This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Post your 50L failures please
p.1 #1Post your 50L failures please
The EF 50mm f/1.2 L has a mixed reputation. The focus-shift-by-design is well documented, but that doesn't particularly worry me since I envisage shooting below f/2.8 and above f/5.6, with not much in between.
What does bother me is reports of unsharpness, colour fringing, and glowing edges at the widest apertures. I'd like to see how bad it can get. Will you humour me by posting some of your disappointing results? Many thanks.
What does bother me is reports of unsharpness, colour fringing, and glowing edges at the widest apertures. I'd like to see how bad it can get. Will you humour me by posting some of your disappointing results? Many thanks.
May 22, 2010 at 04:08 AM
p.1 #2Post your 50L failures please
Don't buy it. It sounds like you are already predisposed to hating it, and you will not be happy and we will not be able to convince you otherwise. The 50L is a religious experience, you either love it or hate it. The only way to determine if this lens is for you, is rent or buy it and shoot what you intend to use it for. That said, I love mine for reasons other than its inherent flaws.
May 22, 2010 at 05:06 AM
p.1 #3Post your 50L failures please
I don't understand the point of this post. I can make ANY lens look horrible. It's called user error. It's not like an auto-focus system. The lens does the same thing every time, unless there's something wrong with it (as opposed to all 50Ls). The tricky thing about the 50L is knowing the conditions it excels in and knowing those it has a hard time with. Personally, I think many of the complaints come from folks not knowing how to use it. When I first purchased my 50L I received it at night and did my standard routine of playing around with the lens indoors shooting the box up close. It looked pretty mediocre for such an expensive L lens (basically on par with my 50 1.4). In fact, I was ready to return it until I took some real life shots of people--I was amazed, they were great. FAR better than the 50 1.4.
There are at least two technical issues with the 50L that explain my experience, I think. First, at f1.2 and a close subject, the focal plane is amazingly thin. That creates two problems. It probably exceeds the accuracy of my 5D/5DII auto-focus (and my focus techniques). And even if it is properly focused, there's a really good chance most of my intended subject won't fit in the focal plane anyhow. The second issue is that the 50L exhibits a decent amount of bokeh fringing--more than the 35L or 85L to my eye. At very large apertures, up close (where the details in your shot might be fairly large), the bokeh fringing can give you the impression that the shot isn't that sharp. Plus, bokeh fringing is particularly evident with high contrast lines, such as the text on a focus chart or lens box. Neither of these problems are really an issue in practice, though. Well, as long as you're using the 50L the way it's designed to be used, as a portrait lens, low light lens, and lens with amazing bokeh. It's not a macro lens or a landscape lens. I have found that a LOT of very good wedding photographers use the 50L and love it. That's because they're using it the way it's meant to be--for portraits and other strategically composed shots meant to take advantage of its great bokeh without highlighting its flaws. On the other hand, if you just want a super fast lens to play around with and shoot random things with a very shallow depth of field you might be disappointed.
I think the 50Ls bad rep comes from the focus shift and a an expectation that a lens like the 50L should be perfect in all conditions, like say, the 35L. People who understand what it's designed for and use it accordingly seem to love it.
I would recommend looking at what the 50L is capable of and asking yourself whether it's strengths fit what you're looking for. It's good to know it's weaknesses too, but looking at pictures of its "failures" isn't going to help at all. You won't know whether all 50Ls will perform like that, whether the sample 50L is faulty, whether the camera that was used is faulty, or most likely, whether the shooter simply screwed up.
There are at least two technical issues with the 50L that explain my experience, I think. First, at f1.2 and a close subject, the focal plane is amazingly thin. That creates two problems. It probably exceeds the accuracy of my 5D/5DII auto-focus (and my focus techniques). And even if it is properly focused, there's a really good chance most of my intended subject won't fit in the focal plane anyhow. The second issue is that the 50L exhibits a decent amount of bokeh fringing--more than the 35L or 85L to my eye. At very large apertures, up close (where the details in your shot might be fairly large), the bokeh fringing can give you the impression that the shot isn't that sharp. Plus, bokeh fringing is particularly evident with high contrast lines, such as the text on a focus chart or lens box. Neither of these problems are really an issue in practice, though. Well, as long as you're using the 50L the way it's designed to be used, as a portrait lens, low light lens, and lens with amazing bokeh. It's not a macro lens or a landscape lens. I have found that a LOT of very good wedding photographers use the 50L and love it. That's because they're using it the way it's meant to be--for portraits and other strategically composed shots meant to take advantage of its great bokeh without highlighting its flaws. On the other hand, if you just want a super fast lens to play around with and shoot random things with a very shallow depth of field you might be disappointed.
I think the 50Ls bad rep comes from the focus shift and a an expectation that a lens like the 50L should be perfect in all conditions, like say, the 35L. People who understand what it's designed for and use it accordingly seem to love it.
