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.5 #1Explain the 50mm L problem
every time the 50/1.2 comes in a forum, the respons is mega.
I think that is saying all about that lens
see here the link with 68 pages!!!! about 50/1.2
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/467828/0
I think that is saying all about that lens
see here the link with 68 pages!!!! about 50/1.2
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/467828/0
Mar 19, 2009 at 05:01 AM
p.5 #2Explain the 50mm L problem
Mike Tuomey wrote:
"Essentially, I reckon the 50L is too short FL-wise..."
Rubbish, older FDn 50/1.2L has floating element. EF 50/1.0L has as well. Even if that was the problem, they could have just made it 55mm, their old FD 55/1.2 have floating.
"Essentially, I reckon the 50L is too short FL-wise..."
Rubbish, older FDn 50/1.2L has floating element. EF 50/1.0L has as well. Even if that was the problem, they could have just made it 55mm, their old FD 55/1.2 have floating.
Mar 19, 2009 at 07:04 AM
p.5 #3Explain the 50mm L problem
The rants this lens creates are just unbelievable. Here's what I can say having owned and used one for over a year. It's fantastic lens. Buy it and forget about focus shift being an issue in real photography.
Various people will state that focus shift occurs at apertures from 1.2 to 1.8, or 2.0 to 5.6, at the minimum focus distance, 6 feet and so on. I held off for far to long buying this lens because of threads like these. When I got it I tested my copy extensively and found what could be a very minor shift when focusing in controlled conditions at between 1.4 and 1.8 at the minimum focusing distance which is an incredibly close 1.48 feet. At that distance the DoF is @ 0.2 of an inch. Go to an f/stop of 4.0 at that distance and you get about 0.5 of an inch of DoF on a 1.3 crop. Get a DoF calculator and do the math. At those DoFs is focus shift your concern? Are you doing macro work? If you are you're going to be using a tripod, remote release, mirror lockup and an f/stop higher than 5.6. When the heck do you want a DoF of 0.5 inches let alone 0.2? Are you doing portrait work and just want the lens of the eye and literally nothing else in focus? Cool, you'll do that 3 times and move on to another lens that's designed for that type of work like the 180 3.5 macro lens.
Any discussion about focus shift in this lens being a problem for a photographer isn't about photography in the real world. It's techno babble, noise and useless banter. Just read 80% of the posts in this thread. It's a fantastic lens. Buy one from a dealer who doesn't restock because a lot people apparently love to buy this lens, put it in front of an angled ruler measuring in centimeters, set it on a tripod, manually focus, mark their focus point exactly on the ruler to within a centimeter or two, use mirror lock up, a remote release, pore over the results, conclude they can't live with "focus shift" of a centimeter at a DoF of 0.2 of an inch because they spend their lives shooting photographs under just such conditions and so they return it. If you don't want a lens they've had their hands on buy from a reputable dealer that doesn't restock, enjoy the fantastic speed of focus, accuracy of focus, color rendition, clarity, bokeh and utility of this lens and laugh next time one of these threads get started. Take a look at the photos Jamie posted and after you find yourself staring at the patterns of blur, colors and realize your eyes keep coming back to the subject matter buy the lens. It's one of my favorite and most practical lenses. I have never, absolutely never lost a shot with this lens due to "focus shift."
Various people will state that focus shift occurs at apertures from 1.2 to 1.8, or 2.0 to 5.6, at the minimum focus distance, 6 feet and so on. I held off for far to long buying this lens because of threads like these. When I got it I tested my copy extensively and found what could be a very minor shift when focusing in controlled conditions at between 1.4 and 1.8 at the minimum focusing distance which is an incredibly close 1.48 feet. At that distance the DoF is @ 0.2 of an inch. Go to an f/stop of 4.0 at that distance and you get about 0.5 of an inch of DoF on a 1.3 crop. Get a DoF calculator and do the math. At those DoFs is focus shift your concern? Are you doing macro work? If you are you're going to be using a tripod, remote release, mirror lockup and an f/stop higher than 5.6. When the heck do you want a DoF of 0.5 inches let alone 0.2? Are you doing portrait work and just want the lens of the eye and literally nothing else in focus? Cool, you'll do that 3 times and move on to another lens that's designed for that type of work like the 180 3.5 macro lens.
