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

Actually his name is Denis Reggie, and besides the 200 1.8 he uses the 85L a lot too. He recently sold his first set of 85L lenses and updated to the new ones.

Peter

Mark, I just thought of something...do you know what the minimum focusing distance of this lens is? Did you try any close ups?

Permagrin wrote in post #2227567
Mark, I just thought of something...do you know what the minimum focusing distance of this lens is? Did you try any close ups?

50 1.2 spec

Closest Focusing Distance 1.48 ft. / 0.45m

All the best

BearSummer

BearSummer wrote in post #2227706
50 1.2 spec

Closest Focusing Distance 1.48 ft. / 0.45m

All the best

BearSummer

Thank you bear for that link and the info!

Permagrin wrote in post #2227750
Thank you bear for that link and the info!

Very Welcome, glad I was able to help

BearSummer

MDJAK wrote in post #2221093
You are a genius. What does he win, Johnny?

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

me

Ooooohhh , I thought you were talking about Monte Zucker. His old favorite was the 28-135 IS.

Permagrin wrote in post #2227567
Mark, I just thought of something...do you know what the minimum focusing distance of this lens is? Did you try any close ups?

In fact, I did, but didn't post them because the depth of field was so razor thin I thought people would slam my abilities, and my ego is fragile already.

I shot quite a few of a camera on the counter right below me, first focusing on the "Canon" name, and then on the front ring of the lens. In this case, I focused on the "35MM" of the lens.

Here's one example:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Here's a crop of that. I guess I could use a bit of focusing skill. ISO 1000, 320th at 1.2

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Has everyone seen these shots ? All at 1.2

http://www.pbase.com/e​minilia/image/69706036
http://www.pbase.com/e​minilia/image/69706038
http://www.pbase.com/e​minilia/image/69706045
http://www.pbase.com/e​minilia/image/69706049
http://www.pbase.com/e​minilia/image/69706050

I hope they were taken "very off-hand". The forth looks the best to me.....

Second 50 1.2 review just published over at Fred:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …owproduct.php?p​roduct=305

some of those pictures id never want to take. The review doesnt sing either. When will the first decent quantity of this lens be in users hands ? I know some members of this forum are expecting them .

shaunknee wrote in post #2245649
Second 50 1.2 review just published over at Fred:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …owproduct.php?p​roduct=305

Dang, another clumsy review. "on a 1:3 sensor it's a 65mm lens (kinda like no man's land)" - not really a criticism of the lens so much as a criticism of 50 mm on a 1.3X sensor. Not relevent.

Hopefully, somebody will review it and actually take the time to test CA, barrel distortion (which seems minimal based on a couple of shots I've seen), bokeh (which looks good so far), light falloff, sharpness, contrast, color, build quality, focus speed, and all that. I want to see evidence, not opinions based on the usefulness of the focal lenth on a given format. I can figure out whether I want 50 mm or not!

"Eminillia" has done quite a low light test shoot there, under the conditions. What I see in those images is not discouraging at all. The resolving power is there, the contrast loss at wide open is relatively small, and purple fringing is quite pronounced on stark contrast boundaries, as expected.

Now, talking about the build quality/weight of that lens does not add valuable info.....so let us wait till one of us senior L collectors or William Castleman give that baby a good spin.

Pet-Kal wrote in post #2245709
.....so let us wait till one of us senior L collectors or William Castleman give that baby a good spin.

Indeed. I don't wish to be a trailblazer, although the curiousity is strong!