50mm f1.2 L - Is it worth it?

For any portrait users on 1.6 crop, who liked the 85L but thought it was too long, here comes the shorter version. So its worth it to the people who would consider the 85L.

But worth it is only relative of course. Is anything in photography worth it? That's for you to decide.

Not quite a review but interesting nontheless:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

AeroSmith wrote in post #2102215
Not quite a review but interesting nontheless:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

So is the 100+ page FM thread on the 50 f/1.2.
Voluminous.
Well, if that's not enough for ya, try their 300 page unofficial Photokina rumour thread...singlehandedl​y written by a physician, three IT techs, and an ambulance chaser.
(Oops, now I see that Porschah- your avatar, hope you are not one of them MDs )

Either way, the real lens assessments are unfortunately still pending.

Petkal wrote in post #2102494
Well, if that's not enough for ya, try their 300 page unofficial Photokina rumour thread...singlehandedl​y written by a physician, three IT techs, and an ambulance chaser.

I'm no physician but I may have helped with the writing a bit.

Yep.

grego wrote in post #2102197
But worth it is only relative of course. Is anything in photography worth it? That's for you to decide.

What? You mean people I've never met on an internet forum shouldn't decide or dictate my photographic needs for me? I've been ill advised.

Tom W wrote in post #2103149
I'm no physician but I may have helped with the writing a bit.

So you did, and so did I. However...our contributions were more......reasoned, shall we say.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2101929
The 50 1.4 is presented as having .438% barrel distortion while the 35L has .486%. Not really enough to even see unless you're at a serious pixel peeping level.

Start shooting interiors or archetecture and it will stand out quite prominently. Otherwise, it's not really a problem.
BTW, just curious as to where you found those particular figures on distortion.

Haven't had any focus issues of my own (other than being a bit slow for sports), but there's plenty of banter about the 'net about people having inconsistent focus with the 50/1.4. Could be the shallow DOF throwing them off a bit, though. Lots of newbies in the SLR world.

Time will tell just how much people are willing to make the move to the 1.2. It's not cheap, that's for certain. And it won't be extremely popular in terms of sales. As for the buyers, it's really irrelevent as to their motive for doing so - after all, it's their money. Will it improve their product? Depends on the product and their shooting situations.

Lord_Malone wrote in post #2103159
What? You mean people I've never met on an internet forum shouldn't decide or dictate my photographic needs for me? I've been ill advised.

Never you mind Grego, brutha, that boy is a 120-300 shooter. Nuff said.

Petkal wrote in post #2103213
Never you mind Grego, brutha, that boy is a 120-300 shooter. Nuff said.

Yes. And I truly honestly suck at everything I do. Really.

Tom W wrote in post #2103195
Start shooting interiors or archetecture and it will stand out quite prominently. Otherwise, it's not really a problem.
BTW, just curious as to where you found those particular figures on distortion.
Haven't had any focus issues of my own (other than being a bit slow for sports), but there's plenty of banter about the 'net about people having inconsistent focus with the 50/1.4. Could be the shallow DOF throwing them off a bit, though. Lots of newbies in the SLR world.
Time will tell just how much people are willing to make the move to the 1.2. It's not cheap, that's for certain. And it won't be extremely popular in terms of sales. As for the buyers, it's really irrelevent as to their motive for doing so - after all, it's their money. Will it improve their product? Depends on the product and their shooting situations.

Photozone translates the barrell distortion to a percentage. NOW - that is something to be taken with a grain of salt seeing how the percentage is just ONE lens sample and not historical data of the lens that has been averaged. Still, solid info to go off of!
Personally I think it's the DOF issue. Some samples of potential mis focus have been of canvas type material. You really need to pixel peep to find what threading is OOF! Of a potrait, focus on the nose and wonder why the eyes aren't in focus.
I don't think it will improve their end product...But it's all assumptions really. Perhaps the 50 1.2 will launch with similar distortion numbers, maybe it will be slower to focus, who know! All in all, it's not my place to suggest how people should spend their money. However, the thread does pose the question "is it worth it"

Petkal wrote in post #2102494
(Oops, now I see that Porschah- your avatar, hope you are not one of them MDs )

No worries...just a humble portfolio manager working out of his garage.

Mr. Clean wrote in post #2103636
Photozone translates the barrell distortion to a percentage. NOW - that is something to be taken with a grain of salt seeing how the percentage is just ONE lens sample and not historical data of the lens that has been averaged. Still, solid info to go off of!

Just a note - Photozone's tests are done on a 350D, meaning that the results are valid for 1.6X cameras, but not necessarily for full-frame cameras. The extremes of the image circle are more prone to showing distortions.

That can be a real issue with any lens, but with a very shallow depth-of-field, technique is essential. The smaller viewfinders on many DSLR cameras doesn't help in selecting the desired focus plane manually.

I don't think it will improve their end product...But it's all assumptions really. Perhaps the 50 1.2 will launch with similar distortion numbers, maybe it will be slower to focus, who know! All in all, it's not my place to suggest how people should spend their money. However, the thread does pose the question "is it worth it"

Yes, that is the question. And the only answer will come when the lens really gets circulated and tested. Canon may have geared this lens to the portrait photographer like the 85/1.2, or it may be an all-purpose low-light "standard" lens with good AF speed, low distortion, good corner sharpness, good bokeh, and good contrast. At any rate, I would expect it to outperform the 50/1.4. If it doesn't, I won't buy it.

AeroSmith wrote in post #2103681
No worries...just a humble portfolio manager working out of his garage.

No worry Smithy, just joking...

So the question remains....when will this lens be available?

End of this month, they say.