This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
brainiac
Offline
[X]
Details
p.6 #1Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
mh2000 wrote:
>>Go out and take real pictures. Get a feel for the strengths and weaknesses and learn how to use it better. The endless cycle of measurebating gearhead nonsense will get you nowhere.
You will have a lot more fun out there taking pictures with this lens if you know how to focus it accurately at f2.8. Take pictures AND learn from measurebator advice.
>>Go out and take real pictures. Get a feel for the strengths and weaknesses and learn how to use it better. The endless cycle of measurebating gearhead nonsense will get you nowhere.
You will have a lot more fun out there taking pictures with this lens if you know how to focus it accurately at f2.8. Take pictures AND learn from measurebator advice.
Mar 01, 2010 at 10:11 AM
p.6 #2Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
Wonder how many participating in this thread have actually used let alone owned a 50/1.2L or any 50mm f/1.2 lens for that matter.
To have an opinion is good, to have some sort of educated opinion is even better, but without first hand experience it is actually about as valuable as most of the spam I get in the mail...
Lars and Jamie tried to explain this, but it took me a while to finally understand.
Leeuwtje, Jamie, Lars & Anna Yu (etc) showed many fine examples of what this lens is capable of and that's enough to convince me that the only limiting factor with this lens is me.
Ruy
To have an opinion is good, to have some sort of educated opinion is even better, but without first hand experience it is actually about as valuable as most of the spam I get in the mail...
Lars and Jamie tried to explain this, but it took me a while to finally understand.
Leeuwtje, Jamie, Lars & Anna Yu (etc) showed many fine examples of what this lens is capable of and that's enough to convince me that the only limiting factor with this lens is me.
Ruy
Mar 01, 2010 at 12:56 PM
p.6 #3Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
I have either owned or used 5 to 6 different copies of this lens, thank you very much...
Mar 01, 2010 at 01:34 PM
p.6 #4Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
I have either owned or used 5 to 6 different copies of this lens, thank you very much...
With one moderate post and writing about first hand experience you were hardly the type commentator I was hinting at.
But reading between the lines that you prefer to cherry pick versus calibrating makes me look at your figures with some reserve:
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
You can either play the never ending game with Canon and send it for calibration, or return it and hope for a better copy.
Pretty easy to rack up an "impressive" number that way, testing a couple of lenses before settling on a copy...and the math still works and looks nice in writing.
I've had only one, bought online and quickly calibrated by Canon.
Perhaps I'm completely off the mark, if so you'll have my apology up front.
Ruy
I have either owned or used 5 to 6 different copies of this lens, thank you very much...
With one moderate post and writing about first hand experience you were hardly the type commentator I was hinting at.
But reading between the lines that you prefer to cherry pick versus calibrating makes me look at your figures with some reserve:
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
You can either play the never ending game with Canon and send it for calibration, or return it and hope for a better copy.
Pretty easy to rack up an "impressive" number that way, testing a couple of lenses before settling on a copy...and the math still works and looks nice in writing.
I've had only one, bought online and quickly calibrated by Canon.
Perhaps I'm completely off the mark, if so you'll have my apology up front.
