I think I got a "paper weight" 50L :(

[fellipe_de_paula]

<p>I finally bought my dreams lens, but I not satisfied with its image quality... I think it's way too soft and to become worst it seems it has front focus.</p>

<p>Here are a few tests I did with the focus chart</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[fellipe_de_paula]

<p>Another test</p><div></div>

[john_a5]

<p>Buy it new? Send it back! I sent back a camera and a lens when I bought my system. Your alternative, if you camera has the ability, is to use the micro focus adjustment (1dsmkIII and 5dII have it I know, probably others as well). Personally, I would sent it back and get a different one if you bought it new. </p>

[peter_mckone]

<p>How close to the camera was the test image? Do you get better results if the target is farther away?</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>What happens if you photograph a larger flat object in the same plane, e.g., newsprint on fence? Trying to lock AF on a tiny spot on a slanted ruler is a tall order, especially at close focus. After all the AF sensor is larger than the target and could easily lock AF in front or behind it.</p>

<p>Is this the EF 50 1.0L USM or EF 50 1.2L USM? I have the latter and it focuses great at normal distances, say 1 meter to infinity, but was a bit iffy in the macro range with small subjects on my 5D. Oddly, it does better on my 5DII. </p>

[angel_bocanegra]

<p>The EF 50mm f1.2L is a give and take lens. I would say that out of all the soft images at close range with this lens, 75% is due to user error. At 1.2 you really got to have steady hands. For your test try a tripod and shutter release with mirror lockup. Since I got mine new two years ago with my 30D, I had to send it twice to canon center in Irvine(well actually drove there since its only 30minutes away) and did not notice a huge wow improvement. After I got a 40D and recently a 5d and 5dmkii. With the 5dii its tack sharp(no micro focus adsj.) and very sharp with the 5d. I guess it works best with full frame? IDK. Send it back and good luck, its a marvelous lens.</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>This is normal. You need one of the new bodies with micro-focus adjust to do much better. You can send your body and lens back to Canon for adjustment but they will probably come back with very similar performance because you are close to perfect already. I had a 30D and it was difficult to get consistent focus wide-open, but with the 5D2 and Live View I am 100% confident, at least on a tripod. Off the tripod it's a challenge no matter what body you use because just a smidgen of movement to and from your subject (either because you or the subject moves) will move the plane of focus.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that this lens, while capable of shooting at f/1.2, does not oblige you to shoot this way. For wide-aperture work, I recommend shooting at f/2.0 and rejoicing in the best-in-class quality that you will get at that aperture. There is PLENTY of bokeh at f/2.0 and the little extra bit of depth of field will help you ensure that what you want to be in focus will in fact be in focus. The improvement in contrast as you move from f/1.2 or f/1.4 to f/2.0 is significant, and this will make the in-focus part "pop out" from the blurry background more, not less.</p>

[fellipe_de_paula]

<p>Here's a test I did with my 50 1.2L and my 50 1.8</p><div></div>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I believe the 50/1.2 has some focus shift issues as it's stopped down... Google turned up</p>

<p>http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/FocusShift/index.html</p>

<p>Many fast lenses have such issues.</p>

[dennisgg]

<p>I regard to your 1.8 vs. 1.2 - I notice you have the focus a bit different. Look at the word lens and see where the focus is different. Try manually focusing it with a tripod on both and see. You might have to send to Canon to adjust the AF.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>I think you got a bad case of Pixel Peep Itus. Go out and take some pictures.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Its either a dud, or it's a case of "fast does not always mean sharp". I could not live with a lens that gave me 1" dof wide open. Even with a tripod. How useless is that? This is a reason why available light photographers stay above f2 and let the auto ISO look after the lack of light.<br>

Apart from test charts, what are you normally photographing at 1.2? I can easily see how the AF can get confused. Did you use spot metering? You would need to for sure to save the AF from getting confused. If you used all focus points, then the sensor would screw up for sure.</p>

 

[fotograf]

<p>Photographing a "chart" is hardly a way to test a lens. Why not shoot something such as people or buildings and shoot at different apertures?</p>

[dansutton]

<p>"Did you use spot metering? You would need to for sure to save the AF from getting confused. If you used all focus points, then the sensor would screw up for sure."</p>

<p>i'm a nikon shooter, but i'm hoping that this doesn't make any sense. do canon's focus better based on metering?</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>1.2 lenses are designed to let in light, at the expense of almost everything else. :( Way back in the 60's, they were the lens to get for photo-journalists, because that extra partial stop could make the difference between no picture and one that was printable in a newspaper. The extra brighteness in the viewfinder made it easier to focus in the dark as well.</p>

<p>Canon made a f0.95 as well. it had zero DOF at wide open at short distances and it was available on a rangefinder.<br>

f1.2 lenses are not what you want if you are looking for real sharp images at wide open.</p>

