Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM

[august23]

I was flipping through the lens archive and noticed there wasn't one for this lens. So I figured maybe I'd create a thread. 50L owners go for it.:D

[maxxed]

how about starting us off august? :)

[chilli710]

Here is a couple from my 50L:)

first pic f/2.2
dog pic f/2.0

[coorz]

EF 50mm f/1.2L @f2.2
http://www.displayfreak.com/5d/IMG_3554.jpg

[nburwell]

chilli - your pug photo is fantastic! I absolutely love those dogs! Great shot!

[Dorman]

Wow, what great seperation of subjects from backgrounds and fantastic colors. Hefty price tag though, if it's your bread and butter lens I can see it'd be worth it.

[Double Negative]

Wow, what great seperation of subjects from backgrounds and fantastic colors. Hefty price tag though, if it's your bread and butter lens I can see it'd be worth it.

The 85mm f/1.2 has a similar surreal effect... It's a little tricky to pull off f/1.2 (or even f/1.4-f/1.6) but when you do, it's really amazing. You have to take into account various factors (sensor size, focal length, distance to subject and subject depth and DoF) and frame the shot correctly... But the result is your subject practically jumping out of the background.

The 50's price will come down eventually after the initial rush. It already has. The 85mm holds onto the price because it really is a niche lens. Your average person won't buy an 85mm - but they will buy a 50mm.

[evan_d]

I was flipping through the lens archive and noticed there wasn't one for this lens. So I figured maybe I'd create a thread. 50L owners go for it.:D

Now your gear list has completely disappeared. :eek:

[inthedeck]

He went back to a 30D...from the latest update...correct?

By the way, to those that posted...very nice shots. Seems to be a nice lens...but, is it better than the f1.4 equivalent?

[coorz]

By the way, to those that posted...very nice shots. Seems to be a nice lens...but, is it better than the f1.4 equivalent?
Same focal length but two totally different lenses, one thing the 1.4 can't touch is the 1.2's bokeh.
I'll be out on a bachelor 'day' tomorrow and take it for a spin again. See if i can pull off some decent f/1.2 shots.

[inthedeck]

^^ Have the issues been mostly resolved with the 50 1.2L? Some seemed to have issues with f1.2, when taking shots...some lenses were front/backfocusing, etc.

[sebmour]

chilli710: How do you get it so sharp? do you always shoot with a tripod? What PP do you use?

[Kevin034]

w/ 1.2, I don't think you need a tri-pod. Atleast I never had the need for one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v322/kevin034/Tulip/IMG_3022.jpg

[mebailey]

Here is one from Christmas at f/1.6.

[S.Horton]

...wow

[Lord_Malone]

Here's a recent shot of my little monkey...

50L @ f/2.5

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/7857/coolhaegan2fh4.jpg

[sanil]

Lord! outrageously btful. infectious smile on the kid's face. great capture.

cheers
sanil

[Lord_Malone]

Experimenting in LR. Trying to invent new presets.

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/5651/cag3541edit2gk7.jpg

[Lord_Malone]

Lord! outrageously btful. infectious smile on the kid's face. great capture.

cheers
sanil

Thanks. ;)

[sanil]

Lord! i am lookin for a low light lens. 35 or 50 L would be nice. What do u suggest. can i go in for 50/1.2. I read your concerns abt this lens earlier. What are the pros and cons. I am still not aware whether canon has solved the issues with this lens reported by many of u some time back.


cheers

sanil

[Lord_Malone]

The bad news is that the subject of backfocusing seems to have just faded into oblivion with no clear definitive answer or solution in sight. Was it ever really an issue? Was is just some strange design flaw? Aperture size, distance to the subject, selected AF points and the type of body used to take sample shots all seemed to have influenced test results in one way or another. For some guys, the backfocus was very obvious. While others, like me and Mike Bailey for example, don't notice it hardly at all during real world shooting. Many of those who claimed to not have an issue at first (like me), only discovered this "focus creep" after running the lens through extensive testing ourselves. However, it is only noticeable in controlled testing (at least mine is), but seems to be spot on when shooting real world subjects. I've taken hundreds of photos with this lens, and I pretty much get the same keeper rate as I do with any other lens I use.

I'm convinced my copy is optically an outstanding copy, and I just let the measurbators get to me. I've taken plenty of great shots with the lens and I'm now keeping it. There might very well be some sort of mysterious phenomenon going on with the lens AF system, but it doesn't happen often enough, nor is it painfully obvious enough for me to be overly concerned about it. The lens focuses, it produces clear results. End of story.

BTW, as far as I know, FM was the only site where this discussion was taking place, and those guys represent only a fraction of a percentage of the overall shooters who use this lens in the real world. Something to keep in mind.

As far as whether or not you should get the 35L or 50L, I would say get whichever focal length you'll be needing the most. Do you want wide or normal (FF)? Or do you want normal or short-tele (1.6x)? It's obvious you want/need a fast prime, so I won't even bother with recommending a mid-range zoom. However, I can't make a recommendation as to which lens I think you should get because I have no idea what you intend to shoot with it. I will say that both lenses are worthy of the L designation, with the 35L now reaching legendary status. The 50L is by no means an optical slouch. It ranks right up there with the Holy Trinity, the only downside being the price. Not very many people would consider spending that kind of money on a 50mm lens when there are less expensive, but slightly slower versions of that lens available at a fraction of the cost. You just have to ask yourself if the advantages of the 50L (build, fast USM, circular aperture, 1.2 max aperture) are worth the extra $1K. Most financially responsible people would reason that it's not. I tend to be a little "abrasive" with my equipment and occaisionally shoot under some pretty tough conditions, so the build and durability was definitely a big selling point for me.

I think you'll be happy with whatever lens you ultimately choose to go with. Good luck. ;)

[Psychic1]

Lord! i am lookin for a low light lens. 35 or 50 L would be nice. What do u suggest. can i go in for 50/1.2. I read your concerns abt this lens earlier. What are the pros and cons. I am still not aware whether canon has solved the issues with this lens reported by many of u some time back

sanil

Sanil:
I owned one of the first 50L-1.2's and I was the first in the US to return the lens, the first to post "there is a reason" on dpreview (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&thread=21163619) and to the best of my knowledge the first to receive a poem from an FMer.