Ruy
Mar 01, 2010 at 01:46 PM
p.6 #5Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
My personal opinion is that the 50L is certainly a disappointment for an L lens. It may well be that there are good copies of the lens and/or there are users out there willing to workaround its substantial irks. I purchased this lens hoping to be one of the lucky ones with just a minor focus shift issue. Unfortunately I can't even determine the degree to which my lens shifts focus as it front focuses heavily at f/1.2. I did read many magazine (print and online) reviews of this lens as well as user feedback. I knew very well what the risks are when I was making the purchase and sadly have to return the lens. Even though there are users who can have success with this lens, the number of limitations and variability in quality control makes this a not very good Canon product. The most striking thing is, that if you just read print magazine reviews or even online reviews (reidreviews.com) you are to believe that this lens is exceptional in every regard - fast, sharp, color, contrast, flare control, etc. Unless you browse forums like FM, you would never know about focus shift, problem with close distance sharpness, variety of per copy quality, etc. It doesn't matter at all that this lens fills your niche or satisfies some lucky buyers, this lens in general (maybe not "your" copy) is not very good (for all the variable reasons I mentioned). And yes, after reading all the bashing I still went ahead and bought the lens, hoping to be the lucky one and I failed miserably. At least I was prepared for it. How do you think those photographers who don't spend their life on the internet feel when they shell out $1500 for an L lens that doesn't perform anywhere near their other L lenses. Should we now be worried about buying future high aperture L lenses, because they may be a just niche product with unpredictable per copy variation and focus/sharpness limitations. How will you feel when Canon releases 35L II f/1.4 and you find out it needs workarounds to operate between f1.6 and 4.0 or that it's MFD is 1meter, but you shouldn't use it below 4 meters, unless you again compensate for it in some other obscure way.
For those of you that are happy about your 50L, believe me I envy you, but please don't bash the common photographers who wanted an "L" lens and don't want to be reduced to niche application or multiple try-return-rebuy attempts. We all expect things to work to a certain standard in our life and that should apply to photo equipment as well, unless of course the specialization (limitations) are fully disclosed.
Edited on Mar 01, 2010 at 02:08 PM · View previous versions
For those of you that are happy about your 50L, believe me I envy you, but please don't bash the common photographers who wanted an "L" lens and don't want to be reduced to niche application or multiple try-return-rebuy attempts. We all expect things to work to a certain standard in our life and that should apply to photo equipment as well, unless of course the specialization (limitations) are fully disclosed.
Edited on Mar 01, 2010 at 02:08 PM · View previous versions
Mar 01, 2010 at 02:05 PM
p.6 #6Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
I don't expect you to know my history with this lens, so if my post came off as a wise-crack, I apologize.
I'll try to keep it brief.
I had a UU date coded 50L and began noticing the shift in real world shooting. It was also back focusing so I sent it in to Canon to try to have it calibrated. I was unaware of the shift issue, but quickly found out about it.
After 4 trips to Canon, the 50L was behaving worse than ever. My request to either replace it with a new copy or for a refund was met with a rather rude reply. During this time I tested out 4 or 5 more copies ranging from UV-UW date codes. They all exhibited the same behavior. I found most owners weren't aware of this issue b/c they shot well outside the "danger zone". I did this mainly to get better statistics about the lens and to make sure I wasn't just being picky with this lens.
I filed a BBB complaint against Canon, and got management involved. They agreed to send me a brand new 50L. That copy was back focusing as well and was shifting. Not as much as my original copy however. I sent that copy twice to Canon, the final time going to Canon HQ in Lake Success NY for their "engineers" to check out. I also sent my MKIII that I had at the time to the same location.
The result? They admitted defeat and fed me the line "It's a product limitation due to the design of this lens". That's straight from the horse's mouth. My response was that they should put a disclaimer on their product page. Of course I was being sarcastic when I said that. They calibrated as best as they could, returned the new copy to me, and I still have that copy.
I've learned to work around the various issues that plague this lens but it's my most inconsistent lens, and I've had them all.
So no, hardly "testing several copies and settling on one copy"...
rhorta wrote:
With one moderate post and writing about first hand experience you were hardly the type commentator I was hinting at.
But reading between the lines that you prefer to cherry pick versus calibrating makes me look at your figures with some reserve:
Pretty easy to rack up an "impressive" number that way, testing a couple of lenses before settling on a copy...and the math still works and looks nice in writing.
I've had only one, bought online and quickly calibrated by Canon.
Perhaps I'm completely off the mark, if so you'll have my apology up front.
Ruy
I'll try to keep it brief.
I had a UU date coded 50L and began noticing the shift in real world shooting. It was also back focusing so I sent it in to Canon to try to have it calibrated. I was unaware of the shift issue, but quickly found out about it.
