Would you buy a Canon 50mm f1.2?
- Thread starter CYRN
- Start date
- Status
FilterFunk
Senior Member
IMO..
1. 50mm f1.8 is able to produce relatively decent photographs and being priced so cheaply, its definitely valued for $
2. 50mm f1.4 is even better, but of course it demands a reasonable amt of premium over it.
3. 50mm f1.2 as for this lens, i wouldnt buy it simply, the price itself puts me off. unless you are a fulltime professional that works alot in low light conditions, then the f1.2 would be v.useful.
1. 50mm f1.8 is able to produce relatively decent photographs and being priced so cheaply, its definitely valued for $
2. 50mm f1.4 is even better, but of course it demands a reasonable amt of premium over it.
3. 50mm f1.2 as for this lens, i wouldnt buy it simply, the price itself puts me off. unless you are a fulltime professional that works alot in low light conditions, then the f1.2 would be v.useful.
JediForce4ever
Senior Member
either that or he dosent appreciate bokeh at its best.Klose said:
For me, I wouldnt buy it.Not because I feel that its overpriced/overkill, but because I simply cant afford it and besides, I dont use the bokeh that much.
as long as its priced ok.. i.e 2k+, i would consider one..
for one thing, on a 1.6 crop, its not dissimilar to using a 85mm 1.2 on a full frame.
and having used a 85mm 1.2... i love F1.2... great for boken (albeit a bit tricky with DOF), and fantastic for low light work.
plus a 50mm lens is quite versatile.
for one thing, on a 1.6 crop, its not dissimilar to using a 85mm 1.2 on a full frame.
and having used a 85mm 1.2... i love F1.2... great for boken (albeit a bit tricky with DOF), and fantastic for low light work.
plus a 50mm lens is quite versatile.
That is the dumbest comment heard today.TMC said:
We are not talking about the old Nikon AIS 50 1.2, nor are we talking a phlanx of great fast 50mm lens from the likes of Ziess and Leica ... we are talking about a hypothetical lens that Canon had not indicated if it will be a reality. We are talking about a fantasy.
CYRN
Senior Member
Ok liao lah... guys.
DP, while you don't mince your words, the first sentence in your first reply to TMC is really uncalled for.
While the mentioned lens is yet to be announced, the context to what I'm asking is really: would you pay 1.6K USD for a f/1.2 when there's a S$100+ f/1.8 and a S$600+ f/1.4.
I'm puzzled cuz, I, myself chose the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 even at 3-4x the price.
DP, while you don't mince your words, the first sentence in your first reply to TMC is really uncalled for.
While the mentioned lens is yet to be announced, the context to what I'm asking is really: would you pay 1.6K USD for a f/1.2 when there's a S$100+ f/1.8 and a S$600+ f/1.4.
I'm puzzled cuz, I, myself chose the f/1.4 over the f/1.8 even at 3-4x the price.
haagen_dazs
New Member
so the rumour from canon china is that its going to be....
""....heavy-caliber high accuracy aspheric surface lens ....The EF 50mm f/1.2L USM optics structure is 6 groups of 8 lens, including 1 aspheric surface lens. .....0.45 meter, 8 piece of circulars apertures may attain extremely gentle blur exotic picture....weather sealed too .....""
;p ;p
""....heavy-caliber high accuracy aspheric surface lens ....The EF 50mm f/1.2L USM optics structure is 6 groups of 8 lens, including 1 aspheric surface lens. .....0.45 meter, 8 piece of circulars apertures may attain extremely gentle blur exotic picture....weather sealed too .....""
;p ;p
hobbit6003
Senior Member
Dun think I'll buy it, unless the glass produces signifiicantly improved image quality over my 50mm f1.8.
At 1.2, the dof is simply too shallow for my liking, and thus dun need it. As for bokeh, the 1.8 is good enough for me, an amateurish photographer.
Cheers,
Kenny
At 1.2, the dof is simply too shallow for my liking, and thus dun need it. As for bokeh, the 1.8 is good enough for me, an amateurish photographer.
Cheers,
Kenny
CYRN said:
why not? its no difference to the price gap between the 85mm 1.8 and the 1.2 currently, but theres still many people out there with the 1.2...
and sure, the DOF is ridiculously shallow at 1.2 but heck, when i had a 1.2, i didnt shoot anything BUT 1.2. sure, you get a bunch of pictures where one eye may be slightly OOF, but you also get a lot of real keepers. the bokeh is really out of this world.. and something i wouldnt really think much to pay for.
f/1.2 is only about 1/2 a stop faster than the f/1.4
if u use f/1.4 at iso3200 for those really unimaginable lighting conditions, what's 1/2 more stop of post processing u going to do to the noise that will make a difference?
let's say u have to hand hold at 1/5, f/1.4, iso3200.
down the shutter speed a little more at 1/4. u get 1/3 stop more light.
The price don't justify also.
The DOF at f/1.4 is already unbearable.
But if u like f/1.2 bokehs, then it's worth the high price.
.
if u use f/1.4 at iso3200 for those really unimaginable lighting conditions, what's 1/2 more stop of post processing u going to do to the noise that will make a difference?
let's say u have to hand hold at 1/5, f/1.4, iso3200.
down the shutter speed a little more at 1/4. u get 1/3 stop more light.
The price don't justify also.
The DOF at f/1.4 is already unbearable.
But if u like f/1.2 bokehs, then it's worth the high price.
.
- Status
Similar threads
