Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM

[wimg]

Hi David,
:mrgreen: Gotta love those guys for taking it to the max.

Hi Wim:D


David
Yes! :D

What was the exact wording I used?

Oh yes: "It was designed right at the edge of disaster :grin:, and too little knowledge on how to do the assembly well enough in normal manufacturing runs, I think, caused many a lens to be just over the edge."

BTW, how was the hill run? Hmmm better ask in a normal thread, not this one :D.

Kind regards, Wim ;)

[wimg]

How can a company of this magnitude and maturity "forget" that mass production at (close to) zero tolerance is not feasible at the intended price point?
Yes, isn't it just amazing? I keep on wondering, every time again (not only Canon, any company).

They did this type of thing before, though, make people suffer with a new lens design <G>.

But nicksan (and others) have reported noticeable effects of focus shifting from lenses manufactured as recent as last year (date code UW). That would mean that buying this lens until then has basically been a crap shoot and Canon customers have been used as guinea pigs for tightening up the manufacturing process for 2 years straight (IIRC, the 50/1.2 was introduced towards the end of 2006). That's a rather disheartening realization indeed.
Yes, indeed. I actually tried three different ones at different times in 2007. I thought I was going crazy, especially because it was happening in the intended shooting zone, and especially because it looked so amazingly good at focusing distances outside the "danger zone"<G>.

Early 2008 I tried another two, and these only had some "regular" backfocus, with only very, very little focus shift. However, this lens, together with the 85L, are the most difficult lenses when it comes to calibration, according to the technician I spoke with at the Canon Service Centre.
That's the first hint towards some sort of closure for this issue I have seen so far, and that's quite a consolation if it is in fact indicative of the 50L's current production status (and not just a lucky batch).
Well, for a short while we thought that from about July 2007 the problem was fixed, but that is when Nick's story started, and several others also had problems with end 2007 and 2008 lenses.

So far I haven't seen a report yet on a bad 2009 specimen yet. I do keep track of it. I wonder whether the article in the CPN magazine on the 50L that I received today is some indication that they finally sorted out the problems? There also was an article on the 24L II, so who knows... <G>

And one I already conceded to. ;)
<VBG>

Oh, that's been a pet peeve of mine for quite a while, believe you me. :)

I've only come across 3 retailers so far who actually do send an IMO faulty lens back to Canon, out of 7 or 8 I visited on a regular basis... Counter argument: nobody is a perfectionist like you are. Needless to say I dont visit those anymore, even if it is true that I am a geek <G>.

I'm not too worried about a garden variety front or back focus as I'm only going to use this lens on a 5D mark II and micro adjust can compensate for this.

Actually, on the 5D II it really shines :D.

And yet, you returned four 50L's in one year. :) If, as you presumed, the 50L has been designed on the bleeding edge of acceptable spherical aberration, then the focus shift issue is likely more noticeable compared to the 85L's. If Canon has managed to get their act together on the 50L and can now keep focus shifting within 1/3 of DoF, then the issue is moot. But only then. Apart from your assurances that the newer 50L's are up to spec, the jury's still out on that though.

Well, check FM for the 50L reviews; the last 10 or so are all very good, high marks for the 50L. But then, you never know what's lurking around the corner ... :D.

Amazing. Any dimwit with half a brain knows that it's the part that keeps it at the surface when submerged in water. :lol:
<ROFL>

<LOL>
Agreed. When it nails focus, it's bad ass. :D
Yep. And fortunately my copy does that all of the time, when I don't do something silly that is. Oh wait, even then it does, it is just that it can't read my mind (yet), and neither can the camera <BG>.

Clearly something else Canon got wrong <LOL>.

Kind regards, Wim

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/4

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3767675644_a3d222dd5f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3767675644/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[rvdw98]

Damn you wim, you've got me sorely tempted now... :o

Who do you think you are, waltzing in here and defusing my paranoia? :lol:

[dkspook]

Damn you wim, you've got me sorely tempted now... :o

Who do you think you are, waltzing in here and defusing my paranoia? :lol:

Which camera do you shoot?

[rvdw98]

Which camera do you shoot?

5D Mark II.

[dkspook]

5D Mark II.

Perfect match, IQ as well as size: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2648/3764615721_d2a8a356e9_b.jpg

[rvdw98]

Perfect match, IQ as well as size: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2648/3764615721_d2a8a356e9_b.jpg

And posting camera porn is going to help me resist hitting the proverbial "buy" button how exactly? :lol:

[wimg]

Damn you wim, you've got me sorely tempted now... :o
You know you want one :D. Just go to your retailer, take your camera along, and try one. I am sure he will at least let you try one out :D. Just do it :D.
Who do you think you are, waltzing in here and defusing my paranoia? :lol:
Me? I am the Mad Dutchman - earned that nick for a reason :D. Oh, I prefer walking to waltzing, BTW, as I am perfectly capable of dizzying myself without turning circles at high speed on a a slippery floor :D.
Which camera do you shoot?
5D Mark II.
Perfect match, IQ as well as size: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2648/3764615721_d2a8a356e9_b.jpg
Yep. 50L + 5D is magic, 50L + 5D Mk II is beyond magic ...
Kind regards, Wim

[dkspook]

And posting camera porn is going to help me resist hitting the proverbial "buy" button how exactly? :lol:

Who said anything about helping? Addiction (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dk_spook/3672509441/) is only a problem if you want to stop.

[GMCPhotographics]

Guys, I have a 5D and a 5DII, which I am really happy with. My 50L is 2008 date code and it's an OK lens. It suffers from the aperture focus point shift below 1m @ f2.8...it's an intrinsic design issue. I can verify this issue using liveview and a theathered laptop...it's pretty obvious. Neither my 35L or 85IIL have this issue, but they have all been designed with floating optics to prevent this issue. It's ironic that Canon pioneered the floating element and then forgot to use it with this lens design. I find my copy is my softest L lens when shot wide open, which is simular to the 3 other copies that I've tried.
It's a flawed lens....but it still puts in a fine performance. use it, learn it, get over it....that's my motto.

[wimg]

Guys, I have a 5D and a 5DII, which I am really happy with. My 50L is 2008 date code and it's an OK lens. It suffers from the aperture focus point shift below 1m @ f2.8...it's an intrinsic design issue. I can verify this issue using liveview and a theathered laptop...it's pretty obvious. Neither my 35L or 85IIL have this issue, but they have all been designed with floating optics to prevent this issue. It's ironic that Canon pioneered the floating element and then forgot to use it with this lens design.
Canon actually did not pioneer the "floating element", or rather the floating element design. Maybe their adaptation, yes. BTW, the 85L has one static element (the one at the back), and the remaining elements all together form the floating part.