I would recommend looking at what the 50L is capable of and asking yourself whether it's strengths fit what you're looking for. It's good to know it's weaknesses too, but looking at pictures of its "failures" isn't going to help at all. You won't know whether all 50Ls will perform like that, whether the sample 50L is faulty, whether the camera that was used is faulty, or most likely, whether the shooter simply screwed up.
May 22, 2010 at 05:54 AM
p.1 #4Post your 50L failures please
Many thanks for the replies so far. No, I'm not predisposed to hating the lens. I've seen many images online that I really love the look of. I'm very partial to the 50mm focal length, but my f/1.4 lens is really not very inspiring. Which is why I'm seriously considering a purchase, and looking for the downside now.
And, no, I'm not asking anyone to post OOF shots. What interests me is the actual sharpness and other qualities of a correctly focused image -- an eye, say, at f/1.2 or f/1.4.
I'm also interested in the fringing performance in high-contrast scenes, which seem to be a particular weakness. I'm not trying to get people to diss the lens. I'd just like to see with my own eyes, as I said, how bad it can get.
My reason for being particular about these things is that I'm a stock shooter and the lens will be of little use to me if it provokes routine rejections when used as it's supposed to be used.
And, no, I'm not asking anyone to post OOF shots. What interests me is the actual sharpness and other qualities of a correctly focused image -- an eye, say, at f/1.2 or f/1.4.
I'm also interested in the fringing performance in high-contrast scenes, which seem to be a particular weakness. I'm not trying to get people to diss the lens. I'd just like to see with my own eyes, as I said, how bad it can get.
My reason for being particular about these things is that I'm a stock shooter and the lens will be of little use to me if it provokes routine rejections when used as it's supposed to be used.
May 22, 2010 at 06:11 AM
p.1 #5Post your 50L failures please
Not sure what to post to scare you as much as you wish 
to me only great results with this lens on FF. Always great bokeh, sharp enough, technically can't see anything wrong with it. Some snaps from Italy:
http://breitling65.smugmug.com/Travel/Italy/Italy-September-2009/IMG1663/661263809_3FZF2-X3-4.jpg
http://breitling65.smugmug.com/Travel/Italy/Italy-September-2009/IMG1390/661261406_pPAtN-X3-4.jpg
http://breitling65.smugmug.com/Travel/Italy/Italy-September-2009/IMG1669/661263933_WeoEZ-X3-4.jpg
http://breitling65.smugmug.com/Travel/Italy/Italy-September-2009/IMG1642/661263652_sNHcV-X3-4.jpg
to me only great results with this lens on FF. Always great bokeh, sharp enough, technically can't see anything wrong with it. Some snaps from Italy:http://breitling65.smugmug.com/Travel/Italy/Italy-September-2009/IMG1663/661263809_3FZF2-X3-4.jpg
http://breitling65.smugmug.com/Travel/Italy/Italy-September-2009/IMG1390/661261406_pPAtN-X3-4.jpg
http://breitling65.smugmug.com/Travel/Italy/Italy-September-2009/IMG1669/661263933_WeoEZ-X3-4.jpg
http://breitling65.smugmug.com/Travel/Italy/Italy-September-2009/IMG1642/661263652_sNHcV-X3-4.jpg
May 22, 2010 at 06:19 AM
p.1 #6Post your 50L failures please
ace97302 wrote:
I think the 50Ls bad rep comes from the focus shift and a an expectation that a lens like the 50L should be perfect in all conditions, like say, the 35L. People who understand what it's designed for and use it accordingly seem to love it.
Sure, blame it on the user...
I know my 50L can produce nice images and I know it weaknesses. What I don't know, and stopped caring about the difference, is to what extend it is based on design (flaws/weaknesses) or QC issues. In the end my 50L gives me more workload than I care for, more frustration than I'd like.
Bought new in december '09
5D - good from f/1.4 onward, but very soft - slightly oof at f/1.2
1D3 - bit erratic, not able to MA
1st service dec/jan
5D - good at f/1.2, but c.25% back focus, more at f/2.8
1D3 - still erratic, best at MA -3
2nd service march
5D - total loss - back focus - less than 10% keeper rate
1D3 - reliable at MA -3
Alt. solution
Sold 5D, got 5D2 - good keeper rate at MA -16
This 5D2 needs no MA with lenses that were spot on with the 5D and 1D3, like the 35L or 85L and 50/1.4 so it beats me why the 50L requires such a large offset. But I'm tired of testing and the setup actually works. MA-16 is a serious figure so I will eventually send in the two for a checkup, no.3 for the 50L.
I have tamed it to a large extend and I get more or less reliable results on two separate bodies with a good keeper rate.
But why shouldn't I compare the 50/1.2 with my other fast primes like the 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.2?
