I own the 50-1.2L and its bolted to a 1ds2. I shot a test model under low light from 1.2 to f16 and saw no shift in focus. What I did see was the lens only getting mildly shaper from 1.2-2.8 then sharpening right up. I never use it in that range so life is good.
I'm sure they're out there, but since this is a fresh post, can we have some samples of close range images that show this? I'm kinda jonesing for a prime, but with all this talk......and on top of that, the 50mm has barrel distortion I just think any prime should be truly rectilinear.
ward1066 wrote:
thats bench testing, I said real world
I think you may be misunderstanding something. The "mush" is reproducible at will and I simply don't want to tie up the funds on a lens that I can't count on at least 50% of the time. You may be fine with that, but my world demands that I get the shot. I cringe at the thought of having to explain to a client why there's a problem, of any kind, anytime...
As I also said several times in my posts, I'm not a "shoot a brick wall" kind of guy. I judge the IQ when I look at the images on my screen, and if I can see the differences well before I get to 100%, the lens is not good IMO. As an owner of the 50 f/1.2L and not simply a sideline bystander, I think I'm qualified to make that determination and then decide what to do with it. My decision is that I'm not keeping it, you may be very lucky and have a copy that gives you great results, or perhaps what we expect from a lens is different.
Jim, it sounds like you may have a poor copy of the 50/1.2, and it does seem like people's experience with this lens is all over the board. However, "expert" tests of this lens at sites like slrgear.com, photozone, The-Digital-Picture.com, wlcastleman.com, and popphoto.com indicate that the 50/1.2 compares favorably with lenses like the 35L, 50/1.4, and 85L. As I said, while I prefer the IQ of my 85L, my 50/1.2 is close, and I haven't noticed any sharpness or focus issues in "real world" shots, much less a "50% mush" problem. Then again, maybe I'm just lucky, indiscriminate, or both. Whatever is going on, it's too bad for the 50/1.2 -- it would have been nice for Canon to have offered a reliably top-notch fast 50.
Galibier wrote:
Jim, it sounds like you may have a poor copy of the 50/1.2, and it does seem like people's experience with this lens is all over the board. However, "expert" tests of this lens at sites like slrgear.com, photozone, The-Digital-Picture.com, wlcastleman.com, and popphoto.com indicate that the 50/1.2 compares favorably with lenses like the 35L, 50/1.4, and 85L. As I said, while I prefer the IQ of my 85L, my 50/1.2 is close, and I haven't noticed any sharpness or focus issues in "real world" shots, much less a "50% mush" problem. Then again, maybe I'm just lucky, indiscriminate, or both. Whatever is going on, it's too bad for the 50/1.2 -- it would have been nice for Canon to have offered a reliably top-notch fast 50....Show more →
I was skeptical about the focus issues and decided to cross my fingers and hoped I'd get one of those "good" copies that some people swear they have. My copy failed me by consistently backfocusing 30-40% of the time, badly enough to make the shot unusable.
For potential buyers of this lens, make sure you get a good return policy in case you do not get the miraculous copy that focuses properly.
Canon, fix this lens design. Admit there is a problem already and fix it!
My problem with this lens is the price which I think is just stupid. Add some of the other issues and although I would like a lens of this focal length and speed, I'm not even going to consider buying the present offering from Canon.
gene A. wrote:
My problem with this lens is the price which I think is just stupid. Add some of the other issues and although I would like a lens of this focal length and speed, I'm not even going to consider buying the present offering from Canon.
your kidding, have you seen how much the 50mm 1.0 cost? The 1.2 is a steal.
currently with sale prices you can get it for $1180. Is that enough to change people's judgements on value? Or does it need to be cheaper than the 24L, 35L twins?
I've tried three 50/1.2L's with differing date codes on my 5D with the same, identical result - consistently accurate back-focus at any focus distance where depth of field doesn't hide the back-focus, plus further focus shift when using the centre AF point from f/1.8 - f/4.
My 5D focuses very accurately with my 100/2.8 USM macro and the 85/1.2L II regardless of aperture and subject distance - only the 50/1.2L shows consistent focus inaccuracy that I can't blame on technique.
After much testing to try to find techniques to get around 50/1.2L's AF issues, I can't find a consistent work-around that will give me consistent AF accuracy - using the outer AF points sometimes helps, but it's not a cure.
As much as I love many of the optical qualities of this lens (colour, bokeh, flare management, contrast, and sharpness when in focus), I can't justify this level of investment for a semi-AF lens.
