50mm f/1.0L USM

[Belmondo]

Does anyone have any experience with this lens?

Impressions?

I have a chance to pick one up at a fairly good price. I don't have any particular need for it right now, but it is one really sexy piece of glass. Since it's out of production now, I suppose it might even have some curiosity/collector value.

All opinions appreciated.

Tom

[Ballen Photo]

belmondo wrote:
Does anyone have any experience with this lens?

Impressions?

I have a chance to pick one up at a fairly good price. I don't have any particular need for it right now, but it is one really sexy piece of glass. Since it's out of production now, I suppose it might even have some curiosity/collector value.

All opinions appreciated.

Tom

Tom, I've only ever seen photos of this lens, and from what I've read, it is the Fastest lens in the EOS line up. For this reason alone I'd be tempted to buy it if the price was right. I think it will be very collectable, or at least, a GREAT conversation piece.
If you do get it, please write your impression of its performance here.
Let us know if you get it. (I'll be Jealous) :)
..........Bruce

[Belmondo]

I've seen it, held it, smelled it, and lusted shamelessly over this thing, but I've never had it on my own camera. I've read a number of reviews, most of which are quite positive, especially regarding the lens' performance in low light situations. It is heavy---I mean really heavy. I can't find the actual numbers listed anywhere, but this thing easily weighs as much as small horse.

The man I'm buying it from is the owner of the local camera store, and he took this lens in trade. It is absolutely mint---all the original packaging and a beautiful custom leather carrying case. He used it once himself to take pictures of a night boat regatta (several pleasure craft all decorated for Christmas). I must confess that the pictures, while respectable, weren’t sensational. I attribute that as much to the fact that he was shooting handheld from the shore, with and without flash. The flash pictures were pretty good, although the highly reflective finishes on the boats tended to lessen the drama of the colored lights. The available light pictures were prettier color-wise, but blurred by camera shake. Under those circumstances, even f1.0 isn’t going to be fast enough, and a tripod would really have helped. In short, the pictures were inconclusive for determining the quality of the glass. I can see uses for this lens, but to utilize it properly, one can never lose sight of the fact that all the same rules of time, aperture, and camera steadiness still apply. It isn’t a magic bullet. It just a couple clicks faster than an f/1.4.

[CyberDyneSystems]

What sort of price?
I have no idea what the value is,. I've NEVER seen one for sale.

I would grab it,. again at least for the collector value. Seems even if you decide it's not for you, you could turn a small profit on E-bay.

[iwatkins]

I'd have it. f1.0 has got to be worthwhile for indoor, low light work.

Go down there, fit to your own camera and take some test shots.

If nothing else, it is rare as something that is very rare :) If the price is right I would have it anyway and if you end up not using it after a few months you could always out it on eBay etc.

Cheers

Ian

[dtrayers]

Tom,

Here's a pdf link to a Pop Photo review of the lens:

http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/3112003113228.pdf

The beast weighs over two pounds and lists for $4,500.

[defordphoto]

Tom: If it's really a good price then I'd probably snag it too. Otherwise I'd walk away and put my money elsewhere as it would be a nice lens to have, but would I really use it?

[Jim_T]

I don't know how much I'd be willing to pay for f/1. Especially with a digital camera that can be easily switched to ISO400 or ISO800.. f/1.8 is just fine for my needs..

FWIW... If you REALLY want fast glass.. Canon did make an f/0.95 lens back in the 60's... It came on a rangefinder style camera.

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/1955-1969/data/1961_7.html

[EXA1a]

Jim_t wrote:
I don't know how much I'd be willing to pay for f/1. Especially with a digital camera that can be easily switched to ISO400 or ISO800..


I've read sooo many times something like the above ("compensate lower lens speed with higher ISO") that I can't hold back commenting on that:
Shooting at large apertures is NOT primarily something to get a high shutter speed but a creative effect of shallow depth of field. That's what makes the difference between point-and-shooters and SLR users.
Sure, secondly, you get the convenience of high shutter speeds...

