Are you satisfied with the 50 1.2L?

[calebk]

I am fortunate enough to get both the 85 1.2 (version1) and 50 1.2 at pretty good price (3.3K+ for 2 lens). Frankly, my assessment is 85 1.2 is so far the sharpest and most amazing lens I had so far, even with the slow focus. I had some struggle with 50 1.2 at the start, and I sent it to Canon Service Center for a calibration, and had a 1-1 session with the Specialist to help tailor the AF adjustment to suit my camera and shooting style. After the adjustment, the result is much improved.

The absolute sharpness is still not as high as 85 1.2, but it definitely sharper then the 50 1.4. The challenge is really on the shallow depth of field you get with the f1.2 . I can't imagine how that will be like with the Noctilux f0.95... Anyway, you tends to give certain impression that the image is soft, if the point of focus couldn't bring up a clear 'point of focus' compare to the rest of the scene.

There are some CA that's observed as well, if you shoot a white on black text at 45%, text away from focal pt and text near towards focal pt will shows different hue of magenta/cyan (can't remember the sequence). However, in daily application, this never appear as an issue at all since I use this mainly for portrait.

All in all, I think this lens is not perfect (maybe my copy is not perfect), but if you're looking for the best 50mm EF lens, this will be it. I'm waiting to test this with the new 5DII....

So with the first example image seen further up, do you think it is an extremely shallow DOF, or is there really a certain softness that I am seeing.

With the second photo, I can see a clear point of focus, but not with the first. :dunno:

 

[SianZronG]

i dont have a copy of it, but according to my research, 85mm f1.2 live up to its name, and rank as the best canon lenses. A local rental shop owner did tell me before, that there is no demand of people renting the 50mm f1.2.

recent research shows that sigma 50mm f1.4 deliver excellent IQ, stands out from both nikon and canon 50mm f1.4 with 1/3 of the L lens price.

However all these are just research done.

But if you ask me, if i had the money i will get the sigma f1.4 and the rest of the money save for 85mm f1.2II, personal opinion.

You can hold on your horses and wait for the review of carl zeis 50mm canon mount, it is famous for its sharpness, if you dont mind to manual focus.

how much is a sigma 50mm ?

 

[Crappinni]

So with the first example image seen further up, do you think it is an extremely shallow DOF, or is there really a certain softness that I am seeing.

With the second photo, I can see a clear point of focus, but not with the first. :dunno:

Might be because of the plain white centre of the flower where it probably is focused.

If you have the money, the Noctilux would be among the fastest lens ever made.. but have you seen the price tag though?? :bigeyes: is an understatement! I'm not sure it has AF either.

Yep aware of its price lol! Definitely out of my price range sadly..

I am fortunate enough to get both the 85 1.2 (version1) and 50 1.2 at pretty good price (3.3K+ for 2 lens). Frankly, my assessment is 85 1.2 is so far the sharpest and most amazing lens I had so far, even with the slow focus. I had some struggle with 50 1.2 at the start, and I sent it to Canon Service Center for a calibration, and had a 1-1 session with the Specialist to help tailor the AF adjustment to suit my camera and shooting style. After the adjustment, the result is much improved.

:bigeyes: How did you manage to get such a deal? Also what focusing problems did you face?

 

[chopper]

:bigeyes: How did you manage to get such a deal? Also what focusing problems did you face?

Heh Heh... The 85 1.2 is 17 years old, crisp as new. 50 1.2 was a good deal as well, I was sceptical at start, but at the price, I grab first and think later...

Here is a pict with the 50 1.2, tell me if you think this is not sharp, wide open at 1.2, ISO800 30D

Initially, I believe it's quite severely backfocus (or front focus ? I can never tell the diff...), but from the test shot I took, I can clearly see a point of sharpness, so I goes with it. And after the calibration, it's good.

 

[lightning]

Is it just me? I don't see a clear point of focus :dunno:

Agree...(Can't tell what the pics is focusing on too). I did side by side test of the 50 F1.2 and 85 F1.2 MII, the 85 out performs the 50F1.2 in many areas. You can try shooting the 50F1.2 on high contrast (bright silver object) area, and the CA is really terrible. 85mm has better control, AF, with 1D3 not an issue at all. Shot some sports even with it too.

 

[Snoweagle]

Is it just me? I don't see a clear point of focus :dunno:

It's just u.

 

[Crappinni]

Heh Heh... The 85 1.2 is 17 years old, crisp as new. 50 1.2 was a good deal as well, I was sceptical at start, but at the price, I grab first and think later...

Here is a pict with the 50 1.2, tell me if you think this is not sharp, wide open at 1.2, ISO800 30D

Initially, I believe it's quite severely backfocus (or front focus ? I can never tell the diff...), but from the test shot I took, I can clearly see a point of sharpness, so I goes with it. And after the calibration, it's good.

Looks sharp to me.. The focus issues seem very troublesome though..

Agree...(Can't tell what the pics is focusing on too). I did side by side test of the 50 F1.2 and 85 F1.2 MII, the 85 out performs the 50F1.2 in many areas. You can try shooting the 50F1.2 on high contrast (bright silver object) area, and the CA is really terrible. 85mm has better control, AF, with 1D3 not an issue at all. Shot some sports even with it too.