Any discussion about focus shift in this lens being a problem for a photographer isn't about photography in the real world. It's techno babble, noise and useless banter. Just read 80% of the posts in this thread. It's a fantastic lens. Buy one from a dealer who doesn't restock because a lot people apparently love to buy this lens, put it in front of an angled ruler measuring in centimeters, set it on a tripod, manually focus, mark their focus point exactly on the ruler to within a centimeter or two, use mirror lock up, a remote release, pore over the results, conclude they can't live with "focus shift" of a centimeter at a DoF of 0.2 of an inch because they spend their lives shooting photographs under just such conditions and so they return it. If you don't want a lens they've had their hands on buy from a reputable dealer that doesn't restock, enjoy the fantastic speed of focus, accuracy of focus, color rendition, clarity, bokeh and utility of this lens and laugh next time one of these threads get started. Take a look at the photos Jamie posted and after you find yourself staring at the patterns of blur, colors and realize your eyes keep coming back to the subject matter buy the lens. It's one of my favorite and most practical lenses. I have never, absolutely never lost a shot with this lens due to "focus shift."
Mar 19, 2009 at 07:38 AM
p.5 #4Explain the 50mm L problem
I wonder how many shied away from the 50/1.2L because of the rating it got on FM's user reviews. At the moment it is pulling an 8.3 out of 10 by popularity. It is the 2nd least popular lens trailing the original 14L.
Not so L performance for an L lens? Maybe the f/1.4's from Canon, Sigma or Zeiss have a better price/performance ratio.
Not so L performance for an L lens? Maybe the f/1.4's from Canon, Sigma or Zeiss have a better price/performance ratio.
Mar 19, 2009 at 07:41 AM
p.5 #5Explain the 50mm L problem
Can you point to anywhere specific where "real photography" is defined?
I'd like to know to make sure I am doing it.
You mention shooting at MFD between f1.4 and f1.8. Your finding are correct. Focus shift is not evident at those parameters. It never really has been. It is between f2-f4 that is the problem.
But god forbid I shoot something at 3 feet between f2-f4. That would be "real photography" sin. Wooooo...
Aside from a few bashers, what I typically read are folks who have encountered various issue with this lens on the field. They either didn't like it and sold it, or they work around it giving reasonable accounts of the lens in use. I think I do that to. I kept the lens. I like the lens. I use the lens. But it is definitely not without its shortcoming.
But then there are folks like you, who seem to go out of their way to call out folks who have anything bad to say about 50L. Using terms like "hobbyist", "techno-babble", "gear-heads", "pixel-peepers".
As I mentioned earlier, dont' try to spin this around. We all take pictures. You can gift wrap that all you want, but it is what it is. Get over it.
And thanks for contributing to the pile of "rants", and sorry to contribute myself!
J. Allen wrote:
The rants this lens creates are just unbelievable. Here's what I can say having owned and used one for over a year. It's fantastic lens. Buy it and forget about focus shift being an issue in real photography.
Various people will state that focus shift occurs at apertures from 1.2 to 1.8, or 2.0 to 5.6, at the minimum focus distance, 6 feet and so on. I held off for far to long buying this lens because of threads like these. When I got it I tested my copy extensively and found what could be a very minor shift when...Show more →
Edited on Mar 19, 2009 at 08:24 AM · View previous versions
I'd like to know to make sure I am doing it.
You mention shooting at MFD between f1.4 and f1.8. Your finding are correct. Focus shift is not evident at those parameters. It never really has been. It is between f2-f4 that is the problem.
But god forbid I shoot something at 3 feet between f2-f4. That would be "real photography" sin. Wooooo...
Aside from a few bashers, what I typically read are folks who have encountered various issue with this lens on the field. They either didn't like it and sold it, or they work around it giving reasonable accounts of the lens in use. I think I do that to. I kept the lens. I like the lens. I use the lens. But it is definitely not without its shortcoming.
But then there are folks like you, who seem to go out of their way to call out folks who have anything bad to say about 50L. Using terms like "hobbyist", "techno-babble", "gear-heads", "pixel-peepers".
As I mentioned earlier, dont' try to spin this around. We all take pictures. You can gift wrap that all you want, but it is what it is. Get over it.
And thanks for contributing to the pile of "rants", and sorry to contribute myself!
J. Allen wrote:
The rants this lens creates are just unbelievable. Here's what I can say having owned and used one for over a year. It's fantastic lens. Buy it and forget about focus shift being an issue in real photography.
