is the 50 1.2 as sharp as the 85 1.2?

Hi Dawei,

smorter wrote in post #10358333
Wim is the resident expert on 50L as iirc he has tested 5+?

Well, I did stop at 5 . However, several photo friends of mine did get a 50L after seeing the results from it, and so far they all are very happy .

Well, my 85L II was sharp, but not where it was supposed to be sharp. That took 2 calibrations actually, first with 40D, and then again with both 40D and 5D, still resulting in the above mentioned 1/4 of DoF focus shift .

The 5D II needed MA of -15, however, and now with the 1D Mk III I acquired a week or so ago I seem to see a bit more of focus shift . I need to check it out further, however. Too little time right now.

Also, I do think the sharpness of the 85L II wide open, according to my tests with a single specimen, are a little overhyped when compared to e.g., the 50L. As I said, yes, the 50L has softer (extreme) edges and corners, but other than that I think they are both about equal (in real life shooting). And the bad characteristics of the 50L are also a bit overhyped IMO, mostly due to the first few production years and Canon maybe not getting it completely right a lot of the time.

If you see the magical quality of the images the 50L is capable of producing, I think there is no real competition in its FL. But then, that is also true for the 85L. Different lenses, for different purposes, which may or may not partially overlap.

Kind regards, Wim

No, the 50L is not as sharp as the 85L wide open. At least this was the case for me across 5 50L's and 2 85L's. YMMV.

the 50L is a step behind the 85L in the sharpness dept

Seems like 85L tops 50L and 35L, although 35L is close based on reviews.

BrianMc3 wrote in post #10352701
I have an 85 f/1.2 and love it. I sold my 16-35 2.8 II and got the 50 1.2L. I ca not get a shot that's in focus. Eye lashes are blurry and it just lacks the punch that the 85 has. I went through the lens archive and looked at some samples and I think I git a bad copy of the lens. I tried micro adjusting twice now and no difference. So I'm asking just so I can compare apples to apples is the 50 as sharp as the 85?

Thanks,

You’re right. You had a bad copy. It was good to read you exchanged it for one you’re happy with.

As to whether the 50L is as sharp as the 85L…I’m with Wim. When I look at pictures I’ve taken wide open with both lenses; they look about the same as far as sharpness is concerned (At least in the center where it counts). I couldn’t care less how they are on the edges/corners at wide apertures, but if Wim (and Canon’s MTF charts) say the 85L is better on the edges, I believe it. By the way, those charts also claim the 50L is sharper in the center than the 85L.

That being said…when I first micro adjusted the auto focus on both lenses a couple of years ago, I couldn’t resist comparing them wide open. Side by side, the 85L seemed slightly sharper when blown up to 200%. Since I can’t take the pictures with the same camera, at the same distance, and the same cropping, this comparison is probably worthless, and since I can’t take 50mm focal length pictures with the 85L and vice versa the whole argument is moot anyway.

Again, it was good to hear you traded the bad copy for a good one, and you’re enjoying what has been for me a great lens.

Bill I'm totally happy with it now. I'm actually looking at some images of my family I took today with the 50/1.2.

Is Canon quality control so screwed up with all these so-called "bad copies" in the market?

mrmarks wrote in post #10363610
Is Canon quality control so screwed up with all these so-called "bad copies" in the market?

No, they do test sample copies from batches like anyone else does.

However, I do think that especially in the first few years of production of the 50L they struggled to get consistent quality out of the assembly line, comparable to a lab assembled specimen.

It si a lens designed just at or just over the bleeding edge of possibilities, at least that i show it loosk to me, and that doesn't make things any easier in standard production runs.

As I mentioned before, the 50L has excellent bokeh both in foreground and in background, and that is truly exceptional. For the theory, see here:
http://bokehtests.com/​Site/About_Bokeh.html

Kind regards, Wim

wimg wrote in post #10367810
No, they do test sample copies from batches like anyone else does.

However, I do think that especially in the first few years of production of the 50L they struggled to get consistent quality out of the assembly line, comparable to a lab assembled specimen.

It si a lens designed just at or just over the bleeding edge of possibilities, at least that i show it loosk to me, and that doesn't make things any easier in standard production runs.

As I mentioned before, the 50L has excellent bokeh both in foreground and in background, and that is truly exceptional. For the theory, see here:
http://bokehtests.com/​Site/About_Bokeh.html

Kind regards, Wim

It all depends on the quality specifications Canon has set for this lens. If their manufacturing quality is not very consistent, then they should be doing 100% testing, not sampling. In this way they can avoid "bad copies" in the market. This is an "L" lens after all.

Can manual focusing (especially at close distances) overcome the "focus shift" issue?

mrmarks wrote in post #10379121
Can manual focusing (especially at close distances) overcome the "focus shift" issue?

I'm pretty sure it can. I wasn't having a focusing shift issue though. I was have an issue where the image was soft no matter the aperture or distance to my subject. Nothing in my images was in focus.