This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009Explain the 50mm L problem
p.3 #1Explain the 50mm L problem
You too Shuko! 
Shuko wrote:
Indeed, Im selling my L and already got adapter and 50/1.2AIS Nikkor coming. 50L is easily the biggest disappointment of the 15 EF lenses I have/have had.
Shuko wrote:
M Vers wrote
One more thing I neglected to point out in my initial post....I'd rather pay $300 for a lower quality built lens that produces borderline 'inferior' results at a one stop loss than $1400 for a lens with said restrictions. I'm not saying the lens isn't worth it in general, it's just not worth it to me.Mar 18, 2009 at 02:53 PM
p.3 #2Explain the 50mm L problem
M Vers wrote:
No doubt Jamie, nice images indeed 
Now how many great shots have you missed because of the shift? I'm not asking to be an ass nor am I trying to be condescending at all...I ask in all seriousness. If non, is that because you shoot around the focus shift?
Honestly, I dont know. The only focusing issues I have with this lens is the fact that the 5D/5DII's AF system outright sucks with it. The single acting AF sensors are so damned twitchy with fast aperture lenses that I can't rely on the camera body to accurately focus this lens with any AF point besides the one in the center (which is cross type, not single type).
So yes, I get a large percentage of out of focus pictures with this lens. The reasons for this are that I shoot with a 5D/5DII and shoot at apertures below F2 90% of the time. Before anyone points, laughs, and says "haha, I told you so", let me just say that I have the *exact same* miseries when working with the 85LII. That lens combined with this AF is just so sketchy that I am constantly checking my shots just to be sure I "have" it.
I find that the 50L's and 85L's focusing works about the same for me as far as accuracy goes. On a 50/10 series body its fairly mediocre. On a 1 series body it is fantastic.
Body focusing woes aside, the lens itself is a gem and by far my most used lens for weddings and portraits.
deepbluejh wrote
A few recent 50L shots as more propaganda: Now how many great shots have you missed because of the shift? I'm not asking to be an ass nor am I trying to be condescending at all...I ask in all seriousness. If non, is that because you shoot around the focus shift?Honestly, I dont know. The only focusing issues I have with this lens is the fact that the 5D/5DII's AF system outright sucks with it. The single acting AF sensors are so damned twitchy with fast aperture lenses that I can't rely on the camera body to accurately focus this lens with any AF point besides the one in the center (which is cross type, not single type).
So yes, I get a large percentage of out of focus pictures with this lens. The reasons for this are that I shoot with a 5D/5DII and shoot at apertures below F2 90% of the time. Before anyone points, laughs, and says "haha, I told you so", let me just say that I have the *exact same* miseries when working with the 85LII. That lens combined with this AF is just so sketchy that I am constantly checking my shots just to be sure I "have" it.
I find that the 50L's and 85L's focusing works about the same for me as far as accuracy goes. On a 50/10 series body its fairly mediocre. On a 1 series body it is fantastic.
Body focusing woes aside, the lens itself is a gem and by far my most used lens for weddings and portraits.
Mar 18, 2009 at 02:54 PM
p.3 #3Explain the 50mm L problem
"Is there a pattern to the focus shift, meaning does it shift focus to the rear of the focus plane or is that inconsistent? If it is consistent, does the shift amount change proportionally to the aperture value used? Meaning did you guys noticed more of a focus shift using f/5.6 than using f/4.0, for example?"
Relying purely on my memory of the focus tests I conducted, the focus shift gradually increases beginning about f/2 and levels off about f/4. With my 50/1.2, the shift is never great, and in fact the focus never shifts beyond the depth of field. In other words, the intended point of focus stays just within the front edge of the depth of field, although the point of sharpest focus has moved rearward. At apertures smaller than about f/4 or f/5.6, the depth of field has expanded enough so that the focus shift is irrelevant. At distances greater than a few feet, the shift never reveals itself.
Because my 50/1.2 is the only 50/1.2 with which I am familiar, I am baffled by those who consider the focus shift to be an intolerable flaw. The focus shift with my 50/1.2 is so small as to be insignificant -- undetectable, even -- in actual use. That other 50/1.2 lenses can have far greater focus shift is a puzzle to me, as the amount of focus shift should not vary from lens to lens. Then again, I tend to use this lens at wide apertures, so my experience in the problematic aperture range is limited. I also have not experienced the ghosting described above, nor the lack of sharpness at close range. While my 50/1.2 is not quite as sharp as my 85L at wide apertures, by f/1.8 the two lenses are, to my eye, indistinguishable. Given how strong the 85L is, I consider this performance by the 50/1.2 to be more than acceptable.
