mbailey wrote:
Glad you kept an open mind! Look forward to your results.
Agreed and I too look forward to seeing those shots.
It's an excellent lens. No doubt the high pricetag has resulted in some heavy criticism, but I think it's a worthy contender in capable hands (I've been reaching for it more and more compared to my 85L).
Being DOF is so shallow, perhaps Canon pricing it so high was not a mistake, but a benefit, allowing a "controlled distribution" (in a way) to those that are/were willing to shell the obscene amount for a prime they needed (not just wanted) (I by no strecth of the imagination agree with the pricing), but also are skilled enough to use.
Just for kicks, the other evening I shot with my 1.4, and the results left me wishing I shot with the 1.2 instead.
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 got one and I hope it works out well for you. Perhaps you could tell us the date code and first 3 digits of the lens serial number, and maybe that would help in determining if you got one of a later batch? All of the original batch that I heard of were date coded UU1000 with widely variable serial numbers ranging from about 640xxx to 683xxx.
My original was a UU1000, with serial number of 679xxx.
Also, if any other owners of this lens care to post this information about their lens, it might help in determining a pattern of batch dates and numbers vs. lenses that have had issues.
692xxx, we are always last to get the shipments in Sweden, which can be a good thing sometimes. Haven't had time or energy to do any focus testing but during December this lens has earned me more than 3 times what I paid for it.
Heh.
-Anna
679XXX, purchased from Pro Photo in Oregon. No issues, thus far, but haven't done focus chart testing. Have only everyday use testing for focus accuracy and sharpness.
I can append my date code later, Gary. I am at the office and the lens is at home. I am guessing it will likely be UU1000 just like yours since they are so close in number.
for what it is worth my date code is uu1200....the serial number is 697.....perhaps this means my lens is a bit of a later batch than those from uu1000..who knows?
Thanks jonbrach, UU10 is a production date of October 2006 and UU12 is December 2006. So yes the production dates are different...but who is to say how many lens elements and mechanical components that Canon made at one time....or how many production month cycles that a batch of these items would last? This was why I wanted both serial and date numbers...to see what the correlation was and see if lenses with issues had particular serial and / or date codes....
FWIW, Canon still hasn't gotten my 50/1.2L back to me, so if I don't have a tracking number by tomorrow I'll be purchasing a 50/1.4 for this weekend's events. I half hope that happens since it would be interesting to have a complete set of RollerGirls photos shot with the 50/1.4 to compare with the last event I shot with the 50/1.2L.
Sam,
For how long has Canon had your 50 1.2L?
Anyway, if they don't get it back to you in time, rather than buying a 50 1.4, why not just use your 50mm Lensbaby? That might be interesting!
From Pro Photo Supply in Oregon.
I just got back from a two week trip to China (mainly Beijing and Shanghai). I brought only the 50L and 24-70L. I love both lenses. My 50L is very sharp wide open -- even in the corners (not that it matters much!). I am going through the RAW images now and will post more about the lens later.
This wouldn't be the first time that a Canon lens had early-production issues. Seems that it takes a few copies in the hands of consumers to work out the bugs. Remember the 24-105 with the flare issue? Canon made good to all users, but it did take a little time.
Hopefully, Gary's premise is correct so that people can be specific when ordering. It would be a good indication that Canon is fine-tuning production to accomodate the issue. Perhaps more pieces of data will support the premise.
