Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM

A couple of low-light offerings:

Anyone have a 50 f/1.2 or 85 f/1.2 for sale let me know

Lord_Malone wrote in post #3082989
Experimenting in LR. Trying to invent new presets.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

I love this shot, Ed. How do you like lightroom vs CS2?

angryhampster wrote in post #3087565
I love this shot, Ed. How do you like lightroom vs CS2?

I view them both as two different animals with two different purposes. The integration between the two apps is seamless, and I benefit for having both on my machines. Could I get along with one without the other? Sure I could. But LR allows me to focus on just making those critical exposure adjustments, while CS3 allows me to be even more creative and flexible during the final output. I don't at all view these two as conflicting apps, but rather tools with specific purposes, and working towards a mutual goal. At this point I can't imagine using one without the other.

Lord_Malone wrote in post #3087644
Could I get along with one without the other? Sure I could.

Hate to disagree and be picky & technical but Photoshop is more of a necessity than Lightroom, but I know where you were going with this.

For adjusting exposure and colors, LR and Photoshop are identical. But for fine tuning and photo manipulation Photoshop is Gold and Lightroom will get you nowhere.

hjghj:

That shot of the baby and the hand. I don't know if it's a good shot or not, but I keep looking at it and wow the DOF is amazing. I mean the babys arm isn't that long and to have bokeh like that in such a short distance is astounding! I am starting to see the $$ worth in the 1.2!

Adaptive wrote in post #3087672
Hate to disagree and be picky & technical but Photoshop is more of a necessity than Lightroom, but I know where you were going with this.

For adjusting exposure and colors, LR and Photoshop are identical. But for fine tuning and photo manipulation Photoshop is Gold and Lightroom will get you nowhere.

LR was never meant to be a replacement for Photoshop. It's an app. built from the ground up to specifically address the issue of having a streamlined workflow under one banner. OTH, Photoshop is very specific in its purpose, whereas LR serves as a image database management system, a RAW converter capable of high quality image processing, and a one-stop-shop for exporting your images for further tweaking in Photoshop, slideshow, web gallery or print. The processing engine that drives the image processing in photoshop is the same that drives LR. Photoshop has to be more powerful in that regard because that is what it was designed to do. One could argue that either app. is more important than the other, but it would be a pointless argument. It all very much depends on what you plan to do with your work. I would say a vast majority of the users on this forum would never use 90% of the tools available in a program as powerful as Photoshop (keeping in mind that it's a tool for graphic artists, web designers, etc. as well). But I can almost guarantee that most photograhers will make maximum use of LR.

angryhampster wrote in post #3087565
I love this shot, Ed. How do you like lightroom vs CS2?

Gotta admit, that's a pimpin gangster shot right there. Love the vignett and overall contrast of colors .
As a photographer, whom does not want to take the time out for 99.99999998% of photos to even consider going into photoshop to do super critical editing work (which I'm not a huge fan of), lightroom does everything I need to do in my workflow, except sharpen.

Craziness Ed. Look at that bokeh, front and back. Nice examples.

cjm wrote in post #3093077
Craziness Ed. Look at that bokeh, front and back. Nice examples.

Aye. Now ye know why I changed me mind 'bout sellin' 'er.

Lord_Malone wrote in post #3093651
Aye. Now ye know why I changed me mind 'bout sellin' 'er.

This lens is getting a lot of hate, but this thread has a lot of amazing photos.
So I can come to the conclusion:
Either the lens sucks and these guys (especially you Malone, with all the photos in this thread ), are amazing photographers who can rescue sharpness and all that decent stuff in post, while creating a compelling composition.
Or
This lens is not as bad as it's made out to be by some, and it's a fine piece of glass. With the combination of the great photographers on POTN, it can create stunning images (like any glass of course), except with amazing DOF and bokeh.
How far does it focus till it hits infinity (asking for bokeh.) My 30 1.4 for example is only good for like 2m, which can limit it's uses a lot of the time.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #3093722
This lens is getting a lot of hate, but this thread has a lot of amazing photos.
So I can come to the conclusion:
Either the lens sucks and these guys (especially you Malone, with all the photos in this thread ), are amazing photographers who can rescue sharpness and all that decent stuff in post, while creating a compelling composition.
Or
This lens is not as bad as it's made out to be by some, and it's a fine piece of glass. With the combination of the great photographers on POTN, it can create stunning images (like any glass of course), except with amazing DOF and bokeh.
How far does it focus till it hits infinity (asking for bokeh.) My 30 1.4 for example is only good for like 2m, which can limit it's uses a lot of the time.

I would wager it's the latter.

As far as your question goes, I haven't tested those parameters, but will be willing to give it go and let you know.

Lord_Malone wrote in post #3093806
I would wager it's the latter.

As far as your question goes, I haven't tested those parameters, but will be willing to give it go and let you know.

Sure. Just let me know what the distance scale says is the last number before infinity, that should be the last point where you can get kickin bokeh.
Very intriuged by this lens.. hmm..
LOL.