This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Which 50?
p.3 #1Which 50?
n0b0 wrote:
Isn't that "onion effect" caused by the aspherical element in the lens?
Yes, it's referred to as Onion bokeh.
Isn't that "onion effect" caused by the aspherical element in the lens?
Yes, it's referred to as Onion bokeh.
May 17, 2010 at 06:08 AM
p.3 #2Which 50?
Yes. See MVers' post above.
Ohmygod wrote:
kewlcanon wrote:
Xmas is here...Sigma 50
Are the onion structures in the highlights normal?
Ohmygod wrote:
kewlcanon wrote:
Xmas is here...Sigma 50
Are the onion structures in the highlights normal?
May 17, 2010 at 06:39 AM
p.3 #3Which 50?
n0b0 wrote:
+1
50 = boring
Don't blame the tool, blame the user.
I didn't say the FL was boring, so blame yourself not me.
I in general do not like the 50mm focal length because when I'm indoors, it always seems too long for whatever it is I"m doing (admittedly though I use longer indoors), and never long enough outdoors.
Again, haven't used on a FF camera (I've never mounted my 50mm on my 5D) but have used it on 1.3 and 1.6. Now I guess I should quantify my explanation a little bit. I don't like 50mm as a PRIME focal length. On a zoom, it's fine, but on a prime I'm either backing into shit, can't back up any further, or can't get any closer.
I have also had a 24,28 , and 85mm prime lenses also. I have tried a 35 on my 5D and I loved it. The 24, 28 and 85mm prime lenses were the same as the 50 for me. I just had issues everywhere I went.
Then again, it's about using the right tool for the job too. Need a long lens, take a long lens duh, need a wide, take a wide.
For my uses, my style I dislike a 50mm prime. If that makes me a bad photographer, so be it.
Daan B wrote
RobertLynn wrote
I hate 50mm FL50 = boring
I didn't say the FL was boring, so blame yourself not me.
I in general do not like the 50mm focal length because when I'm indoors, it always seems too long for whatever it is I"m doing (admittedly though I use longer indoors), and never long enough outdoors.
Again, haven't used on a FF camera (I've never mounted my 50mm on my 5D) but have used it on 1.3 and 1.6. Now I guess I should quantify my explanation a little bit. I don't like 50mm as a PRIME focal length. On a zoom, it's fine, but on a prime I'm either backing into shit, can't back up any further, or can't get any closer.
I have also had a 24,28 , and 85mm prime lenses also. I have tried a 35 on my 5D and I loved it. The 24, 28 and 85mm prime lenses were the same as the 50 for me. I just had issues everywhere I went.
Then again, it's about using the right tool for the job too. Need a long lens, take a long lens duh, need a wide, take a wide.
For my uses, my style I dislike a 50mm prime. If that makes me a bad photographer, so be it.
May 17, 2010 at 08:09 AM
p.3 #4Which 50?
I use the 50 1.2 for weddings and have owned the 1.8 (which is great, but not professional and I didn't like the bokeh) and 1.4 (which breaks a lot and isn't great at less than 1.8). The 1.2 is usable at 1.2 and the bokeh is beautiful - I absolutely LOVE the look of the shots that come from it. I do have a bit of an issue with CA at 1.2, but I'm hoping that LR3 will clean that up a treat 
However, I know it's hit a miss and depends on your copy. I actually decided to buy a second hand one as they have a 7 day returns policy and I could check it out beforehand. I was lucky and got a tack sharp copy. It gives me the most accurate focussing of all of my lenses in low light.
It's rarely off my camera these days, and I used to use quite a lot of different lenses. I'm finding more and more that 50mm is where I want my lens length for a significant portion of the wedding day.
My understanding is the Sigma 1.4 is a great lens and if I could have my time again, I'd buy it instead of the Canon 1.4. However, I've had problems with Sigma lenses in the past so the only one I own now is a macro. I'd still prefer the 1.2 out of them all though.
Edited on May 17, 2010 at 08:23 AM · View previous versions
However, I know it's hit a miss and depends on your copy. I actually decided to buy a second hand one as they have a 7 day returns policy and I could check it out beforehand. I was lucky and got a tack sharp copy. It gives me the most accurate focussing of all of my lenses in low light.
