So many variables with a stupid boring flower. I can replicate these as I have the same desk junk, every flower is unique, each photo a one off.
The satisfaction of having precision instruments is often enough, they must work and be demonstrable so, not too unlike a Boyd Coddington car, half a million dollars for a custom body with more power than the space shuttle, that will sit in a garage and looked at … but, if it could not beat the best dragster, even if it will never get tested, it’s just junk.
BeeMan458 wrote:
Forgive me but can you guys at least have the courtesy to step outside and get a shot of a flower or something a bit more imaginative then your desk junk.
You spend a bundle on gear and then post images of desk junk.
The 1.4 is a great lens when adjusted right. I had to replace a stolen copy a couple of years ago. The new one had to go back to Canon under warranty for significant color fringing out of the box... However, when it came back working right it was really great, possibly better than my old copy.
There is a bit of halation at 1.4 and 1.6, as someone else posted. This is not really a lack of sharpness, but a tradeoff of classic (non-aspheric) lens design.
I expect they will eventually find and fix the problems with the 1.2L... I've been down this path with Canon with a couple other lenses that I acquired when new but ended up not keeping. However, recent copies I have tried have been great, so clearly the fault was not in the lens design, but in the manufacturing.
I think the 50L has made folks appreciate the 50/1.4 more. Before I got the 50L I mostly read complaints about the 50/1.4 and thus I went with the 50L. To bad I got it last Dec before the issue with the 50L became widely known. The 50/1.4 when right on does seem to stand up well.