Be creative!
--Jens--

[justme_dc]

Yes, yes I do. It is amazing! I wish I could get my grubby mitts on one. The EF50mm f/1.0 USM is a magical piece of glass that is on par with the equally magical EF85mm f/1.2 USM. If you can get a smoking good price on it then jump on it as the resale on these lenses is really high and they rarely come to market. If not, and you have a fat wad of cash burning a hole in your pocket the buy that 85mm f/1.2 it'll knock your socks off!

[Foreside PhotoGraphics]

Hey man -

The 50 f/1.4 has a better rating than the 50 f/1.8 (photodo.com), and it's micro USM. You'll save TONS of money, and only sacrifice a fraction of an f/stop over the f/1.0 (unless bragging rites are really what you're after).

You might have noticed that Canon has DIS-continued the 1.0 (maybe you should ask yourself WHY?)

Shoot with the 50 mm f/1.4 wide open... no problemo for portraits. I use the 50 with my 1Ds... (the queen bitch of picky cameras, when it comes to ****ty lenses) and yet, it's a sweet piece of glass.

Listen, my friend... unless you've got money to throw away, just get the 50mm f/1.4 and take some pictures!

Kirk, out...

zeldon
w

[Belmondo]

Boy, what a range of opinions. Thanks to all of you for taking the time to voice your thoughts on the pros and cons.

Since I posted the message this morning, I did a little research and found that the most recent price for this lens on eBay was right around $2K US. I've only seen two of them come through in the last few months, so it probably isn't a fair analysis of value, but they both went in that vicinity.

When the smoke settles on this one, I will end up paying $1,100 US. Actually I have it at home with me right now---the owner suggested I take it with me and play around with it for a couple days. I haven't put it on the camera yet, but expect to do so tomorrow. If the results are at all interesting, I'll post them. I also have an f/1.4, so I'll be able to make direct comparisons between them.

I really think I'm as much fascinated by the uniqueness of this lens as I am the thoughts of picking up another f-stop. I've heard that the main reason Canon discontinued it was for the very reason Zeldon alluded to---the price differential between this lens and the 1.4 was unjustifiable, and there was simply too limited a market.

I’ve already decided I’m going to buy it unless the pictures are simply terrible. I’ll give him his money next week sometime---I might as well have the use of it as long as I can. If, after a while, I find I have no desire to keep it, I can always unload it on eBay and make a little profit.

BTW the lens truly is absolutely mint, still in the original box with the foam packing, and tissue wrap on the lens. I just don’t see how I can go wrong.

Thanks again, friends.

Tom

[defordphoto]

Tom: You ned to adopt me.

[Belmondo]

Jim:
In three weeks, my wife and I will be married 42 years, and we're still trying to decide whether or not to have children. I guess there's no reason we can't start with you.

BTW, I dropped her off at the casino this afternoon so she could play 'her machine' while I was to go out and entertain myself in other, more nefarious way.

Less than 10 minutes after I dropped her off, she called me on the cell phone to inform me she'd just won $6,608.00 on a video poker machine. She had put exactly $5.00 in the cussed thing when she hit a royal flush in diamonds.

I suppose you'd be willing to call her 'Mom,' right?


Tom :)

[defordphoto]

I LOVE YOU MOM! :)

[Jim_T]

I've read sooo many times something like the above ("compensate lower lens speed with higher ISO") that I can't hold back commenting on that:
Shooting at large apertures is NOT primarily something to get a high shutter speed but a creative effect of shallow depth of field.

--Jens--


You took that out of context.. I wasn't saying flat out use high ISO instead of wide aperture whenever possible. My response was an answer to a very specific question.

The original poster was asking opinions on purchasing an f/1.0 50mm lens.. 1.4 and 1.8 lenses are available and FAR cheaper..

In this case, I suggested using a higher ISO in place of spending an extra $1000.00 or so for one stop.

