I used it, but didn't test it. No problems. I only shot it from f/1.2-f/2.0 ... colors and contrast were great, sharpness was good, but not as good as my 35L or 85L.
I'm not crazy about the focal length in general, but if 50mm floated my boat, I'd have no problem throwing down for the f/1.2L. YMMV, blah blah.
Oh, and Pooki/OP ... the bokeh on the Mk. II 85L is actually better, most noticeably stopped down a bit, thanks to rounded aperture blades. Very minor difference, and the Mk. I is a flat-out bargain these days.
I really like my 50L /1.2 and have not had any of the focus issues that others have spoke of. Maybe it's how I use the lense, I don't shoot it above f/2.0, but then again that's what I wanted it for. I'm not making excuses or whatever for the lense, but my copy fills the niche I want it to fill and it does a great job of it. If you have the lense and like it, enjoy it. If you've tried it and don't there's always the 85L.
regarding "build quality," most people don't seem to understand that in a gravity driven impact (which is probably the way 95+ % of lenses are broken) that force of impact will be proportional to weight... so those big heavy L lenses may actually fair worse than the lighter plastic lenses.
I tested it out last night, and about an hour ago, after reading this thread... Last night, I can't complain about the lens, it was spot on for close up portraits, but today with the exception of the close up shots, the shots at greater distance had slight miss focus, instead coming towards the forground. I'll do a better test tonight and see what happens... I'm thinking sending it in to get calibrated may be in order.
Focus speed to me is not an issue for this lens though... As for people commenting on build quality... get off your horses. There's nothing wrong with it's build quality what-so-ever.
I'm no unhappy with my lens as is, but I'm not as overwhelmed as I'd hoped to be... yet.
mh2000 wrote:
regarding "build quality," most people don't seem to understand that in a gravity driven impact (which is probably the way 95+ % of lenses are broken) that force of impact will be proportional to weight... so those big heavy L lenses may actually fair worse than the lighter plastic lenses.
You're confusing build quality with impact resistance. I am not. It's silly to suggest when no photographer in their right mind would trust their lens plastic/metal or otherwise to dropping on the ground.
The 50mm f/1 feels better in the hand, it has a quality of luxury. That does not mean it is indestructible..
Kagetsu wrote:
I tested it out last night, and about an hour ago, after reading this thread... Last night, I can't complain about the lens, it was spot on for close up portraits, but today with the exception of the close up shots, the shots at greater distance had slight miss focus, instead coming towards the forground. I'll do a better test tonight and see what happens... I'm thinking sending it in to get calibrated may be in order.
Focus speed to me is not an issue for this lens though... As for people commenting on build quality... get off your horses. There's nothing wrong with it's build quality what-so-ever.
I'm no unhappy with my lens as is, but I'm not as overwhelmed as I'd hoped to be... yet....Show more →
High horses? If the lens is good enough for you great. I am making an observation based on my experiences between two lenses, that does not make me a snob or elitist. Hopefully Canon will improve this lens.
RyanFlynn wrote:
I used it, but didn't test it. No problems. I only shot it from f/1.2-f/2.0 ... colors and contrast were great, sharpness was good, but not as good as my 35L or 85L.
I'm not crazy about the focal length in general, but if 50mm floated my boat, I'd have no problem throwing down for the f/1.2L. YMMV, blah blah.
Oh, and Pooki/OP ... the bokeh on the Mk. II 85L is actually better, most noticeably stopped down a bit, thanks to rounded aperture blades. Very minor difference, and the Mk. I is a flat-out bargain these days.
I have used both the Mark I and Mark II. I prefer the bokeh of the mark I. The highlights were more diffuse, less obtrusive wide open. I found the mark II had smaller highlights and brighter edges. Thus I think the mark I has better bokeh. The slightly rounder bokeh was minimal. Overall the IQ is about the same, I give the edge slightly to the Mark I wide open. That's why I believe it is such a good bargain, compared to the price of the mark II.
ward1066 wrote:
50L has better build than the 35L. The 85L has so much more glass in it, it seems much more fragile,,, probably similar build as the 50 1.0?