I also noticed the Lord attempting to sell his lens last week(http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=300270)

I'm not going to beat-around-the-Bush, the 50L-1.2 does NOT work reliably below F2.0, Canon has NO hardware or software fix and the secondary market for the 50L-1.2 does not exist.

If you are looking for a crisp, clean reliable and time tested Canon L lens the EF35L-1.4 is a much sounder choice.

[sanil]

thanku Lord and psychic for your thoughts.

sanil

[Double Negative]

Those are awesome shots, Ed! Wow. Cute lil' bugger, too.

I assume LR = LightRoom?

[Lord_Malone]

I also noticed the Lord attempting to sell his lens last week(http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=300270 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/))

Actually, I made it more obvious than that. I actually advertised to sell this lens in the Buy and Sell forum and it was no big secret. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=292697 I'll admit that I'm a little slow on the uptake, but I'm not sure what your point is here. I've always been upfront and honest about my feelings towards the 50L and have never had anything to hide. Good or bad, right or wrong. More importantly I STOPPED PIXEL PEEPING and now I'm happy.

I'm not going to beat-around-the-Bush, the 50L-1.2 does NOT work reliably below F2.0, Canon has NO hardware or software fix and the secondary market for the 50L-1.2 does not exist.

Nor will I. No one wants to pay that ridiculous amount for the lens. Period. No big secret there either. When I had this lens up for sale I had plenty of inquiries, just a bunch of offers that I wasn't willing to take - save one, but the sucker backed out [*ahem* Mark]. People really do want to own this lens, they just don't want to pay for it. Follow me? Hell, I never really truly believed that it was the best photographic investment I've ever made. $1600 can go a long way when considering other gear purchases. Call it a momentary lapse of judgement or buyer's remorse, no one likes to part with that kind of money for something that really shouldn't cost that much. Let's think about all the owners of the 14L or 50 1.0L for a moment. Niche market? Not a huge demand for those is there? ;)

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=308337

If you are looking for a crisp, clean reliable and time tested Canon L lens the EF35L-1.4 is a much sounder choice.

I won't argue with you there. The 35L was one of the best lenses I've ever had the pleasure of owning. But there are also many great examples of what folks are doing with the 50L as well. They're typically buried in mountains of garbage that you have to sift through in order to actually find them. Take the now infamous 50L thread on FM for example. You would literally have to read through hundreds of pages of that thread to see some great examples. This quote was taken directly from that dpreview thread you posted...

right, because the reason i got this lens was to publish stupid test photos 24/7 for pixel peepers to spend hours analyzing and discussion on web forums...

When attempting to scour the internet for samples taken with this lens, you typically find that most photos out there are test shots of books, rulers, batteries, charts, and someone's bottle collection etc.... Surprising?

The measurebators crucified this lens from the outset. Not saying they didn't have a valid reason to do so if they were experiencing problems, but along with Canon's questionable pricing of the lens and flurry of mixed reviews, the success of this lens was doomed from the start. And we all know that no one is going to buy a lens unless there is a nod of approval from the majority of the population. If it's not popular on the internet, it must not be good. Believe it or not, not everyone has had a negative experience with this lens. Those who can afford to plunk down $1600 for a "normal" lens are typically the ones out there shooting and making magic, not spending time over-analysing their lenses on web based discussion forums. :eek:




Those are awesome shots, Ed! Wow. Cute lil' bugger, too.

I assume LR = LightRoom?

Roger that, Mike. ;)

[Lord_Malone]

Great 50L Examples that should be in the archive...

By Anna Yu

http://www.pbase.com/annayu/skansenjan

It is one of the sharpest lens I've used. Would even say on par with the 200/1.8L. My non-scientific testing is that the images do not need to be sharpened in post processing. When I don't goof up with the AF of course.

Thank goodness.

-Anna

[Bubble]

Lord_Malone,

this might be an OT question:Any thought on the 85 f/1.2? i mean do you really need all 3? 35, 50 and 80? (for 5D) Shooting purpose will be for portrait.

[Lord_Malone]

Lord_Malone,

this might be an OT question:Any thought on the 85 f/1.2? i mean do you really need all 3? 35, 50 and 80? (for 5D) Shooting purpose will be for portrait.


I guess that all depends on how you plan to set yourself up. I find that the 35 would be limited for portraits. Not saying it can't be done, but the 50 and 85 are definitely better suited for portraits if you're using a 1.6x crop, or the 85 and 135 for FF. Do you need all three? Probably not. Would it be nice to have all three? Sure it would. A 35 or 50 on a FF body would be nice general purpose walk around lenses for sure. If I were going to only use one lens for studio portaits on a 5D, it would be the 85L.

[Double Negative]

Thanks, Ed. Thought so...

Anna Yu has some of the best pictures around. I just *love* her work. She uses a lot of Canon primes, which my research keeps bringing me back to (searching on pbase, for example). Wonderful stuff.

[chuckandbob]

After recently purchasing an 85mm 1.2L, I'd consider a 50 or 35 now.
Previously, I wouldn't. But the quality, color, and bokeh you get from these lenses are unparalleled.

[bieber]

Out of curiosity, could some people post some more shots taken at f/1.2. I'd be really interested to see how well the lens performs, and what the depth of field is like, wide open...

[Lord_Malone]

Out of curiosity, could some people post some more shots taken at f/1.2. I'd be really interested to see how well the lens performs, and what the depth of field is like, wide open...

Here's one I dug up real quick. f1.2. No PP other than resizing.

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/5915/cag3505editge6.jpg

[JaGWiRE]

This lens has me tempted after my 300 f4..
A good 50 is a must have lens..
Never liked the build or optics on the 50 1.4 all that much..
Always liked red rings and super fast primes.
Hm...

[Lord_Malone]

Here's another one. Again, @ f1.2 and no PP other than resizing. Sharpening in the camera is always set at 0 (zero)...


http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3497/cag3508edit2fr6.jpg

[Lord_Malone]

As you can see, a single pass through USM and it sharpens up really nice...

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3049/cag3508edit2hr0.jpg

http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/1254/cag3505editod2.jpg

[mebailey]

Out of curiosity, could some people post some more shots taken at f/1.2. I'd be really interested to see how well the lens performs, and what the depth of field is like, wide open...