A static element, like the one used in the 85L, with everything else floating, is a design pioneered quite a while back, to combat vignetting originally.

And, BTW, the 85L also has focus shift, just that it never crosses the 1/3 of a stop threshold for AF accuracy. So, nobody talks about it.

I don't think the Canon optical engineers ever intended the 50L to have these issues either, but I reckon there was, and maybe still is, a (steep) learning path going from lab to real life manufacturing and assembly.
I find my copy is my softest L lens when shot wide open, which is simular to the 3 other copies that I've tried.
It's a flawed lens....
No, yours is :D. There seem to be quite a few people with flawed specimens, but there are also people with specimens that work within AF specs. And my observation is that lately, date codes of this year, people seem to get specimens that work within spec. but it still puts in a fine performance. use it, learn it, get over it....that's my motto.
That is a very good motto, regardless of which equipment one uses, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

Kind regards, Wim

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/4

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2671/3770126185_984f10eb49.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3770126185/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[inthedeck]

^^Nice. I like you're imagination, jjj. Just one request, on the one above...the little hairline on the second piece of wood, on the right middle...and also, one at the very bottom, on the 3rd and 4th piece of wood from the right (is that a hair?). Clone those out, and that'll be even more awesome. :) Nit's, really...

[JackLiu]

One of the features of shooting almost wide open is the separation of the subject from the background. Awesome!!

[GMCPhotographics]

Canon actually did not pioneer the "floating element", or rather the floating element design. Maybe their adaptation, yes. BTW, the 85L has one static element (the one at the back), and the remaining elements all together form the floating part.
A static element, like the one used in the 85L, with everything else floating, is a design pioneered quite a while back, to combat vignetting originally.
And, BTW, the 85L also has focus shift, just that it never crosses the 1/3 of a stop threshold for AF accuracy. So, nobody talks about it.
Kind regards, Wim
Ok...the ealiest Canon lens to incorporate a floating element design (that I can find) was in march 1971, the FD 55 f1.2 AL.
Which wass my point earlier....about the irony of the 50 f1.2 L NOT having a floating design.
The 85 f1.2 was launched in 1976, and was claimed to be the first telephoto lens with a floating design (with a fixed rear element).
Interestingly in 1975, a 24mm f1.4 was released with a floating design too, which was the basis for the EF 24L(I).
From my internet research, there seems to be a bit of confusion pertaining to floating design origins. Canon seeem to claim their Floating designs were the first, while Nikkon claim their CRC designs are the pioneering design. So who knows....I think that both companies are full of acronym branding Spin. Maybe they both invented just their own acronyms?
Regards,
Gareth Cooper

[wimg]

Hi Gareth,
Ok...the ealiest Canon lens to incorporate a floating element design (that I can find) was in march 1971, the FD 55 f1.2 AL.
Which wass my point earlier....about the irony of the 50 f1.2 L NOT having a floating design.
I actually wonder if the move from 55 to 50 mm and FD to EF-mount just made the lens physically just a little too short to incorporate a static element for a floating design. In total a 50 mm EF mount is about 6 mm shorter design wise than a 55 mm FD design is. Also, specific corrections must have been made to generate an equally pleasant bokeh in background AND foreground, where previously those corrections were done for background only (and reasonably good foreground bokeh was just a pleasant by-effect). Maybe that has something to do with it as well. I don't know.

I'd love to talk to the optical engineers about these things, however :D.
The 85 f1.2 was launched in 1976, and was claimed to be the first telephoto lens with a floating design (with a fixed rear element).
Interestingly in 1975, a 24mm f1.4 was released with a floating design too, which was the basis for the EF 24L(I).
I'd have to look it up, but floating designs for vignetting control predate this.
From my internet research, there seems to be a bit of confusion pertaining to floating design origins. Canon seeem to claim their Floating designs were the first, while Nikkon claim their CRC designs are the pioneering design. So who knows....I think that both companies are full of acronym branding Spin. Maybe they both invented just their own acronyms?
Very likely :D. The one invents something, the other follows suit with something similar but different. The latest was nano-coating vs SWC :D.
Of course, the interesting bit here is that lens coatings are sub-wavelength, or nano by defintion, otherwise they wouldn't work. Talking about spin :D.
Regards,
Gareth Cooper
Kind regards, Wim

[GMCPhotographics]

yes, it's like Canon's Ultrasonic lens motors. Nikons are called Ultrawave...

[Gabe63]

Maybe they both invented just their own acronyms?
Regards,
Gareth Cooper


This is the most likely explanation, do you work for a corporation?

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/1.2

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2593/3774276198_75334414c7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3774276198/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[inthedeck]

^^ You don't say much with words, do ya? :lol: What are those pink things? -- Nevermind...checked your flickr. Pretty cool. ;)

[joeyjoeyjoey]

More f/1.2 fun. See @inthedeck I put more words on this post ^_^

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2458/3777275684_0a18461017.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3777275684/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[dkspook]

^^ You don't say much with words, do ya? :lol: What are those pink things? -- Nevermind...checked your flickr. Pretty cool. ;)

Manish are you eyeing the 50L? Or do you already have it?

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/2.8

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3448/3780062298_d3038a7ae8.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3780062298/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[h4y4sh1]

I'm really loving this lens :)

@1.2
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x236/h4y4sh1/Canon50L/IMG_8273.jpg

@ 1.4
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x236/h4y4sh1/Canon50L/IMG_8228.jpg

@2.8
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x236/h4y4sh1/Canon50L/IMG_8291.jpg

@6.3
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x236/h4y4sh1/Canon50L/IMG_8278.jpg

[inthedeck]

Manish are you eyeing the 50L? Or do you already have it?

Nope, Soren, not eyeing this one. I just enjoy it through you guys' pics. :)

More f/1.2 fun. See @inthedeck I put more words on this post ^_^
Funny. :lol:

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/4

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2626/3783708984_6a20dbef83.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3783708984/in/set-72157621175969671)

[dkspook]

f/4

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2626/3783708984_6a20dbef83.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3783708984/in/set-72157621175969671)

Damn... You rock the food photography man!

