Would U buy Canon 50mm f/1.0 "new" / "like new" if U had $$

I've come across some good copies to buy. I'm ready to buy anytime. I thought about buying. I want to buy. Kinda how it's like in my head when I see this. Then I realize the 1.2 version would be plenty better.

My only fear is buying a subpar copy. If I could have a preview I'd probably of picked one up by now.

Talley wrote in post #18461678
I've come across some good copies to buy. I'm ready to buy anytime. I thought about buying. I want to buy. Kinda how it's like in my head when I see this. Then I realize the 1.2 version would be plenty better.

The 50/1.2 is a totally different beast. Only thing in common is the focal length.

Your fears are legit. The 50/1 has a bad rep because a lot of subpar copies are around.
Tolerances are critical at f/1 and the 11 elements (2 of which aspherical) don't help.
However, very good copies can be as sharp if not sharper than a 50/1.2.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18461691
The 50/1.2 is a totally different beast. Only thing in common is the focal length.

Your fears are legit. The 50/1 has a bad rep because a lot of subpar copies are around.
Tolerances are critical at f/1 and the 11 elements (2 of which aspherical) don't help.
However, very good copies can be as sharp if not sharper than a 50/1.2.

So why this lens very expensive then?
Rare? F/1.0? Stellar IQ & AF hit rate (good copies)? Just curious

PeterAlex7 wrote in post #18463874
So why this lens very expensive then?
Rare? F/1.0? Stellar IQ & AF hit rate (good copies)? Just curious

It's out of production and is F1.0. That's all. It's the F1.0 that grabs people. Remember this has autofocus too. It's not like some legacy lens with manual focus only. This is still autofocus, etc. And it's F1.0. That number draws attention. It's not better. It just is what it is. But if you were to test this lens against a modern 50mm, it doesn't have good anything, other than the highly subjective "character" that people will refer to.

Very best,

no. if I was going to buy a lens that i'd never use i'd buy this https://www.bhphotovid​eo.com …5mm_f_1_8_di.ht​ml/SUB/cpw

In the days of ISO 400 film (and ISO 1600 when 'push' processed), the use of an f/0.95 lens to simply 'get the shot when it is otherwise impossibly dark' -- to capture a shot in -1EV lower light in spite of less than best lens sharpness and contrast at wide open aperture -- made sense to a greater degree than today, where we can simply bump the ISO upwards to shoot in -5EV to -6EV lower light... 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, 25600, 51200, 102400.

Today, only the rarity of a superfast max aperture -- and NOT the IQ of the lens! -- gives 'collector value' to an otherwise optically mediocre lens which is no longer 'valuable' for extra-low light shooting.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18463875
It's out of production and is F1.0. That's all. It's the F1.0 that grabs people. Remember this has autofocus too. It's not like some legacy lens with manual focus only. This is still autofocus, etc. And it's F1.0. That number draws attention. It's not better. It just is what it is. But if you were to test this lens against a modern 50mm, it doesn't have good anything, other than the highly subjective "character" that people will refer to.

Very best,

Wilt wrote in post #18464004
In the days of ISO 400 film (and ISO 1600 when 'push' processed), the use of an f/0.95 lens to simply 'get the shot when it is otherwise impossibly dark' -- to capture a shot in -1EV lower light in spite of less than best lens sharpness and contrast at wide open aperture -- made sense to a greater degree than today, where we can simply bump the ISO upwards to shoot in -5EV to -6EV lower light... 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, 25600, 51200, 102400.

Today, only the rarity of a superfast max aperture -- and NOT the IQ of the lens! -- gives 'collector value' to an otherwise optically mediocre lens which is no longer 'valuable' for extra-low light shooting.

Oh i see, because its rare and the 1.0 leaves every drawbacks of the lens behind, also the 1.0 was the hero at that time when ISO wasn't enough to bring enough light.

