What happens to the Holy Trinity Now with 50 1.2L

can we called it "Foursome" or... "Awesome 4" instead of trinity ... lol:

call it the "oh my god, you have all four"

sample from Canon USA site...

^^^ that is just horrible in my own opinion. why in god's name would i ever want to shoot such an unflattering portrait? i love how everybody is so excited about F1.2 and yet nobody shoot them at 1.2 because the DOF is just so thin..

MrChad wrote:
sample from Canon USA site...


Again, I'm still amazed at how little use I'd have for a lens with a DOF this shallow...

I guess out of focus noses are the next big thing in portraits.

You forget or may not know that DoF increases with distance from subject.
I agree that Canon's choice of subject to show off its shallow Dof is misplaced,but it does prove it's point. Shallow Dof is more than available. If you think about it, using a person to display shallow DoF is not too silly. Everyone is familiar with faces and thier shapes and sizes, so by you noticing that the nose is OoF,you can begin to be creative with this lens. It is easier, I think,for you to note or calculate OoF due to shallow DoF with a face then with say a random box or innaminate object.

See my above post to Chad + I shoot with f/1.4 and f/1.2 all the time. Im in situations,mostly with family, that are dark,very dark. So both the bright viewfinder and wide aperture lens helps in regards to shutter speed and accurate&fast AF. Thats right, accurate and fast AF in near complete dark situations. Shallow DoF? I dont shoot potraits in above mentioned situations. Usually its the family sitting in the coutyard near the waterfall in the front garden. The only lights are the few dim candles and the far away street lights. So its usually 2 or 3 meters from the group im shooting, DoF is not paper thin (as displayed in Canon's sample shot). Trust me, it works
In the end, its better to get half a head in focus (yep AF too) than no shot at all. Ohh ya, who needs a flash at with fast lenses?

Canon's "sample shots" have never been too impressive. They're just showing what it can do...not taking an award winning shot. You can get some outstanding portraits at f/1.2. Imagine stepping back and taking a shot of a few people together but don't want that awful looking guy in the shot. Yep...f/1.2. When you're 10-15 ft. away from someone, 1.2 is like the closeup f/4, yet you get insane shutter speeds. 1.2 is awesome when you need it. Just think...at 1.4/1.8, it's already stopped down.

I share your love of 1.2 ronald s Jr, it's amazing how often i run into that 1/8000 limit though

baybud wrote:
I share your love of 1.2 ronald s Jr, it's amazing how often i run into that 1/8000 limit though

Less so with 50 ISO on a 5D

1.2 vs. 1.4, what is that a full half stop? Have to remember my sqaures of 2....

I thought photograpy was about the painting of light, not having gear able to shoot in the absence of it.

If you are hurting for a shot at f/1.4 and ISO 1600 you might want to think about a tripod. Or start bringing some spare candles with you

I'll have to assume like all L's this lens will have fantastic build, and extremely good resolution and contrast.

I'm sure many studio users and gear enthusiasts will find value in this lens. But I'm going to have to wonder how many street or jornalist type shooters are really going to lug around this beast vs. 50/1.4. Weight shouldn't be an issue at 500g (2x the 1.4; but it's right their with the 17-40L which I find light) but the honkers going to look huge with the 72mm front opening.

Ron,

can you show me a smaple shot you took at f1.4? i have never and never will shoot a group photo with f1.4 or even 2.8 for that matter. i would love to see an example of a group shot you have taken with f1.4.

Does that mean you will walk around throwing up your lens and trying to catch it all day or handling the lens with greasy hands? "whoops, it dropped, i couldn't keep it my hands!"

A lot will depend how it handles at f/1.4 and how much better it does than the current model.

condyk wrote:
Nice spot cowboy. Yup ... those Trinity guys will be having sleepless nights wondering if they can afford to keep up. But I guess that .2 of a stop over the 1.4 really will be worth it for them Definately another vanity lens for those with more money than sense.

Well, I fit in this category, but I find it very sensical. The trinity has far superior color and contrast than the consumer counterpart lenses. For me its not all about status or size, rather the fact that when I can take the 85L and capture a shot that would not be possible with the 1.8. Seems minor to some and not worth the extra $$$, but for me the build and color/contrast leap is worth every penny.

BTW, The trinity stays. the 50L just becomes the virgin mary.

Dante King wrote:
Well, I fit in this category, but I find it very sensical. The trinity has far superior color and contrast than the consumer counterpart lenses. For me its not all about status or size, rather the fact that when I can take the 85L and capture a shot that would not be possible with the 1.8. Seems minor to some and not worth the extra $$$, but for me the build and color/contrast leap is worth every penny.

BTW, The trinity stays. the 50L just becomes the virgin mary.

What about Arthur and the knights of the round table? Oh I'm just lame...

no not lame, just young!