[deci]

@f2
http://www.black-cat-gfx.co.uk/potn/liefmans-glasspotn-02.jpg

Edit........... Replaced pic with one taken the next day, due to a softness on the lettering and some distracting light spots. I was just to keen to show off this lens ...LOL

[LLL]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2544/3784896826_b01e16aff9_o.jpg

[colin842]

From a ballet recital

[deci]

Has she seen this Colin? I bet she'd love it, I know I do :)

[lbeck]

I'm curious why people say that this lens isn't that sharp and that you mainly buy it for the colors/contrast/bokeh.

Looking at these pics in this thread say that the lens is just as sharp as any other L prime. I hope it is, I just ordered mine!

Can anyone post 100% crops so we can all see how sharp it is? Say at 1.2, 1.6, 1.8?

[JAcosta]

I'm curious why people say that this lens isn't that sharp and that you mainly buy it for the colors/contrast/bokeh.

Looking at these pics in this thread say that the lens is just as sharp as any other L prime. I hope it is, I just ordered mine!

Can anyone post 100% crops so we can all see how sharp it is? Say at 1.2, 1.6, 1.8?

Shouldnt you have done this befoer you ordered your 50L? Haha just kidding, youll love it. Ill never get rid of mine.

[lbeck]

Shouldnt you have done this befoer you ordered your 50L? Haha just kidding, youll love it. Ill never get rid of mine.

I would of ordered it anyway :) I've thought about it for weeks now and pulled the trigger!

And if I dont like it, then I'll just return it. No problemo! But I'm sure I will love it, 50mm is my fav FL. Although, I'm a little worried that my beloved 35L may not get used as much.

[kloodee]

very very sharp and sweet contrast there
im just wondering cuz im about to buy either this one or the 85L
people keep saying that 85 at 1.2 is sharper than 50L at 1.2 is that right?

thanx alot n advance :)

[wimg]

I would of ordered it anyway :) I've thought about it for weeks now and pulled the trigger!

And if I dont like it, then I'll just return it. No problemo! But I'm sure I will love it, 50mm is my fav FL. Although, I'm a little worried that my beloved 35L may not get used as much.
No, probably not. There is a remedy, however. It is called the 24L II :D.

Kind regards, Wim ;)

[wimg]

very very sharp and sweet contrast there
im just wondering cuz im about to buy either this one or the 85L
people keep saying that 85 at 1.2 is sharper than 50L at 1.2 is that right?

thanx alot n advance :)
In the corners at F/1.2, yes, focused at the same distance that is. The 50L does focus a lot closer than the 85L however, which means that even smaller DoF may make it look less sharp.

Kind regards, Wim

[GMCPhotographics]

Yes Wimg, it's a pity it focuses down to 45cm. My copy gets softer the closer to mfd (and no ot's not a focus issue...it's just soft). Over 1.5m and it's really quite sharp wide open.

[lbeck]

No, probably not. There is a remedy, however. It is called the 24L II :D.

Kind regards, Wim ;)

Dont get me started ... I tell myself I will still use the 35L. I honestly love it, it is SO sharp and accurate, my keeper rate is at least 90% when shooting wide open to f1.8

[billppw350z]

Thought I would do something different and post a couple not taken wide open:

At f2
http://billppw350z.smugmug.com/photos/524671474_PQGSL-L.jpg

At f3.2 and four feet (oooooh that’s in the “danger zone”)
http://billppw350z.smugmug.com/photos/487615387_NwMeb-L.jpg

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/6.3

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3483/3836071042_176857b8c1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3836071042/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[Helena]

I saw some really nice photos of reflections, so I had to try it myself. :)

387957

[heladepela]

Helena, wonderful shot and great composition, would have maybe prefered it without the pedestrian.

[inthedeck]

nice shots, jjj, and Helena.

[J-B]

I saw some really nice photos of reflections, so I had to try it myself. :)


I would have liked it so much more if that person wasn't walking there, but still a nice shot. ;)

I can buy this lens second hand locally for a nice price. The seller says it's a good copy, he never had any complaints. But hey, that's what he says (sellers often don't tell the truth :() .
I think I'm going to test it at his place. What's the best way to check if it has the focus-shift issue?

[tonylong]

Very nice, Helena! Reflections are very cool!

[Helena]

Thank you all! I like street photography, so I can't resist including some people in my shots :) , but I'll take a new one without people some day and see how it turns out.

J-B: Move close to the subject and try apertures between f/2.8 and 4. Mine is spot on at all apertures, which means that DOF hides any focus shift it might have. It's by far my favorite lens. Note that this is a lens that performs a lot better in real life than in testing.

[J-B]

Thank you all! I like street photography, so I can't resist including some people in my shots :) , but I'll take a new one without people some day and see how it turns out.

J-B: Move close to the subject and try apertures between f/2.8 and 4. Mine is spot on at all apertures, which means that DOF hides any focus shift it might have. It's by far my favorite lens. Note that this is a lens that performs a lot better in real life than in testing.

Ok thanks, I'll try that.
I wasn't really searching for a 50L, but suddenly saw this one for a nice price. I'm often amazed by the color and contrast of this lens. Good opportunity to try one:)

[nicksan]

Note that this is a lens that performs a lot better in real life than in testing.

...and I suppose this "real life shooting" you speak of according to the "2009 Official Real Life Shooting Guide" doesn't include shooting between MFD and 6 feet out at f2-f4?

It's great that the lens works for you under "any" situation. But don't discount or insult those, and there are quite a few I might add that are stuck with a $1400 piece of paperweight...(myself not included. I own and use this lens but I understand others who are frustrated with it.)

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[GMCPhotographics]

...and I suppose the real life shooting according to the "2009 Official Real Life Shooting Guide" doesn't include shooting between MFD and 6 feet out at f2-f4?

It's great that the lens works for you under "any" situation. But don't discount or insult those, and many I might add, with duds...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Let's put this lens into some perspective...it's an expensive but bright lens. But it's so riddled with issues it's questionable if it's worth the bother. Compare for example the 24-70L. It covers a massive range, it's bright and relatively vice free. So how come Canon can make such a great and complicated lens like a 24-70L and yet make such a mess with a 50mm?

[nicksan]

Let's put this lens into some perspective...it's an expensive but bright lens. But it's so riddled with issues it's questionable if it's worth the bother. Compare for example the 24-70L. It covers a massive range, it's bright and relatively vice free. So how come Canon can make such a great and complicated lens like a 24-70L and yet make such a mess with a 50mm?

Beats me and I know I end up looking like a 50L basher everytime I respond to comments like that, but the fact is I own and use this lens, aware of its flaws, work around them b/c when it hits, it is a thing of beauty. It's really up to the individual to evaluate the risk/reward factor.