Opinions on this lens are all over the board. My recommendation to anyone interested in this lens is to try it with an open mind. Forget about testing for focus shift, and just assume the lens suffers from it -- as do many fine, fast 50s. Then go out and shoot. If you see misfocus, consider whether the degree of misfocus is greater than with your other lenses. If you are happy, keep the lens. If not, return or sell it. Either way, you'll be in good company.
Relying purely on my memory of the focus tests I conducted, the focus shift gradually increases beginning about f/2 and levels off about f/4. With my 50/1.2, the shift is never great, and in fact the focus never shifts beyond the depth of field. In other words, the intended point of focus stays just within the front edge of the depth of field, although the point of sharpest focus has moved rearward. At apertures smaller than about f/4 or f/5.6, the depth of field has expanded enough so that the focus shift is irrelevant. At distances greater than a few feet, the shift never reveals itself.
Because my 50/1.2 is the only 50/1.2 with which I am familiar, I am baffled by those who consider the focus shift to be an intolerable flaw. The focus shift with my 50/1.2 is so small as to be insignificant -- undetectable, even -- in actual use. That other 50/1.2 lenses can have far greater focus shift is a puzzle to me, as the amount of focus shift should not vary from lens to lens. Then again, I tend to use this lens at wide apertures, so my experience in the problematic aperture range is limited. I also have not experienced the ghosting described above, nor the lack of sharpness at close range. While my 50/1.2 is not quite as sharp as my 85L at wide apertures, by f/1.8 the two lenses are, to my eye, indistinguishable. Given how strong the 85L is, I consider this performance by the 50/1.2 to be more than acceptable.
Opinions on this lens are all over the board. My recommendation to anyone interested in this lens is to try it with an open mind. Forget about testing for focus shift, and just assume the lens suffers from it -- as do many fine, fast 50s. Then go out and shoot. If you see misfocus, consider whether the degree of misfocus is greater than with your other lenses. If you are happy, keep the lens. If not, return or sell it. Either way, you'll be in good company.
Mar 18, 2009 at 03:01 PM
p.3 #4Explain the 50mm L problem
M Vers wrote:
I don't understand it when people say that the issue is blown out of proportion. It's a major design flaw characteristic in a $1400 'L'uxury lens....what exactly do you expect? If you buy the lens to use only at f/1.8 and wider and f/8 and narrower or at a distance of +6ft then that's great--but what about those who want use it close to mfd (6ft or less) at f/2-f/5.6? I've always been intrigued by this lens, and more recently the sigma 1.4, but the focus shift/AF issues have staved me off every single time I get close to...Show more →
Ye the issue is blown out of proportion in forums like this
To keep it a bit more in perspective, here are a few others that also had focus shift when they where tested.
Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8 USM L
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
And a lot of Nikon, Tamron, Pentax and so on also have it
I don't understand it when people say that the issue is blown out of proportion. It's a major design flaw characteristic in a $1400 'L'uxury lens....what exactly do you expect? If you buy the lens to use only at f/1.8 and wider and f/8 and narrower or at a distance of +6ft then that's great--but what about those who want use it close to mfd (6ft or less) at f/2-f/5.6? I've always been intrigued by this lens, and more recently the sigma 1.4, but the focus shift/AF issues have staved me off every single time I get close to...Show more →
Ye the issue is blown out of proportion in forums like this
To keep it a bit more in perspective, here are a few others that also had focus shift when they where tested.Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
Canon EF 24mm f/2.8
Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8 USM L
Canon EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L
Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
And a lot of Nikon, Tamron, Pentax and so on also have it
Mar 18, 2009 at 03:06 PM
p.3 #5Explain the 50mm L problem
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
You too Shuko!
Well, I actually am a hobbyist. I apologize if my opinion is not wanted, or if it's the wrong kind... or if it has no credit. Fact is, I'd rather shoot with my old (half)converted FD55/1.2SSC over 50L if I just could get the aperture linkage to work.
I have many good images taken with the 50L, but as a hobbyist I'm annoyed by the shift. I shoot for fun only, I don't need to have something as dumb as that to worry about on my free time. So, I end up shooting wide open pretty much always. Wide open 50L can't even beat the aforementioned FD thanks to the veil/halo/glow/grease on lens effect.
Result being, it's just not worth it (for me).
You too Shuko!
Well, I actually am a hobbyist. I apologize if my opinion is not wanted, or if it's the wrong kind... or if it has no credit. Fact is, I'd rather shoot with my old (half)converted FD55/1.2SSC over 50L if I just could get the aperture linkage to work.
I have many good images taken with the 50L, but as a hobbyist I'm annoyed by the shift. I shoot for fun only, I don't need to have something as dumb as that to worry about on my free time. So, I end up shooting wide open pretty much always. Wide open 50L can't even beat the aforementioned FD thanks to the veil/halo/glow/grease on lens effect.
Result being, it's just not worth it (for me).
