal circumstances...I don't find it surprising that there are differing views of what is special and what is not...
Guys, I've read the last 8 or so pages of this 125 page thread, (and I read the first 8 or so, back befor the 50L release).... My impression from all of the test shots of sleeping babies, parked bicycles, camera store salesmen is.... BOKEH!!!!!! Don't look at the baby's eye lashh, look at the pillow behind her. Dont look at the kid in the hat, look at the bent wood chair in the background, and the painterly patches of color that are, what, a christmass tree? Ooooh. This is a b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l bokeh lens, period. The 85L may be a tad sharper, but most of the 85L's oooh and ahhh shots, (like Lars' famous temple monk shots etc.), draw their oooh's and ahhhh's from the lush, creamy smooooothe bokeh, and I see similarly beautiful backgrounds in a lot of the test shots from the new 50L posted here. I think this looks like a lovely lens that will get a tremendous rep and following as time goes buy and more dreamy bokeh shots appear. In time this will be recognized as a "special" lens, because the bokeh is exquisite, much better then the 50 f1.4 and immediately recognizable as so. The last three sample pics in the Digital Picture review give a fantasatically clear lesson on what makes dreamy bokeh (*www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)
and this lens has got it! If/ when I can get the bucks together, someday, I'd pop for it in a heart beat. Until then, I hope the owners stop pixel peeping and go out and shoot and wow us!
A lens is only as special as the photographer behind it, and I think given the time and opportunity, this lens will eventually land itself in the same class as other highly recognized Canon lenses that we've all come to love. Even with that said, this is something that won't happen overnight and it will take time to prove itself worthy of such a classification.
eeprete wrote:
A lens is only as special as the photographer behind it, and I think given the time and opportunity, this lens will eventually land itself in the same class as other highly recognized Canon lenses that we've all come to love. Even with that said, this is something that won't happen overnight and it will take time to prove itself worthy of such a classification.
