Koivulehto wrote:
Inside EU we (= at least the Finns) can order by mail and pay only the VAT of the selling country (e.g. Germany), as long as the selling company has not been forced to register itself as a VAT collector in my country - which it would need to do, if it would have sold more than 35.000 EUR worth of goods to Finland in the previous year.
Unfortunately, German VAT was recently raised from 16% to 19%. But it's still lower than your Finnish VAT and certainly lower than our Swedish 25% VAT...
Unfortunately, German VAT was recently raised from 16% to 19%. But it's still lower than your Finnish VAT and certainly lower than our Swedish 25% VAT...
What are you guys doing in Europe that your taxes are going up? Our (Canadian) federal tax was recently lowered to 6% and 50 f/1.2L is C$1520. Actually I do understand because I lived in Europe for quite a while.
mfurman wrote:
What are you guys doing in Europe that your taxes are going up? Our (Canadian) federal tax was recently lowered to 6% and 50 f/1.2L is C$1520. Actually I do understand because I lived in Europe for quite a while.
Do you mind telling which seller in Canada carries the lens at that price ?As you probably know, both Henry's and Vistek have it listed at $1,799 CAN.
This is OT but what is VAT and what is it used for? BTW, I got the lens for $1443(US) no tax, free shipping from OneCall. They have since raised the price however.
mbailey wrote:
This is OT but what is VAT and what is it used for? BTW, I got the lens for $1443(US) no tax, free shipping from OneCall. They have since raised the price however.
That's pretty good, MEBailey......not that I am seriously interested, however, I
get intrigued whenever I hear someone say a lens in Canada is cheaper than from a reputable US seller.
mbailey: This is OT but what is VAT and what is it used for?
VAT: Value Added Tax. It is basically a method to penalize those who have money to buy something (or also those who do not have any money but want to buy). By the way, in Canada we have GST (Goods and Services Tax)
mfurman wrote:
VAT: Value Added Tax. It is basically a method to penalize those who have money to buy something (or also those who do not have any money but want to buy). By the way, in Canada we have GST (Goods and Services Tax)
Thanks for the explanation! I also looked it up on the Wiki. Very onerous!
Michael is correct on Lozeau being the cheapest price I've seen. Lens and Shutter here in the Fraser Valley matched that price. It wasn't too much of a stretch for them since their list is $1600. My lens is on order, but due to finances I may not be able to pick it up till April now. Its on a layaway plan. Im watching to see if the price will dip lower then that since US pricing seems to be dropping, but still not as good as the Canadian price.
Here's another 50L that's going back.
Below are some focus test charts from an 85LmkII, 50 1.2L and a 35 1.4L (in that order).
All were taken wide open on a 5D mounted on a tripod with MLU and cable release at ISO 100.
These are center crops at 100%. Processed thru ACR, no contrast or shaprening enhancements of any sort were applied.
This is about as raw as it gets. I've shot this test quite a few times with the 50L and it always comes out like this.
As you can see, this 50L is seriously soft all over in comparison to both of these lenses, and not by a little bit, either.
It's not a question of front or back focusing. It's a question of why the heck would anyone shoot a lens wide open that performs like this.
According to the MTF charts, the 50L wide open should perform very much like the 35L wide open. Clearly, that is not the case here.
I used the same techniques on all three lenses, so its not my method.
This can't be right. Say its not so!
Harvey Moore wrote:
Questions & Commentsfor CMOS re tests of 35L, 50L, 85L
They all exhibit similar appearance on my monitor
What was distance from sensor plane to focus line on each ?
Minimum Focus Dist/Mag Factors:
35L...1.0'/1:5.5
50L...1.5'/1:6.7
85L...3.2'/1:9
How did you align lens axis to plane of test chart ?
tks
harvey
I second these questions. I would have expected more from the 50L but would agree that perhaps focusing distance might have something to do with it.
So in a test like this, would it be applicable for one to calculate the same magnification factor for each one, and then use the corresponding focusing distance for each lens during the test?
The copy I have of the 50L performs very, very close to the 35L I have when similar scenes are photographed with each. I am a satisfied user of both. I have an 85 1.8, no 85L , and the 85 is close to the others.
I used to be involved image based qc systems, and have visited several vendors of that type of equipment. In every case, their optical test benches had very precise multi axis controls for testing the optics/cameras they used.
There is no way I can use a tripod and a test target aligned to test a lens at f1.2/1.4 dof and be accurate across the fov.
My tripod based af tests on the 50L produced very good results on 3D objects. My handheld af testing at 1.2 told me that I need to practice technique to get good results.
Harvey Moore wrote:
...
There is no way I can use a tripod and a test target aligned to test a lens at f1.2/1.4 dof and be accurate across the fov. ...
Interesting comment. I have suspected the same from my testing of my 24 1.4 and my 50 1.4. I never trust that my tripod setup is sufficiently parralel to the target to see good focus acros the FOV.
Harvey Moore wrote:
The copy I have of the 50L performs very, very close to the 35L I have when similar scenes are photographed with each. I am a satisfied user of both. I have an 85 1.8, no 85L , and the 85 is close to the others.
There is no way I can use a tripod and a test target aligned to test a lens at f1.2/1.4 dof and be accurate across the fov.
I agree its very hard to get a tripod aligned. I took a few hours and did a box test of the 50L and 85L both at f1.2. I shot raw then processed in PS with one pass on USM(its easier for me to tell soft vs sharp rather than soft vs softer). I could not tell any difference between the lenses. Both were sharper than I had expected. I posted the pics on POTN if you want to look.
Harvey Moore wrote:
I am in full agreement with this statement. At the least, enough sharpening to overcome AA filter effects for screen display is needed.
Nice reference photo illustration. Maybe "Candy residue on mouth area" should be added to any test shot of a person.
Harvey,
Did you see the box shots below the Christmas tree shots? What did you think? Could you see a difference in the 50 vs. 85?
, and the 85 is close to the others.