I really rarely shoot at f 1.2 with this lens. I get better results at f/1.6. This is the only real world shot I could find. Iam sorry its another Christmas picture. There is a 50% crop since I really had to crunch this one to get it under 100kb.

I do have some more test shots at f/1.2. I would be happy to post them it you want.

[Lord_Malone]

^ Nice, Mike. ;)

[JaGWiRE]

Lord Malone, along with everyone else, beautiful images.
1.2 seems like it's quite usable (85 1.2 @ 1.2 DOF seems very hard to do any portraits with.)
Out of curiousity, does this lens get a lot of use for you? Big improvement over the 50 1.4 you used to have? Shoot it at 1.2 a lot?

[mebailey]

Lord Malone, along with everyone else, beautiful images.
1.2 seems like it's quite usable (85 1.2 @ 1.2 DOF seems very hard to do any portraits with.)
Out of curiousity, does this lens get a lot of use for you? Big improvement over the 50 1.4 you used to have? Shoot it at 1.2 a lot?

F1.2 is usable on the lens. It is sharper and higher color/contrast than f/1.4 was on the 50 f/1.4 lens. The DOF at f /1.2 on the 50L is not as tricky to use as f/1.2 on the 85L. On the 50L, I find that f1.6 gives even better images without giving up the dreamy bokeh.
I find I like and use the lens alot, despite the known problem with close focusing at fs~ 2-4. This problem rarely affects real world shooting in my experiance.
It is a significant improvement over the 50 f/1.4 below f~2.5. Above that the lenses are difficult to tell apart but some say the 50 f1.4 is a hair better in this range.

[mebailey]

^ Nice, Mike. ;)

Thanks Ed!

Are you teaching the lieutenant to whistle up there?^^

[Lord_Malone]

Lord Malone, along with everyone else, beautiful images.
1.2 seems like it's quite usable (85 1.2 @ 1.2 DOF seems very hard to do any portraits with.)
Out of curiousity, does this lens get a lot of use for you? Big improvement over the 50 1.4 you used to have? Shoot it at 1.2 a lot?

The lens doesn't get as much use as my two work horses (16-35mm and 70-200mm) by any means, but it has seen significantly more field time than any of my previous 50s (50 1.8 MKI, 50 1.8 MKII and 50 1.4). I think it will be an invaluable lens if I ever start doing studio work exclusively. The 50 1.4 was a great lens and my copy was very sharp even wide open. But I always wanted the lens to be more robust and have the same qualities as the 85L. Canon answered the call.

I don't shoot at f1.2 unless I'm deliberately going for that ultra-shallow DOF. There has been several occaisions when I've shot in some really challenging lighting conditions and the max aperture came in really handy. All in all, I've used the lens for what it was intended for and it has performed well under the circumstances. I've pretty much overcome my desire to sell it, and she will always have a permanent place in my stable. ;)

[Lord_Malone]

Thanks Ed!

Are you teaching the lieutenant to whistle up there?^^

She was making "kissy face" when I snapped that. ;)

[JaGWiRE]

The lens doesn't get as much use as my two work horses (16-35mm and 70-200mm) by any means, but it has seen significantly more field time than any of my previous 50s (50 1.8 MKI, 50 1.8 MKII and 50 1.4). I think it will be an invaluable lens if I ever start doing studio work exclusively. The 50 1.4 was a great lens and my copy was very sharp even wide open. But I always wanted the lens to be more robust and have the same qualities as the 85L. Canon answered the call.

I don't shoot at f1.2 unless I'm deliberately going for that ultra-shallow DOF. There has been several occaisions when I've shot in some really challenging lighting conditions and the max aperture really came in really handy. All in all, I've used the lens for what it was intended for and it has performed well under the circumstances. I've pretty much overcome my desire to sell it, and she will always have a permanent place in my stable. ;)
Mebailey, I don't shoot above f/2 or f/2.8 too much with fast primes. That's the fun in primes after all.
Lord Malone, I just realized this lens is weathersealed. Nice. I think this would be a really fun portraiture and walk around lens on both crop and full frame.
I guess focusing speed is about as slow as the 50 1.4 cause of all that glass, but I guess it has ring type.

[mebailey]

I guess focusing speed is about as slow as the 50 1.4 cause of all that glass, but I guess it has ring type.

It is faster than the 50f/1.4, imo, but I never measured it. Its for sure quieter than the 50 1.4!

[Lord_Malone]

Lord Malone, I just realized this lens is weathersealed. Nice. I think this would be a really fun portraiture and walk around lens on both crop and full frame.
I guess focusing speed is about as slow as the 50 1.4 cause of all that glass, but I guess it has ring type.


The weathersealing and build is a definate plus. I needed all my lenses to survive Africa and I had no problem exposing the 50L to the elements, or rough handling it. The USM does have to push a little more weight in glass, but AF is still pretty snappy. Faster than the 85L at least. Besides, it's got full-time manual focus, so I have no problem switching to MF if the AF is not cooperating (rarely) or is hunting in low light.

Now since this is an Archive thread, we need to quit yappin' and post more 50L samples! ;)

[ayotnoms]

A couple of low-light offerings:

http://steve-montoya.smugmug.com/photos/146028157-L.jpg

http://steve-montoya.smugmug.com/photos/146032723-L.jpg

[hjghj]

http://i.pbase.com/o6/73/471273/1/75375231.HAlP3OaJ.IMG_2367.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o6/73/471273/1/75375224.mg7YDkf8.IMG_2352.jpg

http://k53.pbase.com/o6/73/471273/1/75375240.iHZ8zh2a.IMG_2404.jpg

http://i.pbase.com/o6/73/471273/1/75375239.PCp0g5e0.IMG_2400.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o6/73/471273/1/77285099.aJUFBdSu.IMG_3ff494.jpg
all this gallery i shoot with 5D and 50L (from 1.2 to 1.6) http://www.pbase.com/eminilia/masya_birthday

[Adaptive]

Anyone have a 50 f/1.2 or 85 f/1.2 for sale let me know :)

[angryhampster]

Experimenting in LR. Trying to invent new presets.

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/5651/cag3541edit2gk7.jpg


I love this shot, Ed. :lol: How do you like lightroom vs CS2?

[Lord_Malone]

I love this shot, Ed. :lol: How do you like lightroom vs CS2?


I view them both as two different animals with two different purposes. The integration between the two apps is seamless, and I benefit for having both on my machines. Could I get along with one without the other? Sure I could. But LR allows me to focus on just making those critical exposure adjustments, while CS3 allows me to be even more creative and flexible during the final output. I don't at all view these two as conflicting apps, but rather tools with specific purposes, and working towards a mutual goal. At this point I can't imagine using one without the other. ;)

[Adaptive]

Could I get along with one without the other? Sure I could.


Hate to disagree and be picky & technical but Photoshop is more of a necessity than Lightroom, but I know where you were going with this.

For adjusting exposure and colors, LR and Photoshop are identical. But for fine tuning and photo manipulation Photoshop is Gold and Lightroom will get you nowhere.

[Livinthalife]

hjghj:

That shot of the baby and the hand. I don't know if it's a good shot or not, but I keep looking at it and wow the DOF is amazing. I mean the babys arm isn't that long and to have bokeh like that in such a short distance is astounding! I am starting to see the $$ worth in the 1.2!

[Lord_Malone]

Hate to disagree and be picky & technical but Photoshop is more of a necessity than Lightroom, but I know where you were going with this.

For adjusting exposure and colors, LR and Photoshop are identical. But for fine tuning and photo manipulation Photoshop is Gold and Lightroom will get you nowhere.

LR was never meant to be a replacement for Photoshop. It's an app. built from the ground up to specifically address the issue of having a streamlined workflow under one banner. OTH, Photoshop is very specific in its purpose, whereas LR serves as a image database management system, a RAW converter capable of high quality image processing, and a one-stop-shop for exporting your images for further tweaking in Photoshop, slideshow, web gallery or print. The processing engine that drives the image processing in photoshop is the same that drives LR. Photoshop has to be more powerful in that regard because that is what it was designed to do. One could argue that either app. is more important than the other, but it would be a pointless argument. It all very much depends on what you plan to do with your work. I would say a vast majority of the users on this forum would never use 90% of the tools available in a program as powerful as Photoshop (keeping in mind that it's a tool for graphic artists, web designers, etc. as well). But I can almost guarantee that most photograhers will make maximum use of LR. ;)

[JaGWiRE]

I love this shot, Ed. :lol: How do you like lightroom vs CS2?

Gotta admit, that's a pimpin gangster shot right there. Love the vignett and overall contrast of colors :D.
As a photographer, whom does not want to take the time out for 99.99999998% of photos to even consider going into photoshop to do super critical editing work (which I'm not a huge fan of), lightroom does everything I need to do in my workflow, except sharpen.

[Lord_Malone]

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4674/cag3599edit1qy4.jpg

[cjm]

Craziness Ed. Look at that bokeh, front and back. Nice examples.

[Lord_Malone]

Craziness Ed. Look at that bokeh, front and back. Nice examples.

Aye. Now ye know why I changed me mind 'bout sellin' 'er. ;)

[JaGWiRE]

Aye. Now ye know why I changed me mind 'bout sellin' 'er. ;)
This lens is getting a lot of hate, but this thread has a lot of amazing photos.
So I can come to the conclusion:
Either the lens sucks and these guys (especially you Malone, with all the photos in this thread :D), are amazing photographers who can rescue sharpness and all that decent stuff in post, while creating a compelling composition.
Or
This lens is not as bad as it's made out to be by some, and it's a fine piece of glass. With the combination of the great photographers on POTN, it can create stunning images (like any glass of course), except with amazing DOF and bokeh.
How far does it focus till it hits infinity (asking for bokeh.) My 30 1.4 for example is only good for like 2m, which can limit it's uses a lot of the time.

[Lord_Malone]

This lens is getting a lot of hate, but this thread has a lot of amazing photos.
So I can come to the conclusion:
Either the lens sucks and these guys (especially you Malone, with all the photos in this thread :D), are amazing photographers who can rescue sharpness and all that decent stuff in post, while creating a compelling composition.
Or
This lens is not as bad as it's made out to be by some, and it's a fine piece of glass. With the combination of the great photographers on POTN, it can create stunning images (like any glass of course), except with amazing DOF and bokeh.
How far does it focus till it hits infinity (asking for bokeh.) My 30 1.4 for example is only good for like 2m, which can limit it's uses a lot of the time.

I would wager it's the latter. ;)

As far as your question goes, I haven't tested those parameters, but will be willing to give it go and let you know.

[JaGWiRE]

I would wager it's the latter. ;)

As far as your question goes, I haven't tested those parameters, but will be willing to give it go and let you know.
Sure. Just let me know what the distance scale says is the last number before infinity, that should be the last point where you can get kickin bokeh.
Very intriuged by this lens.. hmm..
LOL.

[fi20100]

From all the shots I've seen from this lens, my conclusion follows: it's a ****ty lens to shoot rulers and boxes, and a super lens for people and low light :)

[Psychic1]

Manual Focus on the 50L-1.2 has always been fine, and if you shoot rulers and boxes or have time to have your subject say "cheese" it's the lens for you, BUT, IF you want to shoot lowlight candids at a party with AF assist the 35L and 85L are the ones you should own.

Funny, the DOF on my 35L-1.4 and 50-1.4 is shallower that the sharp shots that were posted here recently.

Maybe I should change my name to *Lucky*

[Lord_Malone]

From all the shots I've seen from this lens, my conclusion follows: it's a ****ty lens to shoot rulers and boxes, and a super lens for people and low light :)

Absolutely. ;)

I'll dig up some more and post them up for the archives.

[Lord_Malone]

Nice examples of the 50L on the pixel peepers web site.

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=729

[tmr]

For the record, here is a test shot complilation of the problem folks have been talking about.

http://www.pbase.com/tmr4/image/77523723/large.jpg

Here is a link to three composit shots at 2, 4 and 6 feet.

http://www.pbase.com/tmr4/distance_test

These show that the backfocus shift is worse close in and at around f/2 to f/2.8. At 2 feet the backfocus shift begins to be compensated for the increasing DOF by f/4 but probably still needs at least f/5.6 to have much DOF in front of the focal plane. Not shown at te link is my test at around 3 feet where the problem is the worse. The backfocus shift is still present at 4 feet though not as evident as closer in. By six feet the backfocus shift has been largely offset by the larger DOF.