<p> </p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>Metering doesnt effect focus on any camera. The lens focuses wide open so it wouldnt matter what meter mode was set or manual settings.</p>

<p>The lens is back focusing, not front focusing according to your chart test. As Puppy pointed out, that chart test isnt accurate. When focusing at a 45 degree angle, you have to imagine that the focus sensor is long so it may pick up the line in front or back and shift it accordingly. The best way I have found is the Lens Align. I bought it and it definitley shows you the error. It focuses on high contrast area exactley parallel to sensor, but the ruler next to it runs further/closer from the target showing you where it focused. But, if you dont have a camera that allows micro adjustment, then all this $120 tool does is test. So I advise a make shift method. </p>

<p>To compare sharpness, use tripod, focus manually, then change lenses, focus manually and pixel peep. The AF way relys on AF being perfect. Any focus shift will definitley harm sharpness. I see the 501.2 having CA, but sharpness is close in area where focused properly. Problem is, 1.2 is less DOF than 1.8, so thats fooling you. Manual focus on flat subject and check. The 1.2 should be the same or a little better. I wouldnt accept anything less than perfect with this lens. Its very expensive and not a lens used for alot. Its too long for wide angle stuff, doesnt have the reach for alot of stuff. Its use is specific and should perform like a $1500 lens and it should be superb for that money. I'm sick of Canon fanboys saying people should live with this focus performance. And some real soft lenses wide open. For $1500, I expect Canon to get it right. Nikon does. Inever hear of those guys having issues with focus errors wide open. Very little. I know for a fact, that on my 1D3 a 50 f1.2L wouldnt give me a 50% keeper rate for full length portrait shots and that sucks. But I know this, cause its tough sometimes on a 2.8 lens. Send it back and demand better until you get one that you can use and get at least a 75% keeper rate. As pointed out, lots of these failures are user related cause the DOF at 1.2 is useless. Its so thin, it wouldnt work for most use. What it does allow you to do, it give the AF sensor tons of light for focus aid, but using it stopped down at f2.0-2.8 and you get more DOF and razor sharp smokin lens but the camera could actually focus in low light cause of the wide 1.2 aperture. As you knw the lens focuses wide open and closes down at time of capture</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Oh my goodness, you buy an f/1.2 lens and have to use it at f2.8? </p>

<p>Look at some shots in this thread. But then with these cameras auto focus is not a confounding variable.</p>

<p>http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=76156</p>

[fotograf]

<blockquote>

<p>For $1500, I expect Canon to get it right. Nikon does</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but Nikon's 50mm 1.2 is manual focus not autofocus and why are you comparing Nikon to Canon, in the Canon EOS thread?</p>

[fotograf]

<blockquote>

<p> Its too long for wide angle stuff</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even on a FF body, 50mm was and is considered normal. It's never been wide angle.</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>Brian, dont take stuff out of context. I know Nikons 50 1.2 is MF. I'm talking about AF very wide aperture lenses such as Nikons 50 1.4. You know once you get to 1.8, the DOF is difficult from that point on. So my statement would apply to any 1.8 or wider lens.</p>

<p>I'm not comparing Nikon to Canon, and if I did, where else would you compare Nikon to Canon. Either forum gets you the same smart a$% responses. My statement was that if Nikon can make a wide aperture lens focus properly and consistently, why cant Canon. It was to say, dont except that this is normal, cause its only normal for Canon.</p>

<p>We dont know what format the OP is using, but even on FF, yes its been considered the normal lens.....decades ago it "used" to be the standard lens with 35mm cameras. That doesnt change the fact that its too long for wide stuff. I didnt say it was a "Wide Angle" lens. I said its too long for wide stuff. Its a lens that you cant use in close quarters for many people. I find that 24mm isnt wide enough sometimes when you need to get 4-5 people in a shot. I use my 50 1.8 inside too, but cant get much in the shot. On the otherside, being fixed at 50mm, its not long enough sometimes to get across the room shots that the 70-105 range lens would get you. I'm not saying its a bad lens, its just limited in use and for what you do decide to use it for, it should perform better for $1500.</p>

<p>Thomas, no you dont have to use it at 2.8. Its sharp and usable at 1.2. Its just reaching its maximum sharpness by 2.8 and where the DOF is usable. What do I mean by this. Lets say you have a beautiful bride with her shoulder pointing at you and she has her chin inline with her shoulder looking into the lens. One eye closer than the other. Unless you are trying for some unique expression, f1.2 wont get you near enough DOF to get at least both eyes in focus for a 3/4 shot. Even worse if you move in closer for a chest and up shot. You would need somewhere in the range of f2.8-f4.0 to get this. This is exactly what Stephen was saying further up. That shallow of DOF is useless for many shots.</p>

