Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 50mm f1.2  (Read 5032 times)
KAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« on: December 05, 2006, 04:48:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Anyone useing the Canon 50mm f1.2 lens, if so how does it perform wide open?

Kevin.
Logged
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2006, 01:08:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Anyone useing the Canon 50mm f1.2 lens, if so how does it perform wide open?

Kevin.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[a href=\"http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=305&sort=7&cat=2&page=2]Fred Miranda Review[/url]

Have a look here, doesn't seem as good as everyone hoped it would be
Logged
Josef Isayo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2006, 05:44:22 PM »
ReplyReply

"Have a look here, doesn't seem as good as everyone hoped it would be"

It is unless you were expecting it be as good as the 85L wide open. BTW, the Leica 50 1.0 Noctilux, Nikon 85 1.4, or the Leica 80 1.4 are not as good as the Canon 85L wide open either!
This lens is about as 90% as good as its bigger brother wide open which is what I was hoping for.

I love my new 50 1.2L!
Logged

SoundHound
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2006, 01:19:30 PM »
ReplyReply

My 50L looks lots better at F1.4/F1.8 than my 50F1.4 and that's why I bought it.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9316



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2006, 12:04:47 PM »
ReplyReply

At PhotoPlus a month ago, Seth Resnick had one on loan from Canon for a day, the pup didn't even have a serial number! He loved it. I played a bit and it looks like an awesome and expensive piece of glass. I have a very old 20-35mm F2.8 and find that when shooting under very low light, I jack up the ISO to the max. It's still not always fast enough. Seth hates shooting at high ISO and told me he was shooting a lot at low ISO with the 50mm in very, very low light.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2006, 02:04:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I just got one to test/buy.

On the minus side it still bends quite bit like the 50/1.4.  Maybe a hair less than the 50/1.4 but there is no significant difference between the two lenses on that account.

But there are many pluses beside the obvious speed:
- it vignettes noticeably less than my 50 f1.4 at all apertures up to 5.6 or so. Beyond 5.6 or 5.6 1/2 the vignetting is not visible on either lens.
- it is sharper than my 50 f1.4 at all apertures (I tested wide open up to f11).
- it is about 1/3 stop faster than my 50 f1.4 at any given aperture. So, 1.4 on the 50/1.2 lets in about 1/3 more light than 1.4 on the 50/1.4.  I don't know if that is due to the lower vignetting or if it points to one my 50's being slightly out of whack.

The build quality looks to be superb.  Far better than the plasticy 50/1.4 and very much like a mini-85/1.2.
Logged

ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2006, 05:58:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Is it nearly a $1000 better than an f1.4?
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2007, 08:02:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is it nearly a $1000 better than an f1.4?
Isn't that question irrelevant?
Logged

Jan
ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2007, 08:51:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Isn't that question irrelevant?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93117\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not really, as I own the 50mm f1.4 and have always been very pleased with the results, I wondered if the new L model was indeed that much sharper to warrant the huge price difference.

I appreciate it is an L class lens, and that the construction will be first class, but ultimately we are all after the best possible shots, without being drawn into 'the more you pay the better the results' syndrome.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2007, 10:21:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not really, as I own the 50mm f1.4 and have always been very pleased with the results, I wondered if the new L model was indeed that much sharper to warrant the huge price difference.
But that is a question only you can answer for yourself, surely?

And have you really been pleased with the results at f/1.4 through f/2.0?

Quote
I appreciate it is an L class lens, and that the construction will be first class, but ultimately we are all after the best possible shots, without being drawn into 'the more you pay the better the results' syndrome.
Have you read this thread?
Logged

Jan
JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2007, 10:48:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I appreciate it is an L class lens, and that the construction will be first class, but ultimately we are all after the best possible shots, without being drawn into 'the more you pay the better the results' syndrome.
It's a different tool, that's all.  Is the sharpness alone enough to factor into a purchase... probably not.  But if you are a working pro and you want/like the look that f/1.2 gives you or you shoot from f/1.2-f/4 often and you use the 50mm lens a lot -> then the 50/1.2 is a welcome choice.  It looks to be a far more reliable higher quality tool than the 50/1.4.