As others have said, I think the problem is most noticable in controlled testing, but I have encountered it in real-life enough that I avoid f/2 -2.8 when shooting close in. Luckily I bought the lens to shoot wide open in lower light and I've been happy with it there. Here are a couple of shots in the woods that f/1.2 helped get though this particular spot was a bit on the brighter side (these are at @ ISO 100 and I could have bumped up the ISO for this particular series but for some reason didn't).

@ 1/320
http://www.pbase.com/tmr4/image/77957284/large.jpg

@ 1/500
http://www.pbase.com/tmr4/image/77958338/large.jpg

All in all this lens is a keeper, but it is a bit frustrating to have even a small issue with such an expensive lens.

[JaGWiRE]

You didn't bump up the ISO, because in most daylight, shooting @ f1.2 means 1/8000.

[tmr]

You didn't bump up the ISO, because in most daylight, shooting @ f1.2 means 1/8000.

That's right. I now remember starting out the hike in the sun and wishing I could go to a lower ISO.

[Lord_Malone]

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/8639/cag3961editcopy1kx0.jpg

[angryhampster]

Nice catch on the composition..I like the bench leading up to your son :)

[Lord_Malone]

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/9351/cag3757edit1fp8.jpg

[Lord_Malone]

http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/336/cag0271edit1os5.jpg

[Lord_Malone]

^ Wow. My shots look really oversaturated on my non-calibrated office monitor. :(

[jdos2]

I got the lens that I could do my favorite photography- a la Noctilux, night shots in restaurants of friends, family, &c.

My lens has the far focusing problem, or at least it had it- where I'd focus quickly on the corner of someone's glasses to get the eye behind in focus. It was fairly reliable.

I retested last night, though, because more of my shots are out of focus, and now the lens doesn't seem to be misbehaving.

The only trouble I've had with it is that the focus can be best described as "inconsistent." It's a good lens otherwise.

[Lord_Malone]

I got the lens that I could do my favorite photography- a la Noctilux, night shots in restaurants of friends, family, &c.

My lens has the far focusing problem, or at least it had it- where I'd focus quickly on the corner of someone's glasses to get the eye behind in focus. It was fairly reliable.

I retested last night, though, because more of my shots are out of focus, and now the lens doesn't seem to be misbehaving.

The only trouble I've had with it is that the focus can be best described as "inconsistent." It's a good lens otherwise.

Agreed. "Inconsistent" focusing is how I'd best describe it as well. Had some issues with it this weekend. It missed focus on a couple of shots of my son, while shooting outdoors. My keeper rate is still pretty good though. I'll continue to stand by this lens since it is optically equal to those in the trinity IMO. I just hope Canon comes out with a firmware fix soon, which seems to be the case since it's more apparent when using bodies like the 5D.

[yonni]

Thanks Lord for the fine examples of what the 1.2 can do. Your talent shines.

Imageshack is very slow at downloading your pics though. My 1.5 dsl feels like dial up when grabbing your shots. Maybe their server is having a tough time today.

[jdos2]

I'm just shooting things around the cube here (the 50 f/1.2 is one of my "carry around on the 5D" lenses). There are certain subjects that are very reliably sharp. There are certain subjects that are always out of focus that I have to pull my head back about an inch. There are some that are indeterminate, and I get to watch the AF pull and push. Not hunt, but change each time it locks focus.

Strange.

[Double Negative]

You just keep coming up with hits, Ed. Nicely done. (They look fine on a calibrated monitor, FYI)

[MDJAK]

Inconsistent focusing -- and he expected me to fork over my tack sharp @wide open 100-400 in even exchange?

What are you smoking, Lord?

Use my name again like that and I'll definitely open up a Can of Whoop Arse on ya, you wimp.:p ;) :D

[angryhampster]

Thanks Lord for the fine examples of what the 1.2 can do. Your talent shines.

Imageshack is very slow at downloading your pics though. My 1.5 dsl feels like dial up when grabbing your shots. Maybe their server is having a tough time today.



Yea Imageshack slows down quite a bit sometimes. They're fine now.

[Lord_Malone]

Imageshack is very slow at downloading your pics though. My 1.5 dsl feels like dial up when grabbing your shots. Maybe their server is having a tough time today.

Yeah, imageshack is a PITA sometimes. Once in a while I'll have trouble loading images. Server overload I guess.

I'm just shooting things around the cube here (the 50 f/1.2 is one of my "carry around on the 5D" lenses). There are certain subjects that are very reliably sharp. There are certain subjects that are always out of focus that I have to pull my head back about an inch. There are some that are indeterminate, and I get to watch the AF pull and push. Not hunt, but change each time it locks focus.

Strange.

Yeah, I noticed that quite a bit myself. More so than I have previously. Like I said, I suspect that it'll all boil down to a firmware fix. No amount of calibration will do a lick of good as already proven in the past. If it's something firmware can't fix, then I expect Canon to announce a full recall of the lens. Either way they're aware of the issue. And I suspect they'll pay close attention to it since the lens is not selling as much as initially projected.

You just keep coming up with hits, Ed. Nicely done. (They look fine on a calibrated monitor, FYI)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, Mike. ;)

Inconsistent focusing -- and he expected me to fork over my tack sharp @wide open 100-400 in even exchange?

What are you smoking, Lord?

Use my name again like that and I'll definitely open up a Can of Whoop Arse on ya, you wimp.:p ;) :D

One more outburst like that, Mark, and I'll have to whoop you good. Of course I'd sell you my inconsistent focusing lens. "Don't ask, don't tell" doesn't just apply to Army policy you know. ;)

In all seriousness, I thought you were tracking the threads where I already acknowledged the focusing issue. Either way, you're a rich bastard so stop yer whinin'!

[Lord_Malone]

Last one of my son. I promise.

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/7149/cag4196editbv1.jpg

[AdamJL]

^ Wow. My shots look really oversaturated on my non-calibrated office monitor. :(

They look oversaturated on my calibrated monitor btw.

