EF50mm f/1.0L USM

[metsuyan]

Does anyone know anything about this lens?
From what I gather it is no longer in production.
If I am correct.... wHy!?@!?@!?

I just picked up the EF85mm f/1.2L USM and it is spectacular.
Contrast and sharpness are absolutely killer.

I noticed that there is a EF50mm f/1.4 USM but it's not L glass and it's not f/1.0.

For those of us who hate shooting with a flash, those low f stops are imperative.....

Can someone please tell me what I'm missing.

[FlyingPete]

I think the list price had a lot to do with its demise!

[Pekka]

50/1.0 is quite soft and 1.0 - not at all in same class as 85/1.2 at 1.2. If you have 1.2 already you have not missed anything :)
If you look for 85/1.2L quality level lenses for wide open work, check out 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 135/2L and 200/1.8L. I put also 70-200/2.8L in same class.

[metsuyan]

50/1.0 is quite soft and 1.0 - not at all in same class as 85/1.2 at 1.2. If you have 1.2 already you have not missed anything :)
If you look for 85/1.2L quality level lenses for wide open work, check out 24/1.4L, 35/1.4L, 135/2L and 200/1.8L. I put also 70-200/2.8L in same class.

I've got the 24 1.4 already but I was looking for something in between figuring that the 50 would be just that.

Are you saying that the 50 1.0 is not in the same class as the 85 1.2?

[Belmondo]

I owned the 50mm f/1.0 for a while, and other than having remarkably tight depth of field, the lens was not that exciting. As Pekka already said, it tended to be a bit soft. and it is heavy, heavy, heavy. The build is very similar to your 85 f/1.2, weighing just a few grams less. I sold it mainly because it was too much money to have wrapped up in a lens that I never used. (Sold it for $1,700, and could get more for it now)

I have no idea why Canon doesn't call the 50mm f/1.4 an L lens....they certainly could, and nobody would argue.

[metsuyan]

Hey Belmondo,

Thanks for your input. I checked out your thread just after I posted this one (I should have done it in reverse :)

So from your experience, the 50mm f/1.4 is on par with the 85mm f/1.2 ?

[Belmondo]

No, I wouldn't go that far. The 85 f/1.2 is a 'must have' lens in my opinion, especially for anyone ever considering doing portrait work or anything where depth of field is critical. The 50 f/1.4 is a very good lens too, but not on a par with the 85 1.2

[metsuyan]

No, I wouldn't go that far. The 85 f/1.2 is a 'must have' lens in my opinion, especially for anyone ever considering doing portrait work or anything where depth of field is critical. The 50 f/1.4 is a very good lens too, but not on a par with the 85 1.2

So... my last question would be.. how would you compare the 85mm 1.2 to the 50mm 1.0 ?

I know that you sold it bc it was too much money for a lens that you wouldnt use... but in relation to the 85mm 1.2..... would it have been too much money for a lens had it been useful? If you were doing portrait work, would that lens be just as exciting as the 85 1.2?

Thanks for allowing me to pick your thoughts.....

[Belmondo]

If the lens had been useful, it could easily had been worth every penny. I just felt it was unacceptably soft, and the 85 f/1.2 is not.

In fairness, the person that bought the lens, was very happy with it, and sent me a couple shots he'd taken with it shortly after he bought it. They were B&W candids he took at a wedding, and they were pretty good. I still thought they were soft, though.

[metsuyan]

Thanks for your input...

I have a better idea now.

[12345Michael54321]

I remember back when the 50mm f/1.0 was introduced for the EOS system (back when the EOS system was new, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth). It struck me even at that time that the main reason Canon created the lens was so it could say "Look! The fastest 50mm SLR lens available! Nikon doesn't have a 50mm f/1.0. See, we told you going to the EF lens mount would permit us to do wild and wonderful things like this! Nikon can't do this!"

I don't recall many people proclaiming it a great lens, so much as a good lens with great speed. Nor was it ever a big seller, even by expensive L glass standards.

As for the 50mm f/1.4 not being an L lens - well, I understand Canon says that L lenses "use special optical technologies [such as] Ultra-low Dispersion UD glass, Super Low Dispersion glass, Fluorite elements, and Aspherical elements to truly push the optical envelope."

Perhaps the 50mm f/1.4 doesn't need UD glass, Super LD glass, fluorite or aspherical elements. I mean, a 50mm lens of non-ultra-fast aperture is among the simplest lenses to design with excellent performance characteristics. It's not like an ultra wide, or a super tele, or a fast and/or wide range zoom. No, the 50mm is sort of basic. Sure, you can give it a nice USM motor and all, but the lens designers don't have to do a whole lot of exotic stuff to get it to perform well. And, in fact, the EF 50mm f/1.4 does perform extremely well. All without the need to incorporate such features as would earn it an L designation.

Oh, and just as an aside, I opted for the 85mm f/1.8, over the 85mm f/1.2. Not that the 1.2 is a bad lens - in many ways, it's an excellent lens, and it'll certainly deliver super narrow depth of field (where the 1.8 only offers very narrow depth of field). I just found the 1.8 to do everything I need from an 85mm lens. However, whereas one might maintain that the 50mm f/1.0 was more of an overpriced marketing stunt than a truly world class lens, the 85mm f/1.2 is a legitimately fine lens simply happens to be really fast. (BTW, the 85mm f/1.8 doesn't need any of the "envelope pushing" design elements that would make it an L lens. It performs extremely well using more mundane glass. 85mm lenses are pretty basic stuff, too.)

Finally, while the 50mm lens spent most of the 1980s and 1990s fading in popularity (as zoom lenses came to rob it of its former status as the most purchased of SLR lenses), the era of the 1.6x pseudo-crop factor digital SLR seems to have returned some popularity to the 50mm focal length. On such cameras, it can now serve as a sharp, fast, short tele lens, ideal for portraits. This being the case, perhaps (just perhaps) Canon will eventually offer a 50mm f/1.2 L lens, which will be slightly slower than the old 1.0 lens, but sell for under $1000, and perform well even wide open.

[mbze430]

If you REALLY want a 50 f/1.0, look at the Leica one. Its super sharp unlike the Canon copy.

[12345Michael54321]

Of course, that Leica lens is an M series lens. Which is to say, it's for a rangefinder camera. I don't believe Leica offers a 50mm f/1.0 lens for SLRs.

In some ways, it's rather easier to design a very fast 50mm lens for a rangefinder, than for an SLR. (It's my understanding that this is true for wide angle thru normal lenses, in general. More freedom in design, due to not having to worry about clearing a flapping mirror.)