New version 50mm L f1.2??

joe mama wrote in post #7443028
Well, my interpretation of Canon's acknowledgement that it is a "product limitation" simply means they are not going to recall the lens to add floating rear elements. Surprise, surprise. : )

Yeah, they ain't gonna do that, that's for certain!
However, rumor has it that they did "something"...a silent update. Not really sure. All I know is that my UW0706 date coded 50L has a different finishing texture than the ones I used to have/tested. Take that with a big grain of salt however!

joe mama wrote in post #7443028
The viability of a software solution to the limitation is not a fantasy. In fact, it is less a fantasy than vignetting correction and PF removal. But the implementation of a software solution may well be a fantasy, given the 1DIII AF fiasco.

I am not disagreeing with you there and the IMPLEMENTATION is exactly what I am talking about. It is indeed a fantasy to hope that Canon will actually do something like that!

joe mama wrote in post #7443028
In any case, as I discussed and demonstrated earlier in this thread, it is a limitation that so rarely comes up for me, that I am not losing any sleep over it. Do that many people really use a 50 / 1.2L for stopped down close focusing so much that using an off-center AF point on those occasions is an issue? That would be very surprising to me. Then again, it's surprising to me how many talk about soft corners with lenses wide open, given that the corners will rarely be in the DOF at such wide apertures.

Really depends on the individual. Why would anyone buy a 50L to shoot at f4-f5.6? Why not? I am always dumbfounded by remarks like that.

Interesting. I rented a 50 / 1.2L before I bought, it was a UW and the purchased lens was a UV, but both had the same finish. Are you sure someone didn't sell you a Sigma 50 / 1.4 and tell you it was a Canon 50 / 1.2L? : )

What gives me even the slightest hope that such a thing may happen is the individual lens calibration feature of the 5DII. If Canon can implement that, then a simple software application to adjust the AF based on focus distance, aperture, and focus point isn't much of a request -- perhaps it could even be calibrated by the user like the lenses! Then again, getting the AF right in their flagship sports camera doesn't seem like it would have been much of a stretch, either! : )

Well, while rare, I do occasionally shoot subjects at close focusing distances stopped down with my 50 / 1.2L. The difference is that I very rarely use the center AF point for that type of photography anyway, as the types of photos I take in those circumstances usually have the focal point off-center enough to make a different focus point the preferred one to use. And when using an off-center focus point for the types of pics where the backfocus occurs, the focus shift all but vanishes.

So, like you, it would surprise me to find that other people take enough pics at 50mm that are closely focused and stopped down with the center AF point that it is anything but a trivial issue. That said, it is an issue that has a trivial software fix, so I would be happy to see it done, and think that it would be a profitable move for Canon, as it would increase sales of the 50 / 1.2L.

i think the 50L is incredible and i chose it over the 85L, i had both...

That's great.
I kept my 50L despite all the ranting so I must like it as well!

However IMO, the 50L is the weakest of the short primes in terms of sharpness and focus accuracy. Sharpness obviously isn't the most important, but AF accuracy is.

24L, 35L, 85L, 135L...no issues whatsoever. NONE!
I just can't say the same for the 50L...

The 85L is just in a different league IQ wise than the 50L.
Now if the focal length of the 85L is the problem, well, that's another story.

bluemotion wrote in post #7455003
i think the 50L is incredible and i chose it over the 85L, i had both...

I think what they really need to do is slap a floating element in there like the 85L.

I'd sacrifice a little bit of bokeh for 85L like sharpness at f1.2 and AF accuracy.

Yeah, the finish thing is strange. I really never noticed it until I read it somewhere online. But my UW0706 copy does definiltey have a different texture to it. It's probably something similar to the new 24L MKII. Actually I never seen the lens before, but looking at pics of it, it kinda has the same finish.

The "old" 50L used to have a smoother finish. My "new" one has kind of a almost sandy texture to it.

joe mama wrote in post #7454172
Interesting. I rented a 50 / 1.2L before I bought, it was a UW and the purchased lens was a UV, but both had the same finish. Are you sure someone didn't sell you a Sigma 50 / 1.4 and tell you it was a Canon 50 / 1.2L? : )


What gives me even the slightest hope that such a thing may happen is the individual lens calibration feature of the 5DII. If Canon can implement that, then a simple software application to adjust the AF based on focus distance, aperture, and focus point isn't much of a request -- perhaps it could even be calibrated by the user like the lenses! Then again, getting the AF right in their flagship sports camera doesn't seem like it would have been much of a stretch, either! : )


Well, while rare, I do occasionally shoot subjects at close focusing distances stopped down with my 50 / 1.2L. The difference is that I very rarely use the center AF point for that type of photography anyway, as the types of photos I take in those circumstances usually have the focal point off-center enough to make a different focus point the preferred one to use. And when using an off-center focus point for the types of pics where the backfocus occurs, the focus shift all but vanishes.

