I bought my 6D a year ago, and i love it. The AF is simple and not suitable to capture images of fast moving subjects, but everything else about this camera is just great. I'm sure you'll like it!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I would ask the same question about non-L prime lens, esp. at 50mm and 85mm (and even the 100mm). Supposedly IS versions (akin to the 24/28/35) have been due any minute now but that's been said for two years. The "year of the lens" is running out of time and yet the standard/medium telephoto range seems to be ignored for primes.
All that said, I'm not worried about what eye charts show for the 50/1.2, if you look at real pictures it's an amazing lens and can still be very sharp at certain distances anyway. And I've used the 24L (on a 7D) and thought it was perfectly good, liked the results.
But the wait goes on for new primes in the standard/medium range....
The Canon 50mm 1.4 is just soft wide open and doesn't fully sharpen up until 2.8. The problem is even more acute on a crop-sensor body. An easy way to see this is as follows:
Put your camera & 50mm on a tripod in AV mode at f/1.4 and point it at something with a lot of fine detail (I used a semi-transparent curtain). Go to live-view and x10 and manual focus as well you can. Hold down DOF preview and watch what happens as you stop down to 2.8. On my copy, I see the image get steadily sharper until about f/2.8. After I did this, I mostly stopped using my 50mm except in extreme low-light situations.
I've been waiting for years for Canon to update the 50mm 1.4. I finally gave up and bought the Sigma Art.
I would rate the 21mm above the 16-35 f4L IS at its focal length and you have the 2.8 over 4.0 advantage. There is also something special with the Zeiss glass that makes them stand out. Color and contrast are two.
But apart from that, the IQ from the 16-35 is so good that it even seems a bit pointless to hang on to the 21mm. And when you add the weather sealing advantage of the L-lens, it is even clearer. Since I got the 16-35 I have hardly used the 21mm at all. If I had to choose only one of the two, I´d go for the 16-35.
I don´t have any good images to serve as comparisons though.
I can just add to what Macguyver is saying. I have the Zeiss 15mm and 21mm and they are both phenomenal lens, especially the 15mm, which I totally fell in love with it this summer. But the 16-35 f4L IS is a lot more versatile and the IQ is very impressive. Be also aware that the Zeiss 15mm has a 95mm filter size, so filters are not exactly cheap.
Do you think Sigma will be able to fix the 50 1.4 Art forward focus with lateral edge focus points with software updates, or is that a permanent problem?