Ok...I updated the results of this post that was on page 138, and moved it down here to the last page.
Preliminary results so far, still point to early production QC issues (IMO). I have only heard of one lens outside of UU10s with issues, and that was CMOS's. His was a UU1100.
This is still a VERY small sample, and please feel free to tell me if I am missing something. If your name is on this list and you do not want your name associated with this list, please PM me and I'll remove it.
And by the way... my lens which was a UU10 version and was very sharp when manually focused, had close distance backfocusing issues that Canon helped but ultimately did not fix correctly in 3 trips to CPS. Pro Photo has generously agreed to exchange my lens and send the old one back to Canon. I am waiting for my new lens and expect it within a week or two. Pro Photo is currently out of stock.
Lenses with issues:
Ghuff (backfocus)
Sam Bennett (backfocus)
CMOS (soft)
MadMaxx200 (what happened to him? Canon promised him a new lens) (lens was less sharp when stopped down)
joecirca79 (first copy bad, exchanged)
MikeNJ (2 soft copies)
pcho (exchanging) UU1000
hkrzciuk (sent to Canon, backfocus) UU1000
Lenses without issues:
Harvey Moore
jonbrach
mbailey
eeprete
annayu
looscanon
hnordberg
bka20d
rbraun
Nill Toulme (presumed good)
dbostock (presumed good)
ward1066 (presumed good)
joecirca79 (second copy good)
Terry_C
wcastleman ( 2 copies that performed the same)
matsuib
photon
I did a quick test yesterday comparing the 35L and the 50L @ 1.4, shot these on the neutral setting with no sharpening, 100% crops. I dont think there is a huge difference, but the 35L may be slightly better
To me the 35 looks substantially better, As others have said, I really wanted this lens to shine as the 50 of a FF camera is where I started out in photography. I'm still on the ledge as to whether I'm going to get it or not.
I will tell you this though, I prefer it over my 35 and 85L on my 1.3 crop camera.It is a really nice focal length. I dont notice the slight sharpness differences in real world shots. I find the sharpness consistant with other reports, it isn't as sharp as the 35 or 85L and I have accepted that. It isnt front/back focusing either because I have tested it manual focus also.
ward1066 wrote:
I did a quick test yesterday comparing the 35L and the 50L @ 1.4, shot these on the neutral setting with no sharpening, 100% crops. I dont think there is a huge difference, but the 35L may be slightly better.
I don't think the 35 shot is only slightly better, It is much better than the 50 shot. I guess I have to wait longer until Canon addresses this problem
Thanks for the sample shots Wade. Unfortunately, this is another post showing the 50L falling short.
Here's the point: The 50L:is supposed to be as sharp (in the center) as the 35L at 1.4 and the 85L at 1.2. Take a look at the MTF comparison by Roy P a few pages back at https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/467828/125
If you don't know how to read the MTF charts, he has a good explanation a little bit under his MTF post.
Going by the MTF charts, the 50L at the center of the image should have the same contrast and resolution as the 35L and 85L. In fact, in the center of the image, the 35L, 50L and 85L should be indistinguishable. (Going towards the edges, the 85L sets itself apart as the winner.)
just for kicks after reading the last posts i took several pictures with my new 50L and my trusty 35L...it is of course tricky because of the different focal length but i did my best to compensate...when i looked at the results side by side it was almost impossible to tell them apart other than the obvious difference in focus of the camera at the moment and of course the fact that i couldnt focus on the exact same spot in both shots...i shot both at 1.4 and as i said one would have to be hellbent on finding differences to pass judgement one way or another...one moment i thought to myself yes the 35 is sharper..then i would look again and notice that the 50 was sharper ....i did the same thing the other say with my 85L and had similar findings..perhaps the 85 is marginally sharper but again if so we are talking truly marginally....i am sure a lot of bad 50's are out there...in fact i was one of the biggest critics early on before i took a chance on the lens....all im saying is that this is a very fine lens and dont make the assumption that the lens is no good.....perhaps there is something to the earlier vs later models and better copies of the later ones..who knows?
again i apologize for being unable to upload these pictures for comparison
I took the afternoon off today because of a ice storm and took a few more shots to verify my lens was not front/back focusing. It seems pretty much spot on, the plane of the letters PRO are at 25'' on the ruler. This time I added a small amount of sharpening (3 in DPP) and it looks a lot better, I also noticed the "dreamy" halo around the white part of the bottle. It almost reminds me of the DO lens that has a similiar dreamy look and likes a bit of post processing.
Wade, That's at f/1.2, I assume? If you are up for it, it would be very interesting to see the same shot with your 35, 50 and 85, each wide open (even though the 35 only goes to 1.4).
Now that Canon has stopped producing the true 50 mm 1,0L and gone for a cheaper solution, - to please the tourists, there is only one true 1,0 aparture lens left on the scene: The Leica Noctilux 50 mm 1,0. Here on a Zeiss Ikon:
Olsen wrote:
Now that Canon has stopped producing the true 50 mm 1,0L and gone for a cheaper solution, - to please the tourists
pound-for-pound and retail-for-retail, the new 50/1.2L is more expensive than the 50/1.0L, making it far from a "cheaper solution."
50mm f/1.0L; 985g @ $2499 USD retail = $2.54/gram
50mm f/1.2L; 545g @ $1599 USD retail = $2.93/gram
and, for the record, tourists typically buy zooms -- not primes. even the best pros use zooms on vacation because they know that it's all about the photo rather than the gear. i have yet to see a tourist with a 50/1.0L strapped to a 1DsII.
ed malone's shot above exemplifies what this lens was meant to do. there's no way it would have been any better with a 50/1.0L.
mbailey wrote:
Great shot! Welcome back Lord... How was the Africa trip with the 50L?
Glad to be back, brother Bailey. The trip was awesome. The 50L performed great in all situations. Hopefully I'll have more images posted up before the weekend is over.
pound-for-pound and retail-for-retail, the new 50/1.2L is more expensive than the 50/1.0L, making it far from a "cheaper solution."
50mm f/1.0L; 985g @ $2499 USD retail = $2.54/gram
50mm f/1.2L; 545g @ $1599 USD retail = $2.93/gram
-erik
Interesting comparison.
As mentioned here before; Canon's 50 mm 1,0L cost NOK 25.000 in it's hey day, the Noctilux costs NOK 38.000 today, - both norwegian sales tax included (20%). The lenses compared, weight and mechanics, the Canon lens was very much cheaper than the Leica version, but also a lot heavier and more solid, - and far more advanced with AF and buses for transport of exposure information to the camera. Even relative to quality Canon glas is cheap.
I shot my first gymnastics meet with the 50mm f/1.2L. All the balance beam shots were with the 50mm f/1.2L on a EOS-1D MkII at f/2. I was afraid to shoot an important meet at f/1.4. However, below is a shot at f/1.4 during warm-ups
I didn't think I was going to need the 1.2L until I found that my usual shooting spots in coliseums now had serious backlighting problems that caused my 50 1.4 to flare. Autofocus function was fine with the 1.2L. I missed my usual number of critical shots due to poor focus. However, poor photographer performance was a bigger cause for concern in autofocus error than the camera or lens.
I also used the 50 1.2L for wide angle floor work with an EOS-5D. Here's one of the shots of Ashley Reed (AA winner for the meet) I like.
I'll be updating my review of the lens in a few weeks when I get some additional comparison shots between the 1.4 and 1.2L