Beyond that it's no different than the 85/1.2 vs the 85/1.8 choice.  It's not a question of "'the more you pay the better the results", it's a question of whether it gives you something you need in terms of options and control and reliability.
Logged

ARD
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296



WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2007, 11:51:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the replies, I see now that it does offer alternatives to the f1.4 and for many people these alternatives will be a huge bonus, for me the f1.4 offers everything I need..........for now any way lol
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2007, 12:13:07 PM »
ReplyReply

The big issue for me is that the difference in the final image "look" between f1.2 and f1.8 on an 85mm is pretty notable -- and IMO lends some -- actually enough -- justification to owning the bigger L lens at five times the cost.   However, the difference in "look" between f 1.2 and f1.4 on a 50 does not seem so much different to me.  Obvioulsy there is the better build quality that helps justify the price, but I can wait until the price drops on this new lens a bit before jumping...

Of course now that I've said that, I'll probably own one next week!      
« Last Edit: January 01, 2007, 12:14:43 PM by Jack Flesher » Logged

jd1566
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2007, 05:26:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Probably this post doesn't belong here.. But anyway.
I tried out the 85 f1.2 (new one), the 135 f2 and a 100 f2.8 macro.. As far as bokeh is concerned all three performed pretty close really, with the advantage going to the Macro lens whenever I needed to get close to a subject, as the OOF areas were just as nice as in a similar shot with either of the two L lenses..  I was a 85 f1.2 "afacionado".. and was rather taken aback by the comparison.. My lowly macro lens which I hadn't really considered as a portrait lens was really excelling!  I also compared the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens, but the bokeh wasn't nearly as good as any of the other lenses.  I suspect that this has to do with the IS function, because the non-IS version I traded up from seemed quite a lot better..   So what does this have to do with the 50 f1.2?  Well, nothing really..  just a comparison of similar lenses (i.e fixed-focal reasonably wide lenses).

One area where the f1.2 lens (again, the 85mm one, I haven't touched the 50mm yet) really shines is low / available light photography.  Night shots appear taken in daylight, and the bokeh is quite buttery, so the 50 should be similarly good.  When comparing night shots with the 85 and 50 f1.4 the light quality of the 85 was simply outstanding

Ultimately wanting to own these f1.2 lenses becomes a question of need as well as prestige.  Unless you take 100% of your shots in no light, and cosnistently use the widest aperture, they are probably unnecessary... A wonderfully expensive tool for a very specialised photography no doubt, but one that most of us should at most covet, but never actually shell out the money for.  It's like a porsche.. take it for a test drive if you can, rent it occasionally, but own it?
Logged

B&W photographer - Still lifes, Portraits, Urban scenes, Landscapes, Abstract images.
KAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2007, 11:26:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Those of you that have the lens, have you tried it at f1.2 at night with lights in shot, like street lights?
My f1.4 gives a funny flare, like rain drops on glass smudging the point source lights. I also think the f1.4 vignettes, this shows up when increasing image contrast at post.
So am I correct in thinking that it is sharp, it is usable at f1.2 and vignettes less than the f1.4?

Thanks,

Kevin.
Logged
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2007, 11:36:57 AM »
ReplyReply

There's a very nice streetlight shot here, but it's at f/11, not wide open.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
« Last Edit: January 03, 2007, 11:37:32 AM by Nill Toulme » Logged
KAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2007, 10:55:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's a very nice streetlight shot here, but it's at f/11, not wide open.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93490\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

|Yes that is nice but stopping down will give the "star burst" look.

Kevin.
Logged
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2007, 11:14:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
|Yes that is nice but stopping down will give the "star burst" look.

Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93656\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's a very interesting comparison of the starburst effect provided by several different lenses on that same scene, on the next page or so of that thread.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Logged
Jeffacme
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2007, 05:13:52 PM »
ReplyReply

My copy was soft and has been returned to Canon. I am hoping this issue will be resolved with another lens.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad