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.7 #1Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
HelenaN wrote:
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.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...Show more →
Helena, I hate to challenge you, but I think your appraisal is the sort of thing that causes confusion.
First, it seems that you are basing your assessment on results using AF. The vagaries of Canon's AF systems, even on 1 series, are such that no assessment of the this lens's performance at f2.8 and wider is accurate if the AF system is used. Results will depend on particular lens/camera combinations, and even, as you have suggested, the rife problem of miscalibration between individual AF points in the same camera. One shot AF can produce variation from shot to shot at f1.2.
Secondly, focus shift ONLY appears when you stop the lens down a little bit. Stop it down a lot and d.o.f. gains hide it. Shoot wide open, and of course, no focus shift occurs, because focus shift is defined as the effect of aperture blades on moving the focal plane slightly when they stop down.
Thirdly, softness in the close range, and focus shift, are two entirely separate issues. It is my view that those complaining about close range performance may be expecting too much from an f1.2 standard lens. People also complain about the performance of the Zeiss 50 f1.4 wide open, the Rokkor 58 f1.2, and no doubt all the rest of the very fast standard lenses. When I tested excellent copies of the 50 f1.0 L against the 50 f1.2 L for close-range sharpness I found the 50 f1.2 L to be sharper at f1.2. But it is an f1.2 lens, and one should not expect miracles, especially on 21 Mpixels. It is also my view that there are some who complain about the 50 f1.2 L's wide open performance because they have failed to focus it accurately, due to the many difficulties in doing so, viz AF inaccuracy, photographer sway, subject movement, miscalibrated manual focus geometry, use of a standard focussing screen et cetera et cetera.
As I understand it, Canon has not significantly changed the design of this lens. All the copies I have tried were the same, and excellent, notwithstanding the issues raised above. I don't believe that copy variation is rife. I think photographer variation and camera variation are far bigger factors in the contentious reports of the quality of this lens. I suspect that if all assessment of the lens was done from a very rigid tripod, taking the average of several re-focussed frames using liveview 10x magnification and depth of field preview, there would be far less dispute about the 50L's qualities. Perhaps that's true of many lenses, but assessment of the 50L, by the nature of it's spec and design flaws, is more susceptible to external factors.
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 they read your comment out of context.
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...Show more →
Helena, I hate to challenge you, but I think your appraisal is the sort of thing that causes confusion.
First, it seems that you are basing your assessment on results using AF. The vagaries of Canon's AF systems, even on 1 series, are such that no assessment of the this lens's performance at f2.8 and wider is accurate if the AF system is used. Results will depend on particular lens/camera combinations, and even, as you have suggested, the rife problem of miscalibration between individual AF points in the same camera. One shot AF can produce variation from shot to shot at f1.2.
Secondly, focus shift ONLY appears when you stop the lens down a little bit. Stop it down a lot and d.o.f. gains hide it. Shoot wide open, and of course, no focus shift occurs, because focus shift is defined as the effect of aperture blades on moving the focal plane slightly when they stop down.
Thirdly, softness in the close range, and focus shift, are two entirely separate issues. It is my view that those complaining about close range performance may be expecting too much from an f1.2 standard lens. People also complain about the performance of the Zeiss 50 f1.4 wide open, the Rokkor 58 f1.2, and no doubt all the rest of the very fast standard lenses. When I tested excellent copies of the 50 f1.0 L against the 50 f1.2 L for close-range sharpness I found the 50 f1.2 L to be sharper at f1.2. But it is an f1.2 lens, and one should not expect miracles, especially on 21 Mpixels. It is also my view that there are some who complain about the 50 f1.2 L's wide open performance because they have failed to focus it accurately, due to the many difficulties in doing so, viz AF inaccuracy, photographer sway, subject movement, miscalibrated manual focus geometry, use of a standard focussing screen et cetera et cetera.
As I understand it, Canon has not significantly changed the design of this lens. All the copies I have tried were the same, and excellent, notwithstanding the issues raised above. I don't believe that copy variation is rife. I think photographer variation and camera variation are far bigger factors in the contentious reports of the quality of this lens. I suspect that if all assessment of the lens was done from a very rigid tripod, taking the average of several re-focussed frames using liveview 10x magnification and depth of field preview, there would be far less dispute about the 50L's qualities. Perhaps that's true of many lenses, but assessment of the 50L, by the nature of it's spec and design flaws, is more susceptible to external factors.
Mar 02, 2010 at 07:28 AM
p.7 #2Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
I'm not sure what I "did wrong" and why I can't base my opinion about my own lens on AF? I use AF most of the time and if it works perfectly (on both 5D and 450D, btw.) isn't that good? I already said that I agree that all 50Ls shift by design. All I wanted to say that in practical use there are some (not all) 50Ls where DoF completely hides the focus shift. What causes this I don't know.
My confusion disregarded, judging from what you wrote we seem to be in complete agreement.
At least I have no objections to what you wrote.
My confusion disregarded, judging from what you wrote we seem to be in complete agreement.
At least I have no objections to what you wrote.Mar 02, 2010 at 07:46 AM
p.7 #3Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
Focus shift does not occur when the lens is shot wide open... not everyone wants to shoot all their photos wide open.
>>...over 4k of them are with this lens, and of that, 3200 are wide open.
>>...over 4k of them are with this lens, and of that, 3200 are wide open.
Mar 02, 2010 at 07:54 AM
p.7 #4Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
mh2000 wrote:
Focus shift does not occur when the lens is shot wide open... not everyone wants to shoot all their photos wide open.
I agree with you about the "not everyone" and "all" parts of your statement but also believe the vast majority of 1.2L owners would almost always shoot wide open; I mean really, why else would they waste money purchasing this lens when the lower cost f/1.4 (or even the f/1.8) option is available?
Please don't take my comment as justification of Canon's choice of design (i.e. lack of floating rear element). I'm merely trying to point out why most owners don't care about the issue and are happy with their purchase decision. Certainly there are going to be a few folks with money to burn that purchased the 1.2L thinking it was going to be the best-in-the-west because of the "L" designation ... and they are understandably disappointed because of the focus-shift issue, but IMO they represent a small minority, YMMV.
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
Focus shift does not occur when the lens is shot wide open... not everyone wants to shoot all their photos wide open.
I agree with you about the "not everyone" and "all" parts of your statement but also believe the vast majority of 1.2L owners would almost always shoot wide open; I mean really, why else would they waste money purchasing this lens when the lower cost f/1.4 (or even the f/1.8) option is available?
Please don't take my comment as justification of Canon's choice of design (i.e. lack of floating rear element). I'm merely trying to point out why most owners don't care about the issue and are happy with their purchase decision. Certainly there are going to be a few folks with money to burn that purchased the 1.2L thinking it was going to be the best-in-the-west because of the "L" designation ... and they are understandably disappointed because of the focus-shift issue, but IMO they represent a small minority, YMMV.
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
Mar 02, 2010 at 08:57 AM
p.7 #5Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
jkurkjia wrote:
I agree with you about the "not everyone" and "all" parts of your statement but also believe the vast majority of 1.2L owners would almost always shoot wide open; I mean really, why else would they waste money purchasing this lens when the lower cost f/1.4 (or even the f/1.8) option is available?
Please don't take my comment as justification of Canon's choice of design (i.e. lack of floating rear element). I'm merely trying to point out why most owners don't care about the issue and are happy with their purchase decision. Certainly there are going to be a few folks...Show more →
I shoot my fast primes stopped down all the time. It's situation specific and usually my fast primes stopped down to say f2.8 is still much sharper than any of my zooms, so it's usually a desirable trait.
Now if one only shoots stopped down then I would completely agree that buying fast lenses, other than for the build and color/contrast is a waste of money.
I know you aren't making any excuses for Canon as you stated. However, every other lens that I have owned never had a problem like the 50L so to me when someone brings up the whole "Why would you shoot an f1.2 lens stopped down" it just ends up sounding like a cop out...
mh2000 wrote
Focus shift does not occur when the lens is shot wide open... not everyone wants to shoot all their photos wide open.Please don't take my comment as justification of Canon's choice of design (i.e. lack of floating rear element). I'm merely trying to point out why most owners don't care about the issue and are happy with their purchase decision. Certainly there are going to be a few folks...Show more →
I shoot my fast primes stopped down all the time. It's situation specific and usually my fast primes stopped down to say f2.8 is still much sharper than any of my zooms, so it's usually a desirable trait.
