Brand new 50 1.2L focus issue

[ImagesByInku]

Ok, so I need some input. I just received my 50 1.2L and took some test shots. It has focus issues as described by many, many people.

My question to all of you is - what would you do? Return the lens and get a different focal lens (35mm 1.4L perhaps?)? Keep it and send it to Canon for calibration? Exchange it for another 50 and keep your fingers crossed?

I'm tempted to send it off to Canon for calibration. Input is appreciated. Thanks!

[JeffreyG]

I can only tell you my experience.

I got a 50L. This one had something really wrong with it and all shots were fuzzy. I've never seen anything like it. It wasn't OOF....it was just all fuzzy. I sent it back.

The second 50L I got consistently backfocussed about 4" at all apertures. This was not the famous focus shift issue....just a straight up backfocus. I sent it back.

Then I bought a 50/1.4. That lens is OK but not super sharp below f/2, and so I tend to use my 35L more.

BTW, if you are struggling with the focus shift issue then exhanging the lens will not make a difference. They all do that, and people's satisfaction with the lens basically hinges on whether or not they shoot in the specific conditions that cause the shift or not.

[Zazoh]

Ok, so I need some input. I just received my 50 1.2L and took some test shots. It has focus issues as described by many, many people.

My question to all of you is - what would you do? Return the lens and get a different focal lens (35mm 1.4L perhaps?)? Keep it and send it to Canon for calibration? Exchange it for another 50 and keep your fingers crossed?

I'm tempted to send it off to Canon for calibration. Input is appreciated. Thanks!

If you are describing the focus shift at 1.2 when using the center focus point, you will not be able to get around it other than the work around to use an alternate focus point.

Why trade for a differnent FL? If you need a 50 and are not happy with the 1.2 you could try the 1.8 or the 1.4.

[kster]

I went through two different 50Ls before returning to the 85L. Like Jeffrey said, they all have the focus shift, it's just part of the lens.

[JeffreyG]

If you are describing the focus shift at 1.2 when using the center focus point, you will not be able to get around it other than the work around to use an alternate focus point.

Why trade for a differnent FL? If you need a 50 and are not happy with the 1.2 you could try the 1.8 or the 1.4.

The focus shift does not occur at f/1.2, it has to be stopped down a little. Most complaints are from f/1.8 to f/2.8 at distances of 1 - 1.5 meters.

[nicksan]

If you aren't happy with it, send it back. Maybe give another a try?
If it's not good, then perhaps you should stick with the 50 1.4.

Although I don't test any of my lenses to that extent, my lens is fine for my applications. I'm not saying the problems don't exist. I'm just saying I haven't seen it in the types of shots I take so far.

[r1ch]

Ok, so I need some input. I just received my 50 1.2L and took some test shots. It has focus issues as described by many, many people.

My question to all of you is - what would you do? Return the lens and get a different focal lens (35mm 1.4L perhaps?)? Keep it and send it to Canon for calibration? Exchange it for another 50 and keep your fingers crossed?

I'm tempted to send it off to Canon for calibration. Input is appreciated. Thanks!

I have read too many problems sending it back to Canon, it often is not fixed. I have read that you can send the camera and lens in and get very good results.

I sent back my first 50 1.4 lens that had a front focus issue, I figured this out using the focus chart at the bottom of this link http://focustestchart.com/chart.html

The second lens was very good and worked for me. I did not have to send the camera back in. The problem for me sending in the lens and camera back in is that if all your other lenses work and the 50L does not and you have the camera adjusted for this lens, if you upgrade to a new camera, very likely you will have to send the new camera and your 50L back in to have it adjusted.

I would only send camera and lens back if you get serveral copies that exhibit the same problem.

[90c4]

I got rid of mine as well. Even using the alternate focus points didn't seem to make much difference. I'm much happier with my 35L, 85L, and 50 1.4 than I was with the 50 1.2. I tried at least five and they all had the same issues. Really wanted the lens to be decent, but no such luck.

[halfmoonray]

i sent in my 50 for calibration, telling them which camera I use and what seemed to be the problem. They just sent it back to me saying: "We have examined the product according to your request, and it was found that the adjustment of the internal component was incorrect the image was blurred. Electrical adjustments were carried out on the internal component. Other electrical adjustments and inspection and cleaning were carried out."

My initial impression of test shots following calibration were very good. The lens is much better now following calibration.

Using the focus chart, and the middle focus point at wide open, the focus is very good but not tack sharp like some other lenses. However, I did not use a tripod and shutter release.

Using the outermost focus point at wide open, the image focus is just good. I assume fall-off , spherical aberration is typical as the sweet spot on all lenses is in the middle. I would recommend using the middle focus point at wide open. I seldom use the middle focus point. Using the lens at 1.6 with the outer most focus point and in good light without a tripod, I did produce a sharp image. I must say that I was very surprised

Average photoshooting has produced some excellent results. I still want to test the lens in better light, on the tripod and with shutter release using the focusing chart and different focus points. In these tests, any slow shutter release and movement in between focus lock and release can mess up the test.

I am impressed with the lens and more so following calibration. For me it's a keeper, but I am still learning the peculiarities of this lens.

[bildeb0rg]

If you don't like it, just send it back and get something else. Canon won't give a rats a$$ either way, and the 50L archive is ful of great pics that back up their opinion that this is a fine lens.

[mebailey]

Dont send the lens for calibration. By the time you get it back the refund/exchange period will likely be over. Try another 50L or try another lens.

[FretNoMore]

If you don't like it, just send it back and get something else. Canon won't give a rats a$$ either way, and the 50L archive is ful of great pics that back up their opinion that this is a fine lens.
It's a fine lens in most respects but it does have the focus shift that you need to know about.

Personally I'm not spending that kind of money and then have to work around a big design flaw, just at the sweet spot (large apertures) that would be the reason for buying such a fast lens in the first place too.

I'm waiting to see how the new Sigma 50/1.4 turns out, and in the mean time the Canon 50/1.4 will have to do.

[nicksan]

I should note that I bought mine used from another member here so I already knew what kind of IQ I would get with this copy. I am very happy with my copy.

So that might be another approach to take.

[JAcosta]

If youre not happy with the AF you can always learn *GASP* to manual focus.

I dont understand that everyone overlooks just how great this lens actually is because of a focus shift issue that I havent experienced with two copies of the lens. You rarely hear about how great the colors, contrast, or even the flare control are. Couple that with f/1.2, L quality build, and weather resistant sealing. I dont understand how so many people can count this lens out because a few people got a few bad apples.

[FretNoMore]

If youre not happy with the AF you can always learn *GASP* to manual focus.

I dont understand that everyone overlooks just how great this lens actually is because of a focus shift issue that I havent experienced with two copies of the lens. You rarely hear about how great the colors, contrast, or even the flare control are. Couple that with f/1.2, L quality build, and weather resistant sealing. I dont understand how so many people can count this lens out because a few people got a few bad apples.

Well... if you for instance want to use this lens at f/2.8 or so under the basket hoop you'll be in the problem range and there will not be time for manual focusing.

Manual focusing is also not the answer to the focus shift problem, unless you manage to compensate for the shift and actually set the lens out of focus slightly. The error occurs when the lens stops down to take the shot, not while focusing (when the lens is wide open).

[ImagesByInku]

If youre not happy with the AF you can always learn *GASP* to manual focus.

I dont understand that everyone overlooks just how great this lens actually is because of a focus shift issue that I havent experienced with two copies of the lens. You rarely hear about how great the colors, contrast, or even the flare control are. Couple that with f/1.2, L quality build, and weather resistant sealing. I dont understand how so many people can count this lens out because a few people got a few bad apples.

I know how to manually focus a lens, thank you. When you're shooting anything remotely fast paced, you don't have time to manually focus for each shot.

Everyone, thanks for the input. I'm going to return the lens. It just isn't worth the hassle for $1300. I got the 35 1.4L instead. We'll see how that is when I get it in a few days.

[echo]

I really like 50mm as a FL but the 1.4 can be very hit and miss. Sometimes I get cracking pics taken at f/1.4 but frequently I don't. I have found that I use my 24-70L quite a bit for the 40-60 FL and the colours look great. I'd have the 50L in an instant if it wasn't plagued by the focus issues.

[canuck88]

Can you tell us more about how you are testing the focus?

Are you tripod mounted?

Typically focus issues at very wide apertures is simply user-related...

[ImagesByInku]

Can you tell us more about how you are testing the focus?

Are you tripod mounted?

Typically focus issues at very wide apertures is simply user-related...

Hand held at varying apertures from 1.2 to 5.6. They're just plain ol' out of focus. I shoot the same thing with my 50 1.4 (which I was planning to sell) and everything is fine.

[t60p]

It sounds like you did the best thing for yourself. It doesn't make any sense to keep a lens if you cannot stand using it, don't like the images it produces, or do not have any use for it. My thoughts about the 50 are in line with JAcosta, in this forum "You rarely hear about how great the colors, contrast, or even the flare control are. Couple that with f/1.2, L quality build, and weather resistant sealing." It is a beautiful lens. I hope you have better luck with your 35 f/1.4. If that field of view is what you need, you should be happy with it. It is also a wonderful lens.

[ImagesByInku]

Some of you may laugh, but I went to return the 50 1.2. Which I did quite easily. Then I somehow convinced myself that I should buy another one because the previous one was just THAT bad. Surely, the chances of two copies being THAT bad are very slim, right?

We shall see tonight.

[90c4]

Surely, the chances of two copies being THAT bad are very slim, right?

I thought the same, but gave up after 5 or 6.

[Mum2J&M]

Mine was sharp. I shouldn't have sold it. But I did and it went to someone I know is getting good use out of it. ;) Seriously, though. Seller's remorse is now setting in...

I should also add that I am really PO'd Canon seems to ignore this problem, which has been discussed now for ages. I just don't understand it. There are so many people who would buy and enjoy this lens if it weren't for the issues it has. If Canon acknowledges this problem, wth don't they FIX it?!! I can see if it was at a focal length that wasn't the "norm" for so many digital bodies, but come on people! Get a clue.

Sorry - need to finish my rant. Here are my feelings:

For crop body camera:

35L = wonderful lens, but falls just short in FL
50L = killer bokeh and beautiful color and contrast of an L - damn focus issue!
85L = a bit too long for indoors and getting too bloody expensive
5D to compensate for insufficient focal length in an L? Too expensive.

I mean, are they too concerned about angry people who've already purchased the lens? If so, chuck in a substantial rebate to let them sell their's and rebuy! Hell, half of us have already bought more than one anyway. Geesh!

[Double Negative]

I picked up my 50L for a few reasons; mostly to give me a bright prime that's weathersealed (which unfortunately the 35L doesn't offer me). As such I tend to use it either wide open (or close to it) or stopped down to f/5.6-8.0... Neither of which are in the focus-shift range.

It's definitely there, but if you know about it you can work around it. If you find you're constantly bumping heads with the lens then choosing another focal length is your best option. In my case, it doesn't affect me so much. It's a darn shame Canon chose not to include a floating system in this pricey prime - but probably because it'd be an even pricier prime, a la 85L.

The lens is very, very capable outside of this small range. I too beat on this lens when it first came out and after some limited tests. Later on I realized it didn't affect me as much as I would've thought (though in your case might be the complete opposite).

My suggestion is to stop reading reviews and/or shooting batteries and rulers and see for yourself where you fall in this debate.

[canuck88]

I thought the same, but gave up after 5 or 6.

Did you ever consider that it was you and not the lens??

f1.2 is very hard to shoot.

[pmarz]

Did you ever consider that it was you and not the lens??

f1.2 is very hard to shoot.

Really, it's most likely the damn lens. I have never heard so many complaints about a lens and while I understand there are good copies out there, shame on Canon for not re-designing this lens. I have the 85L and I understand it's tricky wide open but the 50L seems to be a bust and I would never waste my money on it.

[JAcosta]

Really, it's most likely the damn lens. I have never heard so many complaints about a lens and while I understand there are good copies out there, shame on Canon for not re-designing this lens. I have the 85L and I understand it's tricky wide open but the 50L seems to be a bust and I would never waste my money on it.

Really it very easily could be the shooter, too. Ive read a lot of posts on here where people focus, then recompose to better frame their subject. You cant do that with f/1.2. I personally cant stand the whole focus then recompose thing, it most of the time will give you a soft image unless youre stopped down.

Im only defending the 50L so much because I dont experience this focus shift that everyone is talking about. I was happy with my first copy, and now that I have my second Im extremely happy. FYI I sold the first copy not because there was anything wrong with it, I just needed the money more than the lens.

[pmarz]

Really it very easily could be the shooter, too. Ive read a lot of posts on here where people focus, then recompose to better frame their subject. You cant do that with f/1.2. I personally cant stand the whole focus then recompose thing, it most of the time will give you a soft image unless youre stopped down.

Im only defending the 50L so much because I dont experience this focus shift that everyone is talking about. I was happy with my first copy, and now that I have my second Im extremely happy. FYI I sold the first copy not because there was anything wrong with it, I just needed the money more than the lens.

I honestly doubt it, I have heard way too many complaints from pros and ameteurs alike. I have not heard the same nonsense with the 35L or 85L. I own them both and they are tricky but awsome wide open. The 50L complaints are like no other lens. Like I said , there is no doubt good copies out there but way too many bad ones for a $1300.00 L lens.

[thatkatmat]

I picked up my 50L for a few reasons; mostly to give me a bright prime that's weathersealed (which unfortunately the 35L doesn't offer me). As such I tend to use it either wide open (or close to it) or stopped down to f/5.6-8.0... Neither of which are in the focus-shift range.

It's definitely there, but if you know about it you can work around it. If you find you're constantly bumping heads with the lens then choosing another focal length is your best option. In my case, it doesn't affect me so much. It's a darn shame Canon chose not to include a floating system in this pricey prime - but probably because it'd be an even pricier prime, a la 85L.

The lens is very, very capable outside of this small range. I too beat on this lens when it first came out and after some limited tests. Later on I realized it didn't affect me as much as I would've thought (though in your case might be the complete opposite).

My suggestion is to stop reading reviews and/or shooting batteries and rulers and see for yourself where you fall in this debate.

I agree 100%....but...I mostly use it from 1.2 to f2 and about f4 to 5.6 so for me there is no problem...for me it's THE perfect walkaround for the FF. Even in the mid range the shift is very small, so just be careful not to shoot at 2.8 at 4 ft out.
But...that said.....you knew about the shift....and you bought it...if you're not happy...return it...Sucks...but it is what it is

[kevEOS]

Anyone know when the 50 f/1.2L was released?

I've decided to hold out on purchasing this lens. I've lost all hope that there will be an update to this fairly new lens. I guess I will eventually role the dice but not before I move to FF or 1.3x were the focal length makes better sense for my shooting.

I really love the size and build of the lens. The feature I like the most is the front element extends/retracts inside the barrel. I know if i'm not satisfied with my first copy i'll be exchanging copies until I find a keeper.

[mebailey]

Anyone know when the 50 f/1.2L was released?


I think Nov of 2006 or sometime near that month.

[thatkatmat]

Anyone know when the 50 f/1.2L was released?

I've decided to hold out on purchasing this lens. I've lost all hope that there will be an update to this fairly new lens. I guess I will eventually role the dice but not before I move to FF or 1.3x were the focal length makes better sense for my shooting.
.

The 35L is perfect on the 1.6 crops...A much better choice than the 50L if you want a standard fL

[Double Negative]

I agree 100%....but...I mostly use it from 1.2 to f2 and about f4 to 5.6 so for me there is no problem...for me it's THE perfect walkaround for the FF. Even in the mid range the shift is very small, so just be careful not to shoot at 2.8 at 4 ft out.
But...that said.....you knew about the shift....and you bought it...if you're not happy...return it...Sucks...but it is what it is

I'm not knocking the lens (too much) as it is what it is. If I shot FF, I'd be in heaven. For me on a crop, 35mm is more my style... But nevertheless, the 50L is a good lens. That's all I'm sayin'. :)

From f/1.2-1.8 or so or f/5.6-8.0 where I do most of my shooting, it works great for me. I definitely did push the lens to test for the focus shift and there's no denying it's there, but like I said, it's a non-issue for ME.

[Mum2J&M]

The 35L is perfect on the 1.6 crops...A much better choice than the 50L if you want a standard fL

For some this may be true. Although I find the 35L to be a stellar lens, it has always come just a bit short for me as an only/portrait lens on my crop - probably because I'm almost always shooting my kids and if I'm too close, it's just wide enough for some distortion. Therefore, the 50mm will always be my favorite focal length for portraits on my 40D. 85mm is too long for indoors on a crop. So, I'd imagine, this poses a dilemma for the perhaps thousands of people like me who have a crop and prefer Ls, as we don't currently have a reliable lens that fits the bill. If Canon's sticking to their guns on this lens, they need to bring the price down to make it more affordable and less controversial. I know the L's are supposedly made for FF bodies, but the 50mm focal length is the closest we have to FF 85mm, which is most sought-after for portrait work. What about a 50L 1.4 for a bit less money? Are they afraid they'd stop selling the 35L? ???

[90c4]

Did you ever consider that it was you and not the lens??

f1.2 is very hard to shoot.

Before purchasing the 50L I read lots of posts from people complaining about the focus issues and I assumed it was the shooter and not the lens which is why I bought it to try it out for myself as I'm aware of how difficult f1.2 is. It definitely was the lens and not me - I shoot at 1.2 all the time with my 85L and it focuses perfectly. I don't have issues with my 35L or 50mm at 1.4 either. The 50L is a joke, but please don't take my word for it. Try one (or 5) out for yourself.

[Mum2J&M]

Before purchasing the 50L I read lots of posts from people complaining about the focus issues and I assumed it was the shooter and not the lens which is why I bought it to try it out for myself as I'm aware of how difficult f1.2 is. It definitely was the lens and not me - I shoot at 1.2 all the time with my 85L and it focuses perfectly. I don't have issues with my 35L or 50mm at 1.4 either. The 50L is a joke, but please don't take my word for it. Try one (or 5) out for yourself.

I don't think anyone is claiming it doesn't have issues. They are stating you can work around them and get great results. Which is exactly why this lens is so damn frustrating... 35L is great - but it can't be substituted for the 50mm focal length. Nor, in my opinion, can the 50 1.4 be substituted for an L.

[nicksan]

So Mum, are you saying I have a bum 50L?;););)

I don't think anyone is claiming it doesn't have issues. They are stating you can work around them and get great results. Which is exactly why this lens is so damn frustrating... 35L is great - but it can't be substituted for the 50mm focal length. Nor, in my opinion, can the 50 1.4 be substituted for an L.

[Mum2J&M]

So Mum, are you saying I have a bum 50L?;););)

No - because I WANT one again! Is your's for sale? :lol:;)

[nicksan]

Heck no.:p;):D

No - because I WANT one again! Is your's for sale? :lol:;)

[Double Negative]

I don't think anyone is claiming it doesn't have issues. They are stating you can work around them and get great results. Which is exactly why this lens is so damn frustrating... 35L is great - but it can't be substituted for the 50mm focal length. Nor, in my opinion, can the 50 1.4 be substituted for an L.

Exactly... One of my main gripes with the 50L was the fact that you're paying for an L (a lens that you can basically shoot anywhere, anytime - at any focal length (if applicable) and aperture and get results you expect) but don't. I said, "one shouldn't have to make excuses for the lens." I still stand by this, yet I still bought my own.

It's clearly not for everyone, and yes there are circumstances where this lens can fall down on you. But if you typically shoot around those circumstances or at least know what they are - the lens really IS good. Sure, it's not a 35L, 85L or 135L that you can just toss on and fire away with near abandon - but it's not bad at what it CAN do.

For one thing, it's the only lens that's 50mm, f/1.2 and weathersealed. THAT is why I bought mine. The other issues are not why I DIDN'T. ;)

[JeffreyG]

I'd happily take a 50/1.4L that was as sharp wide open as the 35L is, and which had ring USM and rounded aperture blades to f/5.6. What I don't need is an extra 1/3 stop really.

As good as both of Canon's f/1.2 lenses are (85L) and should be (50L) I think these lenses would have been better conceived as f/1.4s.

The 85L would be a lot nicer as a $1250 EF 85 f/1.4L USM

The 50L would be a lot nicer as a $1100 EF 50 f/1.4L USM that included a floating element.

[fiveFPS]

wow.. why do I not hear many issues with the 50 1.8?

[JeffreyG]

wow.. why do I not hear many issues with the 50 1.8?

People who buy the 50/1.8 have much lower expectations for $80 than people who have the 50L at $1300.

To be honest, the shot to shot focus error of the 50/1.8 I had was probably about the same as the amount of the focus shift issue.

[Davidoff]

Sorry, but what's the difference between a focus shift and back or front focusing ?

[JeffreyG]

The 50L lacks a floating element, so when shooting close at smaller apertures the focus shifts as the aperture stops down.

The hassle is that you focus wide open, and then as the camera takes the shot the actual focus point actually moves from where you focussed.

The lens is accurate from f/1.2 to 1.8 since this is open enough to miss the issue. It's also OK stopped down past f/4 since the DOF expands enough to include the shift. The problem manifests from f/2 to f/4 with subjects around 1 to 1.5 meters.

It is a design error, so no calibration fix. You can avoid using the lens in the problem zone or you can focus with the DOF preview button pressed.

[Double Negative]

^ Technically a "design choice" but yes, we all call it a "design error." :)

Likely a floating system would make the lens quite a bit more expensive and/or mess with the bokeh. Look at the 85L; it's quite pricey. Same with the older 50mm f/1.0L.

[kevEOS]

Has anyone purchased this lens knowing that they very often like to shoot in the problem range (f/2 - f/4 @ 1 - 1.5 meters)?

Many reportedly satisfied found that their real world shooting doesn't fall in this range. My question is for those whos real world shooting is in the range. How did it work out?

I know the best advice is for me to just try one out for myself. I'm worried sample variations will have me testing a number of them out and I hate dealing with returns as much as the anyone else.

[JeffreyG]

^ Technically a "design choice" but yes, we all call it a "design error." :)

Likely a floating system would make the lens quite a bit more expensive and/or mess with the bokeh. Look at the 85L; it's quite pricey. Same with the older 50mm f/1.0L.

35L has a floating element and retails $1100.

50L is a mistake, if they could not do it for $1200 with a floating element then they should have made it a f/1.4. More photographers need a lens that can be focussed accurately than need a lens that goes to f/1.2

[Davidoff]

Thanks Jeffrey, I got it. Well, I knew there was a design issue with the 50L, but I wasn't aware it was this serious and well documented or known. How do people still buy it ? Beats me.....

[Double Negative]

35L has a floating element and retails $1100.

50L is a mistake, if they could not do it for $1200 with a floating element then they should have made it a f/1.4. More photographers need a lens that can be focussed accurately than need a lens that goes to f/1.2

Good point about the 35L... I meant making a 50L with a floating system though - there's got to be a good reason Canon didn't include it.

As for making one at f/1.4, they have one of those. People wanted f/1.2 apparently and in an L build...

[JeffreyG]

Thanks Jeffrey, I got it. Well, I knew there was a design issue with the 50L, but I wasn't aware it was this serious and well documented or known. How do people still buy it ? Beats me.....

Yes. I did not / could not believe that a $1300 lens would have a design flaw either.

I've thought about this some. The problem for me is that I do tend to shoot people pretty close and tight, and on a 5D this means within 1.5 meters sometimes at 50mm. I also ususally stop down a bit when shooting very close because the DOF of f/1.4 at 1.5 meters will generate too many OOF shots.

So I know I am prone to shooting in the 50L bad zone.

I have the 50/1.4. It's soft wide open so I simply treat it as if it is a 50/2 and it works OK like that. All in all I tend to shoot 35mm and 85mm more since Canon struggles with 50mm (despite having 4 currently available 50mm primes).

[Davidoff]

4 50mm ? What's the fourth ? Well, I think that if I was a canon shooter, I'd go for the 1.4 instead of the 1.2 instantly ( if money was no issue as well ). If I wanted faster or sharper or better build, I'd go for the 35L or the 85L. I really don't imagine spending 1200$ on a lens that has such restrictions.

[JeffreyG]

4 50mm ? What's the fourth ?

50/1.8
50/1.4
50/1.2L
50/2.5 Compact Macro

As for making one at f/1.4, they have one of those. People wanted f/1.2 apparently and in an L build..

I think people wanted the L build a heck of a lot more than the extra 1/3 stop. Face it, the current 50/1.4 has issues. It lacks ring USM, it has a slightly wonky FTM, it is usually soft wide open and while the bokeh is nice it is not on par with the L primes.

L primes are about more than just "as fast as possible" and a 50/1.4L could easily be created that would justify it's price above the 50/1.4 even if it wasn't any faster.

[Davidoff]

Oh, I didn't know about the macro, is it still being produced ?
I also think that a 50mm 1.4L with better bokeh, colour, contrast, sharpness wide open, less vignetting, usm focusing, L build and a price around 600$ would be more appealing than the 1.2.

[tmonatr]

I continue to be amazed that people will buy this lens ($1360 at B&H) knowing it is a defective/poor design.

[tmr]

Has anyone purchased this lens knowing that they very often like to shoot in the problem range (f/2 - f/4 @ 1 - 1.5 meters)?

Many reportedly satisfied found that their real world shooting doesn't fall in this range. My question is for those whos real world shooting is in the range. How did it work out?

I know the best advice is for me to just try one out for myself. I'm worried sample variations will have me testing a number of them out and I hate dealing with returns as much as the anyone else.

I find problems using the 50L for head and shoulder shots and stopped down to about f/2.8. If I use the center AF point, which is my most sensitive AF point, I'll usually end up with soft eyes but sharp somewhat behind. Using the outer AF points helps but they aren't as sensitive on my body and thus not as good in low light.

[Double Negative]

I think people wanted the L build a heck of a lot more than the extra 1/3 stop. Face it, the current 50/1.4 has issues. It lacks ring USM, it has a slightly wonky FTM, it is usually soft wide open and while the bokeh is nice it is not on par with the L primes.

L primes are about more than just "as fast as possible" and a 50/1.4L could easily be created that would justify it's price above the 50/1.4 even if it wasn't any faster.

Oh, absolutely - there's more to it than just aperture. Build quality, weathersealing, ring USM, pretty sharp wide open... The f/1.4 is a good lens for sure, but it definitely has some negatives as well.

