EF 50mm f1.0 L USM

[ebann]

Anyone has USD $4,750 lying around? One rare bird waiting to be snatched...

http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=10220

[fWord]

My goodness. It'll be great for bragging rights. Wonder what I could do with US$4750 to spare.

[Big Hands]

I would have thought the price of these would ease off since the release of the 50 f/1.2L.

But then again it hasn't sold yet...

[angryhampster]

THat thing must be massive...Hard to tell from the picture.

[_aravena]

Wasn't there a thread with an article about it? Or Perhaps someone was selling one, i can't recall.

I just remember asking why the heck would someone buy it.

[peatoire]

Purely for the magpie's that collect pretty things. I hear is very disappointing optically.

[Pete-eos]

That would look immense strapped onto my 350D :lol:

[_aravena]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=153&sort=7&cat=all&page=6

According to that, average price is half of that. Definitely a collectors item. Here's a size comparison.

http://www.shutterbug.com/images/archivesart/0402canon62i2.jpg

[coorz]

This is the 85L's real little brother :)
There was one for sale here a couple of weeks ago on the Dutch ebay spinoff, it went very quick, never saw the bids!

[sootyvrs]

Review of this rare beast here comparing to nifty and the f1.4

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/index.htm

[BearSummer]

Nice to have tho :)

Bearsummer

[jdos2]

I'd rather have the Noctilux, but I'd still need *ANOTHER* $3,000 for which to spend for an M8.

[Miyagi-san]

good lord.....my car only cost $4200!

[bestfromnw]

i've seen one on craigslist a while ago somewhere in $1700 area

[Psychic1]

good lord.....my car only cost $4200!


In 1974 :D Porsche914 2.0 with factory air and appearance group. Still have it, restoring it next year with my son when he graduated college.

[Vinni]

And here I thought f/1.8 was fast!

[BLEITH1965]

Here's one for sale on EBAY now http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=019&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=290112113175&rd==

[angryhampster]

Review of this rare beast here comparing to nifty and the f1.4

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/index.htm



Neat comparo..really goes to show just how great the 1.8 is for the price..if you can get past the lego build.

[Costa Del Canon]

Oh! Wow........i really must start buying lottery tickets!:rolleyes:
Anyone has USD $4,750 lying around? One rare bird waiting to be snatched...

http://www.samys.com/product_detail.php?item=10220

[BearSummer]

It's really strange to see the Fstops sliding down below 1.8 and then under 1.4.....

Cool

BearSummer

[jdos2]

And if you've a 7s, it's fun to go even below f/1...

[bphillips330]

OK, I would call my self an advanced Amateur. Somebody please tell me what you would need such a wide open lens. I mean f1.0. Ok, I know I am going to get reamed by asking that.
I understand that at that fstop you could take pictures in VERY low lit areas. But, again this is where i am still a little fuzzy, wouldn't the depth of field be EXTREMELY small. I know that depends on distance, but i would figure with a 50 MM being a Normal lens with no zoom on it. You would have to be relatively close taking say a portrait.

where I get lost is say that on my 2.8 I know it is small depth of field, again depending on how close I am to subject, but would Dof change if i was taking this picture in bright sun, or a darker basement. Subject being the same. Since the amount of light Theoretically is going to be the same, the light would get to the sensor quicker per say. 1/4000 of a sec vs 1/10 of a second. Does the shutter speed affect depth of field? I know that is a big No, just curious.

[scot079]

OK, I would call my self an advanced Amateur. Somebody please tell me what you would need such a wide open lens. I mean f1.0. Ok, I know I am going to get reamed by asking that.
I understand that at that fstop you could take pictures in VERY low lit areas. But, again this is where i am still a little fuzzy, wouldn't the depth of field be EXTREMELY small. I know that depends on distance, but i would figure with a 50 MM being a Normal lens with no zoom on it. You would have to be relatively close taking say a portrait.

where I get lost is say that on my 2.8 I know it is small depth of field, again depending on how close I am to subject, but would Dof change if i was taking this picture in bright sun, or a darker basement. Subject being the same. Since the amount of light Theoretically is going to be the same, the light would get to the sensor quicker per say. 1/4000 of a sec vs 1/10 of a second. Does the shutter speed affect depth of field? I know that is a big No, just curious.

I just got the 1.2L and I love it. DOF isn't that extreme if you're careful. And you can't beat the low light benefits. A fast lens is worth it if you hate carrying a tripod. This is just a recent snapshot @ f/1.2

http://buzznet-20.vo.llnwd.net/assets/users16/scot079/default/crazyDOF-small--large-msg-117942938058.jpg

[jdos2]

The shallow DoF is only a restriction very close with an f/1 lens- at portrait distances, faces are in focus.
The lens I alluded to (the Canon f/.95) is "sharp enough" wide open, especially with combined with Tri-X pushed to extreme speeds (Diafine, anyone?) where sharpness isn't as important as simply getting the image.
They are also typically quite "picturesque" in their drawing, with the out-of-focus areas having great amounts of character (whether good or bad- the Leica f/1 lens, the Noctilux, is not known as the "Naseulux"-or "Noctilicious!" for nothing!).

Sharp ain't everything.

[kobe629]

I bought one used on an impulse buy for $2,000 never really used it or taking it out on the field. To me it wasn't really sharp it was slow but it has nice bokeh. I tried selling it here on POTN but no takers and sold it on craiglist for the same amount. I preferred my 85L MKII when I had it which is a much better lens or the 50 f/1.2 which are both faster in AF and better bokeh IMHO.. They have the 50 f/1.0 on demo at samys in LA if anyone is interested in testing it before they buy it..If anyone goes there ask for Jesus he is the assistant manager there who is a really a nice guy and you can bargain with him..Tell him Jet sent you I have spent thousands at that store..I am not affiliated with the store just really happy with the service compared to the other stores I have been too in southern California.

[TheGreatDivorce]

The f/1.0L is such a waste of money, if you're looking for a useful, optically excellent lens. If all you're looking for is bragging rights, and you don't care about an extreme lack of sharpness, then go for it :)

[Bill Roberts]

I've never heard anyone enthuse about this lens. Certainly it's fast, with all the advantages and disadvantages that this brings. I'm sure that in the right hands that it can produce some stunning images and sharpness isn't the only thing to look for. But it's so rare nowadays that it's really become pretty much a collectors item. Is there anyone out there actually using one?

[cjm]

I would rather have the $1500 one that is f1.2. No way for this used monkey would i buy a lens for that kind of money that has a much more updated version, better optically equal for more then $3000 less. 50mm f1.2 L all the way, the f1.0 is a waste of money and if broken can not be repaired by Canon, mainly because they have no replacements to give out should they do something wrong.

And if I was to take a 50mm f1.2 L, I would want Ed Malones. His is a beauty.

[voka_gsw]

Is there anyone out there actually using one?

You can find tons of images from users on pbase or flickr.. They look better than anything I've seen from the new focus shifter, but that could be due to photographer..

[tmr]

You can find tons of images from users on pbase or flickr.. They look better than anything I've seen from the new focus shifter, but that could be due to photographer..

Some very nice shots on pBase but it seems as if only one person has the lens!

[Lord_Malone]

And if I was to take a 50mm f1.2 L, I would want Ed Malones. His is a beauty.

I'm really one of the few fans of the new 50L. Most people will argue that it's still a waste of money when the f1.4 and f1.8 lenses are optically capable in their own right. Even if this lens didn't have problems with consistent focusing, there wouldn't be a shortage of folks out there trying to find a reason to dislike it.

[cjm]

LOL you sold it to buy a Nikon huh Ed?

Actually I am with you on the 50mm f1.2 L, although never used it, the f1.4 and f1.8 sucked for me. I cant ever see myself buying one of those again but I would maybe consider the 50mm f1.2 L when I buy a 1D series.

[ebann]

LOL you sold it to buy a Nikon huh Ed?

Actually I am with you on the 50mm f1.2 L, although never used it, the f1.4 and f1.8 sucked for me. I cant ever see myself buying one of those again but I would maybe consider the 50mm f1.2 L when I buy a 1D series.

Good point... I think Lord_Malone owes POTN an explanation for the Nikon avatar...

[cjm]

Good point... I think Lord_Malone owes POTN an explanation for the Nikon avatar...I think he is just trying to be a Rebel.

When shooting Nikon though You are a rebel with out a cause. ;)

[AirBrontosaurus]

I think he is just trying to be a Rebel.



So... you're saying he's a "Canon Rebel?"


...I'll be here all night.

[blonde]

I'm really one of the few fans of the new 50L. Most people will argue that it's still a waste of money when the f1.4 and f1.8 lenses are optically capable in their own right. Even if this lens didn't have problems with consistent focusing, there wouldn't be a shortage of folks out there trying to find a reason to dislike it.

honestly, i can see why you love the 50 1.2L because i am dreaming of the 85 1.2 even though the 85 1.8 is a very capable lens. however, i do agree that a lens with such a price tag should never have a consistent back focusing issue and i agree with people that are not fans of the lens because of that.

[angryhampster]

I'm really one of the few fans of the new 50L. Most people will argue that it's still a waste of money when the f1.4 and f1.8 lenses are optically capable in their own right. Even if this lens didn't have problems with consistent focusing, there wouldn't be a shortage of folks out there trying to find a reason to dislike it.



What's a good lens without AF quality control issues? Sigma 30, Canon and Sigma 24-70..etc..:)

Anyway, I love the colors that the 50L can pull. The ones you posted all have gorgeous contrast and perfect color tone.

btw..why didn't you get the D40X? :lol:

[cjm]

btw..why didn't you get the D40X? :lol:Why didnt he get a old 10D? Best 6mp camera ever! ;)

[Psychic1]

I'm really one of the few fans of the new 50L. Most people will argue that it's still a waste of money when the f1.4 and f1.8 lenses are optically capable in their own right. Even if this lens didn't have problems with consistent focusing, there wouldn't be a shortage of folks out there trying to find a reason to dislike it.

I disssssagree, the 50L-1.2 would be glued to my 1D if it focused properly, I had the 35L on hold as a backup IF the 50L did not arrive in time for my shoot.

I'm expecting a full report from Lord_Malone on the 1DIII/50L compatability.

BTW, it's need-to-know and my wife DOES NOT need-to-know ;)

[Lord_Malone]

LOL you sold it to buy a Nikon huh Ed?

Actually I am with you on the 50mm f1.2 L, although never used it, the f1.4 and f1.8 sucked for me. I cant ever see myself buying one of those again but I would maybe consider the 50mm f1.2 L when I buy a 1D series.

If you opt to invest in the 50L, just know that it can be hit or miss with the focus until Canon can come up with a firmware solution... or a recall. :(

Good point... I think Lord_Malone owes POTN an explanation for the Nikon avatar...

Click on the link in my sig for a full explanation. ;)

I think he is just trying to be a Rebel.

When shooting Nikon though You are a rebel with out a cause. ;)

Actually, the Rebels were chumps. I was rooting for the Galatic Empire! Imperial Stormtroopers are awesome.

honestly, i can see why you love the 50 1.2L because i am dreaming of the 85 1.2 even though the 85 1.8 is a very capable lens. however, i do agree that a lens with such a price tag should never have a consistent back focusing issue and i agree with people that are not fans of the lens because of that.

Absolutely, Snir! If you can nail the focusing consistently with this lens what's not to love? I still use it often, but soon I'm going to be sending Canon a note to voice my concerns about this lens, and will make it a point to address expediting a solution or a recall of the lens until they can figure out what the hell is going on. I'm confident they're already working on a fix.

What's a good lens without AF quality control issues? Sigma 30, Canon and Sigma 24-70..etc..:)

Anyway, I love the colors that the 50L can pull. The ones you posted all have gorgeous contrast and perfect color tone.

btw..why didn't you get the D40X?

Post processing in Lightroom had something to do with that as well. ;) But if you can find the image of my son sleeping with his finger on his face I posted a few days ago, other than resizing and a pass through USM, that image has been virtually left untouched.

I like Nikon because they have cool boxes. :eek:

EDIT: Here. I found it for you...
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/7149/cag4196editbv1.jpg




I disssssagree, the 50L-1.2 would be glued to my 1D if it focused properly, I had the 35L on hold as a backup IF the 50L did not arrive in time for my shoot.

I'm expecting a full report from Lord_Malone on the 1DIII/50L compatability.

BTW, it's need-to-know and my wife DOES NOT need-to-know ;)

It might be a while for that, my friend. I don't plan on picking up the 1DM3 for at least another year unless my wife stays true to her word and buys it for me for Christmas!

[Psychic1]

It might be a while for that, my friend. I don't plan on picking up the 1DM3 for at least another year unless my wife stays true to her word and buys it for me for Christmas!

And my name is...:) Merry Christmas

[jdos2]

I've finally come to my decision about the 50mm f/1.2, and it took me a while. I've decided to keep it- there are certain things about the image quality that I really like, and I don't believe that I'd be able to get them anywhere else on a digital camera (though film, I'd rather have something rangefinder).

It's expensive, true. It's also got low veiling flare, which is nice for the low-light high-contrast subjects I shoot. I will have to deal with the focus stuff for a while.

It's worth it, though it was a close call for a while there.

J

[PetKal]

That's a very steep price ! Only recently KEH Camera had two copies and Adorama had one, all priced a bit less than $4,000 US.
In my mind such high prices really reflect the lens scarcity and collecting desireability. As an optical tool the lens may be quite unremarkable, however, the fact remains it is an f/1.0 lens, thus many people covet it for that reason alone.

[Cinquantone]

Hi,
:rolleyes: you sell? know someone who sells?

I want this gem!

[TaDa]

I doubt you'll get many responses from a 4 year old thread :). I just recently saw one for sale at B&H's used counter.

[drumsfield]

Zombie thread oh no! O_O

[SoaringUSAEagle]

It's still for sale at BH too.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800757524-USE/Canon_2513A002_Normal_EF_50mm_f_1_0L.html

[nikesupremedunk]

^does it have og box, manual, blank warranty card, etc? if so i'm buying it asap! once i win the lotto...