50mm 1.2L and 851.2L

Anyone using these lenses?<p>

I'm just curious what your opinions are and looking for sample photos. How much of a difference is there

compared to the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 when shooting wide open?<p>

Also, I'm wondering how the 50mm 1.2L on a 1.6x camera (20D) compares to the 85mm 1.2L on a Full

Frame (5D) in terms of resulting depth of field and that very subjective 'bokeh' quality.<p>

You will never have the same DOF control and Bokeh with a 50mm f1.2 on a 1.6 sensor than a 85mm f1.2 on a FF.

<p> Because <P>

1) A longueur focal give you less DOF for a gived distance<br>

2) A croped sensor give you more DOF for a gived lens<br>

<p>

more information how to understand DOF, croped sensor, etc. here :

<a href ="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Equivalent-Lenses.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Equivalent-Lenses.shtml</a>

<p>The 50/1.2 is very new and not a lot of people have had a chance to do much testing with it. <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm" target="_blank">Here's William Castleman's comparison of the 50/1.2 and the 50/1.4</a>; there may be a few others but this is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.</p>

 

<p>Both versions of the 85/1.2 use the same optics (though the circular diaphragm in the II model should improve bokeh, not that the old lens generated complaints in that area) and there are a number of reviews of one or the other of these lenses. <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm" target="_blank">Here's William Castleman's comparison of the two versions of the 85/1.2 against the 85/1.8</a>; there are a few others out there and your favourite search engine should be able to find some for you.</p>

For a full examination of all the factors involved with DOF and sensor size see http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html

 

I'd say the differences in optical performance between the 50/1.2 and 50/1.4 and between the 85/1.2 and 85/1.8 are very much smaller than the differences in their price.

 

The 85/1.2L on a full frame camera will give you the smallest DOF and the most background blur, but you'll pay over $4000 for it. An APS-C sensor camera and the 85/1.8 will give you a bit more DOF and a bit less background blur, but it will only cost you $1500.

 

Note also that DOF does NOT (repeat, not) relate directly to background blur. That's a different subject that's covered in some detail in this article: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html

Okay, maybe I should have just asked for sample photos from either of these 1.2 lenses. I'm aware of the 'technical' properties of DOF (as related to focal length, distance, aperture etc.) and the 'technical' and price differences between these lenses and full-frame vs. 1.6x etc, and the circular aperture, autofocus performance, size, weight, etc... <p>

I'd like to see some comparisons of the <b>subjective </b>qualities of these 1.2L lenses compared to their slightly slower and a lot less expensive 1.4 & 1.8 brethren. I am planning on renting these to see for myself, but my local shops don't have the 50 1.2 yet. So in the meantime, just show me some pics!

semi-objectively... using 0.019mm/20D and 0.030mm/5D for CoC (default values at dofmaster.com) and the same subject distance, depth of field with a 50mm lens at f/1.4 on 20D is equivalent to DoF with 85mm at f/2.8 on 5D.

 

If you go to the minimum focus of each lens (1.5 feet for 50L, 3.2 feet for 85L) the situation changes dramatically. The 50L would have slightly shorter DOF wide open, along with the obvious change in magnification and perspective from being that close.

Bob, I'm sorry, but your number are a little bit off:

"<i>The 85/1.2L on a full frame camera will give you the smallest DOF and the most background blur, but you'll pay over $4000 for it. An APS-C sensor camera and the 85/1.8 will give you a bit more DOF and a bit less background blur, but it will only cost you $1500.</i>"<br>

I pay my 85mm 1.2 is less near 1.6k in can$ and B&H "give" the 85mm f1.2 mkII for only 1.7k U$. On the other hand the 85mm f1.8 is only 330 U$.

Denis, include the cost of the camera too, for a fair comparison.

All things being equal (same camera) the bokeh on the 85L is supposedly more attractive then the 50L. The 50L has been said to have that 3D look of realism in some of its pics like night shots. But being their are bad copies coming from Canon on this new lens, I'd wait a half a year till they iron out the bugs. I cancelled my order for the 50L and will wait till late next year to get my copy. Hopefully the price of it will go down by then. I've heard the demand or copies sold is much less then what Canon expected for it. So the price wont stay high for too long.

hi, slightly off topic and my apologise for this but I own a 20D and wanting a top-quality 1:1 macro lens and was looking at this 50mm L series lens. But why O'God is this lens not a 1:1 maginification lens? The 60mm EF-S (and FAR cheaper) lens is? Am I missing something here?

I also believe the new 85 1.2 L USM II which is also mega-bucks is not 1:1 either.

<cite>But why O'God is this lens not a 1:1 maginification lens?</cite>

 

<p>Because it's not a macro lens. Your question is like saying "I paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a Ferrari but I can't fit my big-screen TV in it, but I could pay ten grand for a pickup truck that easily carries the TV. Why O'God can my expensive Ferrari not carry my big-screen TV?"</p>

 

<p>There are special challenges in making a macro lens. That's why relatively few lenses in a manufacturer's lineup (usually around three or four, out of dozens of lenses in total) go to 1:1.</p>

but i got my fat friend in my ferrari! ;) thanks for the reply.. i guess i misunderstood this lens purpose. thanks.

Ni, see if you can rent an 85 to try; it gives me fabulous artistic control over the look of a shot. 1.2-1.8 looks like a painting, 4.0-5.6 is razor-sharp with 3D punch.

The two macro lenses you mention are much slower at f2.8. That is relatively slow for a prime lens at those focal lengths. The macro lenses are also heavier than similar primes (50/1.4 vs. 50/1.8 vs. 50/2.5 compact macro with life size convertor, 100/2 vs 100/2.8 macro, and 200/2.8 vs 180/3.5 macro) and focus slower.