Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L...

I figure it can't be more than $11-1200. I'd buy one fairly quick for $1100.

Do you mean...."It can not" or "It should not" ?
The B&H street price is $1,599. (I do not know how others are pricing the lens, but B&H is usually fairly representative.)
Now, what makes you believe they will (should) drop it to $11-1200 ?

because...if it's more, it's very overpriced. It probably will be more, because you can get a 35L for $1100-ish. Surely the 1.2 will be more.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote:
because...if it's more, it's very overpriced. It probably will be more, because you can get a 35L for $1100-ish. Surely the 1.2 will be more.

I'd say so too.
In fact, I see some logic in pricing it, at least initially, about half way between the 35L and the 85L.
Mind you, not that I like such prices, but that's besides the point here.

It makes sense that it would cost more than the 35mm - it's brighter. Likely to be comparable to the 85mm even (I haven't looked at the elements/groups to compare).

IMO, the 35mm is a better all-around lens even if it is a little darker - at least on crop cameras. On the 5D and 1Ds it's hard to argue as a 50mm is a 50mm is a 50mm.

Really just depends on what you shoot, I guess. If you have a use for it, you'll pay the price. Of course, some will buy it just to add it to their .sig...

Nah, Dante wou..I mean I wouldn't. I wouldn't do that. >_>

Double Negative wrote:
Of course, some will buy it just to add it to their .sig...

Nahh...don't say....

Ron, none of my business really, but talking about signatures.....why do you place those red " L's" (or any "L's" for that matter) in the model designation of the lenses you own. For example, as long as it is Canon EF, the only 35mm f/1.4 lens is "L" designated. An abbreviated way of writing it would be 35L so as to distinguish it from 35 f/2.0.
OK tell me, what have I missed here ?

Well, I guess I have 2¢ to add

Optically, the only problem I have with my f/1.4 is distortion and vignetting (camera 5D). Personally, I really don't mind the light fall off. I think it adds character to shots and I can easily remove it in post if desired. Distortion is a problem when there is a straight line near the edge of a frame. Also fixable in post, but a bigger problem IMO. The L will likely mend both issues. Should be a great lens, albeit expensive.

I hope to pick up an 85mm at some point which should be better [optically] than my 50. It's just that the 50 is such a handy focal length! Particularly indoors on FF and crop sensors.

lensview wrote:
Ron, none of my business really, but talking about signatures.....why do you place those red " L's" (or any "L's" for that matter) in the model designation of the lenses you own. For example, as long as it is Canon EF, the only 35mm f/1.4 lens is "L" designated. An abbreviated way of writing it would be 35L so as to distinguish it from 35 f/2.0.
OK tell me, what have I missed here ?

Just keepin' up with the times. No reason, really. Everyone else just seemed to do it, so what the hell.

for $1,500 for a 1.2 vs $369 for a 1.2 - I don't think I need say anymore.

I can't be bothered to make the 'L' red in my own, but I sure like to look at them in a sig and drool a little!

Eh?

I think he meant 1.4 on the $369.

Its a pure ego lens (like the f1) most people who will buy this lens will have no real business needing it over the 50mm f1.4 and wont be able to take any better pictures with it either. Is this the most needed lens ever? Nope its just a lens that fills Canon void in their L lenses that has been void for sometime in the 50mm range. Some may actually need it but to most who buy this it will be for the same reason people buy a Ferarri or Porsche, because they can. And life goes on... (or so it seems, Muhahahahah)