Now if one only shoots stopped down then I would completely agree that buying fast lenses, other than for the build and color/contrast is a waste of money.
I know you aren't making any excuses for Canon as you stated. However, every other lens that I have owned never had a problem like the 50L so to me when someone brings up the whole "Why would you shoot an f1.2 lens stopped down" it just ends up sounding like a cop out...
Mar 02, 2010 at 09:13 AM
p.7 #6Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
I agree with you about the "not everyone" and "all" parts of your statement but also believe the vast majority of 1.2L owners would almost always shoot wide open; I mean really, why else would they waste money purchasing this lens when the lower cost f/1.4 (or even the f/1.8) option is available?
Please don't take my comment as justification of Canon's choice of design (i.e. lack of floating rear element). I'm merely trying to point out why most owners don't care about the issue and are happy with their purchase decision. Certainly there are going to be a few folks with money to burn that purchased the 1.2L thinking it was going to be the best-in-the-west because of the "L" designation ... and they are understandably disappointed because of the focus-shift issue, but IMO they represent a small minority, YMMV.
Regards,
Joe KurkjianI shoot my fast primes stopped down all the time. It's situation specific and usually my fast primes stopped down to say f2.8 is still much sharper than any of my zooms, so it's usually a desirable trait.
Now if one only shoots stopped down then I would completely agree that buying fast lenses, other than for the build and color/contrast is a waste of money.
I know you aren't making any excuses for Canon as you stated. However, every other lens that I have owned never had a problem like the 50L so to me when someone brings up the
...Show more →
I hear you and agree there are some apologists but IMO they are in the minority when it comes to the subject of the f/1.2, but please note, I reserve the right to be wrong.
Joe
jkurkjia wrote
mh2000 wrote
Focus shift does not occur when the lens is shot wide open... not everyone wants to shoot all their photos wide open.Please don't take my comment as justification of Canon's choice of design (i.e. lack of floating rear element). I'm merely trying to point out why most owners don't care about the issue and are happy with their purchase decision. Certainly there are going to be a few folks with money to burn that purchased the 1.2L thinking it was going to be the best-in-the-west because of the "L" designation ... and they are understandably disappointed because of the focus-shift issue, but IMO they represent a small minority, YMMV.
Regards,
Joe Kurkjian
Now if one only shoots stopped down then I would completely agree that buying fast lenses, other than for the build and color/contrast is a waste of money.
I know you aren't making any excuses for Canon as you stated. However, every other lens that I have owned never had a problem like the 50L so to me when someone brings up the
...Show more →
I hear you and agree there are some apologists but IMO they are in the minority when it comes to the subject of the f/1.2, but please note, I reserve the right to be wrong.
Joe
Mar 02, 2010 at 11:31 AM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
Details
p.7 #7Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
I think the outcome of this discussion is that Canon OUGHT to provide information about this issue so that people can make their own decisions. They don't have to scream it, but better technical support about this issue, and an explanation of the design and any workarounds in the lens instructions would be a sensible way to treat your high-spending customers. And EOS bodies should all have d.o.f. lock, and the option to install decent manual focus screens (yes, even Rebels and the 7D).
Mar 02, 2010 at 11:41 AM
brainiac
Offline
[X]
Details
p.7 #8Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
HelenaN wrote:
I'm not sure what I "did wrong" and why I can't base my opinion about my own lens on AF? I use AF most of the time and if it works perfectly (on both 5D and 450D, btw.) isn't that good? I already said that I agree that all 50Ls shift by design. All I wanted to say that in practical use there are some (not all) 50Ls where DoF completely hides the focus shift. What causes this I don't know.