What makes a(n ordinary) 50mm so special that it runs into different physics than a 35mm to 85mm lens?
Sure f/1.2 is a challenge, but imho Canon cut some corners in an effort to keep cost down and imho it would have been better if they had made this lens a less demanding f/1.4 design with high IQ,
Back to the OP.
Look for a way to try before you buy and test your most used range.
Based on *my* experience I wouldn't readily recommend this lens to anyone, even if I manage to get good images out of it. If you are hot for f/1.2 get the 85/1.2 instead. If you want a fast normal prime get the 35/1.4 instead. If you want a fast 50mm, even the Canon 50/1.4 offers a strong alternative that can perform at f/1.4 if properly calibrated.
Ruy
NOTE: this classic example of how personal experience does color your perception, so take everything with a grain of salt.
I think the 50Ls bad rep comes from the focus shift and a an expectation that a lens like the 50L should be perfect in all conditions, like say, the 35L. People who understand what it's designed for and use it accordingly seem to love it.
Sure, blame it on the user...
I know my 50L can produce nice images and I know it weaknesses. What I don't know, and stopped caring about the difference, is to what extend it is based on design (flaws/weaknesses) or QC issues. In the end my 50L gives me more workload than I care for, more frustration than I'd like.
Bought new in december '09
5D - good from f/1.4 onward, but very soft - slightly oof at f/1.2
1D3 - bit erratic, not able to MA
1st service dec/jan
5D - good at f/1.2, but c.25% back focus, more at f/2.8
1D3 - still erratic, best at MA -3
2nd service march
5D - total loss - back focus - less than 10% keeper rate
1D3 - reliable at MA -3
Alt. solution
Sold 5D, got 5D2 - good keeper rate at MA -16
This 5D2 needs no MA with lenses that were spot on with the 5D and 1D3, like the 35L or 85L and 50/1.4 so it beats me why the 50L requires such a large offset. But I'm tired of testing and the setup actually works. MA-16 is a serious figure so I will eventually send in the two for a checkup, no.3 for the 50L.
I have tamed it to a large extend and I get more or less reliable results on two separate bodies with a good keeper rate.
But why shouldn't I compare the 50/1.2 with my other fast primes like the 35/1.4, 50/1.4 and 85/1.2?
What makes a(n ordinary) 50mm so special that it runs into different physics than a 35mm to 85mm lens?
Sure f/1.2 is a challenge, but imho Canon cut some corners in an effort to keep cost down and imho it would have been better if they had made this lens a less demanding f/1.4 design with high IQ,
Back to the OP.
Look for a way to try before you buy and test your most used range.
Based on *my* experience I wouldn't readily recommend this lens to anyone, even if I manage to get good images out of it. If you are hot for f/1.2 get the 85/1.2 instead. If you want a fast normal prime get the 35/1.4 instead. If you want a fast 50mm, even the Canon 50/1.4 offers a strong alternative that can perform at f/1.4 if properly calibrated.
Ruy
NOTE: this classic example of how personal experience does color your perception, so take everything with a grain of salt.
May 22, 2010 at 06:29 AM
p.1 #7Post your 50L failures please
rhorta wrote:
Based on *my* experience I wouldn't readily recommend this lens to anyone,
Why don't you provide "your bad" samples than?
Based on *my* experience I wouldn't readily recommend this lens to anyone,
Why don't you provide "your bad" samples than?
May 22, 2010 at 06:32 AM
p.1 #8Post your 50L failures please
Why, I see no reason to proof anything.
I am sharing my experience, in words only as always.
You can opt to ignore it (or me) if that's not good enough for you.
Ruy
I am sharing my experience, in words only as always.
You can opt to ignore it (or me) if that's not good enough for you.
Ruy
May 22, 2010 at 06:39 AM
p.1 #9Post your 50L failures please
rhorta wrote:
Why, I see no reason to proof anything.
I am sharing my experience, in words only as always.
You can opt to ignore it (or me) if that's not good enough for you.
Ruy
I believe your words but since they are not matching my experience with this lens I am asking for shots. I did post some of mine quick snaps above, can you see anything wrong with them besides quick snaps bad composition?
Why, I see no reason to proof anything.
I am sharing my experience, in words only as always.
You can opt to ignore it (or me) if that's not good enough for you.
Ruy
I believe your words but since they are not matching my experience with this lens I am asking for shots. I did post some of mine quick snaps above, can you see anything wrong with them besides quick snaps bad composition?
May 22, 2010 at 06:45 AM
p.1 #11Post your 50L failures please
rhorta wrote:
Why, I see no reason to proof anything.
THE POINT OF THIS THREAD wrote:
I'd like to see how bad it can get. Will you humour me by posting some of your disappointing results? Many thanks.
How about that one?
Why, I see no reason to proof anything.
