Oh, Dante/Petkal, Shhh: 50 f1.2

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2217355
The DoF is just sooooo thin, I think people look at the wrong parts to judge for sharpness. Being able to use a lens (besides the 35L) at 1.4 and get respectably sharp shots is awfully nice.

I cant find a calculator that works out the DOF for a subject at 70cms for F1.2 , but at F1 it would be 7mm on the 1D.

edited for spelling

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2217416
Is this 50 something you're interested in? I don't imagine it is. The 35L is just plain dreamy. It's a perfect size, with a smooth, comfortable focus ring (having a big viewfinder, I love to MF when I have the time), and it's so sharp, colorful, and contrasty, it blows my mind sometimes. That 70-300 can kiss my a**. You don't need it. The 35L is just plain awesome.

Ronald, I actually went about my obviously piss-poor test only because I knew people around here were interested in this lens.

I know this will sound dumb (kind of matches my moniker, no?) but ever since I got into photography years ago with my first "real" camera, the Canon AE1 Program, I never cared for 50mm lenses. They used to be the de riguer "kit" lens that either came with the body, or was the only thing I knew to get or could afford at the time. I've kind of harbored those feelings ever since.

When my family and I bought our first house, we were city folk and knew nothing about home ownership or landscaping. There were 30 year old Rhododendrons in front of the house, only they were not in bloom as it was winter. We were so dumb, we cut them down as they didn't look good and were blocking the windows. Instead of trimming them.

To this day, I refuse to buy new ones as I was so stupid for chopping them down.

No, I'm not interested in obtaining the 50.

Not sure about the 35 either.

I am starting to believe you're right about the 70-300, as I use it less and less. The past two days at the show and out in Manhattan doing street shooting, I used the 24-70, a lens you have some familiarity with, the 85L, and my 135.

I may have to really take stock of what I have and place a few up for sale in order to finance the 300 2.8.

I rarely use the 100mm macro, among others.

Thanks again for all your help.

mark

MDJAK wrote in post #2217465
Ronald, I actually went about my obviously piss-poor test only because I knew people around here were interested in this lens.

I think this is the perfect test , shows the lens in the hands of a user and leaves out the canon lab stuff. Thanks for doing it.

freefallu wrote in post #2217451
I cant find a calculator that works out the DOF for a subject at 70cms for F1.2 , but at F1 it would be 7mm on the 1D.

edited for spelling

Superceded, perhaps, but for a price. Ask yourself if you really have a need (want) for either of the 2 new lenses before you get your mind set on buying one or the other. I'm eyeing the 50/1.2, but I'm not going to be among the first few that own one (probably) as I can do fine with the 1.4 in most situations. Yes, I know that at f/1.2-to-f/2 or so, the new lens will easily outperform the 1.4. And yes, I do see value in that range. But I'm not everybody.

That shallow DOF can be a help or a hinderance. Get hold of the 100/2.8 Macro for a few shots up close, and you'll see that f/2.8 in the macro region offers an extremely shallow (and usually unuseable) depth of field.

Sorry Tom. i edited that comment about my lenses being superceeded out to keep my comments on topic.

But i will consider this Lens now ( a few more reports will probably convince me to part with the $$$ ). I have nothing semi fast except a sigma i dont like and with the 5D having a lens or two that can cope with reasonable indoor light ( sans flash ) would be a treat for me. My 50mm F1.4 was a dissapointment as it got soft when getting close to wide open. The 85 is nice at F1.2 but its not a walk around for low light in tight with people ( the 50mm is not perfect for this but I can live with it on a full frame ). So beneath the frivilous comment about my gear been superseeded i do have a desire to take pictures in the dark without a flash. I dont feel cosy with this lens at F1.2 but close it a touch and i reckon ill be able to take pics indoors without having to worry about where to bounce a flash etc. etc. I didnt research my 1.4 properly , so approached this lens with skepticism at first but im coming around a bit now.

Why not a 35L? Pleasingly sharp wide open at f/1.4, and great in every way. Seems to be the answer to your dilemma.

Shots look great for impromptu f 1.2 effort. Glad I ordered the lens.

It will be one or the other Ronald. One of the jobs i have in the offing is event photography where flash is not always permitted / desired . Theres something about getting pics without flash that appeals to me. So the reach of the 50 is attractive. The perfect would be a F1.2 zoom.

Mark you are such a hero for doing this for all of us (hungry for info on this lens)! Thanks so much!

Another preliminary review of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM:

http://www.flickr.com …s/richardspics/​288781257/

More commentary:

http://flickr.com …iscuss/72157594​360628458/

What? There has not been a single picture taken with this lens on this thread.

cali wrote in post #2219406
What? There has not been a single picture taken with this lens on this thread.

Check out all the links he posted. There's dozens of shots from it that he took there.

MDJAK wrote in post #2213265
Are you referring to me, buying it weeks after it was introduced with the digic 1? That would be INCORRECTOMUNDO, oh Petiesan.

The camera was out almost 8 months by the time I got it, and by golly it's got the digic II.

now, is the 50 worth it?

Let me try to answer it this way.

At the show was a world famous wedding photographer. He showed a bit of his portfolio, pictures ranging from JFK Jr's wedding, Don Henley (of The Eagles), etc, etc. He said many of the photos he took with one of his favorite lenses.

Can you guess which one?

Oh, Hef, you know you're right. Obviously, Petey never watched The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson, where Buddy Hackett was a famous and incredibly funny guest over and over again.

Now, back to the guessing.


me

28-135 IS

cactusclay wrote in post #2219806
28-135 IS

You are a genius. What does he win, Johnny?

Actually, the 200 f1.8. Should have known, right?

me