Huh? The lens has a real problem. $1180 is not a steal $1000 is not a steal. I have a 24 L. I love it. It's amazing that it can take pictures under a street light, and during the day it's as sharp as a tack landscape lens. I have an 85 L II and it, too can take pics by candle light, and during the day, I can photo greasy facial pores from 10 feet. My 17-40, on the money throughout, 70-200 2.8 IS, blazingly sharp at all f's and fl's. When I had a 24-105, it could cut you at any setting. My lowly 50 1.4... 2.0 and up is like a razor, below, no slouch. The 50L? gets you a smidge more light but not much sharper at 1.4, and with the 50 L you have to avoid 3 to 10 feet at moderate f stops,.... but you can shoot in any other range, and for only $1200. Does not sound like a steal to me.
pookipichu wrote:
I was skeptical about the focus issues and decided to cross my fingers and hoped I'd get one of those "good" copies that some people swear they have. My copy failed me by consistently backfocusing 30-40% of the time, badly enough to make the shot unusable.
For potential buyers of this lens, make sure you get a good return policy in case you do not get the miraculous copy that focuses properly.
Canon, fix this lens design. Admit there is a problem already and fix it!
I think your described situation is an isolated case derived from a particularly bad copy. I find it hard to believe that the 50L design would be so inherently flawed that it would ruin (to the point of being completely unusable) your pictures a third of the time, unless your specific copy had a major problem.
To me I think it is a bargain because for the 50mm focal length the only other alternative I would be happy with is the 50mm 1.0 (bokeh, build, color, contrast etc ),, Now if we are saying the 50mm 1.4 is a close equivalent I beg to differ. Thats another can of worms that reminds me of the 85mm debates
Petition for the 50 1.2 fix...
where I will invite people to send me their e-mail addresses to include in a list of people who want to see Canon fix the 50 1.2
Roy Pertchik wrote:
Petition for the 50 1.2 fix...
where I will invite people to send me their e-mail addresses to include in a list of people who want to see Canon fix the 50 1.2
I will sign the list. Eventhough I find alot to like about the lens it should be fixed.
I don't think it can be fixed, something to do with no floating element or something. The lens would probably have to be totally redesigned. That is my understanding from early reports.
cineski wrote:
I'm sure they're out there, but since this is a fresh post, can we have some samples of close range images that show this? I'm kinda jonesing for a prime, but with all this talk......and on top of that, the 50mm has barrel distortion I just think any prime should be truly rectilinear.
Note that the use of the outer AF points correct for the focus shift to a large extent, though as noted it isn't 100%. Also as noted the intended focus plane is often still within the DOF (at the extreme front) such that you may not care or notice in real world shots. I find the shift to be most problematic for head shots at 3 ft and at f/2.8. Often times at those conditions I cannot get the eye sharp, though the region immediately behind is sharp.
I've just read this whole thread and man, this is a bummer. I believe I need a 50mm 1.2 for those dark weddings, but I've already been through AF hell with Canon using an earlier defective rig. I dont want to go through that again.
So let me ask you guys a couple questions -- can a close portrait problem be solved by focusing on the nose rather than the eyes? And is this only AF, e.g., can you manually focus and avoid this issue?
Dario Impini wrote:
I've just read this whole thread and man, this is a bummer. I believe I need a 50mm 1.2 for those dark weddings, but I've already been through AF hell with Canon using an earlier defective rig. I dont want to go through that again.
So let me ask you guys a couple questions -- can a close portrait problem be solved by focusing on the nose rather than the eyes? And is this only AF, e.g., can you manually focus and avoid this issue?
Do you really want to mess around with that? I don't. Hence, no more 50L....
Dario Impini wrote:
I've just read this whole thread and man, this is a bummer. I believe I need a 50mm 1.2 for those dark weddings, but I've already been through AF hell with Canon using an earlier defective rig. I dont want to go through that again.
So let me ask you guys a couple questions -- can a close portrait problem be solved by focusing on the nose rather than the eyes? And is this only AF, e.g., can you manually focus and avoid this issue?
I used the 50/1.2 extensively for two weddings last weekend. I do tend to use non-centre AF points a lot so perhaps the problem was masked - but nonetheless the lens worked without fault and I love how it draws an image.
So far so good for me. I'll post some samples once I finish the editing.
I just think any prime should be truly rectilinear.