Various people will state that focus shift occurs at apertures from 1.2 to 1.8, or 2.0 to 5.6, at the minimum focus distance, 6 feet and so on. I held off for far to long buying this lens because of threads like these. When I got it I tested my copy extensively and found what could be a very minor shift when...Show more →
Edited on Mar 19, 2009 at 08:24 AM · View previous versions
Mar 19, 2009 at 08:20 AM
p.5 #6Explain the 50mm L problem
Speaks volumes doesn't it?
Paolo Dolina wrote:
I wonder how many shied away from the 50/1.2L because of the rating it got on FM's user reviews. At the moment it is pulling an 8.3 out of 10 by popularity. It is the 2nd least popular lens trailing the original 14L.
Not so L performance for an L lens? Maybe the f/1.4's from Canon, Sigma or Zeiss have a better price/performance ratio.
Paolo Dolina wrote:
I wonder how many shied away from the 50/1.2L because of the rating it got on FM's user reviews. At the moment it is pulling an 8.3 out of 10 by popularity. It is the 2nd least popular lens trailing the original 14L.
Not so L performance for an L lens? Maybe the f/1.4's from Canon, Sigma or Zeiss have a better price/performance ratio.
Mar 19, 2009 at 08:22 AM
p.5 #7Explain the 50mm L problem
Shuko wrote:
Rubbish, older FDn 50/1.2L has floating element. EF 50/1.0L has as well. Even if that was the problem, they could have just made it 55mm, their old FD 55/1.2 have floating.
And would the result have the same favorable dimensions and weight of the new 50L?
Mike Tuomey wrote
"Essentially, I reckon the 50L is too short FL-wise..."And would the result have the same favorable dimensions and weight of the new 50L?
Mar 19, 2009 at 08:39 AM
p.5 #8Explain the 50mm L problem
haven't read all the posts, but the 50/1.2L is just different lens compared with the 50/1.4 and 85/1.2L.
Yo have to know what it can do, and what it can't do. If you want it as sharp as 85/1.2L @ f/1.2, it's not the lens for you.
But if how the overall image looks like is more important for you, then you will love this lens..
Cheers
Yo have to know what it can do, and what it can't do. If you want it as sharp as 85/1.2L @ f/1.2, it's not the lens for you.
But if how the overall image looks like is more important for you, then you will love this lens..
Cheers
Mar 19, 2009 at 08:47 AM
p.5 #9Explain the 50mm L problem
yeah, that's what I find most annoying.
It would be funny if the EF 50/1.8 had this problem... then there would be no L-snobs sticking up for it... it would be totally unacceptable and the lens would be proclaimed crap.
>>But then there are folks like you, who seem to go out of their way to call out folks who have anything bad to say about 50L. Using terms like "hobbyist", "techno-babble", "gear-heads", "pixel-peepers".
It would be funny if the EF 50/1.8 had this problem... then there would be no L-snobs sticking up for it... it would be totally unacceptable and the lens would be proclaimed crap.
>>But then there are folks like you, who seem to go out of their way to call out folks who have anything bad to say about 50L. Using terms like "hobbyist", "techno-babble", "gear-heads", "pixel-peepers".
Mar 19, 2009 at 08:52 AM
p.5 #10Explain the 50mm L problem
Well who can blame them? It costs $1,400 and it doesn't "behave" like any other L lens. The whole point of paying for an L is the number of keepers you can produce.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
Speaks volumes doesn't it?
Not so L performance for an L lens? Maybe the f/1.4's from Canon, Sigma or Zeiss have a better price/performance ratio.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
Speaks volumes doesn't it?
Paolo Dolina wrote
I wonder how many shied away from the 50/1.2L because of the rating it got on FM's user reviews. At the moment it is pulling an 8.3 out of 10 by popularity. It is the 2nd least popular lens trailing the original 14L.Not so L performance for an L lens? Maybe the f/1.4's from Canon, Sigma or Zeiss have a better price/performance ratio.
Mar 19, 2009 at 09:17 AM
p.5 #11Explain the 50mm L problem
let's see where the discourse has run at this point:
the "hobbyists" are calling one side "L-snobs"
the "L-snobs" call the other side "hobbyists"
i don't get the personal slant. after all, what is the benefit of name-calling?
the "hobbyists" are calling one side "L-snobs"
the "L-snobs" call the other side "hobbyists"
i don't get the personal slant. after all, what is the benefit of name-calling?
