Anyone own the 50 mm F1.0 lens?

If so, was it worth it? Any comments on its performance?

I have one, and IMO it is worth it because no other lens of that speed has AF. The DOF under f1.2 is so small that it is almost impossible to manual focus in the dark. With AF and an ST-E2 or speedlight, for example, you can quickly AF in the darkest conditions.

 

A lot of people say that it is not sharp, but I have found that this is only the case near the extremes of infinity and min. focus distance.

 

Here is a sample I took last night at f1.1 with no post-processing. Camera was a 5D.<div></div>

Yeah, you really can't tell much from a picture only 511 pixels wide :)

I'd give ma left toenail for one. I saw a used one in a shop for $1100 a couple years ago but

decided to sleep on it. I went back the next day to buy and it was gone. Now they go for

$2500 or more. You'd be one noctural nightcrawer dude with an EF 50 1.0L and 5D @ ISO

800 or 1600: dark alleys, hoe houses, bars, anythang would be fair game.

"hoe houses" - LOL! <p> gotta put the camera down sometimes :-)

where used camera purchases are concerned, NEVER 'sleep on it'...

 

JJ

What's a "hoe house"? A garden tool center?

<i>Yeah, you really can't tell much from a picture only 511 pixels wide :)</i>

<p>

Except that you missed focus on her eyes.

Maybe I'm blind, but it doesn't look very sharp to me.

 

I think this lens would be best suited for a camera that's not full frame so the aberrations closer to the edges are not captured, and shot from farther away for more D of F. I would say that it would be great if you were a music reporter. That's pretty much the reason I want it: for shows shot with available light, shot from 12 - 20 feet away (or farther).

 

Keith

 

Keith

Shutter speed as 1/3 second or so. That's why it's blurry, more than likely.

Canon 5D @ ISO100

f1.1

1/3", flash bounced off ceiling<div></div>

If you look at the full-res picture, you can tell that her left eye is very much in focus.

 

The softness is due mostly to the wide aperture, but the slow shutter speed also contributed to a bit of motion blur.

 

Here's another at with the same settings (f1.1)<div></div>

Here's one last one at f1.4...<div></div>

OK, just one more.

 

Point of focus is her left eye, f1.0 @ ISO3200.<div></div>

The 50mm f1.0L IS noticeable softer when comparing samples shot wide open.Compared to other lenses I own and use for portraiture like the noct-nikkor and nikon 85mm f1.4, but would these other lenses also be as soft if they could open up to f1.0?

 

Part of the reason the 50mm f1.0 is considered to be soft wide open is the extremely narrow DOF at f1. You can have perfect focus on one eye, but, depending on subject distance, the whole eye may not be in focus. Yes, it does take a lot of practice and a bit of luck to get useable images with this lens, and it ghosts and flares like no other, but in my opinion these quirks are worth living with because no other lens will let you shoot at f1.0, with AF, on a full-frame digital body.

One last word.....promise :)

 

The pictures I am sharing have not been post-processed or sharpened. They are straight out of the camera without custom settings or in camera sharpening, etc. I could see a bit more detail in the in-focus bits when using this lens on my old anti-alias filter-less Kodak SLR/C.

I shoot a fair amount of portraiture, and I own the 85 f/1.2L along with a number of other fairly nice lenses already. I had considered purchasing the 50 f/1.0L, but I had a hard time justifying the money. A little while ago, William Castleman presented a comparison of the 50 f/1.0L and 85 f/1.2L bokeh. This was something that I had really looked forward to. After I saw the comparison, I concluded that the 50 f/1.0L wouldn't buy me anything. The focal length would be nice for a fast lens if it had more going for it, but it is fairly well reported to not to be very sharp especially closer to wide open which is where you would want to really use it. The bokeh was one of the main things that could have sold me on the lens, but after I saw the comparison I no longer had an interest.<br><br>

 

If you are interested, <a href="http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/bokeh/bokeh85.htm">you can look at the comparison here.</a><br><br>

 

If you are looking for a more full review, <a href="http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/">you can see it here.</a><br><br>

 

I keep hoping that Canon will introduce a new 50 like a 50 f/1.2L that would be a modern version of their old FD 50 f/1.2L. Ideally, I would like it fairly sharp at or near wide open with better autofocus than any of the EF 50s.

Well I want one - with the 85mm f/1.2 and the 35mm f.2.8 it would make an incredible low light combination.

<p> <i> </i> </p>

<p> <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/index.htm">http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/index.htm</a> </p>

<p> HTH.</p>

 

<p> Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim. </p>

Anthony -- wouldn't you be better off with the 35/1.4L for low-light than the 35/2.8?