After 4 trips to Canon, the 50L was behaving worse than ever. My request to either replace it with a new copy or for a refund was met with a rather rude reply. During this time I tested out 4 or 5 more copies ranging from UV-UW date codes. They all exhibited the same behavior. I found most owners weren't aware of this issue b/c they shot well outside the "danger zone". I did this mainly to get better statistics about the lens and to make sure I wasn't just being picky with this lens.
I filed a BBB complaint against Canon, and got management involved. They agreed to send me a brand new 50L. That copy was back focusing as well and was shifting. Not as much as my original copy however. I sent that copy twice to Canon, the final time going to Canon HQ in Lake Success NY for their "engineers" to check out. I also sent my MKIII that I had at the time to the same location.
The result? They admitted defeat and fed me the line "It's a product limitation due to the design of this lens". That's straight from the horse's mouth. My response was that they should put a disclaimer on their product page. Of course I was being sarcastic when I said that. They calibrated as best as they could, returned the new copy to me, and I still have that copy.
I've learned to work around the various issues that plague this lens but it's my most inconsistent lens, and I've had them all.
So no, hardly "testing several copies and settling on one copy"...
rhorta wrote:
Nick Nishizaka wrote
I have either owned or used 5 to 6 different copies of this lens, thank you very much...But reading between the lines that you prefer to cherry pick versus calibrating makes me look at your figures with some reserve:
Nick Nishizaka wrote
You can either play the never ending game with Canon and send it for calibration, or return it and hope for a better copy.I've had only one, bought online and quickly calibrated by Canon.
Perhaps I'm completely off the mark, if so you'll have my apology up front.
Ruy
Mar 01, 2010 at 02:08 PM
p.6 #7Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
Well Nick i'll repeat my earlier disclaimer, since you've clearly tried just about anything and far more than I ever would for a lens!
The OP has made up his mind making any further comments pretty much a mute point.
But you still have the lens right?!
Just like StanJ who hates it, but can't let it go either!
Ruy
The OP has made up his mind making any further comments pretty much a mute point.
But you still have the lens right?!
Just like StanJ who hates it, but can't let it go either!
Ruy
Mar 01, 2010 at 02:28 PM
p.6 #8Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
rhorta wrote:
Well Nick i'll repeat my earlier disclaimer, since you've clearly tried just about anything and far more than I ever would for a lens!
The OP has made up his mind making any further comments pretty much a mute point.
But you still have the lens right?!
Just like StanJ who hates it, but can't let it go either!
Ruy
Indeed.
The only reason why I have this lens, aside from the fact that I like the 50mm focal length, is that when it gets things right, it's "magical"...
It's kinda like golf. Bogeys, double bogeys, triple bogeys, a 12 after putting it in the water twice, but then there's the occasional birdie...or better yet a birdie or par on the 18th hole that keeps you coming back for more...torture be damned!
Well Nick i'll repeat my earlier disclaimer, since you've clearly tried just about anything and far more than I ever would for a lens!
The OP has made up his mind making any further comments pretty much a mute point.
But you still have the lens right?!
Just like StanJ who hates it, but can't let it go either!
Ruy
Indeed.
The only reason why I have this lens, aside from the fact that I like the 50mm focal length, is that when it gets things right, it's "magical"...
It's kinda like golf. Bogeys, double bogeys, triple bogeys, a 12 after putting it in the water twice, but then there's the occasional birdie...or better yet a birdie or par on the 18th hole that keeps you coming back for more...torture be damned!
Mar 01, 2010 at 02:41 PM
p.6 #9Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
Something I'd like to note - and forgive me if I'm being overly simplistic
If my 50L gets dirty, whether it be on the front or rear glass - AF at wide apertures begins to get more and more inaccurate.
If I take the time to clean my glass with proper lens cleaning fluid/tissue paper I have "good AF days".
I'm not saying the focus shift doesn't exist, but it doesn't seem to hit me.