I own and have owned many of the L lenses and honestly, this is the only lens with such a glaringly obvious design "feature" with the shift and softness wide open in the danger zone. I think the fact that we need to even bother worrying about a danger zone is annoying enough for a $1400 lens.

I've got enough things to worry about...like taking nice pictures...which pretty much takes 100% of my attention!:lol:

[wimg]

I would have liked it so much more if that person wasn't walking there, but still a nice shot. ;)

I can buy this lens second hand locally for a nice price. The seller says it's a good copy, he never had any complaints. But hey, that's what he says (sellers often don't tell the truth :() .
I think I'm going to test it at his place. What's the best way to check if it has the focus-shift issue?
Shoot between MFD and, say 1.5 to 1.8 m, at apertures from F/1.4 to F/5.6, centre focus point.

If there is any shift, you'll notice it, probably from F/1.4 to F/2.8. At F/1.2 it is fine, above F/2.8 the shift should be well within DoF although some have reported this to happen until F/5.6.

Kind regards, Wim

[poppie guy]

I saw some really nice photos of reflections, so I had to try it myself. :)

387957

Beautiful!! The pedestrian traffic makes it more interesting.

[GMCPhotographics]

Beats me and I know I end up looking like a 50L basher everytime I respond to comments like that, but the fact is I own and use this lens, aware of its flaws, work around them b/c when it hits, it is a thing of beauty. It's really up to the individual to evaluate the risk/reward factor.

I own and have owned many of the L lenses and honestly, this is the only lens with such a glaringly obvious design "feature" with the shift and softness wide open in the danger zone. I think the fact that we need to even bother worrying about a danger zone is annoying enough for a $1400 lens.

I've got enough things to worry about...like taking nice pictures...which pretty much takes 100% of my attention!:lol:

Likewise mate, I'm trying to be a voice of reason with this lens but I often come across as a 50L disser. It's a good lens, just (dissapointingly) not a great lens. I use it a lot, but to be honest I also use my TS-e 45mm as much.
Yes i saw your recent wedding piccys on another thread, very nice bud.

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/1.2

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2640/3837731357_9705df3ef9.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3837731357/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[nicksan]

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p560008470-5.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p226245605-5.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p210585787-5.jpg

[billppw350z]

I saw some really nice photos of reflections, so I had to try it myself.
Nice picture Helena. The guy walking through adds character to the photo.

I can buy this lens second hand locally for a nice price. The seller says it's a good copy, he never had any complaints. But hey, that's what he says (sellers often don't tell the truth ) I think I'm going to test it at his place. What's the best way to check if it has the focus-shift issue?
All 50 1.2Ls focus shift.

I have a good copy and mine does it from f2.2 to f4, from MFD out to a little over four feet from the subject. When I was checking the micro focus adjustment on my 50L, I decided to check for the focus shift while I had it on a tripod. It slightly shifted focus in the “danger zone.” It has never been a problem in my real world photo efforts. Maybe because I rarely shoot in the “danger zone” and I rarely to never use the center auto focus point at apertures less than f5.6. The snap shot of the two dogs (:)) I posted a week ago on this thread was from four feet away at f3.2; that’s in the “danger zone.” No sign of focus shift.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8442553&postcount=1242 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=8442553&postcount=1242)

You do want to check the sharpness very carefully. A front/back focus is an easy fix, but it can be difficult and expensive to fix a “soft” copy.

[poppie guy]

[IMG]http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p560008470-5.jpg

[IMG]http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p226245605-5.jpg

[IMG]http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p210585787-5.jpg

Nice photos, cool cake!

[spider1135]

A lot of excellent photos here, beautiful done.

Sometime I wonder is it the Lenses, is it the camera itself, the skill of the person who took the photos, or is it the good computer programs which mixed the photos, I don't think I can take photos like that, most of time I use program or auto with my canon d40.

Beautiful photos, I love to come back to this thread.

[tonylong]

A lot of excellent photos here, beautiful done.

Sometime I wonder is it the Lenses, is it the camera itself, the skill of the person who took the photos, or is it the good computer programs which mixed the photos, I don't think I can take photos like that, most of time I use program or auto with my canon d40.

Beautiful photos, I love to come back to this thread.

Hey, just count it as "all of the above"...people who buy into a camera and lens combo naturally want to put in the work to squeeze the best out of that combo, right:)?

[dkspook]

I overcame the shift anxiety and now I use this lens for 90% of my shots. AF servo on my 5D and I don't experience any problems. I shoot at F/2.0 close to (or at) MFD all the time.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2488/3820737660_478e5439bc_b.jpg

F/1.8 boredom.

[J-B]

Nice pics Nick, beautiful colors.

@dkspook: so when you use AI servo, the problem is less pronounced? Interesting

[Helena]

...and I suppose this "real life shooting" you speak of according to the "2009 Official Real Life Shooting Guide" doesn't include shooting between MFD and 6 feet out at f2-f4?

It's great that the lens works for you under "any" situation. But don't discount or insult those, and there are quite a few I might add that are stuck with a $1400 piece of paperweight...(myself not included. I own and use this lens but I understand others who are frustrated with it.)

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

You read a lot more into my words than I meant to say. I'm most certainly not saying that there aren't problems with many 50Ls. I was just talking about my own copy, and meant to say that even good copies don't handle test shooting too well. Sorry about being unclear.

Great wedding photos btw.!


Beautiful!! The pedestrian traffic makes it more interesting.


Nice picture Helena. The guy walking through adds character to the photo.


All 50 1.2Ls focus shift.

...

Thank you both!

Yes, I agree that all 50Ls shift, but some more than others, and I feel bad for all who got a bad one. I was lucky and got one where DOF completely hides the shift. I use it in the "danger area" a lot and don't use any special methods to avoid shift. I mostly use the central focus point and One Shot.

[nicksan]

Helena, that sounds reasonable and I agree plenty of great examples in here to see that some are blessed with better copy than others. I believe I have a pretty decent copy myself. I just feel bad for those who have copies like my first copy, which was very bad.

Thanks for your compliments. Always been a fan of your photos!

[airfrogusmc]

I saw some really nice photos of reflections, so I had to try it myself. :)

387957

Now thats NICE pedestrian and all. I love it just the way it is. ;):D

[Double Negative]

I saw some really nice photos of reflections, so I had to try it myself. :)

That's a sweet shot - pedestrian included.

[Helena]

Helena, that sounds reasonable and I agree plenty of great examples in here to see that some are blessed with better copy than others. I believe I have a pretty decent copy myself. I just feel bad for those who have copies like my first copy, which was very bad.