My confusion disregarded, judging from what you wrote we seem to be in complete agreement. At least I have...Show more →
I said your appraisal might cause confusion, not that you were confused! However, I still don't accept that one can infer the existence of bad copies without completely isolating any test from the focussing system. In other words, I've still seen no evidence that reports of bad copies aren't reports about lenses which might be made (only) as good as good copies via calibration of the lens and/or the bodies upon which it is used. I just don't see why the designed focus shift would vary significantly from one copy to another, and I've never found an example of such. But I always test them using the reliable method that I have described, not the vagaries of AF.
I'm not sure what I "did wrong" and why I can't base my opinion about my own lens on AF? I use AF most of the time and if it works perfectly (on both 5D and 450D, btw.) isn't that good? I already said that I agree that all 50Ls shift by design. All I wanted to say that in practical use there are some (not all) 50Ls where DoF completely hides the focus shift. What causes this I don't know.
My confusion disregarded, judging from what you wrote we seem to be in complete agreement.
At least I have...Show more → I said your appraisal might cause confusion, not that you were confused! However, I still don't accept that one can infer the existence of bad copies without completely isolating any test from the focussing system. In other words, I've still seen no evidence that reports of bad copies aren't reports about lenses which might be made (only) as good as good copies via calibration of the lens and/or the bodies upon which it is used. I just don't see why the designed focus shift would vary significantly from one copy to another, and I've never found an example of such. But I always test them using the reliable method that I have described, not the vagaries of AF.Mar 02, 2010 at 11:47 AM
p.7 #9Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
But I am confused. I have a strong feeling that we are misunderstanding each other (language barrier for me, I think), so I think I'll just let this rest. No worries, everything is fine. I love my 50L, that's all I need to know. I'll stop worrying about what other people think.
I have a strong feeling that we are misunderstanding each other (language barrier for me, I think), so I think I'll just let this rest. No worries, everything is fine. I love my 50L, that's all I need to know. I'll stop worrying about what other people think.Mar 02, 2010 at 12:01 PM
p.7 #10Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
Anyone know if Samyang are planning to release a fast fifty?
Mar 02, 2010 at 12:06 PM
p.7 #11Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
Maybe you should buy this one on ebay?
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-50L-f-1-2-II-Lens-Great-Condition_W0QQitemZ110501093021QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item19ba60de9d#ht_500wt_1002
Apparently he has the mkII version that doesn't even exist yet!
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-EF-50L-f-1-2-II-Lens-Great-Condition_W0QQitemZ110501093021QQcmdZViewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item19ba60de9d#ht_500wt_1002
Apparently he has the mkII version that doesn't even exist yet!
Mar 03, 2010 at 01:13 AM
p.7 #12Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
So I just bought this lens in the last 2 weeks and I am happy with it so far. If it look at the original posters pictures I think they look good. If you look at the 100% crop yes its a little blurry, but did you really buy it for ultra-sharp images at 1.2? The 1.2 allows for low light shots that you would never get with many other lenses. With a little software sharpening and the fact that you aren't likely to use a full size print anyway...I think its a very good lens. It does sound like the newer (2009) versions may have less of an issue.
Mar 03, 2010 at 02:08 AM
p.7 #13Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
I've had two copies myself, my first was a UV date code which behaved similar to the OPs (perhaps slightly worse). I wound up selling it and trying out the sigma which was a total fiasco. (I also had another Canon 50 f/1.4 in between as well, Ironically both copies of that lens I've had were actually very sharp and consistent, but I just didn't love it.)
Now I have a UX coded 50L and it is much better than my previous copy, yes it has the shift I'm not going to say it's not there because it's how the lens was designed. I've just been much happier with my new copy.
Now I have a UX coded 50L and it is much better than my previous copy, yes it has the shift I'm not going to say it's not there because it's how the lens was designed. I've just been much happier with my new copy.
Mar 03, 2010 at 10:22 AM
p.7 #14Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
AbramG wrote:
Now I have a UX coded 50L and it is much better than my previous copy, yes it has the shift I'm not going to say it's not there because it's how the lens was designed. I've just been much happier with my new copy.
What might have changed b/w the earlier ones and the later ones? Not the design. Attention to calibration from the factory?
