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

CheshireCat wrote in post #18464809
Interesting. Please post some samples, I have officially hijacked this thread (sorry mdvaden )...

If one expects only Canon made images, please close your eyes now!

Here are comparison image made with Konica 57mm f/1.2 (not a real 1:1 comparison)

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/FDxt​Lm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ELA9​Le

CheshireCat wrote in post #18464809
..
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...

With the Techart adapter one could likely use a converted Canon 50mm/0.95, so a bit faster than the Canon EF 50mm/1. And one can use Leica Noctilux 50/0.95 and f/1. So there are at least three Canon EF alternatives that may work with AF and are as fast as f/1 or faster - on mirorless Sony cameras.

If I remember right, some of the longer focal x-ray lenses covers medium format. But the mirrorless camera need some modification, to come close to the back lens, which is normal front pressure plate for the film. So the shutter has to go, depending on what you want to photograph. Machine Vision cameras could help.
But all the digital cameras are f-stop limited by the micorlenses or the sensor structure itself. So absolute f-stops faster than f/1 are not so good.
The Oude Delft 50mm/0.75 seems to cover fullframe:
https://www.kickstarte​r.com …lens-in-the-w/description

You have seen this - digital largeformat:
http://www.largesense.​com/

Absolutely not.

ZoneV wrote in post #18465689
If one expects only Canon made images, please close your eyes now!

Thanks, nice comparison.

Yes, but like I said, nothing goes under f/0.95.

The Oude Delft 50mm/0.75 seems to cover fullframe:
https://www.kickstarte​r.com …lens-in-the-w/description

It does not.
I have one, and in order to cover full frame, I have to remove the embedded focal reducer, therefore modifying its design. At this point the lens gets longer than 50mm, and certainly not f/0.75 anymore.
I don’t know what the mod in that kickstarter is, but I doubt that you’ll get a real 50/0.75 that covers full frame.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18464811
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.

Actually, I just ordered the 70-200mm f/4 IS from Canon and ordered (and received today) the Canon 50mm f/1.2

I decided my budget is too small for the real risk of getting a bad 50mm f/1.0 copy. I'd rather keep that dream than the lens at the moment.

Otherwise, I'm enjoying the variety being added to the thread because I've tried adapted lenses before and enjoyed it.

Barely related, but related since I'm tweaking my collection, is the announced Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS ... because I have the 85mm f/1.2 and am pondering whether to add the new 1/4 IS and keep the 1.2 L also.

But not getting a 50mm f/1.0 covers the two lenses I got, with room to spare for a third lens.

mdvaden wrote in post #18466888
Barely related, but related since I'm tweaking my collection, is the announced Canon 85mm f/1.4 IS ... because I have the 85mm f/1.2 and am pondering whether to add the new 1/4 IS and keep the 1.2 L also.

My gut feelings, and the few shots I've seen taken with the new 85, say I'll keep the good old 85/1.2.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18460659
I would be interested to see what the 50 .95 gives you for results over the 50 1.2 or even the Sigma ART for substantially less money, like 1/3 to 1/5 of the cost. Are there any back to back showing differences? Part of the price is the allure of having something many others don't, not necessarily the results it produces over any other lens, IMO, but then again some side by side shots might convince me otherwise. Just the fact that a nice quality box for that lens goes for a crazy price gives me this impression. The only way a box lends anything to the images is if it used as a pinhole camera box.

I do have a gif that can show differences, but dont know if where and if I can even post gifs here. The difference is subtle, but it's definitely there.

Uhm... GIF is definitely not the right format, however you could just it to Google Drive and give use the shared public link.

Otherwise, just upload the related JPEG files.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18464349
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.