Mar 19, 2009 at 10:15 AM
p.5 #12Explain the 50mm L problem
J. Allen wrote:
The rants this lens creates are just unbelievable. Here's what I can say having owned and used one for over a year. It's fantastic lens. Buy it and forget about focus shift being an issue in real photography.
Various people will state that focus shift occurs at apertures from 1.2 to 1.8, or 2.0 to 5.6, at the minimum focus distance, 6 feet and so on. I held off for far to long buying this lens because of threads like these. When I got it I tested my copy extensively and found what could be a very minor shift when...Show more →
I'm pretty sure you don't want to sound like you "know it all" and want to rant like someone from the "it works for me so there's no problem" crowd .Those people often don't have the slightest clue as to what they're saying so I'm sure you're not one of them.
I'd go so far as to guess that you don't want to count the number of people that tried to use this lens and found that it often produced extremely "soft" images similar to smearing Vaseline on the front optic, right?
You wouldn't be one of those people, would you? Can you come to my studio and show me how to use a lens, because I've been trying to figure it out for 35 years but I'll bet you could show me....thanks, I'd appreciate it.
Wait a minute....Am I on DPR??
The rants this lens creates are just unbelievable. Here's what I can say having owned and used one for over a year. It's fantastic lens. Buy it and forget about focus shift being an issue in real photography.
Various people will state that focus shift occurs at apertures from 1.2 to 1.8, or 2.0 to 5.6, at the minimum focus distance, 6 feet and so on. I held off for far to long buying this lens because of threads like these. When I got it I tested my copy extensively and found what could be a very minor shift when...Show more →
I'm pretty sure you don't want to sound like you "know it all" and want to rant like someone from the "it works for me so there's no problem" crowd .Those people often don't have the slightest clue as to what they're saying so I'm sure you're not one of them.
I'd go so far as to guess that you don't want to count the number of people that tried to use this lens and found that it often produced extremely "soft" images similar to smearing Vaseline on the front optic, right?
You wouldn't be one of those people, would you? Can you come to my studio and show me how to use a lens, because I've been trying to figure it out for 35 years but I'll bet you could show me....thanks, I'd appreciate it.
Wait a minute....Am I on DPR??
Mar 19, 2009 at 10:25 AM
p.5 #13Explain the 50mm L problem
jamesf99 wrote:
Wait a minute....Am I on DPR??
Mar 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM
p.5 #14Explain the 50mm L problem
What about those who are both "hobbyists" and "L-snobs" ?
Mike Tuomey wrote:
let's see where the discourse has run at this point:
the "hobbyists" are calling one side "L-snobs"
the "L-snobs" call the other side "hobbyists"
i don't get the personal slant. after all, what is the benefit of name-calling?
Mike Tuomey wrote:
let's see where the discourse has run at this point:
the "hobbyists" are calling one side "L-snobs"
the "L-snobs" call the other side "hobbyists"
i don't get the personal slant. after all, what is the benefit of name-calling?
Mar 19, 2009 at 10:35 AM
p.5 #15Explain the 50mm L problem
OK, this is NOT DPR, so perhaps it is time to call it a day and end this thread. We have all made valid points, some in favor of the 50L, some not. Why don't we move on to a topic that we all can agree on, such as..."we all should use UV filters to protect our lenses"
Mar 19, 2009 at 10:50 AM
p.5 #16Explain the 50mm L problem
Mike Tuomey wrote:
And would the result have the same favorable dimensions and weight of the new 50L?
If they managed to fit it into the small FD version, then surely they would have managed to fit it into the current L case. If not, theres always the 50/1 & 85L, should have plenty of room
http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/Canon_EF_50mm_f_1,0_L/02.jpg
Not a perfect example, but just took a quick shot of my bro at f2. Focused to his glasses, to the closest corner. Focus has shifted to the back one. On direct face shots, focus from eyes goes to ears. Not cool.
EDIT: It's even worse on tighter shots.
http://derfel.org/temp/UZ3J9044.jpg
Edited on Mar 19, 2009 at 11:07 AM · View previous versions
And would the result have the same favorable dimensions and weight of the new 50L?
If they managed to fit it into the small FD version, then surely they would have managed to fit it into the current L case. If not, theres always the 50/1 & 85L, should have plenty of room
http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/Canon_EF_50mm_f_1,0_L/02.jpg
Not a perfect example, but just took a quick shot of my bro at f2. Focused to his glasses, to the closest corner. Focus has shifted to the back one. On direct face shots, focus from eyes goes to ears. Not cool.