So, like you, it would surprise me to find that other people take enough pics at 50mm that are closely focused and stopped down with the center AF point that it is anything but a trivial issue. That said, it is an issue that has a trivial software fix, so I would be happy to see it done, and think that it would be a profitable move for Canon, as it would increase sales of the 50 / 1.2L.

nicksan wrote in post #7457718
However IMO, the 50L is the weakest of the short primes in terms of sharpness and focus accuracy. Sharpness obviously isn't the most important, but AF accuracy is.

24L, 35L, 85L, 135L...no issues whatsoever. NONE!
I just can't say the same for the 50L...

Hmm. I don't have any more problems with accurate AF with my 50 / 1.2L as I do with any of my other lenses, which include the 24 / 1.4L, 100 / 2, and 200 / 2.8L.

Now, I will say that I miss AF quite a lot with the 50 / 1.2L, but that's because I'm using one shot AF on moving subjects, often in low light. The shutter lag of the 5D (I was really hoping to see the 5DII improve on that by a decent margin) is the culprit here, since the DOF at f/1.2 (where I'm usually at) is so thin that it doesn't take much movement to put the focal point outside the DOF.

Someday, I'll rent one to try on my 5D and see how I like it. But, as it's AF speed is not in the same league as the 50 / 1.2L, that IQ would have to be really impressive to make me pony up the money for one. This is coming from someone who was not impressed enough with the 135 / 2L to keep it over the 100 / 2, so my QT (quality threshold) may be lower than others.

I rented both expecting to LOVE the 85L way more. The 50L persuaded me more than the 85L did

I would love to see a 50/1.2L II sooner than later. This is one recent L that needs some work done, pronto.

A 50L that focuses like a normal L? I'd pay good money for that!

bnlearle wrote in post #7683125
A 50L that focuses like a normal L? I'd pay good money for that!

You mean like the 85 / 1.2L II? Nah. I'll pass. I'd rather just use an off-center AF point when shooting tightly framed pics stopped down to bypass the back-focus issue than deal with the slow AF of the 85 / 1.2L. Of course, others feel differently.

But if I could have the 50 / 1.2L focus like the 100 / 2 (the fastest focusing lens I've ever used, and it's not an "L") and be able to use the center AF point for tightly framed pics stopped down without getting backfocus, then sure -- that would be excellent.

I can't wait...this means the 50 1.2L mark I will be going down to a level that I can afford =)

joe mama wrote in post #7708292
You mean like the 85 / 1.2L II? Nah. I'll pass.

No, I don't mean like the 85L II. I mean what I said, like a normal L Outside the 50L, the 85L is next up for bad focusing. So normal L focusing would be just great in comparison. Think 24L, 135L, 24-70L, 70-200L...

Really, were you disagreeing with me? I thought it was pretty clear that I was saying a 50L that focuses better than the current 50L. That's all

^ That's not entirely fair, calling the 85L's focus "bad". It's slow as heck, yes, but it's the most consistently accurate of all my lenses.

Perry Ge wrote in post #7708466
^ That's not entirely fair, calling the 85L's focus "bad". It's slow as heck, yes, but it's the most consistently accurate of all my lenses.

Man you guys are particular today, aren't you!

Slow auto focus is bad to me. Not intolerable, but I think it's fine to loosely say bad - in regard to it's speed.

Since focus can easily be achieved by manually shifting the focus ring, one of the MAIN uses of AF is that the AF does this faster than we can. Well, that isn't always the case with the 50L or 85L (when on the 5D, especially). Since it's performing poorly in a very pertinent area - I think it's okay to say in passing conversation that it has "bad AF" in comparison to other near $2k lenses.

That's all. You're talking to an all prime shooter. I love them. I'm just not blind to some of their faults

bnlearle wrote in post #7708475
Man you guys are particular today, aren't you!

Slow auto focus is bad to me. Not intolerable, but I think it's fine to loosely say bad - in regard to it's speed.

Since focus can easily be achieved by manually shifting the focus ring, one of the MAIN uses of AF is that the AF does this faster than we can. Well, that isn't always the case with the 50L or 85L (when on the 5D, especially). Since it's performing poorly in a very pertinent area - I think it's okay to say in passing conversation that it has "bad AF" in comparison to other near $2k lenses.

That's all. You're talking to an all prime shooter. I love them. I'm just not blind to some of their faults

For 20 years I shot with a Canon FTb and 3 primes, a 24, 50, and 100. Everything was manual. While my 85L II is the slowest focusing of my current lenses, I greatly prefer it to manual focusing.