Mar 18, 2009 at 03:09 PM
p.3 #6Explain the 50mm L problem
Interesting observation.
The shots you posted look great and I guess that's really the most important thing. Getting the shots...
I find that my 85L is far more accurate than my 50L. But it has a longer MFD and AF is very slow and deliberate, and it has a different design so. (Floating element)
I have a 1DMKIII and 5D and pretty much get the same behavior on both with the 50L. But really, the whole thing is very situation specific. Is it overblown? Maybe. But I think for those who are affected, hobbyist or not, the problem is real and can get to be a big annoyance. I think discounting that is rather silly. Just as silly as it would be for me to rant "The 50L sucks!", which I don't think it does.
I agree that the AF on the 50L is rather twitchy. For some very strange reason, putting my 1DMKIII in AI-servo mode improves things a lot when in the "danger zone". So much so that when I shoot 4-6ft and closer between f2-f4 I put my camera in AI-servo mode. Works well. Weird. I know...but hey, it works!
When things go right, the 50L sure can push out terrific images!
This past weekend, I was at a flower show and had my 50L with me. Perhaps not the smartest choice being that it called for some close quarter shooting!
Here is what I am talking about with the "ghosting" effect at wider apertures at close distances.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p95314282-5.jpg
Here's one stopped down to f2.8. For shots like this, shifting really isn't a critical problem IMO. Turned out rather nice.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p128988651-4.jpg
Here's one wide open. Probably 5-6ft away from the flowers on the left. You can see the 50L performs great at those distances.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p188758006-5.jpg
f4 Again not a type of shot that focus shift would pose a problem. Nice and sharp.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p368320236-5.jpg
f1.4 close up. You can see the "ghosting" effect.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p260156783-5.jpg
deepbluejh wrote:
No doubt Jamie, nice images indeed Now how many great shots have you missed because of the shift? I'm not asking to be an ass nor am I trying to be condescending at all...I ask in all seriousness. If non, is that because you shoot around the focus shift?Honestly, I dont know. The only focusing issues I have with this lens is the fact that the 5D/5DII's AF system outright sucks with it. The single acting AF sensors are so damned twitchy with fast aperture lenses that I can't rely on the camera body to accurately focus this lens with any AF point besides the one in the center (which is cross type, not single type).
So yes, I get a large percentage of out of focus pictures with this lens. The reasons for this are that I shoot with a 5D/5DII and shoot at apertures below F2 90%...Show more →
The shots you posted look great and I guess that's really the most important thing. Getting the shots...
I find that my 85L is far more accurate than my 50L. But it has a longer MFD and AF is very slow and deliberate, and it has a different design so. (Floating element)
I have a 1DMKIII and 5D and pretty much get the same behavior on both with the 50L. But really, the whole thing is very situation specific. Is it overblown? Maybe. But I think for those who are affected, hobbyist or not, the problem is real and can get to be a big annoyance. I think discounting that is rather silly. Just as silly as it would be for me to rant "The 50L sucks!", which I don't think it does.
I agree that the AF on the 50L is rather twitchy. For some very strange reason, putting my 1DMKIII in AI-servo mode improves things a lot when in the "danger zone". So much so that when I shoot 4-6ft and closer between f2-f4 I put my camera in AI-servo mode. Works well. Weird. I know...but hey, it works!
When things go right, the 50L sure can push out terrific images!
This past weekend, I was at a flower show and had my 50L with me. Perhaps not the smartest choice being that it called for some close quarter shooting!
Here is what I am talking about with the "ghosting" effect at wider apertures at close distances.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p95314282-5.jpg
Here's one stopped down to f2.8. For shots like this, shifting really isn't a critical problem IMO. Turned out rather nice.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p128988651-4.jpg
Here's one wide open. Probably 5-6ft away from the flowers on the left. You can see the 50L performs great at those distances.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p188758006-5.jpg
f4 Again not a type of shot that focus shift would pose a problem. Nice and sharp.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v8/p368320236-5.jpg
f1.4 close up. You can see the "ghosting" effect.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v7/p260156783-5.jpg
deepbluejh wrote:
M Vers wrote
deepbluejh wrote
A few recent 50L shots as more propaganda: Now how many great shots have you missed because of the shift? I'm not asking to be an ass nor am I trying to be condescending at all...I ask in all seriousness. If non, is that because you shoot around the focus shift?So yes, I get a large percentage of out of focus pictures with this lens. The reasons for this are that I shoot with a 5D/5DII and shoot at apertures below F2 90%...Show more →
Mar 18, 2009 at 03:11 PM
p.3 #7Explain the 50mm L problem
David Baldwin wrote:
Does the Canon 50mm f1.4 suffer from focus shift?
No, it just tends to rack back 'm forth in low light, the very situations you need to use F1.4 to F2. I've found AF on my 50 1.2L much more reliable.