If my 50L gets dirty, whether it be on the front or rear glass - AF at wide apertures begins to get more and more inaccurate.
If I take the time to clean my glass with proper lens cleaning fluid/tissue paper I have "good AF days".
I'm not saying the focus shift doesn't exist, but it doesn't seem to hit me.
Mar 01, 2010 at 03:11 PM
p.6 #10Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
sejanus wrote:
Something I'd like to note - and forgive me if I'm being overly simplistic
If my 50L gets dirty, whether it be on the front or rear glass - AF at wide apertures begins to get more and more inaccurate.
If I take the time to clean my glass with proper lens cleaning fluid/tissue paper I have "good AF days".
I'm not saying the focus shift doesn't exist, but it doesn't seem to hit me.
Uh...no. That's probably not the cause of the shift.
Something I'd like to note - and forgive me if I'm being overly simplistic
If my 50L gets dirty, whether it be on the front or rear glass - AF at wide apertures begins to get more and more inaccurate.
If I take the time to clean my glass with proper lens cleaning fluid/tissue paper I have "good AF days".
I'm not saying the focus shift doesn't exist, but it doesn't seem to hit me.
Uh...no. That's probably not the cause of the shift.
Mar 01, 2010 at 03:22 PM
p.6 #11Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
Again, the focus shift is because of the design of the lens. I feel like a broken record. I will make it clear: EVERY single 50 1.2L has focus shift regardless of your experience with your version. Version doesn't matter. If you shoot close to MFD and shoot a relatively wide aperture, your focus will not be accurately represented in the final image.
If you have a problem with this statement, and think it is untrue, please continue, but if you just "haven't seen it hit me", then don't state the POSSIBILITY that it doesn't exist, leading people on, if they read your comment out of context.
If you have a problem with this statement, and think it is untrue, please continue, but if you just "haven't seen it hit me", then don't state the POSSIBILITY that it doesn't exist, leading people on, if they read your comment out of context.
Mar 01, 2010 at 03:41 PM
p.6 #12Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
If you have to go through all this frustration to get it to focus, why not just shoot an adapted quality Leica (or your pick) "alternative" lens? The whole point to spending $1500 for an AF 50mm lens is for the AF to do the work...
brainiac wrote:
You will have a lot more fun out there taking pictures with this lens if you know how to focus it accurately at f2.8. Take pictures AND learn from measurebator advice.
brainiac wrote:
mh2000 wrote
>>Go out and take real pictures. Get a feel for the strengths and weaknesses and learn how to use it better. The endless cycle of measurebating gearhead nonsense will get you nowhere.Mar 01, 2010 at 05:59 PM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
Details
p.6 #13Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
There are two ways to be sure that the 50L focusses accurately:
1) install an S screen, and hold down the d.o.f. button while focussing manually (unfortunately Canon d.o.f. buttons don't lock, so this is why I call it the three-hand method).
2) use liveview and hold down the d.o.f. button while focussing using the monitor. Setting focus and then moving the camera slightly forwards and backwards to gain accurate focus only requires two hands and a fast shutter speed!
There are plenty of other lenses which exhibit focus shift. If you get paranoid and start looking for it you will find that it is quite common in a variety of lenses. However, the 50L is quite a bad case. Only you can decide if you are prepared to work around it. In the 50L it starts at f1.4 and probably peaks somewhere about f2.2. Depth of field hides it beyond f4 on most cameras. Be skeptical of reports that some 50L's don't do it. Miscalibration of the camera could make a 50L work accurately between f1.4 and f2.8, and less accurately at other apertures. Also be skeptical about reports that this lens isn't sharp at wide apertures. They often arise because the user is unable to focus the lens accurately.
It's a wonderful lens but only performs reliably when used with skill and good knowledge of its foibles.
1) install an S screen, and hold down the d.o.f. button while focussing manually (unfortunately Canon d.o.f. buttons don't lock, so this is why I call it the three-hand method).
