kenghor Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 See the actual, wide open shots of the 50L lens.<br> The inserts are 100% crop. A full size 100% picutre is also include to examine sharpenss and bokeh.<p> <a href="http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm- 12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm">http://www.lens-scape.com/article/50mm- 12vs14/50mm12vs14.htm</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 WOW... Very very nice captures, I dont care if they're not technically perfect for you, But for me, with a little sharpening, They are. Very nice lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Thanks for posting the pics. Very interesting results. I personally was suprised by the flare, considering the Castleman review. I also would be quite happy with the 50/1.4 lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trothwell Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 THANK YOU! Pictures like these were what I was hoping to see. In my humble (and non-professional) opinion, those "real life" shots have a better overall look than what I've experienced with the 50/1.4. It doesn't appear to be extremely sharp wide-open, but perhaps sharp enough. Is it $1300 better than the 50/1.4? Hmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Can we ask Canon or make an appeal to Canon, to lower the price of that lens to say about $1,000-, This sounds silly, But seriously , can we do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 <p>Well, you can ask, but don't be holding your breath. It's a new product, so it carries the "new and shiny" premium. That will wear off over time, but you're asking for nearly a 40% drop in price (B&H currently lists it for USD1600 and you want it to lose $600 of that), which is rather a lot ...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_lipton Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Wee.... Maybe it's the upload but the images all look pretty similar to me. I'm not a pixel peeper or technogeek but from my standpoint as was pointed out.. is it worth the extra $1000? Just curious.. What's you're take on the lens when compared to the f/1.4? Happy Holidays.. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcs56 Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 ''The f1.2 flares at f1.2 and f1.4. From f2 onwards, flare is well controlled. Considering that most who use the f1.2 are likely to use it for wedding and stage events and is common to have spot lights shinning directly at you. Having such flare may not be desirable'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin conville Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Thanks for that Wee. There's some good information to be derived from these images. They've gone a long way towards eliminating any wild fantasy (albeit minor) I may have harbored about the F1.2. Talk about diminishing return. Now if only Canon would modernize the 50 F1.4 with ring USM and the EF-S type coatings, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_sallis Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 <P>Some of the new shots certainly show the lens to be more capable than any other examples I've seen so far.<br> The sharpness wide open is actually not too bad at all, considering that most of these are at high ISO which reduces apparent sharpness with noise.</P> <P>In fairness to the Canon, I have to say that the Zeiss Contax 55mm f1.2 suffered quite badly from veiling flare when shot towards the sun (and they go for around GBP5000, or US$9000!)</P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 <I>Can we ask Canon or make an appeal to Canon, to lower the price of that lens to say about $1,000-, This sounds silly, But seriously , can we do that?</i><P> You can "ask" by not buying one. If they sit on the shelves, I think Canon will get the hint. ;-)<P> I broke out the old f/1.4 last night after getting my camera back from repair and that thing still blows me away. If I get $1600 to spend on glass I'm afraid it won't be on another 50mm lens. Just my .02 cent's worth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Not sure why you had to re-post everything. You have not re-taken your sink shots. As I mentioned before the 50/L 1.2 shot is far sharper (properly focused), than the 50/L 1.4 shot, not to mention all the others as well. I suspect all the 50/1.4 sink shots were also taken with improper focus. The real-life shots don't really add anything since there is no comparison done with the 50/1.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 "You can "ask" by not buying one. If they sit on the shelves, I think Canon will get the hint. ;-)" That is the ONLY way the price will come down. Personally. . .not sure I care. From what I see, I would be hard pressed to justify $600, let alone $1600. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 Without comparision shots with other lenses you really can't tell anything. Sure the "real world" shots look OK and so they should), but if you'd taken 1/2 of them with the 1.4 and 1/2 with the 1.2, would anyone be able to tell which shots were taken with which lens? Guess we'll never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbizarro Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 "Sure the "real world" shots look OK and so they should), but if you'd taken 1/2 of them with the 1.4 and 1/2 with the 1.2, would anyone be able to tell which shots were taken with which lens? Guess we'll never know." True enough. As always, internet JPGs are not the proper way of evaluating a lens' capabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted December 24, 2006 Share Posted December 24, 2006 My eyes are deceiving me. The 35/1.4 shot looks sharper than both 50/1.2 and 85/1.2. Were all shots taken at max aperture? Were all shots treated the same in PP? Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenghor Posted December 24, 2006 Author Share Posted December 24, 2006 All shots of the 35L, 50L and 85L are taken wide open and the sharpest images selected. <br>None of the full size pic has been sharpened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted December 24, 2006 Share Posted December 24, 2006 I need to go to my optometrist.... :-) Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now