Yes the 50mm f/1 is similar in build to the 85mm f/1.2. The glass area is larger and it looks nicer and more impressive. That's all I meant. Not that the 50mm f/1.2 doesn't look professional, the 50mm f/1.0 just looks better and the hood is nicer as well. I am no lens snob, my favorite lens was the tamron 28-75mm for half my photographic career.
ward1066 wrote:
Ok, I just grabbed a quick shot. The only available subject I had was my cat, sorry. Shot, f 2.8 at about 3-4 feet. Resized only. Heres what we think of your 50L rumors http://upload.pbase.com/wade_abbey/image/88502134&exif=Y.jpg
If you look patiently and fairly, I think you will see that the cat's fur on it's forehead and ears are sharp along with the eye region, but coming forward towards the nose, it gets blurry... to my reading, then, the DOF is shifted back from the eyes a bit (I'm assuming you focussed on the eyes), and so this lovely picture of your lovely pet, at 2.8 and 3-4 feet, tends to confirm the focus shift phenomenon.
I agree with Roy. Also, doesn't the focus issue occur most often when the lens is wide open at close distances? If that is true, then ward1066's cat picture doesn't prove anything. In addition, the text on the food canister is sharp at a distance that appears to be roughly equal to the back of the kitty's ears, which further supports the conclusion that ward1066's copy is suffering from the same backfocusing problem.
Tom Abbott wrote:
I agree with Roy. Also, doesn't the focus issue occur most often when the lens is wide open at close distances? .
Close range, STOPPED DOWN, around f2-2.8 is the worst. The more wide open, the less the effect. The more stopped down, the more DOF you get and the effect will start disappearing. Which is why it's worst between f2-2.8
Yes I have the lens, yes this is annoying, and yes I am dealing with it.
Tom Abbott wrote:
I agree with Roy. Also, doesn't the focus issue occur most often when the lens is wide open at close distances? If that is true, then ward1066's cat picture doesn't prove anything. In addition, the text on the food canister is sharp at a distance that appears to be roughly equal to the back of the kitty's ears, which further supports the conclusion that ward1066's copy is suffering from the same backfocusing problem.
If I told you this was the 85L would you give the same critique?
pookipichu wrote:
I had a gap in my lens line-up and decided to try the new 50mm L. I put the 50mm 1.2L to the test for an entire weekend of shooting and I have to say, I am a little disappointed.
... My main quibbles are both sharpness and focus accuracy.
... Furthermore my f/1.2 has focus issues even in daylight with moderate contrast subjects. I had inconsistent focus where the lens would backfocus randomly even using non-center AF points at f/1.8-f/3.5 (on tripod)
I am returning the f/1.2 and this is frustrating. I would gladly pay a little more for Canon to get it right. Better sharpness and accurate focus please! YMMV....Show more →
You might want to give another copy of the lens a try. I've been following threads on this lens for close to a year and there have generally been two focusing issues discussed: 1) the focus shift which occurs at close distances, stopped down somewhat and using the center AF point (3 ft, f/2.8 is worse for my copy) and 2) generally poor focus performance overall. The first issue appears to be due to the lens design and it is likely that all copies exhibit it (whether their owners have noticed it or not). The second seems more due to just bad copies. Commonly the 50L focus performance has been reported as very good, the focus shift issue aside. Focus accuracy on my copy is very good even in very low light.
While I know sharpness isn't everything, I question a lot of the raves from some folks about the sharpness of this lens. It is not sharp wide open and while improving when stopped down it isn't really any better than my 85/1.8 or 17-55 IS. As such I agree with another poster that in this aspect the lens was underwhelming. Here I'm mainly refering to close in portraits. It seems that the 50L performs better all around further out.
After close to a year of waiting for Canon to acknowledge the focus shift (or even just to explaiin the design issues) I have learned my lesson. I will not be an early adopter of any more Canon gear. I think the lens does perform the function for which I bought it (low light work) but for the price ($1600, another problem with early adoption) I expected much more.
As you've seen in this thread there are many whose shooting style works well for this lens. And the lens does have many qualities that the other 50's can't match. So it really is a personal decision if the price is worth the value provided. For me it is still a bit over priced. I think $1000 is about right (or about $250 under B&H's current price after rebate).
ward1066 wrote:
thats bench testing, I said real world
I do shot real world. I took those to verify the issue I thought I was seeing in real world pictures. If you are happy with your results, fine. I'm not interested in convincing you to get rid of the lens. But it does have a 100% reproducible issue that other Canon lenses don't have. You aren't going to tell if there is a focus shift issue by shooting a cat (I see the problem first on our cat and dog though) or user error.