Was that mean the 1.2Ls will be the next 'collector lens'? I can see manufacturers will stay at f1.4 for full frame cameras for a long time as the largest apperture. Because like what you've mentioned, today we can boost the ISO to bring enough light, enough for most situations.

Here is the comparison vs one of the best modern 50-ish lens, the Zeiss FE 55/1.8, both lenses on an A7R2.
Both shots wide open SOOC. The 50/1 can look much better with some savvy PP.
Notice the soft pastel colors of the 50/1 vs the much better colors of the Zeiss, despite the identical white balance (white wall on the back, left side).
The 50/1 is great for outside portraits in low light, if you like its oniric character.

PeterAlex7 wrote in post #18464041
Was that mean the 1.2Ls will be the next 'collector lens'?

I don't think so. The 50/1 is a collector item because very few copies were produced, and very few good ones are around (and still functional).

Manufacturers will stay at f/1.4 because going down one extra stop requires a much more complex design and much stricter tolerances.

As a side note, there is no way you can “fix the colors in post” to match the Zeiss lens.
This is a nice example for anyone who is still convinced that lens color rendering is not a problem with digital photography. Sorry, that is delusional.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18464064
Here is the comparison vs one of the best modern 50-ish lens, the Zeiss FE 55/1.8, both lenses on an A7R2.
Both shots wide open SOOC. The 50/1 can look much better with some savvy PP.
Notice the soft pastel colors of the 50/1 vs the much better colors of the Zeiss, despite the identical white balance (white wall on the back, left side).
The 50/1 is great for outside portraits in low light, if you like its oniric character.

Hosted photo: posted by CheshireCat in
./showthread.php?p=184​64064&i=i116957159
forum: Canon Lenses

It helps if both shots in such a comparison have the same level of Exposure (and Contrast)...clearly one is 'underexposed' as can be seen in the grayed whites!

Wilt wrote in post #18464328
It helps if both shots in such a comparison have the same level of Exposure (and Contrast)...clearly one is 'underexposed' as can be seen in the grayed whites!

The target white level (label at the center) is pretty much the same.
If I adjusted the contrast, then the shots would not be SOOC anymore, which is the essence of this comparison.
Keep in mind that the 50/1 is a low-contrast lens.

Oh, I understand the hunt for fast lenses - and somewhat the price of those EF 50mm/1.0 lenses.

For example with full people images there is a difference visible between f/1.0 and f/1.2. Not as much as it can be judged at one single image wheter it is which f-stop. But enough to add some "extra"in the image from the faster lens.
A lot of images work with relative fast lenses, this is one thing what some photographers like on larger format cameras.
On film one simple can use lenses like the f/2.5 Aero Ektar with 4x5" sensor diagonal.
This results in a relative to fullframe f-stop ~0.6.
Or those people using ultra large format wetplate cameras and relative fast lenses.
I use a f/3.8 lens on crop 0.1, it is fascinating even with the simple prototype camera - relative f-stop f/0.38 for fullframe on relative 48mm focal length.
Those who want autofocus are limited to f/1 or perhaps some things with a Techart adapter and mirrorless.

ZoneV wrote in post #18464487
I use a f/3.8 lens on crop 0.1, it is fascinating even with the simple prototype camera - relative f-stop f/0.38 for fullframe on relative 48mm focal length.

Interesting. Please post some samples, I have officially hijacked this thread (sorry mdvaden ).

The Canon 50/1 is the only AF lens ever produced @ <= f/1.
About mirrorless, there’s nothing under f/0.95 that covers full frame, not even the legendary NASA Zeiss lenses that R.Scott adapted for the movie Barry Lyndon.
I have a Rayxar 50/0.75, but it does not cover full frame (and is almost useless for normal photography).

Bigger formats are the way to go if one loves extremely shallow DOF. Waiting for 4x5” digital sensors ! (I can wait ).

Just an extra post to help the OP: if you have the money, and don’t have the Canon 200/2 yet, then you have something to buy before the 50/1.