Does the Canon 50mm f1.4 suffer from focus shift?
No, it just tends to rack back 'm forth in low light, the very situations you need to use F1.4 to F2. I've found AF on my 50 1.2L much more reliable.
Mar 18, 2009 at 03:13 PM
p.3 #8Explain the 50mm L problem
Ed Sawyer wrote:
For a $1k+ L lens, focus-shift is IMO unacceptable, regardless of how minor some people like to think it is. For that price you could easily have 3 of the best MF 50/1.2s, all of which have no appreciable focus shift, and IQ that is IMO equal to the EF 50/1.2L. And still have change left over.
I'd really like to see a test proving that these MF lenses you are talking about doesn't give focus shift, and have equal IQ to the L. Almost all fast normal lenses does focus shift, regardless of design, brand or anything else.
Shuko wrote:
Indeed, Im selling my L and already got adapter and 50/1.2AIS Nikkor coming. 50L is easily the biggest disappointment of the 15 EF lenses I have/have had.
You will then probably be just as disappointed with the Nikkor. Fast lenses have many flaws, and you'll have to accept them or choose a slower lens.
For a $1k+ L lens, focus-shift is IMO unacceptable, regardless of how minor some people like to think it is. For that price you could easily have 3 of the best MF 50/1.2s, all of which have no appreciable focus shift, and IQ that is IMO equal to the EF 50/1.2L. And still have change left over.
I'd really like to see a test proving that these MF lenses you are talking about doesn't give focus shift, and have equal IQ to the L. Almost all fast normal lenses does focus shift, regardless of design, brand or anything else.
Shuko wrote:
Indeed, Im selling my L and already got adapter and 50/1.2AIS Nikkor coming. 50L is easily the biggest disappointment of the 15 EF lenses I have/have had.
You will then probably be just as disappointed with the Nikkor. Fast lenses have many flaws, and you'll have to accept them or choose a slower lens.
Mar 18, 2009 at 03:20 PM
p.3 #9Explain the 50mm L problem
Well then perhaps you can explain why the 50L is the ONLY lens that I have a problem with? I don't have any of these problems on any of my other lenses, nor have I had them on lenses I've owned in the past.
Makten wrote:
I'd really like to see a test proving that these MF lenses you are talking about doesn't give focus shift, and have equal IQ to the L. Almost all fast normal lenses does focus shift, regardless of design, brand or anything else.
You will then probably be just as disappointed with the Nikkor. Fast lenses have many flaws, and you'll have to accept them or choose a slower lens.
Makten wrote:
Ed Sawyer wrote
For a $1k+ L lens, focus-shift is IMO unacceptable, regardless of how minor some people like to think it is. For that price you could easily have 3 of the best MF 50/1.2s, all of which have no appreciable focus shift, and IQ that is IMO equal to the EF 50/1.2L. And still have change left over.Shuko wrote
Indeed, Im selling my L and already got adapter and 50/1.2AIS Nikkor coming. 50L is easily the biggest disappointment of the 15 EF lenses I have/have had.Mar 18, 2009 at 03:22 PM
p.3 #10Explain the 50mm L problem
What's so puzzling about it? Copy to copy variation.
You have one of the better copies, or you don't typically shoot in the "danger zone". You'll never notice these problems if you don't shoot 3-4ft and closer.
My old one was just pure crap. Canon exchanged that one with a new one after I sent it in 4 times to get it calibrated. The new one is tons better than the old one. Not perfect, but certainly good enough that I decided to keep it.
Galibier wrote:
"Is there a pattern to the focus shift, meaning does it shift focus to the rear of the focus plane or is that inconsistent? If it is consistent, does the shift amount change proportionally to the aperture value used? Meaning did you guys noticed more of a focus shift using f/5.6 than using f/4.0, for example?"
Relying purely on my memory of the focus tests I conducted, the focus shift gradually increases beginning about f/2 and levels off about f/4. With my 50/1.2, the shift is never great, and in fact the focus never shifts beyond the depth of field. In...Show more →
You have one of the better copies, or you don't typically shoot in the "danger zone". You'll never notice these problems if you don't shoot 3-4ft and closer.
My old one was just pure crap. Canon exchanged that one with a new one after I sent it in 4 times to get it calibrated. The new one is tons better than the old one. Not perfect, but certainly good enough that I decided to keep it.
Galibier wrote:
"Is there a pattern to the focus shift, meaning does it shift focus to the rear of the focus plane or is that inconsistent? If it is consistent, does the shift amount change proportionally to the aperture value used? Meaning did you guys noticed more of a focus shift using f/5.6 than using f/4.0, for example?"
