50mm F1.2L and 135mm F2L
- Thread starter hokkaido88
- Start date
- Status
hokkaido88
New Member
Whether the lens hunt or not it's depend on the lens?
Woudnt be the camera won't be able to focus better(in a sense less hunt) if th lens aperture is larger than f2.8?
Otherwise anyone know how does the 50mm f1.4 and F1.2 show different is focus hunting?
Woudnt be the camera won't be able to focus better(in a sense less hunt) if th lens aperture is larger than f2.8?
Otherwise anyone know how does the 50mm f1.4 and F1.2 show different is focus hunting?
I guess you have totally missed the point of what I'm trying to say in my post.
It is a great lens, yes. And I did say it is a much much better lens than the kit.
I didn't say it is a "lousy" lens at F7.1, so the comment of "wrong usage" is totally irrelevant. I just show that it isn't much sharper then the kit lens when stepped down.
Again, I didn't say it is a "lousy" lens because it is not sharp, so the comment of pixel peeping being self satisfaction is uncalled for. There's comments that it is a "very sharp" lens, so I just put a rough comparison with the kit lens.
The 50L has got large aperture, solid build, USM, can use for FF etc.. etc.. which make it non-replaceable by other lens in some cases. But the sharpness is really not that outstanding, that's all the post is about
Why reply with an irrelevant comment? Relevant comments would be "that copy is not sharp", "it is not sharp at F7.1" etc.. if you wanna disagree with the comments in that post.
It is a great lens, yes. And I did say it is a much much better lens than the kit.
I didn't say it is a "lousy" lens at F7.1, so the comment of "wrong usage" is totally irrelevant. I just show that it isn't much sharper then the kit lens when stepped down.
Again, I didn't say it is a "lousy" lens because it is not sharp, so the comment of pixel peeping being self satisfaction is uncalled for. There's comments that it is a "very sharp" lens, so I just put a rough comparison with the kit lens.
The 50L has got large aperture, solid build, USM, can use for FF etc.. etc.. which make it non-replaceable by other lens in some cases. But the sharpness is really not that outstanding, that's all the post is about
Why reply with an irrelevant comment? Relevant comments would be "that copy is not sharp", "it is not sharp at F7.1" etc.. if you wanna disagree with the comments in that post.
You meant it maybe much sharper at those apertures?
Actually, I used the F7.1 picture to compare because it wouldn't be fair to compare a lens at F2.8 with another at F5.6 rite.. normally lens is sharper when stepped down.. so to say a lens at F5.6 is sharper then another at F1.2 is quite meaningless. But if diffraction effects is present at F7.1 for the 50L, then the comparison isn't fair to the 50L in this case.
Again, I would comment that the picture by the 50L is of course better then the one from the kit lens.. contrast, bokeh etc.. etc.. 50L produced "better" pictures.. that's.. a fact.
The comparison is for reference of sharpness only (or set a reasonable expectation of sharpness for the 50L for whoever that might wanna buy it). It's not a "which lens is better" kind of post.
Actually, I used the F7.1 picture to compare because it wouldn't be fair to compare a lens at F2.8 with another at F5.6 rite.. normally lens is sharper when stepped down.. so to say a lens at F5.6 is sharper then another at F1.2 is quite meaningless. But if diffraction effects is present at F7.1 for the 50L, then the comparison isn't fair to the 50L in this case.
Again, I would comment that the picture by the 50L is of course better then the one from the kit lens.. contrast, bokeh etc.. etc.. 50L produced "better" pictures.. that's.. a fact.
The comparison is for reference of sharpness only (or set a reasonable expectation of sharpness for the 50L for whoever that might wanna buy it). It's not a "which lens is better" kind of post.
I think pixel peeping is really rather pointless. What's the point in knowing your lens resolves super duper well at 100% magnification, if you're never going to print or view an image online at that size?
I guess it's rather subjective. I've used this lens with no problems, but most of the time it's in low light conditions where I can still lock focus.
Focus accuracy is much dependent on a camera body, not the lens. As for whether large aperture helps, again this is dependent on the body.
You see, if a camera only has cross type AF sensors at f/2.8 or larger, then of course, using a f/2.8 or larger aperture lens will help you to get better focus accuracy, but that difference will not be incremental as you use larger and larger aperture lenses. f/1.4 will not be more accurate than f/2.8 in this case.
