50L still worth the premium?

lens pirate wrote in post #16948719
No I am attempting to address the original question. Is the 50L worth the extra cost...

You do realize that no amount of bench testing will answer this question?

lens pirate wrote in post #16948719
No I am attempting to address the original question. Is the 50L worth the extra cost.

Snafoo wrote in post #16949013
You do realize that no amount of bench testing will answer this question?

Perhaps you missed the use of the word attempting. Just trying to add data to the conversation.

I'm loving the 50L. The more I use it, the more I become enamored with it. You can take dreadfully dull images with it (like any lens for that matter), but give this thing the right light and it just steps up to the plate (I figure it's gotta be the lens because I'm not great at this photography thing).

It really likes contrast in lighting, like street lights against the cool dim sky just after sundown. It loves the golden hours, and it loves making giant bokeh balls in the background. It's just so damn cool what you can do with it. For my style, which is like, tinker around with the snapping the dumbest little things, it works swell.

1.2 from any lens is a nice place to play kind of hard to go back to 1.4 or 1.8 after.

^ I agree with that, after much deliberation over adapting an f.75 or f.95 lens to my 6D I gave up.
While there are many nice f1.4 lenses for many camera systems, ultra fast <f1.2 are few and outdated.
I wanted the option of AF and I chose the 50L over the 85L II because I wanted an f1.2 lens at a FL I enjoyed.
I shoot much more environmentally photos than I do formal portraits and the 50mm FL is great for that.
Just like my 24L II is for even wider.

RONDOO718 wrote in post #16950234
1.2 from any lens is a nice place to play kind of hard to go back to 1.4 or 1.8 after.

The move from 1.2 to 1.4 is only 1/3 of a stop. That's like saying 2.8 is hard to go back to after shooting at 2.5. Not at all material in terms of DOF or light gathering in real world use.

mystik610 wrote in post #16950548
The move from 1.2 to 1.4 is only 1/3 of a stop. That's like saying 2.8 is hard to go back to after shooting at 2.5. Not at all material in terms of DOF or light gathering in real world use.

On paper, yes it's only a 1/3 difference. But because different lens designs have different physical properties, in real world use it maybe more. I remember reading a comparison between the 50L and the Canon 50/1.4 and the non-Art Siggy 50/1.4 which suggested the difference was more like 2/3. I could of course be wrong and it doesn't matter. What does matter is that I'm often shooting with unreal fast shutter speeds in very little light.

Here is a link to a comparison between f1.4 and f1.2 regardless of lens manufacturer.
http://howmuchblur.com ….2-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject
At 1-10 meters the separation between that 1/3 stop become more prevalent.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16950660
On paper, yes it's only a 1/3 difference. But because different lens designs have different physical properties, in real world use it maybe more. I remember reading a comparison between the 50L and the Canon 50/1.4 and the non-Art Siggy 50/1.4 which suggested the difference was more like 2/3. I could of course be wrong and it doesn't matter. What does matter is that I'm often shooting with unreal fast shutter speeds in very little light.

From what I have read, our camera's image sensor reads very little light when the aperture is wider than f2.0. That is because the sensor has depth (like a honey comb) and the light coming at an obtuse angle is absorbed by the side walls of the sensor instead of the sensor itself. The camera manufacturers falsify our light meter readings by secretly increasing the iso level for photos taken at f2.0 and wider.
You will get a faster shutter speed using f1.2 rather than f1.4, but you will also get more noise. That is because you don't receive much more light, but rather a higher iso.

Update: here is one article. Depending on the pixel density of the sensor, a f1.2 lens could loose 1 EV of light. Thus your f1.2 lens could be just as useful as a f1.8 lens in regards to light gathering. http://www.dxomark.com​/Reviews/F-stop-blues

snake0ape wrote in post #16950711
From what I have read, our camera's image sensor reads very little light when the aperture is wider than f2.0. That is because the sensor has depth (like a honey comb) and the light coming at an acute angle is absorbed by the side walls of the sensor instead of the sensor itself. The camera manufacturers falsify our light meter readings by secretly increasing the iso level for photos taken at f2.0 and wider.
You will get a faster shutter speed using f1.2 rather than f1.4, but you will also get more noise. That is because you don't receive much more light, but rather a higher iso.

Update: here is one article. Depending on the pixel density of the sensor, a f1.2 lens could loose 1 EV of light. Thus your f1.2 lens could be just as useful as a f1.8 lens in regards to light gathering. http://www.dxomark.com​/Reviews/F-stop-blues

This is very interesting. In the end, I'm happy with the results I'm getting and that's all that matters I suppose. I notice most of their data points are with APS-C cameras. Not sure how the 6D measures up in terms of pixel pitch and what not. In real world usage, I'd say the 6D + 50L is a pretty killer low light combo.

6d and anything fast is an awesome low light combo...

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16950790
This is very interesting. In the end, I'm happy with the results I'm getting and that's all that matters I suppose. I notice most of their data points are with APS-C cameras. Not sure how the 6D measures up in terms of pixel pitch and what not. In real world usage, I'd say the 6D + 50L is a pretty killer low light combo.

Yes. A 6d +50L is an awesome combo.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16950790
This is very interesting. In the end, I'm happy with the results I'm getting and that's all that matters I suppose. I notice most of their data points are with APS-C cameras. Not sure how the 6D measures up in terms of pixel pitch and what not. In real world usage, I'd say the 6D + 50L is a pretty killer low light combo.

the 6D will iso boost the 50L, and you can test it out too. Shoot wide open, then unmount slightly so connecters no longer touch, then shoot again. slightly different readings, nothing has changed.

6D + 50L is still a fantastic lowlight combo with great bokeh.

Charlie wrote in post #16950808
the 6D will iso boost the 50L, and you can test it out too. Shoot wide open, then unmount slightly so connecters no longer touch, then shoot again. slightly different readings, nothing has changed.

6D + 50L is still a fantastic lowlight combo with great bokeh.

it makes me really sad that this trick is considered okay by canon.

it's like marking lenses at a certain speed when they transmit less light.

not sure how that isn't shady business practice.

Jerobean wrote in post #16951070
it makes me really sad that this trick is considered okay by canon.

it's like marking lenses at a certain speed when they transmit less light.

not sure how that isn't shady business practice.

First, it's industry wide, not Canon specifically.

Second, consider the alternative. You don't boost the ISO and all images shot at f1.2 are 2/3 a stop underexposed based on manual exposure calculations. You move from f2 to f1.2 and increase shutter speed accordingly to keep the exposure the same, yet your picture comes out MUCH darker. Or you use a handheld meter and your results vary based on how wide open your aperture is. In order to preserve normal camera operation, they really have no choice but to ISO compensate. Perhaps some fine print in the manual is in order, but it's not really "shady" as much as trying to make photographers' lives easier.