2) use liveview and hold down the d.o.f. button while focussing using the monitor. Setting focus and then moving the camera slightly forwards and backwards to gain accurate focus only requires two hands and a fast shutter speed!
There are plenty of other lenses which exhibit focus shift. If you get paranoid and start looking for it you will find that it is quite common in a variety of lenses. However, the 50L is quite a bad case. Only you can decide if you are prepared to work around it. In the 50L it starts at f1.4 and probably peaks somewhere about f2.2. Depth of field hides it beyond f4 on most cameras. Be skeptical of reports that some 50L's don't do it. Miscalibration of the camera could make a 50L work accurately between f1.4 and f2.8, and less accurately at other apertures. Also be skeptical about reports that this lens isn't sharp at wide apertures. They often arise because the user is unable to focus the lens accurately.
It's a wonderful lens but only performs reliably when used with skill and good knowledge of its foibles.
Mar 01, 2010 at 07:15 PM
p.6 #14Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
groan... don't think the lens is that special...
Mar 01, 2010 at 11:35 PM
p.6 #15Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
All of the 50L I have used/tested weren't sharp wide open at close distances...i.e. MFD to about 4-5 feet out. This varies by copy. Perhaps "not sharp" is an inaccurate term. It's more like it lacks contrast, and has a "ghostly" look to things.
The further you shoot, the less this is the case due to expanding DOF.
It's just a very distinctive look wide open. None of my other lenses have this look. You can blame the f1.2 aperture but then I remember the 85L MKI and MKII I used to own never exhibited this behavior.
So let's have full disclosure about the IQ wide open shall we?
The further you shoot, the less this is the case due to expanding DOF.
It's just a very distinctive look wide open. None of my other lenses have this look. You can blame the f1.2 aperture but then I remember the 85L MKI and MKII I used to own never exhibited this behavior.
So let's have full disclosure about the IQ wide open shall we?
Mar 01, 2010 at 11:35 PM
p.6 #16Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
I don't see what your saying Nick.
hate to do this, but:
1) I have owned 2 50 1.2L's, and used several others for extended periods of time.
2) I have extensive experience with the 50 1.0L, Rokkor 58 1.2, Nikkor 1.2, Canon 1.4EF, 2.5 MC, Oly 58 1.2, Leica 50 1.0M and quite a bit more actually.
3) Only used these lenses with 5d's and 1d's.
Of all these lenses, I have found the 1.2 to be third sharpest wide open of all lenses in its range, which says alot when I am comparing it to a Macro lens and a absolutely amazing 1.0L.
For all of those interested that are being persuaded by this constant back and forth banter, I am sorry its so difficult to figure out who is right and who is wrong. Go with the numbers:
I shot 37,000 finished images last year, and just sorted them in LR, and over 4k of them are with this lens, and of that, 3200 are wide open. Clients love them, I love them, they are not edited to correct for any lens issues, just burned to CD and delivered. If you want a 50ish lens that is sharp and wider than f/2.0, than the 1.2L is the best you will find, unless there are any good deals on 1.0's left.
hate to do this, but:
1) I have owned 2 50 1.2L's, and used several others for extended periods of time.
2) I have extensive experience with the 50 1.0L, Rokkor 58 1.2, Nikkor 1.2, Canon 1.4EF, 2.5 MC, Oly 58 1.2, Leica 50 1.0M and quite a bit more actually.
3) Only used these lenses with 5d's and 1d's.
Of all these lenses, I have found the 1.2 to be third sharpest wide open of all lenses in its range, which says alot when I am comparing it to a Macro lens and a absolutely amazing 1.0L.
