For those who is comparing lens sharpness at f7.1 on lens like 50 1.2 or 85 1.2 with a snap shot is missing the point of the lens altogether. Plus, shooting at f7.1 indoor, hand held, compare against another pict at f5.6 (not sure with IS?), I wonder what was the shutter speed ? What is the point ?? I'm sure I can do a similar test against Canon EF 1200mm lens, with another kit lens, at f11 indoor, handheld. I'm sure the kit lens is sharper then the 1200mm lens. That should give more satisfaction on 'that expensive lens is not worth it' comment.
50mm F1.2L and 135mm F2L
- Thread starter hokkaido88
- Start date
- Status
flipfreak
Senior Member
i think seeing u handhold the 1200mm is more satisfying. :lovegrin:
Oh, and when I re-look at the snap shoot of the 2 models, even at the unfair comparison, the pict from 50 1.2 is noticably sharper then the kit lens, with richer color. Just look at the model eye and sunglasses. Unless the shooter is more interested in the background details ??
I may need you to help me press the shutter while I rest this bazooka on my shoulder.:bsmilie:
flipfreak
Senior Member
best method is to use a remote control when u are alone. :thumbsup:
I guess many pple have missed the point of the post/comparison.
It is just a casual test to show how the sharpness of the 50L compared with the kit lens. And naturally the comparison have to be done at 100% crop. It's meaningless to compare downsized picture isn't it.
If you wanna say the test is flawed and the 50L picture is not very sharp due to user error.. well.. fair enough.. you're entitled to your views or beliefs. Perhaps the tested copy is a lemon.. who knows..
However, all the talk about how to use the 50L and what is it's strengths etc.. are all totally irrelevant as far as the comparison is concerned. If you're not interested in how the sharpness of the lens is compared to the kits lens, just skip that post and ignore it. Simple. Why debate over it with irrelevant arguments..
Ignore the fact that is maybe only marginally better than the kit lens is the sharpness department and move on. of course that differences may make a whole lot of differences to some pple.. that's subjective.. and everyone have their own standards.
It is just a casual test to show how the sharpness of the 50L compared with the kit lens. And naturally the comparison have to be done at 100% crop. It's meaningless to compare downsized picture isn't it.
If you wanna say the test is flawed and the 50L picture is not very sharp due to user error.. well.. fair enough.. you're entitled to your views or beliefs. Perhaps the tested copy is a lemon.. who knows..
However, all the talk about how to use the 50L and what is it's strengths etc.. are all totally irrelevant as far as the comparison is concerned. If you're not interested in how the sharpness of the lens is compared to the kits lens, just skip that post and ignore it. Simple. Why debate over it with irrelevant arguments..
Ignore the fact that is maybe only marginally better than the kit lens is the sharpness department and move on. of course that differences may make a whole lot of differences to some pple.. that's subjective.. and everyone have their own standards.
Last edited:
It is ALREADY stated in the original post that the 50L is sharper and better contrast.
No one says the 50L picture is not sharp. The issue is how much sharper as compared to the kit lens. Whether it is worth it is subjective and out of the scope of the discussion.
And, by the way, the shutter speed is above 1/200.
The kit lens is the older version. When the picture is taken, the IS version, which is said to better, is not out yet.
No one says the 50L picture is not sharp. The issue is how much sharper as compared to the kit lens. Whether it is worth it is subjective and out of the scope of the discussion.
And, by the way, the shutter speed is above 1/200.
The kit lens is the older version. When the picture is taken, the IS version, which is said to better, is not out yet.
In case you are not aware, I'm not even debating on this topic, just commenting how meaningless such comment was with such casual test. We had way too much 'casual test' and try to convince the whole world on his/her opinion, and get defensive when others pointed it out.
By the way, I drove past a Lambogini the other day on the road, and since my MPV is overtaking it, I think Lambogini is not that much faster then my MPV. And this is really off-topic, my apology.
By the way, I drove past a Lambogini the other day on the road, and since my MPV is overtaking it, I think Lambogini is not that much faster then my MPV. And this is really off-topic, my apology.
Actually, you can simply reject the comparison because the lens is not mounted on a tripod and hence if the expensive lens is not very much sharper then the kit lens, it must be due to user handshake. can save the trouble of bringing out the example of the 1200mm @ F11.. so heavy :bsmilie:
The shoot is taken outdoor by the way, and the kit lens has no IS. Sorry for the disappointment.
The shoot is taken outdoor by the way, and the kit lens has no IS. Sorry for the disappointment.
To make sure I don't get kick-off by moderator for OT too much, here is something that is more relevant to this thread. I do have 50/1.2, 35/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2 and the kit lens which I now torn apart in the name of science. And purely from sharpness, I used to curse my 50/1.2 when I first got it for my 30D, because somehow it doesn't give me the same biting sharpness from 35/1.4, 85/1.2 & 135/2. And then my 5D2 came, and on the 5D2, the 50/1.2 really shined. Though still not as sharp as 85/1.2 at 1.2, it's amazingly sharp. And the focal length & min focusing distance make it stuck on the 5D forever. 135 f2 is good, but it's a specialised lens due to the focal length. You bring it on certain occassion knowing what you want to capture, but that limits it use somehow. But the result is great.
