• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Canon 50 1.2 L Will it alter your lens line up?

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The new Canon 50 1.2 L with the claim of a fast focus motor, makes one think of another giant piece of glass.

Few have them, but the the 50mm 1.0, either is a prestigious paper weight or a work of art! It's plane of focus wide open is razer thin and its motor is agedly slow. however, some enthusiasts still treasure it as the fastest lens on earth.

Canon had a 50mm 1.2 lens in their pre-Eos days and this was well regarded. I'm saving for the new lens.

For me it could be the ultimate civilized lens for availible light photography, indoors and out, day and night!

I also hope to use it for portraits as it should provide a wonderful Bokeh and allow focus in the dimmest light.

That and a hood on a 1DII and a white piece of board and small reflector may be the best mobile portrait set up ever!

Asher
 
I see a lot of folks here who a *very* serious and acclaimed pros who would consider purchasing $10K piece of gear just like I would consider $10 lunch.
Me, being an "advanced amateur", with the photography-related fund limited by what I make off it (and even that mostly coming from my Dark - programming - Side :), have to look at the price and price-to-usage ratio first.

It sure looks like a fine piece of glass. But can I justify the price? No, not really.

Great bokeh? Yes, sure. But that's what my PS skills are for:)

And I thing I know for sure: my customers would not be able to tell the difference between the results from this jewel and my current "fantastic plastic" :).

From the other thread (started by esteemed Gloria): it's not the gear, it's the SOUL :)

As always, just my 0.0002 of the f/stop :)
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
This, Nik, if it works, means I would sell other stuff. It's low light focus is what I really want.

I zoom with my feet and the rest with PS.

Whether you are taking a sunset shot, in a club, a wedding reception or street photography, this lens should give you back such a lot.

You don't seem to use primes, that's all. Except for sports and an airshow once a year, this lens will do all your functions. The 50mm is perfect for a table of 10 people at a wedding or a group of soccer kids, at a night club where flash might get you booted outon the asphalt, and in a church sanctuary or museum, where flash is not allowed.

All it has to do is perform as specified and it will, I believe be worth trading up to.

You PS skills cannot create enough light for focus when the light is limiting. This lens offers the promise of a whole new experience.

Asher
 
Asher,

primes are expensive and goal-specific.
I'm not saying they are bad (cause they are good:), but since I'm not making any $$ out of it, I can't justify owning them (yet:).

It's only me. It's a great lens, just like a RR is a great car. But I simply can't afford either :-(
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Nice 50mm 2.5 - my favorite lens!

I have the 50mm 2.5 macro. It's my favorite lens. It's why I bought the 5D. - I might consider the new lens if there is a huge quality difference. Nik, if you were in the market for the new one, this one might be the cash poor subsitute.

One of the photo workshops I took required us to pick a focal length and shoot only with that focal length. I used my 50 and I thought the images were some of the best taken. I was the only amateur in that class. Every one else when way long with their lenses.
 
Kathy,

Kathy Rappa said:
I have the 50mm 2.5 macro. It's my favorite lens. It's why I bought the 5D. - I might consider the new lens if there is a huge quality difference. Nik, if you were in the market for the new one, this one might be the cash poor subsitute.

I actually have one little prime, "fantastic plastic" 50mm f/1.8. It's not macro, but it's cheap, light and as of now is the "fastest" lens in my little collection (although it's "regular" AF is the slowest, since all the rest are USM:).

Thanks for the idea, though! :)
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
With a 25 (ok, 22) Mpix FF body with the promising sensor dust cleanning of the 400D

I'll buy primes like this 50mm, the 85 mm, the 200mm (I have the 400) and I'll maybe buy the 600 IS.

All zooms will be for sale! except the Sygma 12-24 as there are no AF primes that I know between 12 and 17 mm.

- The sensor cleaning system, will let me chang of lense as many times as I wish
- The extra pixels, will let me edit (very) large prints, and occasinnaly let me do some little cropping for better framing if my feet can't help me to zoom better ( AFAIK, I can't walk on the water!)

Only the 600 mm will be "du luxe" but will do some so beautifull shots (not forgetting the soul & heart), that it well help to sell other pics made with other primes... Marketing is also good for us that do our living from the sale of our pics...

Not my 2 cts, my 20.000€ (!)
 

Roger Lambert

New member
I wonder about the utility of this new 50mm lens. Granted, it will be nice for some applications.

But the DOF at f/1.2 at ranges useful with a 50mm lens, on a full-frame camera, when you are talking about subjects the size of people, is pretty small.