Except for the one above me.. that's a peach

[jdos2]

I put this one in the bokeh thread, but it does apply here.

Notice the veil: it's very fine- rather more so than the 50 f/1.4, which under certain conditions can be rather thick.

Nailed focus on the first try, by the way. :-)

[tmr]

Nailed focus on the first try, by the way. :-)

I have a hard time with shots like that. What is the EXIF?

[sootyvrs]

Some of the shots are fantastic but I assume most of the pics here are using a 5D?

Anyone using this lens on a x1.6 body?

I have no immediate plans to go FF and I'm really considering a lens like this but just wondered how the similar FOV 5D/85L would compare to a 30D/50L combo.

I have seen many 5D/85L shots and they have a magical quality that I have just not seen matched with any combination re. creamy bokeh, colour, contrast, sharpness wide open etc..

[Lord_Malone]

Some of the shots are fantastic but I assume most of the pics here are using a 5D?

Anyone using this lens on a x1.6 body?

I have no immediate plans to go FF and I'm really considering a lens like this but just wondered how the similar FOV 5D/85L would compare to a 30D/50L combo.

I have seen many 5D/85L shots and they have a magical quality that I have just not seen matched with any combination re. creamy bokeh, colour, contrast, sharpness wide open etc..

I'm using it with the 1D2N, which gives me an odd (65mm) FOV that's great for portraits. FWIW, I used to own the 5D and 85L, and it was indeed a great combo.

[tmr]

Anyone using this lens on a x1.6 body?

I use the lens with the XTi. I posted a few samples earlier in the thread.

For head and shoulder shots with this lens you may need to alter you focus technique by focusing on the nose instead of the eye. Problem is I keep forgetting. Last night I had to take a H&S shot of my wife for a magazine spot (she won a cake making contest and they needed one to go along with the cake shot). I gave the 50L a try even though I knew I'd be close to the problem area (I was shooting at about 4 feet at f/4). Since I used a few different lenses I forgot to adjust with the 50L and I ended up not being able to use any of 50L shots. My wife's eye was at the front of the DOF and everything forward of that was OOF. I ended up using my 17-55 IS shots.

This evening I took some sample shots recreating those from last night. Indead focusing the tip of the nose with the 50L at this distance was the correct adjustment. Too bad I had to get the H&S shot out last night since the 50L had the better color.

At least now I'm learning the ins and outs of this lens. As I've mentioned I use the lens a lot and except for this issue like it a lot.

[Lord_Malone]

http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/4792/cag4634xk9.jpg

[PetKal]

Great, that's macro-sharp, Lordy.;)

[tmr]

Yes, very sharp at f/2.8 and fairly close in. I thought your lens had the focus shift issue. Did you adjust your technique to get this shot?

[fi20100]

Lord, that avatar need to be censored.

[Chandler.]

Last one of my son. I promise.

http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/4792/cag4634xk9.jpg

And we now can see that you are a man of your word. ;)

[PetKal]

Inconsistent focusing -- and he expected me to fork over my tack sharp @wide open 100-400 in even exchange?

What are you smoking, Lord?

Use my name again like that and I'll definitely open up a Can of Whoop Arse on ya, you wimp.:p ;) :D


Well said the way it is, bruder Mark.;)
BTW, that new avatar of yours.....might that be a casual sorta scene from your... (ahem) health club ?:rolleyes:

[Lord_Malone]

Great, that's macro-sharp, Lordy.;)

Macro? I'm already in trouble as it is. Don't get me thinking in that direction again. ;)

Yes, very sharp at f/2.8 and fairly close in. I thought your lens had the focus shift issue. Did you adjust your technique to get this shot?

It's a hit or miss with mine. Sometimes it's spot on, other times it may be off. I used a less narrow aperture for this shot and focused on the center of the face. Believe it or not, that was a crop of the original image.

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/4708/cag4634uncroppedbe1.jpg

As far as technique goes I have been doing a lot of manual focusing for the close-in shots lately.

Lord, that avatar need to be censored.

Done!

And we now can see that you are a man of your word. ;)

All I have in this world are my balls and my word. -Tony Montana

Neither one of which really amount to anything. :(

[tmr]

It's a hit or miss with mine. Sometimes it's spot on, other times it may be off. I used a less narrow aperture for this shot and focused on the center of the face. Believe it or not, that was a crop of the original image.

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/4708/cag4634uncroppedbe1.jpg



Well that explains it. That's about six or seven feet (maybe a bit more), right. The lens is better at distance.

By the way if you haven't seen over in FM, Chuck Westfall has sent out a reply on several folks enquiry about the 50L. Here it is, not much, but I'm encouraged even to get a reply! I wasn't expecting one.

"Canon Inc. is definitely aware of the claims concerning the AF accuracy of the EF50/1.2L USM. They've been investigating for the past couple of months, and I am told that there will be some kind of public announcement forthcoming in the near future. Stay tuned, and thanks for using Canon equipment!"

[tmr]

And we now can see that you are a man of your word. ;)

Well he is pretty much the only one posting samples. I'd post some more but I can't find any that come close to his so I say the more the merrier.

[MDJAK]

Well said the way it is, bruder Mark.;)
BTW, that new avatar of yours.....might that be a casual sorta scene from your... (ahem) health club ?:rolleyes:

Thanks, Peter.

Yeah, the avatar is me in all my glory, taking on all comers, no pun intended.:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[MDJAK]

One more outburst like that, Mark, and I'll have to whoop you good.

I'm shivering in my boots. :p


In all seriousness, I thought you were tracking the threads where I already acknowledged the focusing issue. Either way, you're a rich bastard so stop yer whinin'!

I don't track threads. You give me too much credit. I forgot what I read five minutes ago.

Bastard, yes; rich, unfortunately not.

me :lol:

[Lord_Malone]

Well that explains it. That's about six or seven feet (maybe a bit more), right. The lens is better at distance.

By the way if you haven't seen over in FM, Chuck Westfall has sent out a reply on several folks enquiry about the 50L. Here it is, not much, but I'm encouraged even to get a reply! I wasn't expecting one.