Having done a somewhat recent comparison of Canon vs. Hasselblad digital images, to see whether or not perceived 'better color' was real or simply due to perceptions pertaining to exposure, I know how important it is to have fundamental densities due to exposure the same, which is why I made that comment. Then I notice that 'black' in both shots was not of matching density either, leading to my throwing in that comment as well. But I also saw apparent differences that one might attribute to greater vignetting or lack of uniformity of exposure between Center vs. Edges. Yet I also noted the Center brightness seems 'pretty much the same', as your responded. In short, due to all the differences, it complicates the comments like the "the soft pastel colors of the 50/1 vs the much better colors of the Zeiss,"

Wilt wrote in post #18468585
Having done a somewhat recent comparison of Canon vs. Hasselblad digital images, to see whether or not perceived 'better color' was real or simply due to perceptions pertaining to exposure, I know how important it is to have fundamental densities due to exposure the same, which is why I made that comment. Then I notice that 'black' in both shots was not of matching density either, leading to my throwing in that comment as well. But I also saw apparent differences that one might attribute to greater vignetting or lack of uniformity of exposure between Center vs. Edges. Yet I also noted the Center brightness seems 'pretty much the same', as your responded. In short, due to all the differences, it complicates the comments like the "the soft pastel colors of the 50/1 vs the much better colors of the Zeiss,"

It is far from complicated. In post, simply remove the vignetting, then try to match the contrast and colors of the Zeiss shot in the Canon shot, and you will realise that it is impossible.
Have special fun trying to match the pink-ish color of the cat on the right side. Of course, you can only use global adjustments (masking out part of the image is cheating).
Feel free to process my photos and post the results.

If I was very wealthy and dropping $5k was considered pocket change, then yes. I'd also have a few Rolex watches, a collection of cars in garages at my house along with a few houses around the world and a huge boat that needs a live in crew and pilot. Alas, I'm not independently wealthy so no, I wouldn't buy the 50L 1.0.

The 50L 1.0 is a collectors lens and not a use daily lens imho. Given that the op is considering the price of the 50L 1.0, my guess the op's net worth is not 9 figures. Nice to dream though. ;-D

notastockpikr wrote in post #18470324
Given that the op is considering the price of the 50L 1.0, my guess the op's net worth is not 9 figures. Nice to dream though. ;-D

... or maybe some of us just buy a $3000 less expensive car, and the 50L f/1.0. Just because we love photography.

Nope. I'll own the 50/1.2 some day, though.

I'd buy one. If it renders the same way as my 50mm/f1 Noctilux, then i'm a happy camper.

panicatnabisco wrote in post #18470756
I'd buy one. If it renders the same way as my 50mm/f1 Noctilux, then i'm a happy camper.

It does not. The only thing they have in common is the aperture.
Quite a different design for reflex cameras, with two aspherics (vs zero in the Noctilux f/1) thus rendering a much busier background.
The mirror box chopping the bokeh is also a major spoiler when mounted on reflex cameras (ironically, no such problem on mirrorless).
The Canon is much more prone to flares and renders them as rainbows.
Very different characters, both quite far from clinical optical perfection.

If I had it to do all over again... Then, yes: Now, probably not.

Back in the last millenia when the trinity was the 50 1.0, 85 1.2 and 200 1.2 they were the lenses that you lusted after. You wanted fast glass because other wise you had to push the processing and that just made getting grain free images harder. The 50 1.0 was a product of its time with a very specific remit, low light and shallow dof. Now we just wind up the iso to silly numbers and still have usable images so a super fast lens is less of a requirement. So that just leaves the shallow dof which most people are going to have trouble seing any difference between the 1.0 and 1.2 versions.

Unless they notice the notch that the 1.0 leaves in the bokeh rings (the electronic conectors sit over the rear optic and your round bokeh has a fair sized chunk missing from the edge), i dont know if the 1.2 suffers from the same problem as i dont own one.

I managed to get a sharp 1.0 years ago that a large shop had at a silly price. Then it made sense as i had always wanted one, now... i'd use the money to get the 50mm TSE if i wanted really sharp, or if AF was needed then the 1.2 would do. Until then the 1.4 will do just fine.

BearSummer