It's rarely off my camera these days, and I used to use quite a lot of different lenses. I'm finding more and more that 50mm is where I want my lens length for a significant portion of the wedding day.
My understanding is the Sigma 1.4 is a great lens and if I could have my time again, I'd buy it instead of the Canon 1.4. However, I've had problems with Sigma lenses in the past so the only one I own now is a macro. I'd still prefer the 1.2 out of them all though.
Edited on May 17, 2010 at 08:23 AM · View previous versions
May 17, 2010 at 08:16 AM
p.3 #5Which 50?
RobertLynn wrote:
+1
50 = boringDon't blame the tool, blame the user.I didn't say the FL was boring, so blame yourself not me.
No offense mate but it's pretty f**ing obvious who said 50 = boring, as obvious (or should be) as who I quoted in my post.
n0b0 wrote
Daan B wrote
RobertLynn wrote
I hate 50mm FL50 = boring
No offense mate but it's pretty f**ing obvious who said 50 = boring, as obvious (or should be) as who I quoted in my post.
May 17, 2010 at 08:20 AM
p.3 #6Which 50?
n0b0 wrote:
But if you've never used it, how do you know they're boring?
I never said I never used them... I only said I don't use them anymore because they are boring. In other words: I have used them
Daan B wrote
Hey, I don't use 50s, BECAUSE they are boringI never said I never used them... I only said I don't use them anymore because they are boring. In other words: I have used them
May 17, 2010 at 08:49 AM
p.3 #7Which 50?
Daan B wrote:
But if you've never used it, how do you know they're boring? I never said I never used them... I only said I don't use them anymore because they are boring. In other words: I have used them
In which case what I said earlier would've applied to you before you gave up on it.
n0b0 wrote
Daan B wrote
Hey, I don't use 50s, BECAUSE they are boringIn which case what I said earlier would've applied to you before you gave up on it.
May 17, 2010 at 08:53 AM
p.3 #8Which 50?
n0b0 wrote:
But if you've never used it, how do you know they're boring? I never said I never used them... I only said I don't use them anymore because they are boring. In other words: I have used them In which case what I said earlier would've applied to you before you gave up on it.
Nope... I know how to use a 50... I just think the FOV is boring. YMMV
Daan B wrote
n0b0 wrote
Daan B wrote
Hey, I don't use 50s, BECAUSE they are boringNope... I know how to use a 50... I just think the FOV is boring. YMMV
May 17, 2010 at 09:00 AM
p.3 #9Which 50?
Daan B wrote:
Nope... I know how to use a 50... I just think the FOV is boring. YMMV
Funny (and good) how opinions do vary. 50 is my favourite - I love how real and honest it looks. However, in the past I've favoured longer and wider lenses.
Maybe we just get bored with what we're using all the time?
Nope... I know how to use a 50... I just think the FOV is boring. YMMV
Funny (and good) how opinions do vary. 50 is my favourite - I love how real and honest it looks. However, in the past I've favoured longer and wider lenses.
Maybe we just get bored with what we're using all the time?
May 17, 2010 at 09:22 AM
p.3 #10Which 50?
n0b0 wrote:
+1
50 = boringDon't blame the tool, blame the user.I didn't say the FL was boring, so blame yourself not me.No offense mate but it's pretty f**ing obvious who said 50 = boring, as obvious (or should be) as who I quoted in my post.
Sometimes I browse the internet on my phone and the small text makes things more of a glance than a full read. Then it's not f**ing obvious. Stupid phone
RobertLynn wrote
n0b0 wrote
Daan B wrote
RobertLynn wrote
I hate 50mm FL50 = boring
Sometimes I browse the internet on my phone and the small text makes things more of a glance than a full read. Then it's not f**ing obvious. Stupid phone
May 17, 2010 at 09:26 AM
p.3 #11Which 50?
Personally I like the 50mm FL, unfortunately I've yet to use a 50mm lens that makes me want to frequently and continuously grab for it. I can only hope someone finally nails down a solid design without any glaring flaws or quirks. Give me a 50L with the sharpness of the Sigma 50 without focus shift, onion bokeh and AF quirks and I'll be a very happy man. Until then I guess I'll just have to struggle through life with what I've got
May 17, 2010 at 09:29 AM
p.3 #12Which 50?