"Canon Inc. is definitely aware of the claims concerning the AF accuracy of the EF50/1.2L USM. They've been investigating for the past couple of months, and I am told that there will be some kind of public announcement forthcoming in the near future. Stay tuned, and thanks for using Canon equipment!"

Thanks for the update. ;)

Here's a 100% crop @ f/3.2 from a distance within 3 feet. Straight RAW to jpeg conversion with absolutely no (zero) sharpness applied in the camera nor in post processing. All I did was decrease the exposure a little...

50 f1.2L, Av, f/3.2, 1/100 sec, ISO 400
http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2640/cag4892editrp6.jpg

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/959/cag4892edit2ks1.jpg

[Lord_Malone]

Again, here are some shots all within the reported problem distance and aperture range.

Av, f/2.8, 1/125 sec, ISO 250 Auto Focus is on his left eye (our right) eye...
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/4586/cag4863cropzv9.jpg

http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/7672/cag4863edityo5.jpg



Same EXIF, Auto Focus is on his right (our left) eye...
http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/163/cag4866cropeq8.jpg

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/6818/cag4866editof3.jpg

I stand by my claim that my focus is spot on more often than not, as this is what I typically see. But there have been times when it has misfocused and it was obvious.

[MDJAK]

Those look pretty darn good to me.

[MDJAK]

That is a cute kid. Who's the father? :)

[Lord_Malone]

That is a cute kid. Who's the father? :)

I'm not sure, but I'm sure he's a very proud father. ;)

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/1910/cag4861editye7.jpg

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/3088/cag4908edit1kd2.jpg

[Pasukun]

I just wanted to add this link here.
It has some good sample pics.

http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=user_review&no=22259

He shot all the sample images with 1Ds MKII @ f/1.2.
The camera was set to Standard mode +3 Sharpen, 0 contrast and 0 Saturation.
And it was shot as Jpeg.
He did however mentioned that he did used a level, but very lightly.

I was very amazed of the quality it delivers..
The color is so clear and neutral.. yet the contrast is very powerful.
Feels lot like a Zeiss lens..
I am stunned..

[kster]

I just wanted to add this link here.
It has some good sample pics.

http://www.slrclub.com/bbs/vx2.php?id=user_review&no=22259



I don't see any pictures on that link, just a window that says "Move Back".

[Pasukun]

I don't see any pictures on that link, just a window that says "Move Back".

ahh~~~
Dang.. this review is member only doh!
That is very unusual.. I used to be able to view it even I didn't sign on..

[tkjaer]

Here's one at f1.6;

http://thomaskjaer.com/potn/lenses/50_1.2.jpg

[Bubble]

i'm wonder if any one has both 50 f/1.2 and 85 f/1.2 at the same time? FF body.

[StaticThought]

Great Images Guys, Ed. You little man is an UberDude for sure :D

[weka2000]

I am so tempted to buy one :lol:

[Lord_Malone]

Great Images Guys, Ed. You little man is an UberDude for sure :D

Thanks! I tell him he's an Uber Dude at least once a day! ;)

I am so tempted to buy one :lol:

Welcome to the club!

[weka2000]

tempation over.... why fight I say :lol:

[Lord_Malone]

tempation over.... why fight I say

Well, since it's been a while since I've submitted an image to the 50L archive, I guess I'll honor you getting yours by adding a previously posted shot of my mom and yet another shot of the little monkey. ;)

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/846/cag4963editus3.jpg

http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/6871/haegansurpriseas1ye5.jpg

[OtieM]

Ed,
Great shots. Cool kid. With two of my own, that lens may answer the research addiction I've been on for months.

Needing an indoor, low light lens, I'm not finding ANY zooms adequate.

Perhaps ignorant question, but, how well lit is the environment in these shots? Any flash? On any of them?

[Lord_Malone]

Ed,
Great shots. Cool kid. With two of my own, that lens may answer the research addiction I've been on for months.

Needing an indoor, low light lens, I'm not finding ANY zooms adequate.

Perhaps ignorant question, but, how well lit is the environment in these shots? Any flash? On any of them?

All these shots were taken under adequate lighting conditions and I didn't have to use a flash. Here's one taken under more challenging circumstances using the 580ex mit Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer...

http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/9001/cag5194resized1ky7.jpg

[sootyvrs]

5D 50L @ f1.2 Raw converted with in camera settings only
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/Focus%20check/50L-7.jpg

50% crop
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/Focus%20check/50L-50-7.jpg

100% crop
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/Focus%20check/50L-100-7.jpg

[sootyvrs]

Another shot @ f1.2
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/Focus%20check/50Lvs50-14-4.jpg

This one @ f2.8 focused on left eye as you see it (the famed back focus aperture and distance)
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/Focus%20check/50L-28-2.jpg

100% crop
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/Focus%20check/50L-28-100-2.jpg

[incendy]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1023/1087003993_42224906d4_o.jpg

[Lord_Malone]

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1023/1087003993_42224906d4_o.jpg

Now THAT's photography. Outstanding.

[mebailey]

Now THAT's photography. Outstanding.

I agree!!

[sootyvrs]

Awesome shot Incendy. Did you use an off camera flash in that shot or just natural light? I can't quite work out the light source

[incendy]

awwww.. thanks guys! You have to get lucky every once in awhile=D The light source is a strobe with softbox on camera right.. doing an experiment with broad lighting the other day

[angryhampster]

awwww.. thanks guys! You have to get lucky every once in awhile=D The light source is a strobe with softbox on camera right.. doing an experiment with broad lighting the other day



Evidently your experiment went well :)

Gorgeous photograph.

[OtieM]

awwww.. thanks guys! You have to get lucky every once in awhile=D The light source is a strobe with softbox on camera right.. doing an experiment with broad lighting the other day

Agree with all, great shot. Can you elaborate on your "softbox on camera" specifically? Thanks.

[incendy]

Agree with all, great shot. Can you elaborate on your "softbox on camera" specifically? Thanks.

you can pretty much tell by looking at the dress the angle it was at!! Pretty much just slightly to the right of the direction the dress is facing. I would say it was about 8ft away from her and it was metered to be 1 stop brighter than the sky but not sure how that worked out:) I still trying to figure out this lighting business

[Lord_Malone]

you can pretty much tell by looking at the dress the angle it was at!! Pretty much just slightly to the right of the direction the dress is facing. I would say it was about 8ft away from her and it was metered to be 1 stop brighter than the sky but not sure how that worked out:) I still trying to figure out this lighting business


When you woke up this morning you had no idea that you would post an image that would change people's lives forever.