Now I have a UX coded 50L and it is much better than my previous copy, yes it has the shift I'm not going to say it's not there because it's how the lens was designed. I've just been much happier with my new copy.
What might have changed b/w the earlier ones and the later ones? Not the design. Attention to calibration from the factory?
Mar 03, 2010 at 10:55 AM
p.7 #15Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
For 90% of us f/1.2 over f/1.4 is a negligible difference. That said and given my personal experience with the Sigma 50 1.4 and everything that I have read about the 50L, not even considering the cost differential between the two, the Sigma 50 1.4 would be my recommendation over the 50L for someone looking for a fast 50.
Mar 03, 2010 at 11:07 AM
p.7 #16Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
Mike Tuomey wrote:
What might have changed b/w the earlier ones and the later ones? Not the design. Attention to calibration from the factory?
This is quite possible that the factory tolerances were improved between the years. I can't say there is a quantifiable difference between my copies, but the new one (UX) seems to be sharper wide open (where I typically use the lens)
michael49 wrote:
For 90% of us f/1.2 over f/1.4 is a negligible difference. That said and given my personal experience with the Sigma 50 1.4 and everything that I have read about the 50L, not even considering the cost differential between the two, the Sigma 50 1.4 would be my recommendation over the 50L for someone looking for a fast 50.
I wish I could have had the same views. I desperately wanted to love the Sigma 50. There certainly was a lot to like about it, but I just had a bad copy. I'm sure this wasn't the norm, but the service I received from Sigma was just so incredibly rude every step of the way, I more or less swore off their products because of it.
What might have changed b/w the earlier ones and the later ones? Not the design. Attention to calibration from the factory?
This is quite possible that the factory tolerances were improved between the years. I can't say there is a quantifiable difference between my copies, but the new one (UX) seems to be sharper wide open (where I typically use the lens)
michael49 wrote:
For 90% of us f/1.2 over f/1.4 is a negligible difference. That said and given my personal experience with the Sigma 50 1.4 and everything that I have read about the 50L, not even considering the cost differential between the two, the Sigma 50 1.4 would be my recommendation over the 50L for someone looking for a fast 50.
I wish I could have had the same views. I desperately wanted to love the Sigma 50. There certainly was a lot to like about it, but I just had a bad copy. I'm sure this wasn't the norm, but the service I received from Sigma was just so incredibly rude every step of the way, I more or less swore off their products because of it.
Mar 03, 2010 at 11:27 AM
p.7 #17Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
AbramG wrote:
...
I wish I could have had the same views. I desperately wanted to love the Sigma 50. There certainly was a lot to like about it, but I just had a bad copy. I'm sure this wasn't the norm, but the service I received from Sigma was just so incredibly rude every step of the way, I more or less swore off their products because of it.
That's really a shame and I've heard other stories like it, unfortunately.
Mine had a focusing issue when I received it. It spent a month being repaired by Sigma (actually CRIS in AZ) but ever since I got it back its been one of the most consistent and impressive lenses that I've ever used. It can easily give any of my L's a run for their money.
...
I wish I could have had the same views. I desperately wanted to love the Sigma 50. There certainly was a lot to like about it, but I just had a bad copy. I'm sure this wasn't the norm, but the service I received from Sigma was just so incredibly rude every step of the way, I more or less swore off their products because of it.
That's really a shame and I've heard other stories like it, unfortunately.
Mine had a focusing issue when I received it. It spent a month being repaired by Sigma (actually CRIS in AZ) but ever since I got it back its been one of the most consistent and impressive lenses that I've ever used. It can easily give any of my L's a run for their money.
Mar 03, 2010 at 11:38 AM
p.7 #18Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
michael49 wrote:
I wish I could have had the same views. I desperately wanted to love the Sigma 50. There certainly was a lot to like about it, but I just had a bad copy. I'm sure this wasn't the norm, but the service I received from Sigma was just so incredibly rude every step of the way, I more or less swore off their products because of it.That's really a shame and I've heard other stories like it, unfortunately.
Mine had a focusing issue when I received it. It spent a month being repaired by Sigma (actually CRIS in AZ) but ever since I got it back its been one of the most consistent and impressive lenses that I've ever used. It can easily give any of my L's a run for their money.
