lidesun wrote:
Wow...more dramatic shots than the 85/1.2L shots.
Oh? I guess that means I need to buy one. Not.
If shallow depth of field and smooth bokeh are the intent then the 85 has all of that and more. Take a few steps back with the 85 and you get what is shown here with the 50
xrayvision wrote:
Oh? I guess that means I need to buy one. Not.
If shallow depth of field and smooth bokeh are the intent then the 85 has all of that and more. Take a few steps back with the 85 and you get what is shown here with the 50
No, not entirely. They are different, based on my observations (I own both).
The 85L has very good background bokeh, but a little busy foreground bokeh. The 50L has excellent bokeh both in background and foreground. And flare is not in the 50L's dictionary.
Apart from that, the 50L is excellent as a macro lens with one or more tubes, the 85L does less well.
Thanks! I use it for everything that can fit into the 50mm focal length. I know some people think it's a strange use for this lens, but even landscapes sometimes. We recently visited the Rocky Mountain states in USA for 5 weeks and I brought two 5Ds (no grips), 24LII, 50L, 70-200/4IS and 1.4x TC in a Flipside 300 backpack, and couldn't be happier with the result and it never felt heavy to carry.
The shots above were part of a 50mm June challenge at a Norwegian forum. I have some better ones, but they aren't taken between f/1.2 and 2, so I can't post them here.
OK, so I am trying to decide if I need my 24-70...or should I replace it with a 50L. I hate you guys... Looks like I am switching back to primes for the mid range... I have the 50 1.4 and I hate it with a passion. It is going to canon for calibration and checkup and then straight to the BS board...50L here I come!!
Now that I think of it, this is only a fraction of the better shots I've taken with this lens in the past 30 days. I'd post more, but this is enough for now. Clearly it's garbage and not capable of any decent shots.
deepbluejh wrote:
Clearly it's garbage and not capable of any decent shots.
Come now dear boy, you must at least allow for copy variation.
During the last 6 months I persisted that something was wrong with my copy, despite the fact that with some extra effort it was possible to produce good results within the range that I use it most. It took those 6 months, three trips and a new camera to finally proof my point.
And proof my point I did. Canon did the right thing and replaced the lens, quoting it as a low performer. The new lens is great, not more difficult to use than my other fast lenses, in no need of different MA settings for different tasks. No more back focussed images, period.
Of course you can deny that such things happen, but my first 50L did all of the worst stuff that people attribute to the type. The new lens doesn't. Now who is right and who is wrong?
rhorta wrote:
Come now dear boy, you must at least allow for copy variation.
During the last 6 months I persisted that something was wrong with my copy, despite the fact that with some extra effort it was possible to produce good results within the range that I use it most. It took those 6 months, three trips and a new camera to finally proof my point.
And proof my point I did. Canon did the right thing and replaced the lens, quoting it as a low performer. The new lens is great, not more difficult to use than my other fast lenses, in no need of different MA settings for different tasks. No more back focussed images, period.
Of course you can deny that such things happen, but my first 50L did all of the worst stuff that people attribute to the type. The new lens doesn't. Now who is right and who is wrong?
I know some people think it's a strange use for this lens, but even landscapes sometimes. We recently visited the Rocky Mountain states in USA for 5 weeks and I brought two 5Ds (no grips), 24LII, 50L, 70-200/4IS and 1.4x TC in a Flipside 300 backpack, and couldn't be happier with the result and it never felt heavy to carry. 