For all of those interested that are being persuaded by this constant back and forth banter, I am sorry its so difficult to figure out who is right and who is wrong. Go with the numbers:
I shot 37,000 finished images last year, and just sorted them in LR, and over 4k of them are with this lens, and of that, 3200 are wide open. Clients love them, I love them, they are not edited to correct for any lens issues, just burned to CD and delivered. If you want a 50ish lens that is sharp and wider than f/2.0, than the 1.2L is the best you will find, unless there are any good deals on 1.0's left.
 |
||
| http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4400063091_fe4e52587b.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2552/4400062775_0fdcd24199.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4043/4400062519_da94b2d3bc.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2754/4400062305_09ec37bf67.jpg | ||
|
|
||
| http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2709/4400062999_7c2c31cc1c.jpg | ||
|
Mar 02, 2010 at 01:06 AM
p.6 #17Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
The 50L is a a great lens. It has some quirks, that maybe have a manual focusing screen, for shots at f1.2 to f1.8 sometimes requiring an minor adjustment if needed.
Calibrate the lens with a LensAlign, and get repeatable results. Then do the MFA based on your shooting distance. Learn how to use the lens.
Calibrate the lens with a LensAlign, and get repeatable results. Then do the MFA based on your shooting distance. Learn how to use the lens.
Mar 02, 2010 at 04:09 AM
p.6 #18Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
All of the 50L I have used/tested weren't sharp wide open at close distances...i.e. MFD to about 4-5 feet out.
patrickphoto wrote:
I don't see what your saying Nick.
I may not deliver 37000 shots per year, but I assist someone who does and it's not like my copy doesn't get any use. Small web size photos don't really prove much in terms of resolution capabilities.
My experience with this lens matches what Nick is describing, and what Stan Jirman likes to complain about as well. The lens suffers from a noticeable decrease of resolution when getting close to MFD. Stan coined it the "biblical look". It's not a problem with missed focus as a few tests in a tripod with live view can confirm. My understanding is that this behavior is due to a lack of close focus correction.
About 5ft out all the copies I have used are 85L sharp wide open. Focused closer, they require some stopping down to attain critical sharpness (which is not always needed). I think this behavior is also the reason why the 50L does so badly in most tests - the test charts are close enough for this effect to be noticeable.
All of that said, I am still quite fond of my 50L. It's a photographer's lens, not a pixel peeper's lens. And while the focus shift can be a nuisance it's not that much of a problem with my style of shooting.
I think Brainiac said it best: It's a wonderful lens but only performs reliably when used with skill and good knowledge of its foibles.
All of the 50L I have used/tested weren't sharp wide open at close distances...i.e. MFD to about 4-5 feet out.
patrickphoto wrote:
I don't see what your saying Nick.
I may not deliver 37000 shots per year, but I assist someone who does and it's not like my copy doesn't get any use. Small web size photos don't really prove much in terms of resolution capabilities.
My experience with this lens matches what Nick is describing, and what Stan Jirman likes to complain about as well. The lens suffers from a noticeable decrease of resolution when getting close to MFD. Stan coined it the "biblical look". It's not a problem with missed focus as a few tests in a tripod with live view can confirm. My understanding is that this behavior is due to a lack of close focus correction.
About 5ft out all the copies I have used are 85L sharp wide open. Focused closer, they require some stopping down to attain critical sharpness (which is not always needed). I think this behavior is also the reason why the 50L does so badly in most tests - the test charts are close enough for this effect to be noticeable.
All of that said, I am still quite fond of my 50L. It's a photographer's lens, not a pixel peeper's lens. And while the focus shift can be a nuisance it's not that much of a problem with my style of shooting.
I think Brainiac said it best: It's a wonderful lens but only performs reliably when used with skill and good knowledge of its foibles.
Mar 02, 2010 at 04:49 AM
p.6 #19Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
hyperion wrote:
I rented it for my MK4s and could not stand it. IMO its a complete waste of money.
Your results are exactly what pros experience when using it - and why most pros don't own it.
http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=slr_review&no=161
(read this review and look at the pictures - pretty much sums up how useless the lens is imo)
Horribly soft at any aperture that you might want to use it at. (this has nothing to do with shallow depth of field and difficulty using it).