See that's what I had heard as well, and was hoping to experience! I sent it to CRIS, they calibrated it and sent it back, it was better but still front focusing (from a +20 adjustment to a +10) Then I sent it to Sigma, they adjusted it and it came back worse! (+15 adjustment) I sent it back to them again and it sat for a month and a half and had nothing done to it, they sent it back un-touched.
Needless to say, after 3 trips and a few months of not having the lens in my possession I was more than fed up with them.
AbramG wrote
...I wish I could have had the same views. I desperately wanted to love the Sigma 50. There certainly was a lot to like about it, but I just had a bad copy. I'm sure this wasn't the norm, but the service I received from Sigma was just so incredibly rude every step of the way, I more or less swore off their products because of it.
Mine had a focusing issue when I received it. It spent a month being repaired by Sigma (actually CRIS in AZ) but ever since I got it back its been one of the most consistent and impressive lenses that I've ever used. It can easily give any of my L's a run for their money.
See that's what I had heard as well, and was hoping to experience! I sent it to CRIS, they calibrated it and sent it back, it was better but still front focusing (from a +20 adjustment to a +10) Then I sent it to Sigma, they adjusted it and it came back worse! (+15 adjustment) I sent it back to them again and it sat for a month and a half and had nothing done to it, they sent it back un-touched.
Needless to say, after 3 trips and a few months of not having the lens in my possession I was more than fed up with them.
Mar 03, 2010 at 11:45 AM
p.7 #19Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
AbramG wrote:
...
See that's what I had heard as well, and was hoping to experience! I sent it to CRIS, they calibrated it and sent it back, it was better but still front focusing (from a +20 adjustment to a +10) Then I sent it to Sigma, they adjusted it and it came back worse! (+15 adjustment) I sent it back to them again and it sat for a month and a half and had nothing done to it, they sent it back un-touched.
Needless to say, after 3 trips and a few months of not having the lens in my possession I...Show more →
So sorry to hear you had that experience and as I said your certainly not the only one. Its such an awesome lens, pity they can't get it right every time.
...
See that's what I had heard as well, and was hoping to experience! I sent it to CRIS, they calibrated it and sent it back, it was better but still front focusing (from a +20 adjustment to a +10) Then I sent it to Sigma, they adjusted it and it came back worse! (+15 adjustment) I sent it back to them again and it sat for a month and a half and had nothing done to it, they sent it back un-touched.
Needless to say, after 3 trips and a few months of not having the lens in my possession I...Show more →
So sorry to hear you had that experience and as I said your certainly not the only one. Its such an awesome lens, pity they can't get it right every time.
Mar 03, 2010 at 11:47 AM
p.7 #20Just got 50L - mixed feelings.
I bought a 50 1.2L (UW) second hand for 800 GBP a year ago, from a bloke switching to Leica; it's firmly my favourite lens along with the 70-200L 2.8 IS.
With all the discussions over the last year I thought i'd test mine to try and get a definitive view to satisfy myself with the performance of my copy. Seeing as this has come up again I thought I would share.
Test conditions with a 5D mark II were:
1) Tripod mounted with remote trigger at 5 ft from target at ~45 deg angle with mirror lock up ON.
2) MA calibrated camera lens combo using the moire interferance method on Keith coopers website. Before the test to rule out front back focus issues; needed ~1.5 so settled on +2.
3) Turned off AF
4) Manually focused on target at 10x liveview
5) Camera set to RAW with no in camera post processing or sharpening.
6) Shot the series ONLY changing aperture and not refocusing.
7) Save series with no post processing as TIFF files and loaded them straight onto flickr. Flicker converted the tiffs to jpgs but they have only had one lossy save.
Overall my conclusion was any issues are barely noticible and that the other factors when taking a picture are more significant. I have had some great pictures and a good hit rate with this lens once I had learned how to use it.
Be interested in any of your thoughts?
NB: The first few which look like frontfocus are most likely that I have slightly missed focus on the central black target bar due to it being ~2mm from 5 ft. The white text in the central bar is less than 1mm tall in print!!. Even live view has it's limitations at these sensitive adjustments. The series was also shot under office fluorescent tubes.