50 = boring. Come on now. When you need a 50, you need a 50. A fifty can be extremely versatile and get you just the look you are after. From portraits to groups to low light to landscapes. For portraits people will look different at different focal lengths and sometimes 50 is the answer. I for one follow this post as as just dropped my 50 1.8 II and need another 50 to fill the hole between 35 and 85. I had the 50 1.4 (twice) but sold it when I got the 85 1.2L II. I know I should probably just bite the bullet and get myself the 1.2L.
May 17, 2010 at 09:31 AM
p.3 #13Which 50?
i heard 50L with 2010 date of production has solve the focus issue & softness @ 1.2 (read in bhphotovideo review section), can anybody confirm it ? i'm really eager to upgrade my 50 1.4
Edited on May 17, 2010 at 09:44 AM · View previous versions
Edited on May 17, 2010 at 09:44 AM · View previous versions
May 17, 2010 at 09:41 AM
p.3 #14Which 50?
luant16 wrote:
i heard 50L with 2010 date of production has solve the focus issue & softness @ 1.2 (read in bhphotovideo review section), anybody can confirm it ? i'm really eager to upgrade my 50 1.4
haha! My neighbor's dog told me the 5D mark IV was going to be released next week. I believe him.
i heard 50L with 2010 date of production has solve the focus issue & softness @ 1.2 (read in bhphotovideo review section), anybody can confirm it ? i'm really eager to upgrade my 50 1.4
haha! My neighbor's dog told me the 5D mark IV was going to be released next week. I believe him.
May 17, 2010 at 09:43 AM
p.3 #15Which 50?
deepbluejh wrote:
haha! My neighbor's dog told me the 5D mark IV was going to be released next week. I believe him.
but if u read the bhphotovideo & fredmiranda review section, lots of people said it, it could be same as 70-200 2.8 IS faulty error 01/99 fix back it was released (without announcement).
I hope
luant16 wrote
i heard 50L with 2010 date of production has solve the focus issue & softness @ 1.2 (read in bhphotovideo review section), anybody can confirm it ? i'm really eager to upgrade my 50 1.4but if u read the bhphotovideo & fredmiranda review section, lots of people said it, it could be same as 70-200 2.8 IS faulty error 01/99 fix back it was released (without announcement).
I hope
May 17, 2010 at 09:48 AM
p.3 #16Which 50?
luant16 wrote:
but if u read the bhphotovideo & fredmiranda review section, lots of people said it, it could be same as 70-200 2.8 IS faulty error 01/99 fix back it was released (without announcement).
I hope
A lot of people say a lot of things...if they were all true we'd have a 3D, 500/5.6, 14-24, 135/2 IS, 24-70/2.8 IS, 35-70/2, 200-400/4 IS and countless others by now. They are all possible, but don't go holding your breath because someone said something somewhere on the internet.
but if u read the bhphotovideo & fredmiranda review section, lots of people said it, it could be same as 70-200 2.8 IS faulty error 01/99 fix back it was released (without announcement).
I hope
A lot of people say a lot of things...if they were all true we'd have a 3D, 500/5.6, 14-24, 135/2 IS, 24-70/2.8 IS, 35-70/2, 200-400/4 IS and countless others by now. They are all possible, but don't go holding your breath because someone said something somewhere on the internet.
May 17, 2010 at 09:52 AM
p.3 #17Which 50?