Thanks for your compliments. Always been a fan of your photos!

Glad to hear that we are OK! :) I'll be off on a 5 weeks' vacation in less than two days and didn't want to leave a misunderstanding behind. (Hope that makes sense. I'm too stressed to find the best words in English right now.)


Now thats NICE pedestrian and all. I love it just the way it is. ;):D

That's a sweet shot - pedestrian included.

Thank you both! :)

[spider1135]

Hey, just count it as "all of the above"...people who buy into a camera and lens combo naturally want to put in the work to squeeze the best out of that combo, right:)?

yes, you may be right, the combo, but if put them in order, I think the person's skill is the last. any person can take a decent picture without any photography skill or school, but with a good lens, a good camera and a good softwares/programs, a decent picture will become a nice one.

I don't have any photography skill, I take decent photos, not great but it's ok, most of time under or over exposures, but always get good angles of the subjects.

I already have a canon d40, I might need to get a canon L lens.

[J-B]

I went to the seller today and did various tests. The focus was just slightly off in some tests, but nothing too bad (so it seems). Also sharp enough at F1.2
I bought it. If I'll regret it, I'll sell it for the same price (it was a nice price after all).
We'll see...

When I got home I went to a friend who has some puppies at the moment, here are some of the first shots with my new 50L:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3420/3841188456_4ca77b0063_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2422/3841187012_2208fe9074_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2422/3840395529_ee8c5452cf_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2511/3841184472_06f477f60f_o.jpg

[tomhide]

yes, you may be right, the combo, but if put them in order, I think the person's skill is the last. any person can take a decent picture without any photography skill or school, but with a good lens, a good camera and a good softwares/programs, a decent picture will become a nice one.

I don't have any photography skill, I take decent photos, not great but it's ok, most of time under or over exposures, but always get good angles of the subjects.

I already have a canon d40, I might need to get a canon L lens.

I personally think "person's photographic skills - The eye" comes clear first over any good lens or cameras. Perhaps good post processing skills is a second.
There's much more to a "great photo" than just a high resolution sharp images in my opinion :)

[nicksan]

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p815730818-4.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p620784233-5.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p263980340-4.jpg

[xMClass]

Cute pups. I need to stop looking at this thread before it murders my wallet.

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/6.3

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3841813562_7ba53e7aba.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3841813562/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[dkspook]

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p620784233-5.jpg



Sweeeeeeeeet

[J-B]

f/6.3

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3841813562_7ba53e7aba.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3841813562/in/set-72157621175969671/)

Really nice, I always like your food photos :)

[h4y4sh1]

@NIcksan
Luv that chair shot

@Joeyjoeyjoey
The cherry picture is simple but very nice

Here' are some more pictures

The first and last pic is taken with 50L + 20mm ext tube
http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x236/h4y4sh1/IMG_9145-1.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3496/3833249441_60d35c7609_o.jpg

http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x236/h4y4sh1/IMG_9090.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3445/3833143891_81367b7747_o.jpg

[nicksan]

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p1061239968-4.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p2358945-4.jpg

[deci]

Thought I'd already put this up :rolleyes:
http://www.black-cat-gfx.co.uk/potn/liefmans-glasspotn-02.jpg

@f1.2

[joeyjoeyjoey]

Thanks for the kind words everyone. Decided to have some fun for my Friday photo.

f/1.2

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2455/3843229587_5b49f3283a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3843229587/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[spider1135]

f/6.3

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3841813562_7ba53e7aba.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3841813562/in/set-72157621175969671/)

wow, amazing image, how you did that.:D

[dkspook]

A snap from this morning, F/1.8:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/3846257598_ec8bcdf2a3_b.jpg

[muz64]

^^
Brilliant work BK. The lighting, the expression, composition, depth of field. Amazing shot - on many levels.

Muz

[brownbugger]

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p1061239968-4.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p2358945-4.jpg

I loved the richness of both these shots , great work !

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/2.8

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3485/3849563357_b87bb15b66.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3849563357/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[quadrap]

1d Mk iii reflector overhead natural light

[

[MatthewK]

I really, really want(ed) this lens. These shots are fantastic! Funny how at 1.2 it has green CA, while the 85 1.2 gives you magenta :)

Let's put this lens into some perspective...it's an expensive but bright lens. But it's so riddled with issues it's questionable if it's worth the bother. Compare for example the 24-70L. It covers a massive range, it's bright and relatively vice free. So how come Canon can make such a great and complicated lens like a 24-70L and yet make such a mess with a 50mm?

This is a great question... and it's not just the 50 1.2. All 3 of Canon's 50mm lenses have some issue (and offerings from other manufacturers too). Why don't the 85mm lenses, or the 200mm's? If the 50mm 1.2L didn't have the focus issue, it'd easily be the best prime out there, IMO. How long ago was it designed, and is it due for a MkII anytime soon? They'd be better off revamping this one before any other lens right now.

Reason being: I want to buy it, but don't want to deal with the focus shift on an expensive lens. Obviously I am not the only one in this boat!

[wimg]

I really, really want(ed) this lens. These shots are fantastic! Funny how at 1.2 it has green CA, while the 85 1.2 gives you magenta :)
They both have both. Red/dark red/magenta in the foreground OOF areas on high contrast transitions, and green/cyan in the background OOF areas on high contrast transitions. These are longitudinal CAs, caused by spherical aberrations, the same aberrations that give these lenses their fantastic bokeh.

They will also both show some PF at times.

This is a great question... and it's not just the 50 1.2. All 3 of Canon's 50mm lenses have some issue (and offerings from other manufacturers too). Why don't the 85mm lenses, or the 200mm's?
Probably because they are of a non-tele, and non-retrofocus, semi-symmetrical design which only just allows the positioning of the nodal plane before the mount. WAs with their retrofocus design don't have this problem, but they have lots of other aberrations to contend with as a result , and neither do telelenses, whether long lenses or reduced length, proper telelenses.
If the 50mm 1.2L didn't have the focus issue, it'd easily be the best prime out there, IMO. How long ago was it designed, and is it due for a MkII anytime soon? It was introduced in 2006. They'd be better off revamping this one before any other lens right now.
I don't think this will happen. It is too expensive to do so.
Reason being: I want to buy it, but don't want to deal with the focus shift on an expensive lens. Obviously I am not the only one in this boat!
Just bite the bullet, and keep on trying until you get a good one (IOW, buy one from a retailer with a good return policy). I think that currently the likelihood for getting a good one is much, much larger than it was in 2006 or 2007. Alternatively, learn to live with its limitations. It is the best 50 out there right now, IMO.