Test Overview
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4403642431_29c163160e_b.jpg
F1.2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2780/4403614189_110e0bc124_o.jpg
F1.4
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2776/4403615711_0d624fdfd9_o.jpg
F1.6
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4403617411_eac417e1a5_o.jpg
F1.8
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4403619265_7bb1822264_o.jpg
F2.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2732/4403611147_1be56d6f45_o.jpg
F2.3
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4403612605_2844dd7087_o.jpg
F2.5
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4053/4404394992_cdf033ef6b_o.jpg
F2.8
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4404389884_6a9260df8e_o.jpg
F3.2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2710/4404387992_afb7855e89_o.jpg
F3.5
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2739/4404391836_4d4c44f1ac_o.jpg
F4.0
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4404386428_114ab69bc3_o.jpg
F4.6
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4017/4404393450_17762b11e8_o.jpg
F5.0
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4403638315_552a0cd50f_o.jpg
F5.7
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4403631471_1cd0c9a824_o.jpg
F6.4
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4404405240_192de678c1_o.jpg
F7.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2693/4403633191_47e039d6f7_o.jpg
F8.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2591/4403634923_5beffc4e5b_o.jpg
F9.1
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/4404402136_598c577a48_o.jpg
Edited on Mar 08, 2010 at 07:32 AM · View previous versions
With all the discussions over the last year I thought i'd test mine to try and get a definitive view to satisfy myself with the performance of my copy. Seeing as this has come up again I thought I would share.
Test conditions with a 5D mark II were:
1) Tripod mounted with remote trigger at 5 ft from target at ~45 deg angle with mirror lock up ON.
2) MA calibrated camera lens combo using the moire interferance method on Keith coopers website. Before the test to rule out front back focus issues; needed ~1.5 so settled on +2.
3) Turned off AF
4) Manually focused on target at 10x liveview
5) Camera set to RAW with no in camera post processing or sharpening.
6) Shot the series ONLY changing aperture and not refocusing.
7) Save series with no post processing as TIFF files and loaded them straight onto flickr. Flicker converted the tiffs to jpgs but they have only had one lossy save.
Overall my conclusion was any issues are barely noticible and that the other factors when taking a picture are more significant. I have had some great pictures and a good hit rate with this lens once I had learned how to use it.
Be interested in any of your thoughts?
NB: The first few which look like frontfocus are most likely that I have slightly missed focus on the central black target bar due to it being ~2mm from 5 ft. The white text in the central bar is less than 1mm tall in print!!. Even live view has it's limitations at these sensitive adjustments. The series was also shot under office fluorescent tubes.
Test Overview
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4403642431_29c163160e_b.jpg
F1.2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2780/4403614189_110e0bc124_o.jpg
F1.4
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2776/4403615711_0d624fdfd9_o.jpg
F1.6
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4403617411_eac417e1a5_o.jpg
F1.8
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4403619265_7bb1822264_o.jpg
F2.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2732/4403611147_1be56d6f45_o.jpg
F2.3
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4403612605_2844dd7087_o.jpg
F2.5
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4053/4404394992_cdf033ef6b_o.jpg
F2.8
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4404389884_6a9260df8e_o.jpg
F3.2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2710/4404387992_afb7855e89_o.jpg
F3.5
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2739/4404391836_4d4c44f1ac_o.jpg
F4.0
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4404386428_114ab69bc3_o.jpg
F4.6
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4017/4404393450_17762b11e8_o.jpg
F5.0
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4403638315_552a0cd50f_o.jpg
F5.7
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4046/4403631471_1cd0c9a824_o.jpg
F6.4
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4060/4404405240_192de678c1_o.jpg
F7.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2693/4403633191_47e039d6f7_o.jpg
F8.0
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2591/4403634923_5beffc4e5b_o.jpg
F9.1
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/4404402136_598c577a48_o.jpg
Edited on Mar 08, 2010 at 07:32 AM · View previous versions
Mar 03, 2010 at 11:55 AM