What happens to the Holy Trinity Now with 50 1.2L

Why is the canon 50mm f1.2 going to be "so" expensive, well lets look and see what B&H sell other L primes for

14mm 2.8 ...............$1800
24mm 1.4 ...............$1120
35mm 1.4 ...............$1135
85mm 1.2 ...............$2100
135mm 2.0 ..............$900
180mm 3.5 macro ....$1240

Why have they created the 50mm f1.2, because we have been asking for a replacement to the 50mm 1.0 and an L version of the 50mm 1.4. How many will they sell, well not a huge amount, some for the full frame owners and some for the 1.6/1.3 group. So for the R+D, wages, materials, shipping etc, take off the numebr sold at such and such price and make sure you make a profit after all that is what canon are there to do.

You asked for it, canon have set the initial retail price now its up to you. You either want it or not, if you do put your cash on the table if not then either make do with the 50 1.4/1.8 or wait till the price comes down in 6 months or so. Looking at the prices above I think its priced roughly where I would expect it to be.

At the end of the day it's an L, they arent supposed to be cheap. They are supposed to be exceptional, sharp, high contrast, good colour, low CA, negligable barrel/pincushoning. So pay your money and take your choice.

Whatever happens enjoy your photography.

All the best

BearSummer

That about sums it up - the price is what Canon wants for the lens. If it seems reasonable, buy it; if it does not, don't buy it. The same as any other product in a free market.

If fewer people buy it than Canon expects, Canon may choose to either lower the price or they may find a better use for their production facilities.

Just a note - Canon has a habit of charging a rather high price at the beginning of a product's life in order to capitalize on those that want the product quickly. Once sales level off, they normally come down a bit. I would expect this lens to settle around a price around $1200 - 1400 US in 6 months to a year.

The above pretty much sums it.

Like pretty much every company. Every every every company. From mobiles to cars to furniture.

Not just companies - I prefer to work for the highest wage as well.

does anybody have a group shot taken at f1.4? i am very curious about this...

Good question. I may have some at f/2.8, but group shots don't fare well at f/1.4 IMHO. Hard to get people lined up in a thin plane.

Even 2.8 is pushing it, and I've got some f/4 shots that I wish were f/8!

i agree Tom which is why i found it interesting that some people claim that the f1.2 lens will be great for group shots...

Has anyone gotten to test this lens yet?

No official tests yet, but this poster, Nathan67 of FM got to fire off a few shots with a pre-production copy a day or two ago. He's included some images in his thread.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/44302​7

maybe it's just me, but aside from the L weathersealing and build I don't really see a huge advantage over the 1.4. I concern myself with AF a lot more with zooms as opposed to primes but that's just me.

thanks for the link Tom W, i shall have a look

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #1902860
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.

Dragging this back up as it ties in with something I've just been reading.

Without intending any disrespect, it might be worth bearing in mind that whilst going a 1/3EV from f2 to f1.8 or f1.7 does not need a lens redesign, the extra 2/3EV to f1.4 does, and the same is true of the next half-stop to f1.2. This increase brings the need for increased correction of spherical aberration. So, while the amount that Canon is charging might well seem higher than necessary (and I agree it is a little too high), there are genuine technical reasons for an increase in cost that go beyond simple markup.

That being the case, and when comparing the 35/1.4 to the 50/1.2, the reasons for price diferentials are more easily understood. That said, as I have the 85/1.2 already, I have today opted for a 35/1.4 over a 50/1.2 as I suspect it will be more useful for me.

radiohead wrote in post #2084783
So, while the amount that Canon is charging might well seem higher than necessary (and I agree it is a little too high), there are genuine technical reasons for an increase in cost that go beyond simple markup.

So, what are those 'genuine technical reasons' technically and specifically? I tend to agree with my buddy Maestro Dragos Jianu when it comes to lenses and 'cost/benefit'

Whenever we start to see the results of some tests the pricing will become more meaningful.

If it produces sharp pictures wide open, with good CA control (a problem on both the 35 and 85 versions), I guess it will sell a lot. If not much better than the existing 50mm then maybe not.

condyk wrote in post #2085127
So, what are those 'genuine technical reasons' technically and specifically? I tend to agree with my buddy Maestro Dragos Jianu when it comes to lenses and 'cost/benefit'

They are the fact that the lens requires a completely different design to go from an f1.4 to an f1.2. Those are reasons that can't be ignored and no doubt there is plenty of information out there if you want to dig further. I'm merely relaying what I've read in a review that was detailing what was/is required for an 85/1.2 against a 1.4 and 1.8.

Now whether you deem them enough to pay the difference is another matter, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Put simply, IMO, if you need all that an f1.2 design brings you then it's probably worth the money and if you don't then it won't be. For Pros of course, it's another matter entirely.