In other words, at f/1.2, to get a DOF of just one foot, you need to get pretty far back from your subject - something on the order of seven to twelve feet, I think.

Compared to the 85mm, that restricts the utility of the lens.

And it seems an awful lot of money for a one foot DOF at twelve feet compared to the 50 1.4.

I guess we'll have to see the bokeh this lens. Maybe it will be worth the $1300 premium.

I would have preferred a 50mm 1.4 IS. :)
 
Asher Kelman said:
The new Canon 50 1.2 L with the claim of a fast focus motor, makes one think of another giant piece of glass.

Few have them, but the the 50mm 1.0, either is a prestigious paper weight or a work of art! It's plane of focus wide open is razer thin and its motor is agedly slow. however, some enthusiasts still treasure it as the fastest lens on earth.

Canon had a 50mm 1.2 lens in their pre-Eos days and this was well regarded. I'm saving for the new lens.

For me it could be the ultimate civilized lens for availible light photography, indoors and out, day and night!

I also hope to use it for portraits as it should provide a wonderful Bokeh and allow focus in the dimmest light.

That and a hood on a 1DII and a white piece of board and small reflector may be the best mobile portrait set up ever!

Asher
Well. I think the whole lens diameter is similar to the 85/1.2. However 50.12 seems to be much shorter. As for the glass itself, looking at the block diagram it seems there's not as much glass into the 1.2 as it is in the 1.0.
5012vs5010-block.jpg
 
Kathy Rappa said:
I have the 50mm 2.5 macro [...] I might consider the new lens if there is a huge quality difference.
Well, one indicator (only one!) about quality difference could be by comparing the MTFs. Some curves in the 2.5 MTF can be directly compared to some curves in the 1.2 MTF. In the MTFs below one can compare only the blue lines (at f/8). The black lines are wide-open, i.e. f/2.5 and f/1.2 respectively, so can't be compared. Also, these MTFs are computed simulations, not measured on an actual lens.

The contrast of 10lpmm sagittal lines at borders is better for the f/1.2 lens than the f/2.5 lens. The contrast of 10lpmm meridional lines at borders is better for the f/2.5. Similar for the 30lpmm. Overall, main differences seem to be at the borders of the lens. Otherwise they seem about the same.

compmtf-5012-5025.jpg
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi Alexexandru,

MTFs are just one way to look at lenses. Just here, one would like to look at them both at f 2.5 and then also the L lens at wide open.

The EF 50 f2.5 Macro lens is one of my favorites. It is a wonderful portrait lens. However, auto focus is painfully slow sometimes with hunting. The L lens promises an up to date fast focus and a Bokeh from heaven.

No one "needs" this, like no one needs a particular woman, wine or concerto. However, if you have enjoyed it once, at it enthralls you, your hooked. This, I believe will happen with this lens!

Asher
 

Erik DeBill

New member
Of the lenses I regularly use, I have 3 primes and 3 zooms. I basically have 2 different "use cases" that come up frequently.

The most common is that I'm going hiking and want to take pictures of things along the way. I don't know for sure what they'll be, so I want to cover a wide range. I'm going to be carrying all my photography gear on my back for 2-4 hours. It will most likely be 90-100 degrees, so I'll be carrying roughly .75 quarts of water for every hour I intend to hike. Maybe add an Acratech UBH on a Gitzo 1258. Weight is a major factor. Speed isn't very important. My choices come down to balancing weight with quality. For this, I carry the 17-40mm F4L, 50mm F1.8 and 70-200mm F4L. The 50mm gets used the least, but only by a little. Some days it's all about one lens or the other.

The other common use case is going out specifically to photograph wildlife, to some place where I KNOW there will be wildlife and I won't have to carry things very far. For that I take the 100-400, and quite possibly no other lenses. I may swap the Acratech onto a Gitzo 2227 for added stability and agility.

I've also got a 24mm F1.4L, but it weighs more than the 17-40 and isn't as wide. It gets used when I'm doing available light shots indoors or exercises practicing seeing in the fixed focal length. I think the 70-200 is sharper and has better contrast than my 100mm macro, so that only gets used in macro-only situations.

Since my main use for the 50mm F1.8 is to be light weight, I can't see replacing it with a much heavier lens that won't be much sharper or faster.

I'm much more enthused about the 70-200 F4L IS. That looks to weight about 1.5 oz more than my non-IS version and it'll give me IS. I really love the IS on the 100-400 and have often wished for it on the 70-200. It may be worth selling the 24mm F1.4L to get it.
 

Will Thompson

Well-known member
Yes it will Asher.