The 85 1.2L is quite incredible.. But just how bad is the CA? Any sample picture?

 

[lightning]

Looks sharp to me.. The focus issues seem very troublesome though..



The 85 1.2L is quite incredible.. But just how bad is the CA? Any sample picture?

I don't have the sample now, cos I tried it at the shop. If you just take the 50 F1.2L and shoot say a shiny silver pipe you can see it. Shoot on something white...you can also see it.

 

[lightning]

It's just u.

Actually is not just him.....your pics did not demonstrate the "awesomeness" of the lens.

 

[Headshotzx]

Actually is not just him.....your pics did not demonstrate the "awesomeness" of the lens.

I agree. I think that Chopper's picture really is a lot sharper than Snoweagle's. Perhaps a 100% crop from both parties would be in order?

EDIT: Regarding CA, the 85mm f/1.8 also has this problem, and I've learnt to bear with it, especially for the price. But since the 50 1.2 costs 3 times as much, maybe being a little nitpicky is justifiable to an extent.

Cheers
Zexun

 

[lightning]

I agree. I think that Chopper's picture really is a lot sharper than Snoweagle's. Perhaps a 100% crop from both parties would be in order?

EDIT: Regarding CA, the 85mm f/1.8 also has this problem, and I've learnt to bear with it, especially for the price. But since the 50 1.2 costs 3 times as much, maybe being a little nitpicky is justifiable to an extent.

Cheers
Zexun

the 85 F1.2L MII also have CA issues, but is more controlled as compared to the 50 F1.2L.

 

[Snoweagle]

I agree. I think that Chopper's picture really is a lot sharper than Snoweagle's. Perhaps a 100% crop from both parties would be in order?

EDIT: Regarding CA, the 85mm f/1.8 also has this problem, and I've learnt to bear with it, especially for the price. But since the 50 1.2 costs 3 times as much, maybe being a little nitpicky is justifiable to an extent.

Cheers
Zexun

The pics i posted have been resized by quite a bit.

 

[lightning]

The pics i posted have been resized by quite a bit.

Then it should appear even sharper.....:think: If the pics is blurr at this resolution, with it be sharp at 100%, well I might be wrong. You might want to show us the 100% crop of your focus point.

 

[Headshotzx]

Resized as in crop or image-resized? If it's crop, why didn't you post the full downsampled one? if it's image resized, why not post a 100%?

EDIT:
This thread over at Photography On the Net (POTN) is a thread devoted to 50mm f/1.2L images. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=307389&

Cheers
Zexun

 

[Snoweagle]

Then it should appear even sharper.....:think: If the pics is blurr at this resolution, with it be sharp at 100%, well I might be wrong. You might want to show us the 100% crop of your focus point.

Resized as in crop or image-resized? If it's crop, why didn't you post the full downsampled one? if it's image resized, why not post a 100%?

EDIT:
This thread over at Photography On the Net (POTN) is a thread devoted to 50mm f/1.2L images. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=307389&

Cheers
Zexun

The pics are resized and not cropped. I don't find there's a need to crop though as TS wants some sample pics only.

Not necessary that resizing will be sharper. Last time i took a close up shot with my ex 50 f/1.8 II and originally looks very sharp. But once resized, doesn't look that sharp anymore.

 

[lightning]

The pics are resized and not cropped. I don't find there's a need to crop though as TS wants some sample pics only.

Not necessary that resizing will be sharper. Last time i took a close up shot with my ex 50 f/1.8 II and originally looks very sharp. But once resized, doesn't look that sharp anymore.

Well, then your technique is in question. Whatever the case...it dosen't sound logical to me.....may be someone else can enlighten me.:think:

 

[Crappinni]

I haven't got a 50 1.2L but I'll remember to test it out at the shop before I buy it.. Do you guys usually take the lens outdoors to test or just test it around within the shop?

 

[Headshotzx]

We all understand that down-sampling a 12mp image to a 1mp image will cost the sharpening to go wrong (make sense anyway, you're compressing 4k + pixels into 900pixels on the horizontal axis, it's bound to happen). We're just generally concerned because your pictures don't seem to have a totally in-focus point, especially the first one of the flower in the water. That's why a 100% crop without sharpening would help to see if it's sharp at the focus point.

Cheers
Zexun

 

[calebk]

...
Not necessary that resizing will be sharper. Last time i took a close up shot with my ex 50 f/1.8 II and originally looks very sharp. But once resized, doesn't look that sharp anymore.

Almost all images we see on CS galleries, on Flickr and such are resized, and almost all of them do not lose sharpness, inherent or otherwise.

Like lightning, I am in the dark here. What tool are you using to resize?

 

[Snoweagle]

Almost all images we see on CS galleries, on Flickr and such are resized, and almost all of them do not lose sharpness, inherent or otherwise.

Like lightning, I am in the dark here. What tool are you using to resize?

Never used any form of photo editing software, just Powerpoint.