It would be nice if Canon would make ONE good 50mm rather than have three mediocre ones... ;)

I can't complain though, I got mine <$1k. :D

[Mum2J&M]

Oh, absolutely - there's more to it than just aperture. Build quality, weathersealing, ring USM, pretty sharp wide open... The f/1.4 is a good lens for sure, but it definitely has some negatives as well.

It would be nice if Canon would make ONE good 50mm rather than have three mediocre ones... ;)

I can't complain though, I got mine <$1k. :D

I agree with this statement 100%! :confused: (check out my sig - back to square one!)

[Double Negative]

I agree with this statement 100%! :confused: (check out my sig - back to square one!)

Sheesh, Mum... Ditched the zoom and back to some primes eh? Looks like a good lineup though, considering what your subject matter is. :)

[Mum2J&M]

Sheesh, Mum... Ditched the zoom and back to some primes eh? Looks like a good lineup though, considering what your subject matter is. :)

Yup. I know. I just plain suck at the 24-70L. I really wanted that lens to work for me because of the superior color/contrast, etc., but there is just nothing I could do to be good enough at it. I think - and hope - primes will be a little easier since I'm only concerning myself with the dof, etc. for one fixed focal length. So it wasn't about the 24-70L being a bad lens, just a very difficult one for me to master in general. And I figured I could either invest in the 50L again, or have a more diverse line-up of primes without going overboard (i.e. not one at 24, one at 35, one at 50, one at 85, etc.). And rather than the old 35L, which is wonderful for color/contrast, I went back to the 50 1.4 because it has always just felt like the right focal length for me on a crop. And, as we all know, the 50mm focal length in an L has been slightly overlooked by Canon. So here we go again... :rolleyes:

[thatkatmat]

Wow.....Hey Mum...that is a very nice lineup for the little ones....Stick with all three of those for as long as you can....wait, um....I forsee a 200L>135L trade in your future..LOL...I'm one to talk, I go through gear like my SUV goes through gas...Good luck with the current lineup...You seem like a "prime" girl...this should work well for you

[Mum2J&M]

Wow.....Hey Mum...that is a very nice lineup for the little ones....Stick with all three of those for as long as you can....wait, um....I forsee a 200L>135L trade in your future..LOL...I'm one to talk, I go through gear like my SUV goes through gas...Good luck with the current lineup...You seem like a "prime" girl...this should work well for you

Thanks. I will never be quoted saying I will actually "stick" to something, lol. ;) I went with the 200L instead of the 70-200, or the 135 due to the price. But I also like that it's a 2.8, not white, and a prime. So we'll see. It's basically going to be my "fun" lens to experiment with. I didn't get it for convenience or versatility. I may have gone with the 135, but it's more expensive and I wanted to try the longer focal length.

[Double Negative]

Makes sense, Mum. I think you'll be pretty happy with that lineup as they're darn good lenses. And all three combined are lighter than the Brick. :p

[ImagesByInku]

So, it appears that the first lens that I got was just a dud. The second one is 1000x's better. I'm going to do some more testing over the weekend.

The first one just plain old was out of focus for each shot - nothing to do really with the focus shift.

[Mum2J&M]

So, it appears that the first lens that I got was just a dud. The second one is 1000x's better. I'm going to do some more testing over the weekend.

The first one just plain old was out of focus for each shot - nothing to do really with the focus shift.

Yeah - you should really be getting some keepers with very good sharpness with that lens.

[thatkatmat]

That's great news....Just keep it out of the "danger zone" and enjoy!

[Mum2J&M]

That's great news....Just keep it out of the "danger zone" and enjoy!

:lol::lol::lol:

[capkapak]

This is the results of my 50L copy which I have a -3 microadjustment made to it.

http://public.capkapak.fastmail.fm/files/791X0120_1.jpg