M Vers wrote:
I hopeA lot of people say a lot of things...if they were all true we'd have a 3D, 500/5.6, 14-24, 135/2 IS, 24-70/2.8 IS, 35-70/2, 200-400/4 IS and countless others by now. They are all possible, but don't go holding your breath because someone said something somewhere on the internet.
i dont know whether its true or not, but i saw the users who bought the lens on mid 2009 or later, all give very high mark on this lens. I guess i need to hold a while more until the fix is confirmed (or if i cant wait i shall try myself in the shop before i buy)
luant16 wrote
but if u read the bhphotovideo & fredmiranda review section, lots of people said it, it could be same as 70-200 2.8 IS faulty error 01/99 fix back it was released (without announcement).I hope
i dont know whether its true or not, but i saw the users who bought the lens on mid 2009 or later, all give very high mark on this lens. I guess i need to hold a while more until the fix is confirmed (or if i cant wait i shall try myself in the shop before i buy
)May 17, 2010 at 09:56 AM
p.3 #18Which 50?
luant16 wrote:
haha! My neighbor's dog told me the 5D mark IV was going to be released next week. I believe him.but if u read the bhphotovideo & fredmiranda review section, lots of people said it, it could be same as 70-200 2.8 IS faulty error 01/99 fix back it was released (without announcement).
I hope
I don't buy it... Here's why.
The 50mm focal length is one of the oldest in existence. Canon has had a LONG time to work on it. The old 50/1.0 L was a tour de force of lens technology of the time. I mean, this was an *extreme* design and it was absolutely the best that any lens maker could muster. Even with all of that, it was still optically weak compared to cheaper 50s.
Fast forward 18 years. The new 50/1.2L is better than the 50/1.0 in almost every way, and cheaper. The only difference now is that people are shooting with 20MP digital cameras and analyzing everything at 100% on a computer monitor. They also, for some bizarre reason, expect every lens to be sharp corner to corner at every aperture no matter what.
The plain fact of the matter is that the current 50/1.2L was a very carefully designed lens. Compromises were obviously made (in stark contrast to the 50/1.0 in which no compromises were made) and the results reflect that. Even with these compromises the 50/1.2L is the best fast aperture 50mm lens that money can buy today. The only reason people make such a big deal about it is that expectations are so low for the other 50s (they're cheap, so it's ok if they suck).
Whatever "fix" might be devised for this lens' inherent design weaknesses, I doubt that Canon miraculously stumbled upon it in the past three years. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
deepbluejh wrote
luant16 wrote
i heard 50L with 2010 date of production has solve the focus issue & softness @ 1.2 (read in bhphotovideo review section), anybody can confirm it ? i'm really eager to upgrade my 50 1.4I hope
I don't buy it... Here's why.
The 50mm focal length is one of the oldest in existence. Canon has had a LONG time to work on it. The old 50/1.0 L was a tour de force of lens technology of the time. I mean, this was an *extreme* design and it was absolutely the best that any lens maker could muster. Even with all of that, it was still optically weak compared to cheaper 50s.
Fast forward 18 years. The new 50/1.2L is better than the 50/1.0 in almost every way, and cheaper. The only difference now is that people are shooting with 20MP digital cameras and analyzing everything at 100% on a computer monitor. They also, for some bizarre reason, expect every lens to be sharp corner to corner at every aperture no matter what.
The plain fact of the matter is that the current 50/1.2L was a very carefully designed lens. Compromises were obviously made (in stark contrast to the 50/1.0 in which no compromises were made) and the results reflect that. Even with these compromises the 50/1.2L is the best fast aperture 50mm lens that money can buy today. The only reason people make such a big deal about it is that expectations are so low for the other 50s (they're cheap, so it's ok if they suck).
Whatever "fix" might be devised for this lens' inherent design weaknesses, I doubt that Canon miraculously stumbled upon it in the past three years. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
May 17, 2010 at 09:59 AM
p.3 #19Which 50?
deepbluejh wrote:
I don't buy it... Here's why.
but then, i saw 50 1.2L in ur profile signature
I don't buy it... Here's why.
but then, i saw 50 1.2L in ur profile signature
May 17, 2010 at 10:05 AM
p.3 #20Which 50?
luant16 wrote:
but then, i saw 50 1.2L in ur profile signature
Yes, I own the lens (and have for the past 3 years). I like it even though it's not the strongest lens I own optically.
Btw, if you care to dispute anything I have said about the lens, feel free.
deepbluejh wrote
I don't buy it... Here's why. Yes, I own the lens (and have for the past 3 years). I like it even though it's not the strongest lens I own optically.
Btw, if you care to dispute anything I have said about the lens, feel free.
May 17, 2010 at 10:09 AM