Save the cash and buy the Zeiss 50mm F1.4 imo.
Best of luck getting your money back.
I've been looking at the pictures in this test, and found all wonderful; I bought this lens after having seen a lot (hundreds or thousands) of pictures on the web, and never regret to sell the 1,4 (though I kept the 85/1,8 after buying the 85L); I love the way the 50L is, I had Leica 50 Noctilux (f:1), and here I find similar mood and much less issues.
It's a wonderful lens if you know what to ask it; not for pixel peeper people, not for tack sharpness fans; it's a bit an old school lens, with a pretty magical mood.
You love it, or hate.
I rented it for my MK4s and could not stand it. IMO its a complete waste of money.
Your results are exactly what pros experience when using it - and why most pros don't own it.
http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=slr_review&no=161
(read this review and look at the pictures - pretty much sums up how useless the lens is imo)
Horribly soft at any aperture that you might want to use it at. (this has nothing to do with shallow depth of field and difficulty using it).
Save the cash and buy the Zeiss 50mm F1.4 imo.
Best of luck getting your money back.
I've been looking at the pictures in this test, and found all wonderful; I bought this lens after having seen a lot (hundreds or thousands) of pictures on the web, and never regret to sell the 1,4 (though I kept the 85/1,8 after buying the 85L); I love the way the 50L is, I had Leica 50 Noctilux (f:1), and here I find similar mood and much less issues.
It's a wonderful lens if you know what to ask it; not for pixel peeper people, not for tack sharpness fans; it's a bit an old school lens, with a pretty magical mood.
You love it, or hate.
Mar 02, 2010 at 05:56 AM
p.6 #20Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
patrickphoto wrote:
Again, the focus shift is because of the design of the lens. I feel like a broken record. I will make it clear: EVERY single 50 1.2L has focus shift regardless of your experience with your version. Version doesn't matter. If you shoot close to MFD and shoot a relatively wide aperture, your focus will not be accurately represented in the final image.
If you have a problem with this statement, and think it is untrue, please continue, but if you just "haven't seen it hit me", then don't state the POSSIBILITY that it doesn't exist, leading people on, if...Show more →
I agree that all 50Ls shift by design, but for one reason or another many of them shift within DoF.
When mine was new I tested it extensively, and I have now used it for almost a year (lots of shots within "focus shift danger area") and never once encountered any visible focus shift. It's by far my favorite lens, just as reliable as my 35L.
When stopped down focus shift gets worse, but DoF also increases and with my 50L that is enough to completely hide the shift. Two of my friends also own 50L. One has one as good as mine (no visible focus shift) and one has one that shifts a bit. When she uses the outer focal points the focus shift disappears completely. Weird but true.
It's clear that there are 50Ls that focus shifts badly though, and I feel for those who are unlucky and get such a copy.
Again, the focus shift is because of the design of the lens. I feel like a broken record. I will make it clear: EVERY single 50 1.2L has focus shift regardless of your experience with your version. Version doesn't matter. If you shoot close to MFD and shoot a relatively wide aperture, your focus will not be accurately represented in the final image.
If you have a problem with this statement, and think it is untrue, please continue, but if you just "haven't seen it hit me", then don't state the POSSIBILITY that it doesn't exist, leading people on, if...Show more →
I agree that all 50Ls shift by design, but for one reason or another many of them shift within DoF.
When mine was new I tested it extensively, and I have now used it for almost a year (lots of shots within "focus shift danger area") and never once encountered any visible focus shift. It's by far my favorite lens, just as reliable as my 35L.
When stopped down focus shift gets worse, but DoF also increases and with my 50L that is enough to completely hide the shift. Two of my friends also own 50L. One has one as good as mine (no visible focus shift) and one has one that shifts a bit. When she uses the outer focal points the focus shift disappears completely. Weird but true.
It's clear that there are 50Ls that focus shifts badly though, and I feel for those who are unlucky and get such a copy.
Mar 02, 2010 at 06:41 AM