<p>All lenses arent as sharp wide open as they are stopped down. But the degree that some of Canons lenses show in comparison wide open vs stopped down 1-2 stops is rediculous. Yes, the Leica, Zeiss, Contax stuff is much better in regards to this. You'd think Canon would do better at $1500 for such a lens that has such limiting use. Take my 24-70 f2.8L. It has much more usability in regards to range and maximum aperture. Its sharp at f2.8, but not near as sharp as it is by 5.6-f8.0. Even so, its sharper wide open than the 50 f1.2 is wide open. And much much more usable. Unless f2.8 is not near wide enough, then ok. Get my point. Some of the issues in regards to sharpness with the 50 f1.2 are usually caused of focus error. My 24-70 at 2.8 appears just as sharp as 5.6 when viewing the picture normally and not pixel peeping, which is really all that matters. Side by side, they appear to have the same "bite" as long as the 2.8 shots is focus perfectly. This doesnt happen as much as I'd expect from a $4500 1D3 and $1300 24-70. Am I wrong for expecting $5800 to get me more accuracy. No. Dont get me wrong, its great. I love the combo, but also have moments where the shot should have been in focus and wasnt. This has been the norm for Canon since the debut of the 1D3. I have used the D3 and it doesnt seem to miss near as much. Not talking about tracking, just regular use. Where people see problems first is when the use the 50 1.2 at 1.2 to take say full-3/4 portrait. They look at the image and the hair looks like its been smoothed over. No actual texture. The image wasnt focus properly. Even at 1.2 if that lens is focus correctly, the image would still have plenty bite and appear fine(no PP). My 24 70 does the same thing at 2.8. Try the same shot and MF and the 2.8 shot looks awesome. This isnt all the time, but more than I like. The OPS 50 would render hairline in focus if he focus on eyes. Then it wouldn't be acceptable cause the eyes would be a touch soft and lack the bite for a nice portrait. I accept this on my $90 50 f1.8. And thats why I dont buy the 501.2. I cant use it as much to warrant the $$$$ and surely dont want to have focus issues with a $1500 lens I never use. Websites all over make comments about this issue, but here we go, I or anyone else says it here, and its user error or unrealistic expectaions.</p>

<p>Wake up everyone. This is why Canon doesnt fix issues the way they should. It took nearly a riot to get them on the 1D3 and still had issues. Nikon, the Pros complained about some edge sharpness on the 70-200 used on FX and what happened, they fixed it. It was fine on DX which they sell more of. But they did it anyway. If we want better products from Canon, the fan boys better stop making excuses and start complaining, otherwise you get the same issues over and over. Noisy wheel gets the grease. Go to the Nikon forum, none of these issues are there. They complain about things that the manual could solve or general questions. Its not riddled with focus errors and softness issues like the EOS forum. Wonder why. I guess they are too stupid to notice huh. Highly unlikely. Meanwhile, Canon users are to proud to say, "This sucks and I want better"</p>

<p>Sorry for the novel, but it urks me when someone here has an issue as the OP does and its always, "This is normal, or user error" Not, it might be a faulty lens. Oh it couldnt be that. Why does it bother someone that I expect similar results as another company selling comparable products. Yes, we can switch but its not that easy and I want to complain when I dont get what I pay for.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I didn't read it--too long--but think David musta took typing in HS. Hopefully he didn't injure himself by writing it with his thumbs on a smartphone! Whatever, dem damn digits did dance on da keys!</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>Puppy, believe it or not, i pecked this two finger method. I've done it for years. I type faster than most that do it the right way. I get laughed at everytime someone catches me doing it.</p>

<p>I did get long winded, but sometimes you have to write a book, otherwise "some" people want to take everything out of context and disect every single word typed. Its really not that complicated folks. Its not that deep.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>David sounds like yet another bitter Canon basher, with statements such as</p>

<blockquote>

<p> This is why Canon doesnt fix issues the way they should</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As far as if "Nikon can make a wide aperture lens focus properly and consistently, why cant Canon"(I THINK you mean a large aperture) there's nothing wrong with Canon's focusing of their lenses. I think USM was around before AF-S and I've used both Nikon and Canon and I think Canon have a better edge on focusing in their lenses. Manual focus always works well on Canon's lenses- esp. the L lenses.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Felipe,</p>

<p>Regarding the front focus, it looks like your lens is significantly off. It could just be resolved with some body's micro-adjust (as other responders mentioned), or maybe a trip to Canon would solve the problem.</p>

<p>As far as the sharpness, the 1.2 is generally acknowledged to be the softest of the 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8 trio of Canon 50mm's: the 1.4 is sharper, and the 1.8 sharper still. Have a look at the target test shots at The-Digital-Picture.</p>

<p>Also, this is is relevant, if you haven't already found it:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm">http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm</a></p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<blockquote>

<p>I did get long winded, but sometimes you have to write a book, otherwise "some" people want to take everything out of context and disect every single word typed. Its really not that complicated folks. Its not that deep.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see the good of all that typing when this is the typical result......</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I didn't read it--too long-</p>

</blockquote>