[fi20100]

awwww.. thanks guys! You have to get lucky every once in awhile=D The light source is a strobe with softbox on camera right.. doing an experiment with broad lighting the other day

Jesse, you seem to get lucky a lot of the time then ;) But I think there is more than luck to it! Amazing shots... and so are the ones in the 135L thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=105818&page=15)!:)

[Borderfox]

Beautiful shot Incendy

[rattymouse]

Agree with all, great shot. Can you elaborate on your "softbox on camera" specifically? Thanks.

Yes! Please elaborate as I want to learn from this incredible photograph. Is a strobe the same thing as an on camera flash? Does softbox imply a diffuser or is it something different? Is the strobe mounted on the camera or a bracket?

I just love this photograph.

[Scunner]

Last one of my son. I promise.

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/7149/cag4196editbv1.jpg

You're a blessed man, Ed. Beautiful family, and stunning shots.

[Lord_Malone]

You're a blessed man, Ed. Beautiful family, and stunning shots.

Thanks, brother. ;)

[incendy]

Yes! Please elaborate as I want to learn from this incredible photograph. Is a strobe the same thing as an on camera flash? Does softbox imply a diffuser or is it something different? Is the strobe mounted on the camera or a bracket?

I just love this photograph.

Thank you guys! It is basically an off shoe flash. In this photo it is pretty far to the right of the camera about 8ft to the right of the camera and about 8ft I would say from the subject.

There is a great lighting forum here at POTN that I highly recomend. Everything I know about lighting I learned from the forum here.

[OtieM]

Thank you guys! It is basically an off shoe flash. In this photo it is pretty far to the right of the camera about 8ft to the right of the camera and about 8ft I would say from the subject.

How did the camera and flash communicate over this 8ft distance? Transmitter? Cord?

Thanks.

[Steiglitz]

Ok, here's one with this EXIF: Notice the mixed lighting....sun light in the background (blue), incedesent (yellow) on the subjects...5D AWB rocks!

File: _MG_6054.jpg
File size: 58KB
Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D
Owner: Alfred Steiglitz
Date/Time: 2007:08:05 19:54:32
Shutter speed: 1/30 sec
Aperture: 2.5
Exposure mode: Av
Flash: Off
Metering mode: Multi-segment
ISO: 400
Focal length: 50mm
Image size: 599 x 406
Rotation: none
Color profile: IEC 61966-2.1 Default RGB colour space - sRGB

[Steiglitz]

You're a blessed man, Ed. Beautiful family, and stunning shots.

Lordie, how did an ugly dude like you get such a beautiful son?!? :D

Great picture!

[Lord_Malone]

^ I think that's the first time I've seen you post an image on the forum, Pavel. Good looking girls you have there. ;)

[mebailey]

Ed,
Dont stop. These shots are fantastic. You do the 50L proud!!

Last one of my son. I promise.

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/7149/cag4196editbv1.jpg

[Steiglitz]

One more:

File: _MG_2757.jpg
File size: 1,510KB
Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D
Owner: Alfred Steiglitz
Date/Time: 2007:06:01 19:37:50
Shutter speed: 1/30 sec
Aperture: 8
Exposure mode: Av
Flash: On
Metering mode: Multi-segment
ISO: 640
Focal length: 50mm
Image size: 1190 x 800
Rotation: none
Color profile: IEC 61966-2.1 Default RGB colour space - sRGB

[Lord_Malone]

Ed,
Dont stop. These shots are fantastic. You do the 50L proud!!

Thanks, Mike! And I will say that you do the same with the shots of that beautiful kid of yours. ;)

[Steiglitz]

Thanks, Mike! And I will say that you do the same with the shots of that beautiful kid of yours. ;)


Lordie, and you have a beautiful wife too! You're a rich man. :)

[Lord_Malone]

Lordie, and you have a beautiful wife too! You're a rich man. :)

Thanks, Pavel! And I didn't even have to pay her that much to pretend to fall in love with me!

[Lord_Malone]

Lordie, how did an ugly dude like you get such a beautiful son?!? :D

Great picture!

It's quite simple actually. I went shopping at the sperm bank and they had a Labor Day Weekend sale going in the Good Looking Genes department. Half off!

I put it on layaway. ;)

[I Simonius]

Here's a recent shot of my little monkey...

50L @ f/2.5

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/7857/coolhaegan2fh4.jpg

quality!:D

[I Simonius]

It's a hit or miss with mine. Sometimes it's spot on, other times it may be off. I used a less narrow aperture for this shot and focused on the center of the face. Believe it or not, that was a crop of the original image.



how fast is the AF cpompared to the 85Lmk2?

[mebailey]

how fast is the AF cpompared to the 85Lmk2?

I dont know about the mk2 but its significantly faster than the 85mk1!

[norm15]

i kinda like these pictures still a rookie and want to learn more...
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/mron15/smaller%20pixels/IMG_1697-1.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/mron15/smaller%20pixels/IMG_1682-1.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/mron15/smaller%20pixels/IMG_1323-1.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a129/mron15/smaller%20pixels/IMG_2590.jpg

[sabesh]

norm15:

Pics #1 and #3 are great! Very nice mood pics.

Thanks for sharing,

Sabesh.

[silvex]

5D 50L @ f1.2 Raw converted with in camera settings only


50% crop


100% crop
http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j272/sootyvrs/Focus%20check/50L-100-7.jpg

So its true. It does suffer from CA . Can this be fix by canon on the lens itself. I know it can be dealt with using PP, but you paid $$$$ for this?. Now I see why some prefer the f1.4 (lilttle CA) or even the 1.8 (No CA). Still nice contrast.

[silvex]

Experimenting in LR. Trying to invent new presets.

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/5651/cag3541edit2gk7.jpg

awsome kid and photo...!

Malone the movie on theaters Dec 1...;)

[angryhampster]

Hey Ed do you sharpen your photos in LR or photoshop? It always seems just right. Love the shots.