Relying purely on my memory of the focus tests I conducted, the focus shift gradually increases beginning about f/2 and levels off about f/4. With my 50/1.2, the shift is never great, and in fact the focus never shifts beyond the depth of field. In...Show more →
Mar 18, 2009 at 03:25 PM
p.3 #11Explain the 50mm L problem
Makten wrote:
You will then probably be just as disappointed with the Nikkor. Fast lenses have many flaws, and you'll have to accept them or choose a slower lens.
Probably, but getting a lens that's is as sharp if not sharper wide open and not having to worry about shift for fraction of the price sounds better. I'm well aware that fast lenses are compromises, not like 50L is my first fast one, it's just the worst.
You will then probably be just as disappointed with the Nikkor. Fast lenses have many flaws, and you'll have to accept them or choose a slower lens.
Probably, but getting a lens that's is as sharp if not sharper wide open and not having to worry about shift for fraction of the price sounds better. I'm well aware that fast lenses are compromises, not like 50L is my first fast one, it's just the worst.
Mar 18, 2009 at 03:36 PM
p.3 #12Explain the 50mm L problem
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
Well then perhaps you can explain why the 50L is the ONLY lens that I have a problem with? I don't have any of these problems on any of my other lenses, nor have I had them on lenses I've owned in the past.
What 50-ish f/1.2 lenses are those?
Shuko wrote:
Probably, but getting a lens that's is as sharp if not sharper wide open and not having to worry about shift for fraction of the price sounds better. I'm well aware that fast lenses are compromises, not like 50L is my first fast one, it's just the worst.
The Nikkor 50/1.2 does shift focus too, but perhaps not as much. I haven't compared them.
Well then perhaps you can explain why the 50L is the ONLY lens that I have a problem with? I don't have any of these problems on any of my other lenses, nor have I had them on lenses I've owned in the past.
What 50-ish f/1.2 lenses are those?
Shuko wrote:
Probably, but getting a lens that's is as sharp if not sharper wide open and not having to worry about shift for fraction of the price sounds better. I'm well aware that fast lenses are compromises, not like 50L is my first fast one, it's just the worst.
The Nikkor 50/1.2 does shift focus too, but perhaps not as much. I haven't compared them.
Mar 18, 2009 at 03:37 PM
p.3 #13Explain the 50mm L problem
deepbluejh wrote:
If you shoot at close distances, between the apertures of F2 and F4, and use center point AF, the plane of focus will shift slightly upon taking the picture.
This is not an issue when:
1. Shooting with a faster aperture than F2-F2.8
2. Using anything besides center AF point
3. Shooting a subject more than about 8 feet away.
Quite honestly, this "issue" has been blown so far out of proportion that is has become a running joke in the forums. If you are buying the 50L for serious fast aperture work, then this "issue" isn't an issue at all. Even when it is...Show more →
Sorry, but that's not exactly accurate; it's only blown out of proportion in your limited experience. Your experience is your experience and limited to your usage. Period. It's not someone else's experience and there are many of us that have owned the lens and didn't keep it.
A lens is either suitable or unsuitable, good or bad, depending on the intended use. For me, that lens was a total waste of money, regardless of camera (I used it on a 1Ds2 and 5d). Don't dismiss others experiences and assessments unless you want to get lots of disagreement.
I could easily say the 50L is best left on the shelf unless you want to shoot at f/1.2, or over f/5.6. That doesn't work for me, but perhaps it does for you..
I've been using the lens in a wedding/portrait situation for the past 8 months or so and it has *never* been an issue for me. Not once.
Good. Enjoy it. I didn't like it....
Edited on Mar 18, 2009 at 03:46 PM · View previous versions
If you shoot at close distances, between the apertures of F2 and F4, and use center point AF, the plane of focus will shift slightly upon taking the picture.
This is not an issue when:
1. Shooting with a faster aperture than F2-F2.8
2. Using anything besides center AF point
3. Shooting a subject more than about 8 feet away.
Quite honestly, this "issue" has been blown so far out of proportion that is has become a running joke in the forums. If you are buying the 50L for serious fast aperture work, then this "issue" isn't an issue at all. Even when it is...Show more →
Sorry, but that's not exactly accurate; it's only blown out of proportion in your limited experience. Your experience is your experience and limited to your usage. Period. It's not someone else's experience and there are many of us that have owned the lens and didn't keep it.
A lens is either suitable or unsuitable, good or bad, depending on the intended use. For me, that lens was a total waste of money, regardless of camera (I used it on a 1Ds2 and 5d). Don't dismiss others experiences and assessments unless you want to get lots of disagreement.
I could easily say the 50L is best left on the shelf unless you want to shoot at f/1.2, or over f/5.6. That doesn't work for me, but perhaps it does for you..
I've been using the lens in a wedding/portrait situation for the past 8 months or so and it has *never* been an issue for me. Not once.
Good. Enjoy it. I didn't like it....
