What happens to the Holy Trinity Now with 50 1.2L

Yup.
That and AF speed/ accuracy.

this thread is extremely amusing...

Canon has raised the bar again. Another brand new lens with an even more outrageous price tag. The design and construction of this lens shouldn't cost Canon more then the 35mm 1.4 yet it makes that lens seem cheap, raising the price of luxury lenses to a new height of Sony-likeness. Bravo Canon! Hit us! Can hardly wait for the upcoming 135mm f/1.8 L for a bargain price of 4000$

Canon : count too much on your popularity and you are bound to lose it.

Compare it more with the 85 1.2, and you'll see why the price suggested so far, sticks.

Keep in mind the 50 1.2 will have the FOV of an 80mm on a 1.6 crop(which is very common for a lot of digital users), even people making money using the 20D/30D's for instance. The 85 1.2 is not as useful when on a 1.6 crop with the FOV of 136mm, unless you are in a very very big room or are doing stuff outdoors.

Obviously the output is most important and that will be soon very soon.

Then again, the 85L has a lot more glass, and a bigger opening (same aperture, longer focal length), so I imagine is optically more difficult to make. The 50/1.2 should be a fairly straight forward design...
I too find the price a bit steep.... (by about 40%)

But you are paying for aperture. Also, the 50 is weather sealed. I know, it's not necessairly needed, but that's one advantage over the 85L. And if the thing has stellar AF, then its wins in another. We'll see.

I would say its more useful than the 85 on a 1.6 cropped camera 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

Two solutions.
Decrease ISO as much as possible, if you have or get a 1-series cam, you can definitely utilize the ISO 50.

Second solution, use an ND, not as practical as the above solution,but it is effective.

To be honest, unless image quality (contrast,color,bokeh and sharpness) is paramount considered to the 50 1.4, I think this lens is too expensive (assuming its over $1,xxx).
Whats the huge differnece in DoF and shutterspeed max between 1.4 and 1.2?

Weather sealed plays into consideration though, I live in the middle east, its sandy and wet (I live on an Island) more often than say midwest USA. I needed the weather sealed 1dmkII and sealed lenses. Can we agree that there is a probability (regardless of how small or large) that a user is in dire need of weather-sealed 50mm lens? For him or her, the little difference in 1.4 and 1.2 (shutter speed, Dof, AF speed and accuracy and brighter viewfinder) are just cherries on his sundae.

So is the 35 f/1.4 L. I bet the 50 f/1.2 L doesn't cost any more to produce. 50mm has the easiest design. Rubber seals don't cost more then 10-20$ and USM AF is nothing new or expensive. I see no reason why it should be 40% more expensive then the 35 L. Not to mention that the samples i've seen of the 50 1.2 wide open where rather poor, worst then the 50 1.4 wide open. But i guess Canon is very good at training customers to believe weather sealing cost hundreds and hundreds of $$$ to implement and Is more the doubles the price of a lens (70-200 f/4 L vs 70-200 f/4 L IS). oh well.....

Wait till its released, because the price usually doesn't stay at what it is said to be.

You are paying for f/1.2. Of course there's extra stuff in it that costs some, but as long as the demand is there, there's no need to drop it too low. You can make that argument for a lot of the lens out there though that are high end by Canon.

Canon isn't trainning anyone. It's up to you whether you want it. You have free will. There are more than enough lens out there, that can satisfy someone. If its not this lens, then its not this lens. I would wait for better tests than just that website's.

BTW, 35L is not weather sealed, at least I haven't seen anything that says it is.

16-35mm 2.8 L USM
17-40mm 4L USM
24-70mm 2.8 L USM
24-105mm 4 L IS USM
70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM
28-300mm 3.5-5.6L IS USM
85mm 1.2L MKII
300mm 2.8L IS USM
400mm 2.8L IS USM
400mm 4 DO IS USM
500mm 4 L IS USM
600mm 4 L IS USM

Dante King wrote:
BTW, The trinity stays. the 50L just becomes the virgin mary.

The new official name is "The Holy Quadity"

The marketing department deserves it's cookie. Well not in my case, I've been seriously considering switching boats for some time now if they continue this outrageous price policy on all the new lenses and the crap non 1D series bodies. 50 1.2 costing 5 times the price of the 50 1.4 is ridiculous. Last I heard metal was not hugely more expensive then policarbonate and rubber was quite cheap. Not to mention the even more outrageous 70-200 f/4 L vs 70-200 f/4 L IS. Last time i've heard, looking at the different IS vs non IS prices the implementation of IS didn't cost an arm and a leg. Now they ask 220% the price just for IS!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lol, in your dreams Canon.

As I said in another thead : They are slowly turning into Sony price wise (See all the recent lenses). But they are never considering actually offering anything good below the 1D class. It's all junk. Nikon didn't mind creating a D2Xmini with the D200, and Sony/Pentax didn't mind offering in-bdy IS and a ****load of gadgets on their entry level bodies but God forbid Canon would offer at least weather sealing on their non 1D series. For God's sake those rubber seals wouldn't raise the production price with more then 10-20$, but they don't give a **** about what we want. And what about full time ISO in the viewfinder? Wow it would cost what? 1$ to implement? What about build quality? Ever touched a less expensive D50? That cheap body is in a whole different class build wise compared to the more expensive 350/400D. I hate this marketing strategy - trying to force our hand into buying outrageously expensive 1D bodies if we really want something decent.

And one more thing: from the samples, the 400D has more noise then the 350D. Canon, what the hell have you been doing in the last 2-3 years? Fuji can offer DSLR noise levels on a flimsy F30 P&S and you can't even keep the noise at the same levels as your 8mp, 2 years old sensor? It's embarasing.

Switch to Nikon, it'll be similar. Buy 3rd party, it'll still be similar.

Nikon will pack more features in their lower end bodies. I think the D200 would suit you well then. Or D80 if you don't want to go that high. It's not like Canon is going to price their stuff that much differently from the main competitors.

I would never trust the D200's weather sealing(especially with popup flash) or any midline Canon's weather sealing.

Yeah, defintely wouldn't trust that. Defintely good marketing there. That's the one feature(and there are a lot I like that Nikon packed in), that I don't care for because I don't think its that great

Nikon's d200 is at least 400 more than Canon's 30D. Having used both(and still have access to both), I wouldn't say overall, the end result is much better. D200 has basically filled in the slot for the D2h, as the better compromise. I don't disagree that its packed with features.

But Nikon is charging more for their bodies generally with similar specs. As far as the old D50 vs. XT(350), in that one case the XT actually had slightly better specs.

Hey, I would hope I could spend less, but its not just Canon. There's always a price versus feature problem, regardless if its lens or bodies. But take into consideration everything there.

Was rather thinking about the Pentax K100 or the near future Pentax K10 with fantastic and cheap old MF lenses and Pentax AF lenses (now they are all IS, 50 1.7 is sharper wide open then canon 50 1.8 at f/2.8, and the 16-45 f/4 is at least as sharp as the Canon 17-40 and it only consts 375$). Not to mention the superb low noise. A fiends DS produces significantly better ISO3200 RAWS then my ISO3200 RAWs from my 20D.

Then you found your match. If Pentax got as big as Nikon or Canon, it's prices would be higher, since they'd be in bigger demand.