Dawid Loubser
Member
Anybody using this lens: Have you noticed that, in lower light, image quality wide open is really outstanding in my opinion - they way they have balanced all the parameters (of which sharpness is, of course, only one) to produce a contrasty, flare-free image.
However, have you noticed that, for example, in good sunlight, trying to take an image of a small flower towards one of the edges of the frame, the flower (or whatever small bright object you're photographing) has substantial coma? Even when stopped down to f/2.8, this lens does not like small objects reflected in harsh sunlight towards the edges of the frame.
Yet, it will magnificently render bright point light sources at night at f/1.2. I don't know if anybody has read Erwin Puts' short essay (discussion) titled Modern high-speed lenses but, though sparse, it gives some nice insight around the design compromises necessary to make a lens like this. His statement is very true:
"It is not easy to design a really good high-speed lens and many compromises can be made: spherical aberration and coma can only be combated by contrast reduction, evenness of definition over the image area, focus shift, vignetting and a host of other optical parameters."
Sure, the 50L is, in many ways, not as good as the 50mm f/1.4 at, say f/4 (for example, it has, in my experience, increased coma in daylight, and, of course, chromatic aberration). However, I think we have to look back at the 50L f/1.0 and appreciate the extreme difficulty to make a lens like this - much more so than, say, an 85mm. But I think Canon has given us a lens that is outstanding to use wide open (and, obviously, not meant for harsh sunlight) and all the misunderstandings and issues people find, such as focus shift when stopping down, or the increased coma I see when compared to pretty much any of my other lenses (in very certain conditions), were obviously allowed to produce this lens which gives us comparatively sharp, contrasty, beautiful images wide open.
I think the price is, in some respects, unusually high (especially compared to, say the other 50mm lenses) but, when we look at what we get, and compared to much more expensive Zeiss or Leica glass (which, by my research, does not seem to be superior at all) this lens is, for many, worth it. I have not taken it off the camera yet.
I still can't figure out whether the autofocus accuracy is lacking, or whether it is user error, but I don't really trust the AF at this stage. I wonder if Canon didn't speed up the AF too much (it really is nice and fast) - at the expense of accuracy?
However, have you noticed that, for example, in good sunlight, trying to take an image of a small flower towards one of the edges of the frame, the flower (or whatever small bright object you're photographing) has substantial coma? Even when stopped down to f/2.8, this lens does not like small objects reflected in harsh sunlight towards the edges of the frame.
Yet, it will magnificently render bright point light sources at night at f/1.2. I don't know if anybody has read Erwin Puts' short essay (discussion) titled Modern high-speed lenses but, though sparse, it gives some nice insight around the design compromises necessary to make a lens like this. His statement is very true:
"It is not easy to design a really good high-speed lens and many compromises can be made: spherical aberration and coma can only be combated by contrast reduction, evenness of definition over the image area, focus shift, vignetting and a host of other optical parameters."
Sure, the 50L is, in many ways, not as good as the 50mm f/1.4 at, say f/4 (for example, it has, in my experience, increased coma in daylight, and, of course, chromatic aberration). However, I think we have to look back at the 50L f/1.0 and appreciate the extreme difficulty to make a lens like this - much more so than, say, an 85mm. But I think Canon has given us a lens that is outstanding to use wide open (and, obviously, not meant for harsh sunlight) and all the misunderstandings and issues people find, such as focus shift when stopping down, or the increased coma I see when compared to pretty much any of my other lenses (in very certain conditions), were obviously allowed to produce this lens which gives us comparatively sharp, contrasty, beautiful images wide open.
I think the price is, in some respects, unusually high (especially compared to, say the other 50mm lenses) but, when we look at what we get, and compared to much more expensive Zeiss or Leica glass (which, by my research, does not seem to be superior at all) this lens is, for many, worth it. I have not taken it off the camera yet.
I still can't figure out whether the autofocus accuracy is lacking, or whether it is user error, but I don't really trust the AF at this stage. I wonder if Canon didn't speed up the AF too much (it really is nice and fast) - at the expense of accuracy?
