I have come to believe that one must take the lens out and shoot in the real world and see how it behaves...all of these tests are well and good but there are so many variables and the slightest difference in the test etc. can suggest one lens is better or worse than another...i think all the pixel peeping that goes on is both good and bad...good in that i think it keeps canon and other lens manufacturers on their toes..bad because it makes taking pictures into such a sterile hobby...i am guilty of this as much as anybody else and i have been critcal of the 50L for the same reasons but i realize that any single test can ultimately prove or disprove anything we want it to..
First high school basketball outing — see Sports forum thread here. So far I'm very happy with it. Subjective impression very favorable in that low light handling & AF performance seem to be better than the 85 f/1.8, which of course puts it at least two steps above the 50 f/1.4.
Nill Toulme wrote:
First high school basketball outing — see Sports forum thread here. So far I'm very happy with it. Subjective impression very favorable in that low light handling & AF performance seem to be better than the 85 f/1.8, which of course puts it at least two steps above the 50 f/1.4.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Really enjoyed the slide show! How do you post process those images? Do you use a constant white balance or do you vary from shot to shot. What kind of anti-noise software do you use. They look really good for iso 1600-3200! BTW glad you had a great outing with the 50L. I think its a keeper too.
Thanks. Harvey, yes, 1D Mark II, all at ISO 1600, 1/400 f/2 — many somewhat underexposed at that.
mbailey... I shoot RAW and convert with C1 and Magne profiles. I use AWB because the gym lights cycle and you end up with a different WB for every frame... a nightmare. I don't worry about it much for the web images but fix it if necessary for print orders. Similarly, I apply no NR to the web images, and usually none to smaller prints, but will use it for larger prints. FWIW, my "RAW Workflow for Sports Shooters" can be found here.
I should have recognized you from OPF, Asher's site. Quite a few knowledgable guys hang out over there, yourself included in that group.
I use a 5D, The sensor is very close to the 1DmkII. I have used 1600 and 3200 a fair bit for indoor nite stuff, coffee houses, restaurants, nite street shooting. Like you, I don't find a need for noise reduction that much.
The first 10 test shots with my 50L were of an old white cupboard door in a kitchen, had to chuckle when I opened them in bridge. A real rainbow effect from the 60 hz flourescents.
Nill Toulme wrote:
mbailey... I shoot RAW and convert with C1 and Magne profiles. I use AWB because the gym lights cycle and you end up with a different WB for every frame... a nightmare. I don't worry about it much for the web images but fix it if necessary for print orders. Similarly, I apply no NR to the web images, and usually none to smaller prints, but will use it for larger prints. FWIW, my "RAW Workflow for Sports Shooters" can be found here.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Nill, Thanks for the reply. I especially appreciate your work flow link. I really need to speed up my raw conversion process. You present many good ideas.
Here's a combined jpg showing the test I posted earlier.
These were all taken at close to, but slightly farther than, the minimum focusing distance. As you can see, the 501.2L pales in comparison to the 85L and 35L. All shots were tripod, MLU, cable release, ISO 100. No sharpening or contrast adjustments were applied. Obviously, all tken wide open (f1.2 for the 85 and 50, f1.4 for the 35) Processed thru ACR.
This was done using the chart and technique described at http://www.focustestchart.com/chart.html
As for the technique questions raised by other posters above, the chart was at about 45 degrees to the camera. In this case, I believe that the the exact angling would not matter here since this is not a test of front/back focus. Rather, the point is just to look at the sharpest part of the image, whereever it may be. http://www.room357.net/FTC.jpg
I should add that my tests above are consistent with my real world shooting experiences with the 50 1.2L. All my shots at or near 1.2 have this foggy ultra-low contrast look. Its not a DoF issue. My wide open shots with the 35 and 85 have much more pop.
Bad copies of any lens happen. But given the relatively large number of anecdotes here detailing problems of one sort or another with this lens and the unexplained delay getting it to market, I would recommend staying away from this lens for a while.
The same "foggy" efect has been reported for the 50mm F1.4 @F1.4. That's why I bought my 50L-to lose the fog stopped down to F1.4. Not sure why Canon finds it so hard to make a 50L to equal the 85L (since so much more glass is involved).
