Roy Pertchik
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
I think it is simply plugging a hole in the Canon "L" line up. For years, lots of folks have been asking "Why is there no 50 L?" So, here it is. It costs what it costs to make the best lens in this FL they practically can. It will be a bit better than the 50 1.4, just like the 85 1.2 is a bit better than the 1.8 (other than weight and focussing speed :-) A lot of people will buy a 50f1.2 immediately, and in a few months, the street price will drop maybe 10%, and it will continue on thus, as a premium lens, an "L" for Luxury, that will have a following of loyalists, a group of detractors, and some who buy it without too much thought simply because that can afford to. If I had the dough, I'd pop for it, but I don't think it's in any way a priority for me. I will say my 50 1.4 at 1.4 can't make too large a print, but it's good at 1.8 and very good at 2. If the new 50 is decent at 1.2, that will be something. If it's only so-so at 1.2, but gets good at 1.4, it will still have it over the current lens, but not enough to entice me. Beyond that, yhe truth is, just about all of Canon's L's, even the zooms, are prety darn sharp by 4.0, so in that range, I'd rather use a zoom. At 5.6, obviously, it's tough to say one Canon lens is superior to another. If the new 50 offers something useful between 1.4 and 2.4, which is very likely, then it will have a following, but i won't jump in unless I get a lot of winfall cash dropped on me from a clear blue sky.
|