[CyberDyneSystems]

@ $1,100.00 I think you at the very least stand to make a tidy profit on E-bay :D

Finding that lens is the Canon equivlent of finding a Stanley #1 plane at a yard sale! :)

[Belmondo]

This is the best link I could find discussing the thing.

http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/0402sb_canons/


I'm feeling better about it all the time!

[defordphoto]

Well, the best thing of all, the 10D, with that amazing, once in a lifetime piece of glass, will look really cool with the 50mm f1.0 attached to it. It's huge! You'll have to post a picture of the camera with it attached.

If I could, I'd go for it. In this case, which is rare, it's actually an investment. Toss that baby out on Ebay and you'll have them besting down your doors with money in hand.

[Belmondo]

As promised, here is a picture of the lens on the 10D. I apologize for the poor DOF, but I was mainly interested in getting a picture of the lens. You've all seen a 10D before, so I didn't work as hard at it as I might have otherwise.

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/35350mm_f_1-med.jpg

I took this picture of a corner of my room with it. It was shot at 1/20, f/1.0, ISO 100. The only light in the room is a ceiling fixture with a 60-watt bulb in it.

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/353corner-med.jpg?

Just a little 'show and tell.'

[CyberDyneSystems]

Tom,. this is a pretty exciting legendary peice of Canon equipment!

They seem to make a point of discontinuing some of there most esoteric lenses,. I for one dream of owning a 200mm f/1.8 :)

But I had eyed this lens in the history books as well,. and I'm drooling !

[defordphoto]

Good grief that's big! How much does it weigh? How's the AF on it? DOF must get pretty slim at f1.0.

[Belmondo]

I think it weighs 2.2 pounds---seems I read that somewhere. At f/1.0, DOF is nonexistent. I'm going to take it out soon and get some daylight pictures just to see what it does when it's stopped down a little.

[defordphoto]

Yeah cool! It'll be nice to see what it can do. Are you still trying it out, or did you take the plunge?

[khkohl]

I had one for several weeks last year. I decided to resell it on ebay for $1450.00,

[defordphoto]

I had one for several weeks last year. I decided to resell it on ebay for $1450.00,

Why'd you sell it? If you don't mind me asking.

[Belmondo]

Yeah cool! It'll be nice to see what it can do. Are you still trying it out, or did you take the plunge?

Jim:
I went ahead and bought it. It's probably going to sit in the closet and never see the light of day, but it's just so cool.

Tom

[defordphoto]

Yeah cool! It'll be nice to see what it can do. Are you still trying it out, or did you take the plunge?

Jim:
I went ahead and bought it. It's probably going to sit in the closet and never see the light of day, but it's just so cool.

Tom

And, it's yours.

[Belmondo]

Actually, I really think the main reason I bought it was so I can make self-deprecating jokes about all the money I spend on camera gear. I sure as hell don’t need the lens for anything.

But it sure is cool.

[defordphoto]

Well, if you're opening that up, we surely can help with the jokes. :shock:

[Belmondo]

Well, if you're opening that up, we surely can help with the jokes. :shock:

Feel free. And Jim, what the hell are you doing up at 4:00am?

[defordphoto]

Well, if you're opening that up, we surely can help with the jokes. :shock:

Feel free. And Jim, what the hell are you doing up at 4:00am?

Well crap. I can't think of one now! 4:00am? This is pretty much my routine. Sleep is such a waste of time ya know.

[Belmondo]

This is a 100% crop of a picture I just took standing in the street in front of the house. I'm pretty happy with the clarity of this picture. I was starting to have a few concerns about soft focus, but that was with the indoor pictures I took last night using available light. Clearly I won't be able to completely trust the autofocus of this lens in low light, but in daylight, I'd say it's superb.

http://www.bytephoto.com/photopost/data/500/353view_from_street-med.jpg

[IanD]

I sure as hell don’t need the lens for anything.

But it sure is cool.
At 2.2 lbs it would make a nifty paper weight :lol: