WOW!! EF 50mm 1.4 replaces my 1.8

[ijohnson]

Unblievable. I spent a lot of time looking at comparisons on these lenses and justified the 1.8 because of the price. As I fell in love with the 1.8 and got used to a fixed focal length lens, I decided to spend the money on the 1.4.

No comparison.

The 1.8 is nice at f5.6-11 but it was not such a great performer stopped down, where it really would be the most useful. The focusing ring was awkward but acceptable, and the focusing noise is ok too I guess, for the price. It was sharper than my 28-135 in almost all cases, but it didn't touch my 17-40 or the 70-200 2.8. Compared to those lenses it suffered in contrast, color, and overall everything, except for maximum aperture.

The 1.4 is incredible. It's sharp, contrasty, quiet, and really, really fast. It performs well at all apertures and the bigger glass in front looks HOT. It's been on my camera for 2 weeks. I think my L's are getting jealous.

I am looking at it now. I can check my hair in that nice chunk of glass. Oh crap, I'm bald.

Just thought I would let you know.

-Isaac

[C.S.I.]

I am looking at it now. I can check my hair in that nice chunk of glass. Oh crap, I'm bald.-Isaac



LOL!

[HKFEVER]

Good for you, large glass looks more like camera.

[DocFrankenstein]

do you see any difference in bokeh?

[ijohnson]

do you see any difference in bokeh?

Honestly, I am not a real expert on that subject. It seems little nicer to me. The background seems a bit more soft and creamy. One of the big benefits of that is that some pictures can seem a lot sharper when the background is SOOOOO soft. I noticed this especially with the 70-200 2.8. I actually have quite a few pictures that look too sharp.

Anyway, I think so, but I just spent a couple hundred and I have a new lens so the benefits could easily be in my head.

[HKFEVER]

[QUOTE=ijohnson]One of the big benefits of that is that some pictures can seem a lot sharper when the background is SOOOOO soft. I noticed this especially with the 70-200 2.8. I actually have quite a few pictures that look too sharp.
QUOTE]

135mm f/2L also has these effect.

Not sure way Canon don't name 50mm f/1.4 as L len.

[pierrot]

I decided to spend the money on the 1.4.Are you on the market to sell your 1.8, Isaac?
I am pretty much interested... ;)

[F1_Fan]

The 1.4 is incredible. It's sharp, contrasty, quiet, and really, really fast. It performs well at all apertures and the bigger glass in front looks HOT. It's been on my camera for 2 weeks. I think my L's are getting jealous.

If you have extension tubes I'd be interested in hearing about the macro image qualities.

[eosster]

That's what I am getting, hopefully to receive it by end of week and cograts to ijohnson. I am sure you will use it immensely and good luck with it :).

[Dchemist]

I have a 50mm F1.4 or my 20D and have been extrememly pleased with it.

[drisley]

P.S.P.P.
(post some pics please)
:)

[quickben]

Damn you people !!

Every time someone starts talking about how good they're 50 1.4 is, I have to get mine out and go take pointless photos around the house ! I've just spent ten minutes taking photos of a plant int the hallway that have no artistic value at all. They just show how good the lens is at f2.5-4.0. I would post some, but they truly are CRAP pics. Sorry.

I think Pekka said something about the 50 1.4 not being a "L" lens because it is quite easy to make, and suffers from quality variances wide open (I haven't noticed that, however) Here's the thread: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25789

[KennyG]

I have a shot with the 50 1.4 and 1D (4mp) posted in the sports pictures forum if you want to see what it can do.

[Vita Rara]

I think Pekka said something about the 50 1.4 not being a "L" lens because it is quite easy to make, and suffers from quality variances wide open (I haven't noticed that, however)

Hmm... I'd guess that it's not an "L" lens becaue it's not an "L" lens. In my understanding of Canon's lens naming only lenses that have Fluorite elements are entitled to the "L" designation. Are there any "L" lenses that do not have fluorite elements?

Mark

[gmitchel]

[QUOTE=ijohnson]One of the big benefits of that is that some pictures can seem a lot sharper when the background is SOOOOO soft. I noticed this especially with the 70-200 2.8. I actually have quite a few pictures that look too sharp.
QUOTE]

135mm f/2L also has these effect.

Not sure way Canon don't name 50mm f/1.4 as L len.

There's more to an "L" lens than image quality.

"L" lenses have much higher build quality and reliability. Nearly all have dust and water seals. Etc.

Cheers,

Mitch

[stuartf287]

I hope I'm not being a jerk by pointing out that "stopped down" means closed down to a smaller aperture, such as f16 or f22. If that's what you meant in your original post, I don't understand why the 1.4 lens would be better than the 1.8 at such small apertures. You may have meant to say that your new lens is better than the old one at larger apertures such as F2, F1.8 or (obviously) F1.4.

Forgive me for being a stickler about language -- it's the tool that makes our society function and if we don't at least try to keep the tools working properly ...

I'm glad you're enjoying the lens.

[BearSummer]

Hmm... I'd guess that it's not an "L" lens becaue it's not an "L" lens. In my understanding of Canon's lens naming only lenses that have Fluorite elements are entitled to the "L" designation. Are there any "L" lenses that do not have fluorite elements?

Mark

Hi Mark,

yes there are several that dont use fluorite but use ultra-low disperion glass or aspherical lenses but dont have any fluorite in them. Most of the "white" L's have fluorite, but just to make it difficult there are a couple that dont, none of the black L's have fluorite.

and yes, the 50 1.4 rocks.

hope that helps

Bearsummer

[Vita Rara]

yes there are several that dont use fluorite but use ultra-low disperion glass or aspherical lenses but dont have any fluorite in them.

I stand corrected. So, it's more complicated than I thought. Uggh...

Mark

[KennyG]

I don't understand why the 1.4 lens would be better than the 1.8 at such small apertures.

I don't think anybody would stop down as far as you suggested, but I'll let that go. There are two main reasons why the 1.4 is better than the 1.8 at say F4. Firstly, it has better glass and secondly a much more accurate AF motor.

[mr.photoguy]

I am considering to let my 50 1.8 go and pick up a 85 1.8...

The 50 1.8 is nice, but I can do better.

[Jon]

I stand corrected. So, it's more complicated than I thought. Uggh...

Mark
Not only that, IIRC there are non-L lenses with UD glass . . .
What makes it an L is that red band around the barrel.

Gotta go - I have a bottle of red paint and it's time to upgrade some lenses :{)#

[DocFrankenstein]

I don't think anybody would stop down as far as you suggested, but I'll let that go. There are two main reasons why the 1.4 is better than the 1.8 at say F4. Firstly, it has better glass and secondly a much more accurate AF motor. I was under impression that it's easier to make a slower lens...

[Andy_T]

I was under impression that it's easier to make a slower lens...

That's most likely the reason for the price difference (which is bigger than the actual difference in image quality).

Best regards,
Andy

[KennyG]

The price difference is really down to the build quality of the 1.4 compared to the 1.8. Far more metal, more/bigger/better glass, more accurate AF motor (USM), FTM and more diaphram blades are what contribute to cost.

The low price of the 1.8 is more down to its cheaper build than image quality or speed. I would imagine a 1.8 with the same build/features of the 1.4 would be a lot more than seventy bucks/pounds.

Nothing wrong with the 1.8, but the 1.4 is a better lens IMHO, having owned and used both.

[drisley]

I am considering to let my 50 1.8 go and pick up a 85 1.8...

The 50 1.8 is nice, but I can do better.Keep the 50F1.8 AND pick up a 85F1.8

[BearSummer]

That's most likely the reason for the price difference (which is bigger than the actual difference in image quality).

Best regards,
Andy

Hmmm, so how much is a photo worth that you get as compared to one you almost get?

The rule that guides me and empties my account is "Be limited by your ability not your equipment" and it's a hell of a good excuse for buying something new.

all the best

Bearsummer

[ijohnson]

I hope I'm not being a jerk by pointing out that "stopped down" means closed down to a smaller aperture, such as f16 or f22. If that's what you meant in your original post, I don't understand why the 1.4 lens would be better than the 1.8 at such small apertures. You may have meant to say that your new lens is better than the old one at larger apertures such as F2, F1.8 or (obviously) F1.4.

Forgive me for being a stickler about language -- it's the tool that makes our society function and if we don't at least try to keep the tools working properly ...

I'm glad you're enjoying the lens.

Yeah, that. I was writing too fast. Good catch.

[ijohnson]

Hmmm, so how much is a photo worth that you get as compared to one you almost get?

The rule that guides me and empties my account is "Be limited by your ability not your equipment" and it's a hell of a good excuse for buying something new.

all the best

Bearsummer

Oh my gosh, that's the whole reason I have $10,000 of camera equipment. I have been saying that since I bought my first crappy camera. It is most important that it is my fault, not the camera's.

[markubig]

Oh my gosh, that's the whole reason I have $10,000 of camera equipment. I have been saying that since I bought my first crappy camera. It is most important that it is my fault, not the camera's.
My swing is fine . . . my $2000 golf clubs are the problem . . . ;) ;) ;)

[DocFrankenstein]

The price difference is really down to the build quality of the 1.4 compared to the 1.8. Far more metal, more/bigger/better glass, more accurate AF motor (USM), FTM and more diaphram blades are what contribute to cost.

The low price of the 1.8 is more down to its cheaper build than image quality or speed. I would imagine a 1.8 with the same build/features of the 1.4 would be a lot more than seventy bucks/pounds. I disagree. I have a relative who is involved in several aspects of mass production on different levels... the prices for those things are extremely cheap when put on a conveyor belt.

"far more metal"

How much do you think 50 grams of stainless steel cost? Just try to imagine this: A dollar store in the US/Canada manages to import, make profit AND pay for fixed capital costs when selling this:
1) Kitchen knife. Stainless steel... about 100-150 grams of steel. One dollar. (MFR cost ~ 3 to 5 cents)

2) Mechanical alarm clock. 3-5 bucks. It has quite a bit of machined parts in it BTW. I have 2 of them... worked fine for 2 years and still do (MRF cost ~ 20-60 cents)

3) Those shiny quartz watches. 5-10 bucks... and at 10 bucks you know it's a ripoff... (MFR cost ~ 30-70 cents)

All that extra metal costs less than a dollar or two.

"more/bigger/better glass"
Do you have a source for this? 50/1.4 designs are old and well tested. It does not cost THAT much to make and process it.

I don't even want to touch "more diaphragm blades"... What do you think the cost of 3-4 stamped pieces of metal is as well as a small design change? I bet you a million bucks it's not more than a dollar per lens.

AF/USM... I am not familiar with that technology, so I can't estimate. At max 20-30 bucks.

What do u think?

[Cadwell]

135mm f/2L also has these effect.

Not sure way Canon don't name 50mm f/1.4 as L len.

Having just this minute taken delivery of a 50 f/1.4 (it's not even been on the the camera yet) I can answer that one. It's because the build quality is nowhere near that of an L series lens.

Oh, and Ken... no more "sample pictures", please :p it's getting too damned expensive ;)

[Jon]

I disagree. I have a relative who is involved in several aspects of mass production on different levels... the prices for those things are extremely cheap when put on a conveyor belt.

"far more metal"

How much do you think 50 grams of stainless steel cost? Just try to imagine this: A dollar store in the US/Canada manages to import, make profit AND pay for fixed capital costs when selling this:
1) Kitchen knife. Stainless steel... about 100-150 grams of steel. One dollar. (MFR cost ~ 3 to 5 cents)

2) Mechanical alarm clock. 3-5 bucks. It has quite a bit of machined parts in it BTW. I have 2 of them... worked fine for 2 years and still do (MRF cost ~ 20-60 cents)

3) Those shiny quartz watches. 5-10 bucks... and at 10 bucks you know it's a ripoff... (MFR cost ~ 30-70 cents)

All that extra metal costs less than a dollar or two.

"more/bigger/better glass"
Do you have a source for this? 50/1.4 designs are old and well tested. It does not cost THAT much to make and process it.

I don't even want to touch "more diaphragm blades"... What do you think the cost of 3-4 stamped pieces of metal is as well as a small design change? I bet you a million bucks it's not more than a dollar per lens.

AF/USM... I am not familiar with that technology, so I can't estimate. At max 20-30 bucks.

What do u think?

You're leaving a couple of things out of the equation (and haven't I heard you extolling the build of the 50 f/1.8 Mk. I over the plastic Mk. II?). Like precision.

The knife and alarm clock are built to nowhere near the same level of precision that a lens is. Buy a dollar knife and you can guarantee you'll need to spend an hour or so if you want a good[/] edge on it. And repeat often because the cheap metal doesn't [i]hold that edge. You can reset the alarm clock every day/week - a couple of minutes off isn't going to be a problem. Will you tolerate a couple of mm/cm off in focus of your lens? I don't think so. Also, there are different grades of stainless steel, using different alloys. For lenses or other precision devices that need to tolerate a range of environmental conditions, all the parts have to work smoothly, without excessive differential expansion and contraction, no matter what the temperature. A knife doesn't have any moving parts to worry about, and the tolerances for the alarm clock are much sloppier, so it doesn't need the closely-matched materials.

I'd be surprised if the diaphragm blades were simply stamped out, without any other finishing work done on them. At an absolute minimum, they need to have all edges smoothed and rounded and to be coated with an anti-reflective, and friction-reducing, pigment. That's a lot more work (and expensive work) than bending over a couple of tabs and spraying the 5000 clock housings as they run through the sprayer/oven (assuming the housings aren't blown plastic) right in the middle of the line.

With plastic, it's squirt into the mold and polish down the mold lines; with metal it's grind it down into shape (as it is with most of the glass). In either case, on the lens parts, if you overshoot, it's junk. On a knife or an alarm clock, unless you're 'way off, so what? And all those have "volume" going for them. The cheaper lenses in Canon's lineup are, almost without exception (I can't think of one anyhow) the ones that you see decried here for cheap construction. They're also the ones that have been designed for volume production, and sales, as the "kit" lens for one or another camera. 50 f/1.8 used to be the stock lens on every SLR out there. You wanted anything else, you had to make a change. Now it's the 28-90 and the 18-55, depending on your format.

[HKFEVER]

Try this out, these are all hand held at ISO800 under the street light and 11pm our time. Pictures are not good but show what f1.4 can do.

[DocFrankenstein]

You're leaving a couple of things out of the equation (and haven't I heard you extolling the build of the 50 f/1.8 Mk. I over the plastic Mk. II?).
Actually I've been refraining myself from bashing the build of the 1.4... let alone MkII ;)

Like precision.

The knife and alarm clock are built to nowhere near the same level of precision that a lens is.
I must have an IQ of a dolphin then. (Knife I agree with)

Parts of 1.4 that are metal:
1)The mount. 2)The outside "barrel" of the lens. The one you touch with your hands.

It's no surprise, and numerous forum members noted the play in the EF mount. In fact, it is considered "normal"... So much for the tolerances. :rolleyes: And the dimensions are 2-3 inches.

Now consider the tolerances and finishing that is required in gears of a watch which are 2-3 mm and have 10-15 "teeth"... My kinetic watch with 30 rubi bearings was 15 bucks. They had to grow rubi artificially and then grind it, with WAY tighter tolerances... and still 2-3 sellers made profit when I bought it.

Buy a dollar knife and you can guarantee you'll need to spend an hour or so if you want a good[/] edge on it. And repeat often because the cheap metal doesn't [i]hold that edge.
That's a very clever argument. Are you planning to skin a dear with your lens mount?

Please explain why 400/440 stainless steel isn't enough for a lens mount. Or do you honestly beleive canon puts ATS-55 or VG10 on their lenses?

You can reset the alarm clock every day/week - a couple of minutes off isn't going to be a problem. Will you tolerate a couple of mm/cm off in focus of your lens? I don't think so. Also, there are different grades of stainless steel, using different alloys. For lenses or other precision devices that need to tolerate a range of environmental conditions, all the parts have to work smoothly, without excessive differential expansion and contraction, no matter what the temperature.
Right of course. I forgot! Things expand so much over the range of 50 degrees :rolleyes:

I'd be surprised if the diaphragm blades were simply stamped out, without any other finishing work done on them. At an absolute minimum, they need to have all edges smoothed and rounded and to be coated with an anti-reflective, and friction-reducing, pigment. That's a lot more work (and expensive work) than bending over a couple of tabs and spraying the 5000 clock housings as they run through the sprayer/oven (assuming the housings aren't blown plastic) right in the middle of the line.
Have you ever heard about galvanics? The recipe is simple:

1) Dump 10$ worth of salt into an acid bath.
2) Submerge your metal parts.
3) Run electricity through it.
4) You have enough to coat 5000 lens casings.

With plastic, it's squirt into the mold and polish down the mold lines; with metal it's grind it down into shape (as it is with most of the glass). In either case, on the lens parts, if you overshoot, it's junk. On a knife or an alarm clock, unless you're 'way off, so what?
Alarm clock wouldn't work... for one. :confused:

And all those have "volume" going for them. The cheaper lenses in Canon's lineup are, almost without exception (I can't think of one anyhow) the ones that you see decried here for cheap construction. They're also the ones that have been designed for volume production, and sales, as the "kit" lens for one or another camera.
Glad we have SOMETHIGN to agree on.

Now, you see... my argument is:
By increasing production costs by 3-8 bucks per unit, they could make quality and well built products.

But they choose to manufacture crappy products to make profit for themselves, but the side effect is the so called "deadweight loss"

[ijohnson]

Actually I've been refraining myself from bashing the build of the 1.4... let alone MkII ;)


I must have an IQ of a dolphin then. (Knife I agree with)

Parts of 1.4 that are metal:
1)The mount. 2)The outside "barrel" of the lens. The one you touch with your hands.

It's no surprise, and numerous forum members noted the play in the EF mount. In fact, it is considered "normal"... So much for the tolerances. :rolleyes: And the dimensions are 2-3 inches.

Now consider the tolerances and finishing that is required in gears of a watch which are 2-3 mm and have 10-15 "teeth"... My kinetic watch with 30 rubi bearings was 15 bucks. They had to grow rubi artificially and then grind it, with WAY tighter tolerances... and still 2-3 sellers made profit when I bought it.


That's a very clever argument. Are you planning to skin a dear with your lens mount?

Please explain why 400/440 stainless steel isn't enough for a lens mount. Or do you honestly beleive canon puts ATS-55 or VG10 on their lenses?


Right of course. I forgot! Things expand so much over the range of 50 degrees :rolleyes:


Have you ever heard about galvanics? The recipe is simple:

1) Dump 10$ worth of salt into an acid bath.
2) Submerge your metal parts.
3) Run electricity through it.
4) You have enough to coat 5000 lens casings.


Alarm clock wouldn't work... for one. :confused:


Glad we have SOMETHIGN to agree on.

Now, you see... my argument is:
By increasing production costs by 3-8 bucks per unit, they could make quality and well built products.

But they choose to manufacture crappy products to make profit for themselves, but the side effect is the so called "deadweight loss"

No play in my lens mount. It fits tighter than any of my L lenses.

How did this start? I love semantics.

Hey Doc, you know way too much. Go take some pictures.

The 1.4 is more expensive so that Canon can make a lot of money off of suckers like me. At this point, they are no longer accounting for the design costs, and most everything on the camera is fairly easy to make, but the true cost of the lens is the money that they want from us.

Oh and by the way, I sold my 1.8 for about $10 less than I paid for it. I have a photography apprentice that buys the stuff that I upgrade from.

[Wavy C]

Interesting discussion. I had actually considered buying the 50 1.4 for portrait shots but eventually went with the 1.8 when I realised the 1.4 was four times more expensive.

Now I've been using it for a few weeks, It's a cheap looking lens, but I've come to really like the 1.8. Yes, there is a noticable slight softness when wide open but, to me, this actually makes for better natural light portraits in many cases (especially if the subject is a woman). So much so that I've been generally switching to AV priority mode using it wide open for all portrait shots.

The softness goes away and the lens is pin sharp when stopped down to 2.8 or smaller.

I would find it kinda hard to justify the much higher cost for the 1.4 as well, but if I did ever buy it I think I'd be tempted to keep the 1.8 too simply for that soft portrait effect.

[ijohnson]

Interesting discussion. I had actually considered buying the 50 1.4 for portrait shots but eventually went with the 1.8 when I realised the 1.4 was four times more expensive.

Now I've been using it for a few weeks, It's a cheap looking lens, but I've come to really like the 1.8. Yes, there is a noticable slight softness when wide open but, to me, this actually makes for better natural light portraits in many cases (especially if the subject is a woman). So much so that I've been generally switching to AV priority mode using it wide open for all portrait shots.

The softness goes away and the lens is pin sharp when stopped down to 2.8 or smaller.

I would find it kinda hard to justify the much higher cost for the 1.4 as well, but if I did ever buy it I think I'd be tempted to keep the 1.8 too simply for that soft portrait effect.

I can't knock the 1.8. It really is amazing. It was my love for that lens that made me buy the 1.4. I can soften the picture in PS. I promise you though, if you do buy the 1.4, ever, you will be blown away. It is absolutely amazing.

It's still on my camera. I am going to put an L on there before they get pissed off at me.

[Tom W]

The price difference is really down to the build quality of the 1.4 compared to the 1.8. Far more metal, more/bigger/better glass, more accurate AF motor (USM), FTM and more diaphram blades are what contribute to cost.

The low price of the 1.8 is more down to its cheaper build than image quality or speed. I would imagine a 1.8 with the same build/features of the 1.4 would be a lot more than seventy bucks/pounds.

Nothing wrong with the 1.8, but the 1.4 is a better lens IMHO, having owned and used both.

I believe that the old 50/1.8 with the metal mount and focus scale would have bridged that gap nicely. I had one - sold it for the 1.4, but it was a very good lens nevertheless.

[Tom W]

I disagree. I have a relative who is involved in several aspects of mass production on different levels... the prices for those things are extremely cheap when put on a conveyor belt.

"far more metal"

How much do you think 50 grams of stainless steel cost? Just try to imagine this: A dollar store in the US/Canada manages to import, make profit AND pay for fixed capital costs when selling this:
1) Kitchen knife. Stainless steel... about 100-150 grams of steel. One dollar. (MFR cost ~ 3 to 5 cents)

I will venture to say that you won't find a good kitchen knife for a dollar. Maybe 3 or 4, but not a dollar. You can buy a bad knife for a dollar. That said, I think you're talking strictly about material costs.

2) Mechanical alarm clock. 3-5 bucks. It has quite a bit of machined parts in it BTW. I have 2 of them... worked fine for 2 years and still do (MRF cost ~ 20-60 cents)

Those gears are all stamped, not machined. With plenty of slop in the mechanism, because slop doesn't hurt anything in that case, and reduces the need for lubrication.

3) Those shiny quartz watches. 5-10 bucks... and at 10 bucks you know it's a ripoff... (MFR cost ~ 30-70 cents)

All that extra metal costs less than a dollar or two.

Perhaps, but the precision machining costs a few dollars per unit (and the mount is precision machined).

"more/bigger/better glass"
Do you have a source for this? 50/1.4 designs are old and well tested. It does not cost THAT much to make and process it.

It has better coating for one thing. And yes, there's more of it (7 elements vs. 6), and its bigger in diameter to accomodate the extra 2/3 stops of light.

I don't even want to touch "more diaphragm blades"... What do you think the cost of 3-4 stamped pieces of metal is as well as a small design change? I bet you a million bucks it's not more than a dollar per lens.

AF/USM... I am not familiar with that technology, so I can't estimate. At max 20-30 bucks.

What do u think?

I think I'll keep my 50/1.4.

Can't say that it costs 4 1/2 times as much to manufacture compared to the 1.8, but its certainly worth the price in terms of focus accuracy and speed, bokeh, color and contrast, resistance to flare, max aperture, and build quality.

[DocFrankenstein]

Those gears are all stamped, not machined. With plenty of slop in the mechanism, because slop doesn't hurt anything in that case, and reduces the need for lubrication.
They stamp watch gears now? Wristwatch gears too?