It just seems impossible for many people to say "yeah, it has an issue but I still love the lens". Instead they seem determined to tell those pointing out the problem that there is no issue. For the price of this lens it shouldn't have this problem.
bcaslis wrote:
I do shot real world. I took those to verify the issue I thought I was seeing in real world pictures. If you are happy with your results, fine. I'm not interested in convincing you to get rid of the lens. But it does have a 100% reproducible issue that other Canon lenses don't have. You aren't going to tell if there is a focus shift issue by shooting a cat (I see the problem first on our cat and dog though) or user error.
It just seems impossible for many people to say "yeah, it has an issue but I still love the lens". Instead they seem determined to tell those pointing out the problem that there is no issue. For the price of this lens it shouldn't have this problem.
I use the 50L, and I like it much better than the 50/1.4. Realistically, the 50L's value is probably not really worth 3-4 times as much as the 50/1.4, but it's definitely better, and for my usage it's worth keeping. I hated the build of the 50/1.4, and my copies were always "dreamy" at f/1.4. When I use the 50L, it's because I need to suck up as much light as possible. In most situations I'm already shooting it wide open at f/1.2 and cranking the camera to ISO1600 - and yet still struggling to get a decent shutter speed! However, it has worked well in those situations. The only faster option at 50mm is the 50/1.0L, but that's not an option for me at this time.
I guess I'll chime in here, too. I've had the 50/1.2 for about six weeks, and the 85L II for about 18 months. I use them on a 1Ds II. I first thought my 50/1.2 did not exhibit focus shift, but more careful testing demonstrated that it does suffer from slight focus shift at very close range and apertures around f/2.8. However, with my 50/1.2, the point of focus remains within the depth of field. Note that this is not backfocus, but focus shift; at large apertures, my 50 focuses accurately. By comparison, my 85L did not exhibit focus shift when I tested it. Rather, the focus was perfect. Oddly enough, however, in real world shooting, I find my 50 to focus more accurately than my 85. In fact, I have never noticed a focus problem with my 50 except when I tested for it. Therefore, in practice, the focus shift of my 50 is irrelevant. As for other comparisons of my 50 to my 85, my 85 is about one-half stop sharper than my 50 wide-open; in other words, my 85 is as sharp at 1.2 as my 50 is at 1.6. The gap narrows as you stop down, so by about f/2.0, the lenses are indistinguishable, sharpness-wise. Setting sharpness aside, I prefer the look of the 85L, but the 50/1.2 is very similar, and is a more generally useful focal length.
My conclusions at this point are (1) all 50/1.2 lenses suffer from focus shift; (2) Canon may have adjusted recent 50/1.2 lenses to reduce the effect of focus shift; (3) Canon is not otherwise going to do or say anything about the 50/1.2 focus shift issue; (4) the focus shift does not affect my enjoyment of the lens; and (5) the 85L and 50/1.2 are priced logically, at least relative to each other.
Galibier wrote:
I guess I'll chime in here, too. I've had the 50/1.2 for about six weeks, and the 85L II for about 18 months. I use them on a 1Ds II. I first thought my 50/1.2 did not exhibit focus shift, but more careful testing demonstrated that it does suffer from slight focus shift at very close range and apertures around f/2.8. However, with my 50/1.2, the point of focus remains within the depth of field. Note that this is not backfocus, but focus shift; at large apertures, my 50 focuses accurately. By comparison, my 85L did not exhibit focus shift when I tested it. Rather, the focus was perfect. Oddly enough, however, in real world shooting, I find my 50 to focus more accurately than my 85. In fact, I have never noticed a focus problem with my 50 except when I tested for it. Therefore, in practice, the focus shift of my 50 is irrelevant. As for other comparisons of my 50 to my 85, my 85 is about one-half stop sharper than my 50 wide-open; in other words, my 85 is as sharp at 1.2 as my 50 is at 1.6. The gap narrows as you stop down, so by about f/2.0, the lenses are indistinguishable, sharpness-wise. Setting sharpness aside, I prefer the look of the 85L, but the 50/1.2 is very similar, and is a more generally useful focal length.
My conclusions at this point are (1) all 50/1.2 lenses suffer from focus shift; (2) Canon may have adjusted recent 50/1.2 lenses to reduce the effect of focus shift; (3) Canon is not otherwise going to do or say anything about the 50/1.2 focus shift issue; (4) the focus shift does not affect my enjoyment of the lens; and (5) the 85L and 50/1.2 are priced logically, at least relative to each other....Show more →
my findings are exactly like yours, although I doubt Canon has done anything about it. My model is a UU11 one of the very first. good description.