Would I sell away my 50/1.2 or 135/2 ? Only for 2 reasons: 1, when I totally give up photography (or Canon); 2, when there is a better 50 1.2 or 135/2 that come along. Among the 2, the 50/1.2 just grows on you over time to appreciate more and more.
Look at the following videos shoot with 7D and a few lens including the 50/1.2, hope this will convince you: http://vimeo.com/6496808
Would I sell away my 50/1.2 or 135/2 ? Only for 2 reasons: 1, when I totally give up photography (or Canon); 2, when there is a better 50 1.2 or 135/2 that come along. Among the 2, the 50/1.2 just grows on you over time to appreciate more and more.
Look at the following videos shoot with 7D and a few lens including the 50/1.2, hope this will convince you: http://vimeo.com/6496808
Casual comments and causal tests.. right..
Those who are serious will refer to the many website that does a proper, controlled test.
But there maybe pple who is interested in casual tests on snapshot pictures.
Pointing out irrelevant comments is not being defensive.. It is about putting things in the correct perspective/context.
Those who are serious will refer to the many website that does a proper, controlled test.
But there maybe pple who is interested in casual tests on snapshot pictures.
Pointing out irrelevant comments is not being defensive.. It is about putting things in the correct perspective/context.
Very honestly, you took your casual test very seriously and passed some serious and conclusive judgements about the lens, no? I think that is what chopper is trying to point out, that for such a casual test, if you are going to make such conclusive statements, then go back to saying that what you did was just a casual test, then aren't you contradicting yourself?
It's not that I took the test seriously..
It's supposed to be a casual test and if someone were to say "In controlled tests the 50L is actually very much sharper then the kit lens", and maybe provide some pictures to show the weakness of my casual test, it would very much be welcomed. That would be sharing of information.
But all the remarks were saying that the 50L is not meant to be used this way, wrong application, missing the point of the lens, pixel peeping is pointless etc.. none is addressing the question of "how much sharper is the 50L compared to the kit", which is the main concern of that post.
I just want to say some of the comments is not addressing to the topic. I'm not trying to say that the test is valid or conclusive.. it is not. But replies addressing to the topic itself would be appreciated.
Chopper pointed out that there maybe handshake and hence result not accurate. Fair statement. But why go one big round and phrased the statements to suggest that the user probably conducted the tests in an awfully lousy way.. such as comparing IS lens with non IS lens and bringing the example of the 1200mm lens. Just say there maybe handshake causing inaccurate results.. short, simple, and to the point. And I would agree with that, althou I had to mentioned that test was conducted outdoors at high shutter speed. It does not imply handshake can be neglected.. just that handshake "maybe" is not likely.
You're entitled to your views.. but opinions can always be presented in a nice way and issue oriented rather then phrased to suggest ridiculous user error right?
It's supposed to be a casual test and if someone were to say "In controlled tests the 50L is actually very much sharper then the kit lens", and maybe provide some pictures to show the weakness of my casual test, it would very much be welcomed. That would be sharing of information.
But all the remarks were saying that the 50L is not meant to be used this way, wrong application, missing the point of the lens, pixel peeping is pointless etc.. none is addressing the question of "how much sharper is the 50L compared to the kit", which is the main concern of that post.
I just want to say some of the comments is not addressing to the topic. I'm not trying to say that the test is valid or conclusive.. it is not. But replies addressing to the topic itself would be appreciated.
Chopper pointed out that there maybe handshake and hence result not accurate. Fair statement. But why go one big round and phrased the statements to suggest that the user probably conducted the tests in an awfully lousy way.. such as comparing IS lens with non IS lens and bringing the example of the 1200mm lens. Just say there maybe handshake causing inaccurate results.. short, simple, and to the point. And I would agree with that, althou I had to mentioned that test was conducted outdoors at high shutter speed. It does not imply handshake can be neglected.. just that handshake "maybe" is not likely.
You're entitled to your views.. but opinions can always be presented in a nice way and issue oriented rather then phrased to suggest ridiculous user error right?
i think most of us are talking about an even more fundamental issue - relevancy of the question - are people deciding to buy the 50L if it is sharper than the kit lens or for some other reason, such as performance on a wide aperture?
again, it would be more relevant if we're pitting the 50L against 50 f1.4, CZ 50, sigma 50 and even the EF 50 f1.8. even comparing to 35L and 85L could be realistic, esp at f1.2 with 85L.
oh well, we should just let this thread go... original question is 50L vs 135L and from what it appears, it has been answered sufficiently.
135L is very very sharp - one of the sharpest lens in the canon line-up, but a specialized focal length. 50L is at a very versatile focal length, not as sharp as 135L but still good for usage at wider apertures. only true bad point that it is prone to focus shift as reported by some.
- Status
Similar threads