Kind regards, Wim

[wildcart]

I already have a 50mm 1.4 with a broken USM :| So I was thinking of getting this one or maybe a 24mm 1.4 II first :? In the studio I miss my 50mm AF, it takes to long to focus manual :( And when I shoot events I need something wider then 35mm. So what to get first :D

[J-B]

I already have a 50mm 1.4 with a broken USM :| So I was thinking of getting this one or maybe a 24mm 1.4 II first :? In the studio I miss my 50mm AF, it takes to long to focus manual :( And when I shoot events I need something wider then 35mm. So what to get first :D

I would get the 24L first in that case. You say you need something wider... in the studio you can always use that 35,85 and 135L.

[dkspook]

I already have a 50mm 1.4 with a broken USM :| So I was thinking of getting this one or maybe a 24mm 1.4 II first :? In the studio I miss my 50mm AF, it takes to long to focus manual :( And when I shoot events I need something wider then 35mm. So what to get first :D

If you upgrade from the 50 1.4 be prepared for the fact that the 50L isn't sharper than the 1.4. It just has better bokeh, contrast, colors and AF. I had a stellar copy of the 50 1.4, did the upgrade, haven't looked back.

[tiarehi]

#1
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2451/3855306906_01d4e69965_o.jpg

#2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2518/3855291466_e845771d0d_o.jpg

[BarrySchwartz]

Click for larger and exif... looks better larger.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3505/3858866527_644feb5844.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/barryschwartz/3858866527/)

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/8

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3863028611_3c9b6b3197.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3863028611/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[poppie guy]

f/8

[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3863028611_3c9b6b3197.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3863028611/in/set-72157621175969671/)

Nice shot, but.............................. the average person following this thread is probably 5 pounds heavier thanks to your photos!:lol::lol:

[Jannie]

WOW, I am hugely impressed. Until now I've only glanced at the occasional comment about problems with this lens but wanting something in this focal length I started the last few days to do some research. I'd thought the Sigma 50 1.4 might be the way to go so I went through all the photos here shot with that lens and then came to this thread. This Canon 50L is every bit as stunning as their 85L, overall by everyone here it shows it is one of those very special lenses that come along only now and then. I must find a way to get one. I will be using it on my MKIII and my heart is pounding having looked over the photos in this thread. I guess it all depends, I'm also hoping (and need) a 100 macro and waiting to see what and if Canon does upgrade the current one. I am dismayed that the price of the Canon 50L has gone up so much, this makes it very difficult.

[joeyjoeyjoey]

@poppie guy after cookies you have to have some popsicles right?

f/4

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2553/3865667987_ed28e39ced.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3865667987/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[xMClass]

Damn you're good with food. I want some cookies now.

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/2.5

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3440/3871096120_f3cbcd28cb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3871096120/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[poppie guy]

f/2.5

[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3440/3871096120_f3cbcd28cb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3871096120/in/set-72157621175969671/)


Another nice photo! I want this lens but I can't afford it, unless I sell one of my other lenses.

[ekie]

a few from nieces bday. the only lens i brought with me :D

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2592/3869066175_6a9e034a28_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3502/3869067313_8567428def_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2451/3869852608_0552afeb4c_o.jpg

birthday girl
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2507/3869070601_853d97760b_o.jpg

thought this was cute :D
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2658/3869068383_841c647282_o.jpg

[AlanU]

Just tested a UX code 50L. Dreamy at f/1.2 to f/2. Step back 5 feet with the settings from f/2.8 to f/4 and I got aproximately 3/4 to 1 inch focus shift (back focus).

Ditched the Sigmalux 50mm due to minor front focus and horribly inaccurate AF 5+ feet away.

I guess I'll wait for the next fresh batch of 50L's.

[dkspook]

Just tested a UX code 50L. Dreamy at f/1.2 to f/2. Step back 5 feet with the settings from f/2.8 to f/4 and I got aproximately 3/4 to 1 inch focus shift (back focus).

Ditched the Sigmalux 50mm due to minor front focus and horribly inaccurate AF 5+ feet away.

I guess I'll wait for the next fresh batch of 50L's.

No shift in my UW :)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2637/3858999484_cc3a0926b3_b.jpg

[AlanU]

No shift in my UW :)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2637/3858999484_cc3a0926b3_b.jpg

Oddly my 50D showed less focus shift compared to my 5D classic. My 85L focuses perfectly with both bodies.

In this picture you provided I'm guessing you either cropped the photo or you were aprox 2 feet away with a crop body or even a tad closer with a FF. The lens I tested I was aprox 5 feet away and the focus shift was more apparent at f/2.8 to f/3.5.

I guess I saved $1900 CDN by "not" buying this lens.

[dkspook]

Oddly my 50D showed less focus shift compared to my 5D classic. My 85L focuses perfectly with both bodies.

In this picture you provided I'm guessing you either cropped the photo or you were aprox 2 feet away with a crop body or even a tad closer with a FF. The lens I tested I was aprox 5 feet away and the focus shift was more apparent at f/2.8 to f/3.5.

I guess I saved $1900 CDN by "not" buying this lens.

Full frame 5D classic, no cropping. My set with 301 shots (so far - since June) from the 50L is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dk_spook/sets/72157619564020039/

No shift noticable.

[Subimatt]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2439/3876596840_3cc224a7ca_o.jpg

[xMClass]

Nice ^

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/8

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3434/3876350619_84371d0357.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3876350619/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[MichSt]

f/1.2

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2669/3850797240_07bb5b9e3b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/marioq/3850797240/)

[MichSt]

f/2.8

http://quagliata.smugmug.com/photos/635051971_j4ggi-M.jpg

the fat cat @ f/1.4

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2659/3857910454_e4ef8ea41d.jpg

[blackviolet]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2502/3880160650_d51fe26512_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/0bli0/3880160650/)

5dmk2 | f/1.2

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/1.2

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3481/3884536669_1b571d7dc8.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3884536669/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[GMCPhotographics]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2502/3880160650_d51fe26512_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/0bli0/3880160650/)

5dmk2 | f/1.2

I think this is one of the most surreal photographs that I've seen all year! Well Done!

[simak]

My bike`s saddle
f/1.2
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2527/3886973092_d0819699cf_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/simashin/3886973092/sizes/l/)

[joeyjoeyjoey]

f/5

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2444/3891351958_0dfa936e4c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/joey_joey_joey/3891351958/in/set-72157621175969671/)

[single_track]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2502/3880160650_d51fe26512_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/0bli0/3880160650/)

5dmk2 | f/1.2
I simply love this shot; the colors, composition, everything.