It will replace my 50 f1.4 that replaced my 50 f1.0.

The 50 f1.0 was never sharp, slow as a snail to focus, and cost too much.

Sorry I have been absent. Sick as a Dog. Now back to bed.
 

David Bostock

New member
I am pretty sure this lens will replace my 24-70L. I'd much rather have a fast exceptionally sharp prime lens with excellent Bokeh in this focal range. I have the 35 1.4 and the 85 1.2 (old version). The 50 1.2 completes the set and eliminates the need for the zoom.

Cheers,
David
 

ChrisDauer

New member
I think this will alter the "Holy Trinity of Primes". I hear wonderful things about the 135L, but I'm thinking 35L, 50L and 85L.
 
Better wait before investing in 35L, because 85LII and 50L have both been introduced this year... maybe 35L will be updated soon (soon in terms of months, or couple of years).
 

Nill Toulme

New member
This lens has certainly got me thinking. I have $1500 set aside for it in hopes that it will AF better than my 50 f/1.4 for high school basketball. But now I'm thinking, for the same $1500 I could strobe the gym. So like I said, it's got me thinking... ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
I'm hoping that it will deall with high contrast junctions better than the 50 1.4 which can cause birefringence and a purple blue edge.

Also I'm hope that it will allow for easier focus lock in low light and then I'll be happy.

Who has tried it? I'd love to know how fast it focuses. The 50 2.5 is so slow!

Asher
 
Asher Kelman said:
I'm hoping that it will deall with high contrast junctions better than the 50 1.4 which can cause birefringence and a purple blue edge.

Unless the purple fringing is at least 3 pixels wide it is unlikely to be a lens artifact. Due to the effects of the de-Bayering algorithms any color artifact less than 3 pixels wide cannot be logically attributed to lenses as the Bayer array requires a color feature to be at least 3 or 4 pixels wide before before it can be attributed to the lens and not a poorly chosen Bayer interpolation algorithm. I have been using RSE* for a long time as my primary RAW converter and purple fringing went away with that RAW converter choice.

Asher, would you be willing to share some of your problematic RAW files? You can PM or email me and I will hold the file in confidence if that is a concern with the exception of tight 100% crops of edges. I myself have had no issues with purple fringing with my 50/1.4.

That said, having a ring USM focus motor and slightly brighter viewfinder with a tiny bit more light would always be nice. But I am not sure it is $1600 USD nice.

enjoy your day,

Sean (who thinks the lens sounds like a joy to have for shooting people)


* I tried the RSP demo and it had no features I would use in practice due to workflow issues.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Thanks Sean!

I will look up the problem files. Or else, I'll try to reproduce the effect. Chuck Westfall of Canon said that this is not a lens issue or a sensor issue but a lens-sensor combo issue that there guys had said was due to birefringence.

I'd be interested to see if you can get rid of the lines.

Asher
 

Kathy Rappaport

pro member
Is this one out yet ?

I noticed Canoga Camera is taking orders but I haven't seen this one on line yet shipping. Anyone know when they'll start shipping it?
 
Asher Kelman said:
Who has tried it? I'd love to know how fast it focuses. The 50 2.5 is so slow!

Asher
I haven't tried it.

How is the 2.5 AF compared to the 1.4?

The reports of 1.2 AF speed compared to 50/1.4 are mixed. The very first reports were negative (i.e. 50/1.2 is slower) but subsequent reports were more encouraging, ranging from "focuses as fast as 1.4" to blazingly much faster than the 1.4.

FM had a sticky thread on 50/1.2 which was removed after the show, don't know why. It contained around 100 messages and there were about 3 reports of people having tried it, mentioning AF speed.

And there are still these URLs:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/443027
http://kamerabild.mkf.se/ArticlePages/200608/24/20060824132917_ADF830/20060824132917_ADF830.dbp.asp
http://photo.blogger.ph/2006/09/25/canon-50mm-f12l-usm-full-size-samples/
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/rebel%20xti.shtml
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IMTv

Alex
 
Asher Kelman said:
Brilliant!

Well, I suppose the viewfinder is a bit darker ;-)

But on a more serious note, I have also been wondering about the differences in image quality between the f/2.5 and f/1.4.

More specifically, how does the 'bokeh' look between a 6 blade diafragm and an 8 blade one? How does the flare sensitivity compare? How does the resolution compare, say at f/2.8 or f/3.5 . How do the different focussing mechanisms compare in speed?

Does anyone know of a direct comparison, with images to compare, like this one between the f1.8 and the f/1.4?

Bart
 
Top