If so, I see no reason for canon to go any other way than to stamp the gears in the lenses. As you said... doesn't hurt and reduces the need for lube... :confused: (how I don't know though)

Perhaps, but the precision machining costs a few dollars per unit (and the mount is precision machined).
If by that you mean with tolerances with .1-.2 mm, then sure :)

I think I'll keep my 50/1.4.
Yep... We have no choice, but to female dog about it.

Cheers

[eosster]

I choose 50mm f/1.4 because I like it for what I do and enjoy what I have. :)

[Tom W]

They stamp watch gears now? Wristwatch gears too?

Despite your quoting out of context (my response was in relation to clocks), the few cheap watches that actually have gears have mostly stamped gears. I suspect that some esoteric brands are more precise and may actually have totally machined mechanisms. My Timex indiglo keeps better time with no gears at all. 50 years ago, clocks were precision instruments. Digital resolved that issue.

If so, I see no reason for canon to go any other way than to stamp the gears in the lenses. As you said... doesn't hurt and reduces the need for lube... :confused: (how I don't know though)

Ring USM has no gears. Clocks aren't lenses. the tolerance of multi-group lens alignment far exceeds that needed for a simple clock.

If by that you mean with tolerances with .1-.2 mm, then sure :)

That's about right for a lens mount. Perhaps a little tighter even.


Yep... We have no choice, but to female dog about it.

Cheers

Who's complaining? I'm not....

[DocFrankenstein]

The tolerance of multi-group lens alignment far exceeds that needed for a simple clock.
Hmm... I was under impression that the whole "lens barrel" (the tube that has all the glass in it) just slides back and forth relative to the focal plane. If that's true, then the whole "lens alignment" argument is bogus, because canon just "glues in" those 7 optical elements in a plastic tube...

Then the tube as a whole just has to move back and forth... and there's is virtually no "precision" required to get the lens to focus accurately then...

So, the question is:
Do the optical elements in 1.4 move relative to each other? :confused:

[Tom W]

Hmm... I was under impression that the whole "lens barrel" (the tube that has all the glass in it) just slides back and forth relative to the focal plane. If that's true, then the whole "lens alignment" argument is bogus, because canon just "glues in" those 7 optical elements in a plastic tube...

Then the tube as a whole just has to move back and forth... and there's is virtually no "precision" required to get the lens to focus accurately then...

So, the question is:
Do the optical elements in 1.4 move relative to each other? :confused:

Not in the 50/1.4. pure Gaussian optics with linear extension - the entire stack moves to focus as you presumed. But that is not where the precision is - the precision is in mounting the lenses in the first place. One piece of glass gets out of alignment by 1/50 of a mm and the lens will be less than optimal. If a few elements are out, the lens will be rather poor.

BTW, have you disassembled one of these, or are you assuming that certain parts are plastic or metal?

[KennyG]

Doc, just what the h*ll gives with you? Do you have some personal vendetta against the 50 1.4 for some reason? It is obvious you have no idea of how high-precision products are actually manufactured or you would not be making such way off the mark comments about the costs. For goodness sake, get a clue, take that infantile attitude and bury it somewhere.

Jeez, why the h*ll did I come back here..........

[pierrot]

;-) http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/index.html

[Tom W]

Jeez, why the h*ll did I come back here..........

Because we like you!
Well, maybe its just your images. ;)

Actually, I'd sum it up this way: It was a Friday night and we were "discussing" a lens on the internet. Not much else needs to be said.

I think Doc's point wasn't that the 50/1.4 is a POS (even though it came out that way), but rather that it could be sold for a good deal less and still be profitable for Canon. I don't disagree with that, but production cost doesn't dictate market price - supply and demand take care of that.

[MarkoPolo]

Definition of a fair price:
What the seller asks....
And what the buyer is willing to pay!
If the value is there, people will buy it. Like most businesses, I'll bet Canon makes more profit on some items and less on others(some may even be loss leaders.) They are in business to make a profit. If they did'nt, we wouldn't have this wonderfull forum! Mark