[p360]

Awesome shots, everyone. I keep coming back to this thread just to admire others' work.

I have a question for all you owners: I am beginning to venture into weddings. And I am thinking of adding this to my gear.

Putting aside the price factor, would this be a good addition when compared to my other candidates..?? I am also looking at 85L and the upcoming 100L. The 85L would also have a real nice bokeh. 100L - probably not as nice. 85L would probably be too slow for weddings, but awesome for bride & groom portraits.

Can someone suggest one over the other for my intended use..? I am also posing this question to all 85L owners.

Thanking in advance.

[dkspook]

Awesome shots, everyone. I keep coming back to this thread just to admire others' work.

I have a question for all you owners: I am beginning to venture into weddings. And I am thinking of adding this to my gear.

Putting aside the price factor, would this be a good addition when compared to my other candidates..?? I am also looking at 85L and the upcoming 100L. The 85L would also have a real nice bokeh. 100L - probably not as nice. 85L would probably be too slow for weddings, but awesome for bride & groom portraits.

Can someone suggest one over the other for my intended use..? I am also posing this question to all 85L owners.

Thanking in advance.

The 50L has the same gorgeous bokeh as the 85L - Which is why I went with the 50L, tried the 85L and it's AF was just too slow for my needs and the focal lenght never quite fit me. Now the 50L hardly ever leaves my 5D.

[p360]

I am finally joining the Club 50L. It's on its way..!!

It took a while deciding between this and 85L. But finally, the focal length and faster AF won out; not to mention the MFT chart shows it's sharper than 85L.

I can hardly wait.

Soon, I'll have my own version of "Fab 5" - the five L primes. :D

[Double Negative]

^ Sweet! Congratulations. You'll be very pleased. :)

[Subimatt]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2579/3898216921_e206dfc46f_o.jpg

[p360]

^^ Thanks. I have a couple of wedding shoots coming up before the end of the year, and I intend to use this quite a bit in them.

[dkspook]

I am finally joining the Club 50L. It's on its way..!!

It took a while deciding between this and 85L. But finally, the focal length and faster AF won out; not to mention the MFT chart shows it's sharper than 85L.

I can hardly wait.

Soon, I'll have my own version of "Fab 5" - the five L primes. :D

The 85L is sharper wide open, but the 50L is no slouch stopped down:
100% crop with no sharpening - F/4.5 (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3545/3641005426_eaeb65738f_o.jpg)

[heladepela]

Here's a few rather grim shots from the Paris Catacombs, hope no one's put off by them too much. Taken with a rented 50mm f/1.2 L, which was a real challenge as I'm used to walking around with my 24-105mm f/4. I loved the results but wish I had for a bit longer to really get under this lens' skin (so to speak). As expected my 5D2 focus didn't impress me much, but then these were rather extreme condition. All pictures handheld btw.

Skull (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2440/3902734863_71c0d062e2_b.jpg)

Skulls (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2595/3902733823_2566116a40_b.jpg)

Skull & Bones (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3902736981_d362bf3ac7_b.jpg)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2519/3903515824_09ef1a8261_b.jpg

Decided not to show these directly but for the last one as that is abstract enough. I've got a few less gory examples of the 50mm too, I'll post those in a bit. Hope no one minds the white balance, I preferred to show the place "as is" rather than changing the WB.

[nicksan]

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p539800766-4.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p677429974-5.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p1061878005-4.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p895929970-4.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p717586888-5.jpg

[p360]

The 85L is sharper wide open


Not so, according to www.photozone.de.

[J-B]

My 50L's sharpness wide open is very similar to the 85L (I tried it once). But it seems that at MFD, the 50 becomes a littlebit softer.

[xMClass]

Nice shots Nick!

[nicksan]

My 50L's sharpness wide open is very similar to the 85L (I tried it once). But it seems that at MFD, the 50 becomes a littlebit softer.

Yep. Wide open at close to MFD is not one of its strengths for sure...

[p360]

Yep. Wide open at close to MFD is not one of its strengths for sure...


Thanks, guys. I will keep that in mind when I shoot my first "official" wedding two weeks from now.

[Double Negative]

Wide open for any lens at MFD, save for maybe macro lenses - is not going to be in the sweet spot. It's a notorious area for optics and gave rise to the need for floating elements (among other things). Since the 50L lacks these, it is somewhat at a disadvantage. Lenses, aside from macros - are optimized for infinity.

Case in point, though with a Hasselblad lens as an example. There is a 4/50 Distagon lens (that's 50mm f/4) that originally didn't have floating elements. It was bemoaned for the lack of sharpness towards the edges or up close. Carl Zeiss added floating elements and the lens was re-released as the 4/50 Distagon FLE. A huge improvement! This also applies to the 4/40 Distagon lens. Though this one took the FLE a step further. Instead of manually selecting a focusing distance on the FLE ring, it was internalized (much like all the Canon lenses) where it's continuously variable and done automatically. This is the 4/40 Distagon FLE IF.

[nicksan]

Let's just say that the 50L is especially bad at MFD wide open then...:)

[Double Negative]

Let's just say that the 50L is especially bad at MFD wide open then...:)

Perhaps, but I think it does okay... It's not the best in the Canon line-up wide open, certainly.

I like to stop down any lens at least a little if possible. It'll improve any lens. The DoF is more usable that way as well. These shots are mostly all wide open to f/1.6 or so - and close to MFD:

http://litpixel.com/ee/images/thumb/_1D_6187.jpg (http://litpixel.com/ee/photo.php?photo=2376&exhibition=62&ee_lang=eng&u=5099,22) http://litpixel.com/ee/images/thumb/_1D_6118.jpg (http://litpixel.com/ee/photo.php?photo=2360&exhibition=61&ee_lang=eng&u=5099,39) http://litpixel.com/ee/images/thumb/_1D_6094.jpg (http://litpixel.com/ee/photo.php?photo=2363&exhibition=61&ee_lang=eng&u=5099,42) http://litpixel.com/ee/images/thumb/db7__1D_2637.jpg (http://litpixel.com/ee/photo.php?photo=1567&exhibition=55&ee_lang=eng&u=5099,60) http://litpixel.com/ee/images/thumb/_1D_1235.jpg (http://litpixel.com/ee/photo.php?photo=1452&exhibition=55&ee_lang=eng&u=5099,98) http://litpixel.com/ee/images/thumb/_1D_2385.jpg (http://litpixel.com/ee/photo.php?photo=1533&exhibition=32&ee_lang=eng&u=5099,70)

[kamilcichon]

http://www.pbase.com/roentarre/image/92716586.jpg

i love this shot, amazing how do you capture the movement :D great DoF

[quadrap]

server problems

[S.Horton]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2579/3898216921_e206dfc46f_o.jpg

I like this a lot -- I think perhaps cropping for the subject and the little statue camera-right might make that really stand out.