Edited on Mar 18, 2009 at 03:46 PM · View previous versions
Mar 18, 2009 at 03:45 PM
p.3 #14Explain the 50mm L problem
Ah, my bad.
Was speaking about Canon's other primes!
Yes, my understanding is that this is typical of 50mm lenses past and present.
What I was getting at is, out of all the Canon primes I have owned, not just limited to the 50mm FL, the 50L is the only one that needs "special attention", and it can be a bit frustrating at times...
As I understand, the 50L f1.0 doesn't have the shifting problem?
Makten wrote:
What 50-ish f/1.2 lenses are those?
The Nikkor 50/1.2 does shift focus too, but perhaps not as much. I haven't compared them.
Was speaking about Canon's other primes!
Yes, my understanding is that this is typical of 50mm lenses past and present.
What I was getting at is, out of all the Canon primes I have owned, not just limited to the 50mm FL, the 50L is the only one that needs "special attention", and it can be a bit frustrating at times...
As I understand, the 50L f1.0 doesn't have the shifting problem?
Makten wrote:
Nick Nishizaka wrote
Well then perhaps you can explain why the 50L is the ONLY lens that I have a problem with? I don't have any of these problems on any of my other lenses, nor have I had them on lenses I've owned in the past.Shuko wrote
Probably, but getting a lens that's is as sharp if not sharper wide open and not having to worry about shift for fraction of the price sounds better. I'm well aware that fast lenses are compromises, not like 50L is my first fast one, it's just the worst. Mar 18, 2009 at 03:45 PM
p.3 #15Explain the 50mm L problem
Yep, totally agreed and actually what I don't understand is the reluctance to agree that the 50L does indeed have inherent "issues" due to design limitations and may affect users depending on shooting style.
That really is the all inclusive description of this lens. No more, no less.
Now, I am not bashing this lens at all. I think I've pretty much laid out all the "issues" with the lens in a fair fashion. If that makes me a hobbyist, then I guess I am a hobbyist.
But I am certainly not going to dismiss others who have sold this lens b/c the focus shift affect their specific shooting situation. That would be silly and in fact a pretty snobbish/elitist thing to do.
"Photographer"....what does that mean anyways. We friggin' take pictures. Don't try to put a spin on things. Get over it!
jamesf99 wrote:
Sorry, but that's not exactly accurate; it's only blown out of proportion in your limited experience. Your experience is your experience and limited to your usage. Period. It's not someone else's experience and there are many of us that have owned the lens and didn't keep it.
A lens is either suitable or unsuitable, good or bad, depending on the intended use. For me, that lens was a total waste of money, regardless of camera (I used it on a 1Ds2 and 5d). Don't dismiss others experiences and assessments unless you want to get lots of disagreement.
I could easily say the...Show more →
That really is the all inclusive description of this lens. No more, no less.
Now, I am not bashing this lens at all. I think I've pretty much laid out all the "issues" with the lens in a fair fashion. If that makes me a hobbyist, then I guess I am a hobbyist.
But I am certainly not going to dismiss others who have sold this lens b/c the focus shift affect their specific shooting situation. That would be silly and in fact a pretty snobbish/elitist thing to do.
"Photographer"....what does that mean anyways. We friggin' take pictures. Don't try to put a spin on things. Get over it!
jamesf99 wrote:
Sorry, but that's not exactly accurate; it's only blown out of proportion in your limited experience. Your experience is your experience and limited to your usage. Period. It's not someone else's experience and there are many of us that have owned the lens and didn't keep it.
A lens is either suitable or unsuitable, good or bad, depending on the intended use. For me, that lens was a total waste of money, regardless of camera (I used it on a 1Ds2 and 5d). Don't dismiss others experiences and assessments unless you want to get lots of disagreement.
I could easily say the...Show more →
Mar 18, 2009 at 03:52 PM
p.3 #16Explain the 50mm L problem
With respect to focus shift varying by copy, I would think focus shift, like distortion and light falloff, is something that would not vary by copy. Maybe all of those things can vary by copy more than insignificantly, but I don't understand how that could be. I can see where focus accuracy could vary depending on a particular lens and camera body combination, but not the amount of focus shift.
Mar 18, 2009 at 04:02 PM
p.3 #17Explain the 50mm L problem
Actually, what I failed to mention was that all 5 copies that I have owned/tested back/front focused at various levels. Combine that with the focus shift, and you have a rather interesting lens in your hands. Perhaps this is part of the reason why there is a perception of copy variation when it comes to the shifting problem. Perhaps in reality, that's not the case, at least not to that extent.
But I wasn't going to bother figuring out the specifics of it.
My current copy requires a MFA of 10-. The copy I had before required more than the 20- my MKIII would allow for. This is separate from the shifting....