Given the amount of data (both ways) on this lens, I didn't feel that sharing my experiences with this lens would contribute anything. But after reading the post from cmos I feel that I should.
My experience with this lens is the same as cmos. Tried two copies, both had the same "fog" like low contrast at f1.2. This was exhibited both in tripod shots and real world. I compared heavily to my 35L. Given the disparity between the images both lenses produce at f1.4, I could not bring myself to keep the 50.
I am hoping that this turns out to be something that is related to early production and not inherent, since I would really like to have this lens.
SoundHound wrote:
The same "foggy" efect has been reported for the 50mm F1.4 @F1.4. That's why I bought my 50L-to lose the fog stopped down to F1.4. Not sure why Canon finds it so hard to make a 50L to equal the 85L (since so much more glass is involved).
Right on ! That's why I eventually had to get rid of my 50 f/1.4 as well as 50 f/1.8. Therefore I was hoping Canon would finally do better with the 50 f/1.2.
SoundHound wrote:
Not sure why Canon finds it so hard to make a 50L to equal the 85L (since so much more glass is involved).
Canon can make a good 50 if they wanted to. The FD 50L and the FD 55 1.2 AL lenses were known to be the best 50s Canon ever made. Why they didnt just copy those designs I dont know. They were definately sharp. I almost feel like getting one of those old lenses, but I'd be stuck using them on a film body.
There is one major difference between the 50/1.4 vs 50/1.2L and 85/1.8 vs. 85/1.2L debates....With regard to the 85mm lenses, there is near universal agreement that the 85/1.8 is a good lens and that the 85/1.2L is at least as good. The only debate is over how much better the 1.2L is and whether it's worth the price differential.
Right now, with regard to the 50 1.2L, I think there is substantial disagreement as to whether the darn thing works at all. It's not just jokers like me who have come to this conclusion, there are guys (such as MikeNJ above) who use the 1Ds2, 35L, 85L, and 135L and find that the 50L is a fogged out mess wide open.
Sorry to beat a dead horse, if that's what I'm doing. But after waiting for three months for my preorder and really looking foward to it, I'm extremely disappointed. I wish I could just get another copy on the assumption that my copy was bad, but there are just too many people who have had problems or came to the same conclusion with too many copies of this lens.
Well,As can be seen by my previous posts in this thread about the 50L i have been extremely skeptical about this new lens.There have been so many mixed reviews that I was hesitant to take the plunge and give the lens a chance...I own the 85L which i love as well as the 50 1.4 so i have a pretty good frame of reference...I decided that i wanted to try the lens out for myself and ordered it a few days ago from amazon intending to return it promptly if it turned out to be a lemon...i received the lens a couple of days ago and have had a chance to try it out briefly...my first shots were all taken wide open at 1.2 and to my surprise the images were extremely sharp and the AF was faster than i expected given all i have read..i would say that the AF is pretty much similar in speed to the 50 1.4 which while not blazing fast is more than fast enough.I use the 85L as a comparison and in terms of AF the 50L is quite a bit faster and surprisingly the performance wide open is as close to the 85L as i have yet seen including outstanding bokeh...Most of the shots ive taken have been wide open but the few ive taken stopped down a bit were impressive and sharper than what i have seen from my 50 1.4,at least up to 2.8...I plan on giving the lens a real workout in the next day or so when i go to a jazz club and see how it performs relative to my 85L...what i can say so far is that this really is a good lens and the combination of the wide open performance,the bokeh and,the build quality make the 50 1.4 seem like a toy in comparison...it is expensive and i havent had a chance to properly try it out yet but my initial impression is that it is a hell of a lot better than my expectations..i may yet keep it!
i will let you know after my evening at the jazz club but so far the lens is and has performed better than i expected given the discussions on here...im hoping i got a later batch perhaps which are better,who knows?...
jonbrach wrote:
i will let you know after my evening at the jazz club but so far the lens is and has performed better than i expected given the discussions on here...im hoping i got a later batch perhaps which are better,who knows?...
Glad you kept an open mind! Look forward to your results.