THE POINT OF THIS THREAD wrote:
I'd like to see how bad it can get. Will you humour me by posting some of your disappointing results? Many thanks.
How about that one?
May 22, 2010 at 06:56 AM
p.1 #12Post your 50L failures please
My copy is rocking, I even use it for action shots, see my pictures in this thread
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/899594/3
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/899594/3
May 22, 2010 at 07:45 AM
p.1 #13Post your 50L failures please
rhorta wrote:
Why, I see no reason to proof anything.
How about out of courtesy? The OP requested pics, not words. You choose to post in the OP's thread. The question is, why not post examples?
Why, I see no reason to proof anything.
How about out of courtesy? The OP requested pics, not words. You choose to post in the OP's thread. The question is, why not post examples?
May 22, 2010 at 08:03 AM
p.1 #14Post your 50L failures please
jdben622 wrote:
I've never been more disappointed in a lens. It consistently produces rubbish such as this.
This is great. Not only the primary subject, but the background colors and bokeh. Another "bad shot" from the 50L... What are we to do...
I've never been more disappointed in a lens. It consistently produces rubbish such as this.
This is great. Not only the primary subject, but the background colors and bokeh. Another "bad shot" from the 50L... What are we to do...
May 22, 2010 at 08:04 AM
p.1 #15Post your 50L failures please
What does one gain from slightly oof to hugely oof shots?
Here you have a couple of snaps of my boys and a duck instead.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA1.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA2.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA3.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA4.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA5.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA6.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA7.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA8.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA9.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA10.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA0.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA00.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/RUBEN.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/RUBEN1.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/RUBEN2.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/RUBEN3.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/RUBEN4.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/RUBEN5.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/DUCK.JPG
My boys have to suffer most of my test session.
The duck flew into our garden, shot at f/1.2 again as a test, normally not the right aperture. There's a wildcard or two
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/1H2J9800.JPG
Some of these were taken with the camera above, the pic itself was taken with a 1D3 and the, you can guess by now: 50L
Ruy
Edited on May 22, 2010 at 08:41 AM · View previous versions
Here you have a couple of snaps of my boys and a duck instead.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA1.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA2.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA3.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA4.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA5.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA6.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA7.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA8.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA9.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA10.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA0.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/LUCA00.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/RUBEN.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/RUBEN1.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/RUBEN2.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/RUBEN3.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/RUBEN4.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/RUBEN5.JPG
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/DUCK.JPG
My boys have to suffer most of my test session.
The duck flew into our garden, shot at f/1.2 again as a test, normally not the right aperture. There's a wildcard or two
http://www.xs4all.nl/~rhorta/TEMP/1H2J9800.JPG
Some of these were taken with the camera above, the pic itself was taken with a 1D3 and the, you can guess by now: 50L
Ruy
Edited on May 22, 2010 at 08:41 AM · View previous versions
May 22, 2010 at 08:19 AM
p.1 #16Post your 50L failures please
Tom Abbott wrote:
How about out of courtesy? The OP requested pics, not words. You choose to post in the OP's thread. The question is, why not post examples?
courtesy has nothing to do with it
Ruy
rhorta wrote
Why, I see no reason to proof anything.courtesy has nothing to do with it
Ruy
May 22, 2010 at 08:20 AM
p.1 #17Post your 50L failures please
The 50L is a lone warrior in his world. No other ultra-fast, AF, weather-sealed 50mm.
They could have cut more corners and still the bitch would have sold millions, like it has today and still is.
EVERY lens will always have its audience to which people haven't had a good time with it.
As for the OP, go rent/try this lens. Until you find out for yourself if this lens is worth your time, all you going to be reading (or seeing) is idiots who say this lens is the best, like me, and other idiots who say it is a waste of time and money, like me.
The 50L is one of my favorite lenses. It does exactly what I NEED it to do.
They could have cut more corners and still the bitch would have sold millions, like it has today and still is.
EVERY lens will always have its audience to which people haven't had a good time with it.
As for the OP, go rent/try this lens. Until you find out for yourself if this lens is worth your time, all you going to be reading (or seeing) is idiots who say this lens is the best, like me, and other idiots who say it is a waste of time and money, like me.
The 50L is one of my favorite lenses. It does exactly what I NEED it to do.
May 22, 2010 at 08:20 AM
p.1 #19Post your 50L failures please
I don't understand why people can't except the lens for what it is by now. No its not the sharpest lens wide open, yes it does have a focus shift characteristic, yes its expensive but if you need a 50mm that does f/1.2 its one of your only available options. Buy it, try it, and if you don't like it return it.
May 22, 2010 at 09:48 AM
p.1 #20Post your 50L failures please
What a bunch of cuties, Ruy.
As for failures, this thread qualifies (except for the aforementioned cuties.)
As for failures, this thread qualifies (except for the aforementioned cuties.)
May 22, 2010 at 10:59 AM