Galibier wrote:
With respect to focus shift varying by copy, I would think focus shift, like distortion and light falloff, is something that would not vary by copy. Maybe all of those things can vary by copy more than insignificantly, but I don't understand how that could be. I can see where focus accuracy could vary depending on a particular lens and camera body combination, but not the amount of focus shift.
But I wasn't going to bother figuring out the specifics of it.
My current copy requires a MFA of 10-. The copy I had before required more than the 20- my MKIII would allow for. This is separate from the shifting....
Galibier wrote:
With respect to focus shift varying by copy, I would think focus shift, like distortion and light falloff, is something that would not vary by copy. Maybe all of those things can vary by copy more than insignificantly, but I don't understand how that could be. I can see where focus accuracy could vary depending on a particular lens and camera body combination, but not the amount of focus shift.
Mar 18, 2009 at 04:08 PM
p.3 #18Explain the 50mm L problem
jamesf99 wrote:
This is not an issue when:
1. Shooting with a faster aperture than F2-F2.8
2. Using anything besides center AF point
3. Shooting a subject more than about 8 feet away.
Quite honestly, this "issue" has been blown so far out of proportion that is has become a running joke in the forums. If you are buying the 50L for serious fast aperture work, then this "issue" isn't an issue at all. Even when it is a "problem", it is only very slight.Sorry, but that's not exactly accurate; it's only blown out of proportion in your limited experience. Your experience is your experience and limited to your usage. Period. It's not someone else's experience and there are many of us that have owned the lens and didn't keep it.
A lens is either suitable or unsuitable, good or bad, depending on the intended use. For me, that lens was a total waste of money, regardless of camera (I used it on a 1Ds2 and 5d). Don't dismiss others experiences and assessments unless you want to get lots of disagreement.
I could easily say the...Show more →
I won't ever deny that the lens *could* be a problem for some people. However I will assert that before you just dump $1400 into a lens, you should give some hard though into you purchase and what you choose to accomplish by it.
The plain fact of the matter is that if you are shooting in such a way that the focus shift is a problem, then the 50/1.4 would serve you equally as well - and save you $1000.
I bought the lens for critical fast aperture work and it performs beautifully. I stop down past F2.8 maybe 5% of the time. I use the outer AF points for this work and have never lost a single shot due to the dreaded "af shift". Maybe I'm weird. Maybe I'm an atypical user. So be it.
I'm not denying the lens weaknesses, but I am saying that it deserves a fair shake. Nearly everyone who has tried it and not liked it develops very strong, emotional opinions about it and tends to badmouth it in forums.
I understand that, I just don't agree with it. Stating pros and cons is fine. Stating nothing but cons is misleading. Unfortunately people who haven't tried the lens are much more spooked by the "cons" as they are excited about the "pros". I'm just trying to tell people there *is* another side to this coin, despite what some people say.
Edited on Mar 18, 2009 at 04:30 PM · View previous versions
deepbluejh wrote
If you shoot at close distances, between the apertures of F2 and F4, and use center point AF, the plane of focus will shift slightly upon taking the picture.This is not an issue when:
1. Shooting with a faster aperture than F2-F2.8
2. Using anything besides center AF point
3. Shooting a subject more than about 8 feet away.
Quite honestly, this "issue" has been blown so far out of proportion that is has become a running joke in the forums. If you are buying the 50L for serious fast aperture work, then this "issue" isn't an issue at all. Even when it is a "problem", it is only very slight.
A lens is either suitable or unsuitable, good or bad, depending on the intended use. For me, that lens was a total waste of money, regardless of camera (I used it on a 1Ds2 and 5d). Don't dismiss others experiences and assessments unless you want to get lots of disagreement.
I could easily say the...Show more →
Earlier quote
I've been using the lens in a wedding/portrait situation for the past 8 months or so and it has *never* been an issue for me. Not once.I won't ever deny that the lens *could* be a problem for some people. However I will assert that before you just dump $1400 into a lens, you should give some hard though into you purchase and what you choose to accomplish by it.
The plain fact of the matter is that if you are shooting in such a way that the focus shift is a problem, then the 50/1.4 would serve you equally as well - and save you $1000.
I bought the lens for critical fast aperture work and it performs beautifully. I stop down past F2.8 maybe 5% of the time. I use the outer AF points for this work and have never lost a single shot due to the dreaded "af shift". Maybe I'm weird. Maybe I'm an atypical user. So be it.
I'm not denying the lens weaknesses, but I am saying that it deserves a fair shake. Nearly everyone who has tried it and not liked it develops very strong, emotional opinions about it and tends to badmouth it in forums.
I understand that, I just don't agree with it. Stating pros and cons is fine. Stating nothing but cons is misleading. Unfortunately people who haven't tried the lens are much more spooked by the "cons" as they are excited about the "pros". I'm just trying to tell people there *is* another side to this coin, despite what some people say.
