RoyPertchi wrote:
My nomination for the dry-irony-almost-slipped-under-the-radar award for November :-)
Gets my vote.
How about if the first FM member to receive the lens sends a PM to Jeff, and gets to start a new sticky thread? Then this one can be unstuck, and will float quickly to the archives, where it will be so valuable a resource six months from now...
I find these discussions funny. If you want f1.2, you will just HAVE to pay the price, just like with the 85L. Then the lens delivers something you can't get anyother way, there's no point in whining, cussing, and screaming.
Also, some people pay a similar price, or slightly less, for a f2.8 zoom. And nobody complains about that. Isn't that funny? A 24-70L costs a few hundred dollars less, but is 2 1/2 stops slower. With a 50mm, in many situations I can zoom with my feet backwards to 24mm and forwards to 70mm, but no way can I crack open that zooms aperture blades to f1.2! So, as far as i'm concerned, I'd take a good 50mm f1.2 anytime over a f2.8 zoom.
Also, many people have 85L and 35L. They then change lenses very often, for exemple going from a head shot to a group shot. If the 50L is just as good as the 85 and 35, in many situations they could only use this one lens. Theyd' save time, dust on the sensor...and money!
So, I wait to see the IQ, and if it delivers, I might be tempted. I like a lean bag. 3, 4 top notch primes, an ultrawie, a standard, a long tele, is really all I need.
I have to admit that although this calculation did not have any impact on my decision, the IQ of the images I saw so far made me think. I even canceled my order but decided to try it anyway.
mfurman wrote:
... the IQ of the images I saw so far made me think. I canceled my order.
I wouldn't base anything on a few handheld snaps by some random folks at a trade show. I'm not saying the 50 1.2L is worth the asking price, just that I don't think we know enough either way.
I don't get it. Why would anyone like to trade his 24-70 for a 50/1.2? After all, the 24-70 and 50/1.2 are two different lenses for two different tasks.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I don't get it. Why would anyone like to trade his 24-70 for a 50/1.2? After all, the 24-70 and 50/1.2 are two different lenses for two different tasks.
Absolutely correct, but for me the 24-70L happens to be redundant, and doesn't get used. The 50L would be valuable.
I know that many users feel differently, but for me the 24-105L is satisfying at f/4, and when I want a wider aperture, I do better to reach for a 24/1.4, 35/1.4, or 85/1.2 (or even the 135/2 when I really want a bit more reach as well). The 50 would serve in a lot of situations where changing perspective (i.e., using my feet) wouldn't put me too close or too far away for a good look.
The 24-70 is a great lens, but I've gotten spoiled by the range of the 24-105 and the speed of the primes. A 24-105/2.0 would answer a dream, but in reality be far too heavy for me to maneuver (at least given current technology and a large sensor).
well the 50 1.2 has started arriving...got a call from my retailer this afternoon here in nyc and it arrived about a half hour after i left the store...i'll pick it up in the morning.....guess it's time for a new thread Jeff!!!