Do not understand your last statement, but do note that because of shallow DoF in large aperture lenses, sometimes it is not hunting per se that gives you OOF shots, but the fact that the subject or photographer may have moved out of the in-focus region, thus rendering the subject OOF.
i think you took my comments the wrong way. few would bother to stop the 50L that high, and hence the statement of 'wrong usage'. it is well known that beyond f2.8 (perhaps f4 depending on which review), the 50L is not as good in the sharpness department.
all lens have different purposes, few would buy the 50L to stop beyond f4 hence i'm saying 'wrong usage'. i'm not saying what you posted is useless, but the lens was probably not optimized to what you are subjecting it to. its a bad thing the designers did, but it is as such.
the comment on self satisfaction was definitely not directed at you, but in general.
all lens have different purposes, few would buy the 50L to stop beyond f4 hence i'm saying 'wrong usage'. i'm not saying what you posted is useless, but the lens was probably not optimized to what you are subjecting it to. its a bad thing the designers did, but it is as such.
the comment on self satisfaction was definitely not directed at you, but in general.
Anthony Lee
Senior Member
Seriously, the 50L is never a sharp lens whether wide open or at its peak at f5.6 compared to the Zeiss ZE 50 f1.4 or even the cheap CY Plannar 50f1.7. Its resolution is miserable at f1.2 and it recovers only at f4 only. After f8, it falls off badly again. Actually, the EF 50 f1.4 is better value for money.
http://www.slrlensreview.com/web/ca...56/60-canon-ef-50mm-f12l-usm-lens-review.html
You sure about this statement?
yes, 50mm f1.4 is sharper when stopped down.
should have.. still inexperienced then. But since lens are supposed to be sharper when stopped down, we could expect that it is sharper at F7.1 then F5.6 or F4. If that assumption is not valid then we can just regard that comparison as totally meaningless.. anyway, it's just a casual comparison.
Then u should have taken both at f/5.6 and compare.
Last edited:
Sharper when stopped down yes, but not always in the case as in f/22 as compared to f/8 or f/11.
Stopped down to which aperture may i ask?
hokkaido88
New Member
I mean why the 50mm F1.2 hunt less than 50mm f1.4? By right it's should be the same because the camera AF sensor would be cross type at f2.8 or larger but both 50mm already exceed f2.8, thus both has cross sensor AF. Hence behavior theoritically should be the same is it?
That's where diffraction effects creep in at F16 and above..
But the comparison was F7.1, so the assumption of "sharper when stopped down" is still valid.. unless that lens exhibit diffraction effects at F7.1
But the comparison was F7.1, so the assumption of "sharper when stopped down" is still valid.. unless that lens exhibit diffraction effects at F7.1
Yes i agree about the diffraction part. Though the 50 f/1.2 is really very sharp from f/2.0 - f/8.
Stratix
New Member
i dont understand why people can debate about sharpness of these lenses. yes i pixelpeep, and if at whatever said aperture it isnt sharp, then something's wrong with technique or lens. disregarding the DOF, if you're shooting a flat plane and it cannot resolves details, then the lens ought to be sent for calibration, assuming there's nothing wrong with technique.
also, you buy fast large aperture lens, you SHOULD shoot at large fast apertures. whats the point of buying a 1.2 lens to shoot at 7.1/8/22? its just like buying a ferrari, but you're just interested to go from point a to point b. i find it amazing when people compare stopped down sharpness. is there a point of doing so? if it's not sharp at wide open, dont bother to fix the sharpness issue when stopped down. you're just skirting the issue!
also, you buy fast large aperture lens, you SHOULD shoot at large fast apertures. whats the point of buying a 1.2 lens to shoot at 7.1/8/22? its just like buying a ferrari, but you're just interested to go from point a to point b. i find it amazing when people compare stopped down sharpness. is there a point of doing so? if it's not sharp at wide open, dont bother to fix the sharpness issue when stopped down. you're just skirting the issue!
flipfreak
Senior Member
honestly, i think a more scientific test is needed if u want to do pixel peeping and measurebate. shooting like that is hardly conclusive.
- Status
Similar threads