Edited on Mar 18, 2009 at 04:30 PM · View previous versions
Mar 18, 2009 at 04:29 PM
p.3 #19Explain the 50mm L problem
Makten wrote:
The Nikkor 50/1.2 does shift focus too, but perhaps not as much. I haven't compared them.
Not when used with adapter on EOS body as its stop-down metering/focusing
EDIT: MF on 50L with DOF preview button pressed down works, but not exactly what I expect from 1k+ lens.
The Nikkor 50/1.2 does shift focus too, but perhaps not as much. I haven't compared them.
Not when used with adapter on EOS body as its stop-down metering/focusing
EDIT: MF on 50L with DOF preview button pressed down works, but not exactly what I expect from 1k+ lens.
Mar 18, 2009 at 04:29 PM
p.3 #20Explain the 50mm L problem
deepbluejh wrote:
This is not an issue when:
1. Shooting with a faster aperture than F2-F2.8
2. Using anything besides center AF point
3. Shooting a subject more than about 8 feet away.
Quite honestly, this "issue" has been blown so far out of proportion that is has become a running joke in the forums. If you are buying the 50L for serious fast aperture work, then this "issue" isn't an issue at all. Even when it is a "problem", it is only very slight.Sorry, but that's not exactly accurate; it's only blown out of proportion in your limited experience. Your experience is your experience and limited to your usage. Period. It's not someone else's experience and there are many of us that have owned the lens and didn't keep it.
A lens is either suitable or unsuitable, good or bad, depending on the intended use. For me, that lens was a total waste of money, regardless of camera (I used it on a 1Ds2 and 5d). Don't dismiss others experiences and assessments unless you want to get lots of disagreement.
I could easily say the 50L is best left on the shelf unless you want to shoot at f/1.2, or over f/5.6. That doesn't work for me, but perhaps it does for you..
Good. Enjoy it. I didn't like it....I won't ever deny that the lens *could* be a problem for some people. However I will assert that before you just dump $1400 into a lens, you should give some hard though into you purchase and what you choose to accomplish by it.
The plain fact of the matter is that if you are shooting in such a way that the focus shift is a problem, then the 50/1.4 would serve you equally as well - and save you $1000.
I bought the lens for critical fast aperture work and it performs beautifully. I stop down past F2.8 maybe 5% of...Show more →
Much better take on it and I agree this time. The 50L is a lens *I WANT TO LOVE*. It just doesn't love me back...
If I was going to shoot at f/1.2 all the time it would be the first 50mm lens I got. Unfortunately, I needed to use it at f/2.0 - f/4.0 as much or more, so back it went. I have no such trouble with my 85L's (multiple copies).
I don't bash lenses often because I know how much I've appreciated a lens that I think gets a bad rap too often. I just believe that if it works for how you want to use it, then it's a good tool. If it doesn't, then it isn't.
jamesf99 wrote
deepbluejh wrote
If you shoot at close distances, between the apertures of F2 and F4, and use center point AF, the plane of focus will shift slightly upon taking the picture.This is not an issue when:
1. Shooting with a faster aperture than F2-F2.8
2. Using anything besides center AF point
3. Shooting a subject more than about 8 feet away.
Quite honestly, this "issue" has been blown so far out of proportion that is has become a running joke in the forums. If you are buying the 50L for serious fast aperture work, then this "issue" isn't an issue at all. Even when it is a "problem", it is only very slight.
A lens is either suitable or unsuitable, good or bad, depending on the intended use. For me, that lens was a total waste of money, regardless of camera (I used it on a 1Ds2 and 5d). Don't dismiss others experiences and assessments unless you want to get lots of disagreement.
I could easily say the 50L is best left on the shelf unless you want to shoot at f/1.2, or over f/5.6. That doesn't work for me, but perhaps it does for you..
Earlier quote
I've been using the lens in a wedding/portrait situation for the past 8 months or so and it has *never* been an issue for me. Not once.The plain fact of the matter is that if you are shooting in such a way that the focus shift is a problem, then the 50/1.4 would serve you equally as well - and save you $1000.
I bought the lens for critical fast aperture work and it performs beautifully. I stop down past F2.8 maybe 5% of...Show more →
Much better take on it and I agree this time. The 50L is a lens *I WANT TO LOVE*. It just doesn't love me back...
If I was going to shoot at f/1.2 all the time it would be the first 50mm lens I got. Unfortunately, I needed to use it at f/2.0 - f/4.0 as much or more, so back it went. I have no such trouble with my 85L's (multiple copies).
I don't bash lenses often because I know how much I've appreciated a lens that I think gets a bad rap too often. I just believe that if it works for how you want to use it, then it's a good tool. If it doesn't, then it isn't.
Mar 18, 2009 at 04:36 PM