[Cl!ckFoto]

Can someone explain why a camera is worse at MFD than it is further away from the subject? Is it merely a function of how thin the DoF is at 1.2 being that close to its focus point?

[The Ghost of FM]

Can someone explain why a camera is worse at MFD than it is further away from the subject? Is it merely a function of how thin the DoF is at 1.2 being that close to its focus point?
At MFD on a 50mm f/1.2 lens, the depth of focus is 1.6 centimeters/ a bit more then half an inch.

If you're shooting a stationary flat surface at an exact 90 degree angle, it shouldn't be much of a problem to hit focus. But, if your shooting someone's face and they do something silly like blink, twitch or breath, odds are what ever you were focused on, you are no longer. If you dare to flinch or breath at that same moment, your odds of missing focus just doubled!

The further out your subject is, the deeper your DOF becomes and increases your chances of getting acceptable results at f/1.2.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm

Cheers!

[Cl!ckFoto]

That's what I figured, I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a lens specific problem and just a function of how thin the dof is at that distance.

[quadrap]

5DmkII 50L @ F2.8


http://kendraalexis.com/clin3.jpg


@ F1.2

http://kendraalexis.com/clin4.jpg

[lbeck]

Man I want a good copy of this lens. But without the headache of trying to find one.

[The Ghost of FM]

Man I want a good copy of this lens. But without the headache of trying to find one.
I realize that there are a few extremely vocal members around here and elsewhere that love to trumpet their 50L woes but, you should keep in mind there's a much larger crowd of happy campers who have had good copies right out of the gate. I am certainly one of those.

If this focal length and feature set is right for you and your budget, don't let the naysayers spoil your party...or better still, visit a camera store in person with your 5D and test one out in the shop, before you buy it. Hopefully, there's a store in your area that stocks it and that will match prices?

Cheers!

[nicksan]

I think the door swings both ways...we do have both the so-called naysayers and fanboys of this lens.

Then we've got the "maybe-sayers" group, which I am in.:lol: A group with a much more reasonable assessment of this lens. The bottom line is it's a nice lens but not without its quirks. If that's not a reasonable assessment, I don't know what it. At least we don't gush about this lens or accuse others of making up problems, etc.

You aren't doing any favors by proclaiming this lens as being THE lens and that the naysayers are exactly that, naysayers. That's really an ignorant view on this lens.

I've been saying this for a while now. The best advice is to buy it from a store with a good return policy so you can evaluate for youself if any of the quirks will affect you.

[lbeck]

I realize that there are a few extremely vocal members around here and elsewhere that love to trumpet their 50L woes but, you should keep in mind there's a much larger crowd of happy campers who have had good copies right out of the gate. I am certainly one of those.

If this focal length and feature set is right for you and your budget, don't let the naysayers spoil your party...or better still, visit a camera store in person with your 5D and test one out in the shop, before you buy it. Hopefully, there's a store in your area that stocks it and that will match prices?

Cheers!

I know from my own experience, I'm not saying that based off of other vocal members. I tried 2 in my local camera shop that were bad and ordered one from Canoga that went back the same day. I'm fairly certain that getting a good copy right out of the gate makes you the minority, not the majority.

[The Ghost of FM]

I think the door swings both ways...we do have both the so-called naysayers and fanboys of this lens.

Then we've got the "maybe-sayers" group, which I am in.:lol: A group with a much more reasonable assessment of this lens. The bottom line is it's a nice lens but not without its quirks. If that's not a reasonable assessment, I don't know what it. At least we don't gush about this lens or accuse others of making up problems, etc.

You aren't doing any favors by proclaiming this lens as being THE lens and that the naysayers are exactly that, naysayers. That's really an ignorant view on this lens.

I've been saying this for a while now. The best advice is to buy it from a store with a good return policy so you can evaluate for youself if any of the quirks will affect you.

I had a feeling you might pop by and you didn't disappoint me. :D

I don't believe I ever made the proclamation of the 50L being "THE lens", unless you're referring to some other "fanboy" besides myself? ;)

And, I think we're both on the same page about trying before you buy and/or dealing with a store that has a fair return policy in case of trouble, which I would again stress occurs in the minority of purchases rather then the majority of them.

Cheers!

[nicksan]

I had a feeling you might pop by and you didn't disappoint me. :D

I don't believe I ever made the proclamation of the 50L being "THE lens", unless you're referring to some other "fanboy" besides myself? ;)

And, I think we're both on the same page about trying before you buy and/or dealing with a store that has a fair return policy in case of trouble, which I would again stress occurs in the minority of purchases rather then the majority of them.

Cheers!

I wasn't singling you out. I've seen your photos and as far as I am concerned you have a very nice copy of the lens and you have every right to be happy with the lens.

I would hope that I am not known as a 50L hater. I probably am because I am the most vocal about it. I think despite what happened with me, I have a rather unbiased opinion about it and am usually reasonablly about the assessment of the lens.

I don't like it when people either dismiss this lens entirely, especially if that person never owned one or used one, or people just gushing on and on about the love lust they have with the 50L.

But what really gets me is when people dismiss those with less than stellar opinions about this lens saying things like go shoot in the real world, it's not a macro lens, stop pixel peeping, stop shooting charts, etc.

Pretty silly and ignorant really since it's b/c something funky was detected in "real world" shooting that people usually end up shooting mundane crap like charts and brick walls.

[nicksan]

I know from my own experience, I'm not saying that based off of other vocal members. I tried 2 in my local camera shop that were bad and ordered one from Canoga that went back the same day. I'm fairly certain that getting a good copy right out of the gate makes you the minority, not the majority.

Be quiet...you naysayer!!!;):lol:;)

[Subimatt]

few from yesterdays wedding.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2582/3914889410_6242edd583_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3419/3914104625_a39fb06dd5_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2501/3914889708_597eb92e5b_o.jpg

[p360]

^^ I really like them, especially the first and the third.

Did you use flash in the first one..??

[Cl!ckFoto]

man, this is a special lens. quirks or not.