EDIT: It's even worse on tighter shots.
http://derfel.org/temp/UZ3J9044.jpg
Edited on Mar 19, 2009 at 11:07 AM · View previous versions
Mar 19, 2009 at 11:03 AM
p.5 #17Explain the 50mm L problem
I bet Petkal could do great pictures of ducks and various BIF with a 50/1.2L.
Hey Peter, save us from this thread!
Hey Peter, save us from this thread!
Mar 19, 2009 at 11:07 AM
p.5 #18Explain the 50mm L problem
Shuko wrote:
Not a perfect example, but just took a quick shot of my bro at f2. Focused to his glasses, to the closest corner. Focus has shifted to the back one. On direct face shots, focus from eyes goes to ears. Not cool.
EDIT: It's even worse on tighter shots.
http://derfel.org/temp/UZ3J9044.jpg
That looks like back focusing rather than just focus shift. Mine shows only a tiny shift in focus at f/2 around that distance. At 2.8, focusing on the glasses frame might result in the nearest part of the eyelashes being a little sharper than the frame, but never a shift all the way to the further eye, let alone the eyeglasses frame behind it.
Not a perfect example, but just took a quick shot of my bro at f2. Focused to his glasses, to the closest corner. Focus has shifted to the back one. On direct face shots, focus from eyes goes to ears. Not cool.
EDIT: It's even worse on tighter shots.
http://derfel.org/temp/UZ3J9044.jpg
That looks like back focusing rather than just focus shift. Mine shows only a tiny shift in focus at f/2 around that distance. At 2.8, focusing on the glasses frame might result in the nearest part of the eyelashes being a little sharper than the frame, but never a shift all the way to the further eye, let alone the eyeglasses frame behind it.
Mar 19, 2009 at 11:14 AM
p.5 #19Explain the 50mm L problem
You can distinguish between regular BF, and BF caused by shift?
Shuko, how dare you shoot your bro at f2 at these distances! That breaks the general rule of "real photography".
Photon wrote:
EDIT: It's even worse on tighter shots.
http://derfel.org/temp/UZ3J9044.jpgThat looks like back focusing rather than just focus shift. Mine shows only a tiny shift in focus at f/2 around that distance. At 2.8, focusing on the glasses frame might result in the nearest part of the eyelashes being a little sharper than the frame, but never a shift all the way to the further eye, let alone the eyeglasses frame behind it.
Shuko, how dare you shoot your bro at f2 at these distances! That breaks the general rule of "real photography".
Photon wrote:
Shuko wrote
Not a perfect example, but just took a quick shot of my bro at f2. Focused to his glasses, to the closest corner. Focus has shifted to the back one. On direct face shots, focus from eyes goes to ears. Not cool.EDIT: It's even worse on tighter shots.
http://derfel.org/temp/UZ3J9044.jpg
Mar 19, 2009 at 11:15 AM
p.5 #20Explain the 50mm L problem
You can distinguish between regular BF, and BF caused by shift?
I can understand if this happened at f1.2. But often times this happens when stopped down between f2-f2.8 while it is fine at f1.2. That doesn't sound like typical BF to me.
Shuko, how dare you shoot your bro at f2 at these distances! That breaks the general rule of "real photography".
Photon wrote:
EDIT: It's even worse on tighter shots.
http://derfel.org/temp/UZ3J9044.jpgThat looks like back focusing rather than just focus shift. Mine shows only a tiny shift in focus at f/2 around that distance. At 2.8, focusing on the glasses frame might result in the nearest part of the eyelashes being a little sharper than the frame, but never a shift all the way to the further eye, let alone the eyeglasses frame behind it.
I can understand if this happened at f1.2. But often times this happens when stopped down between f2-f2.8 while it is fine at f1.2. That doesn't sound like typical BF to me.
Shuko, how dare you shoot your bro at f2 at these distances! That breaks the general rule of "real photography".
Photon wrote:
Shuko wrote
Not a perfect example, but just took a quick shot of my bro at f2. Focused to his glasses, to the closest corner. Focus has shifted to the back one. On direct face shots, focus from eyes goes to ears. Not cool.EDIT: It's even worse on tighter shots.
http://derfel.org/temp/UZ3J9044.jpg
Mar 19, 2009 at 11:18 AM