Messages

136

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 14, 2013, 01:56:54 PM »

You can obviously not interpret lenstip measurement , lenstip  figures first and  then photozone  .  Read Imagin-Resource test where they thought the lens was faulty. se Turners report.

Let's summarize.  You say 50/1.4 has better resolution.  DigiAngel's bicycle photos above (thank you!) show us the reality.

You say 50/1.4 is sharper overall and you cite the Lenstip tests.  The Lenstip tests show that it depends on the aperture.  For example, if you look at the centers (red), the 50/1.4 is better at f/1.4, and the 50/1.2 is better at f/2, and both lenses are equal at f/2.8, and the 50/1.4 is better at f/4.  This back and forth lead is similar to what was found by LensRentals.  It seems you took most of the blue (edge) dots out of the 50/1.2 chart from Lenstip, but I presume the blue dots mean the same edge point on both charts.   There again, which is better depends on the aperture.

You asked me to look at Imaging Resource but your link is to SLRGear (?), so I clipped SLRGear's blur charts which show the 50/1.2 as distinctly better at f/1.4.  The lower, darker and flatter the blur chart, the better the resolution, and the 50/1.2 lens definitely shows a better blur chart at f/1.4 and f/2; by f/2.8 they are comparable.  SLRGear was disappointed with the 50/1.2 lens based on its price, but they did say (in their "Tanner Report") that "It's blur profile is somewhat better than that of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide open".  Looking at the blur charts, there is no question about that.

You link to The Digital Picture (TDP), but their charts show that which is better depends on where you look and which aperture.  For example, at f/1.8, the 50/1.2 shows a better center and mid-frame, but a worse corner.  At f/1.8, I would rather shoot the 50/1.2 lens than the 50/1.4 lens.  TDP's results supports this.

You dismissed the LensRentals test results as "wrong".  Well, just dismissing test results doesn't help your argument about the "myth", especially when their results are similar to those on Lenstip, TDP and SLRGear.

I'll grant you that Photozone's test shows the 50/1.4 as much better than the 50/1.2; that stands out as the anomaly among all of these sources.  Of all the sources you cited, this one supports your point.

you are falling for the myth , like some others
if you can read the different test shows that 50/1,4 has better over all sharpness than 50/1,2
how difficult can it be???
what is you do not understand?

I've addressed all of the test results, especially in my previous reply to you.  I won't keep repeating myself.  I've tried to keep this discussion factual, discussing the various tests.  You seem intent on condescension and I won't reply to that.

137

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 14, 2013, 01:46:20 PM »

" DigiAngel's bicycle photos above (thank you!) show us the reality."

What reality is that? He mentioned three lenses and has two images, neither are labeled. We don't know the lens used, the aperture used, the camera used, if the image is cropped, how they were processed etc etc.

Certainly if the left hand image is a full frame image from the Canon f1.4 wide open then it is in stark contrast to my experiences with the lens. Further, he mentions the Canon 1.4 as having horrible bokeh, if you crop just the backgrounds of those two images they are so close as to make no real world difference.

DigiAngel please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the bicycle image on the left shows how the 50/1.4 looks wide open.  The halation is consistent with my experience.  The 50/1.4 is a fine lens when stopped down, lovely at f/2.8 and great at f/4.

138

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 14, 2013, 12:45:40 PM »

You can obviously not interpret lenstip measurement , lenstip  figures first and  then photozone  .  Read Imagin-Resource test where they thought the lens was faulty. se Turners report.

Let's summarize.  You say 50/1.4 has better resolution.  DigiAngel's bicycle photos above (thank you!) show us the reality.

You say 50/1.4 is sharper overall and you cite the Lenstip tests.  The Lenstip tests show that it depends on the aperture.  For example, if you look at the centers (red), the 50/1.4 is better at f/1.4, and the 50/1.2 is better at f/2, and both lenses are equal at f/2.8, and the 50/1.4 is better at f/4.  This back and forth lead is similar to what was found by LensRentals.  It seems you took most of the blue (edge) dots out of the 50/1.2 chart from Lenstip, but I presume the blue dots mean the same edge point on both charts.   There again, which is better depends on the aperture.

You asked me to look at Imaging Resource but your link is to SLRGear (?), so I clipped SLRGear's blur charts which show the 50/1.2 as distinctly better at f/1.4.  The lower, darker and flatter the blur chart, the better the resolution, and the 50/1.2 lens definitely shows a better blur chart at f/1.4 and f/2; by f/2.8 they are comparable.  SLRGear was disappointed with the 50/1.2 lens based on its price, but they did say (in their "Tanner Report") that "It's blur profile is somewhat better than that of the Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide open".  Looking at the blur charts, there is no question about that.

You link to The Digital Picture (TDP), but their charts show that which is better depends on where you look and which aperture.  For example, at f/1.8, the 50/1.2 shows a better center and mid-frame, but a worse corner.  At f/1.8, I would rather shoot the 50/1.2 lens than the 50/1.4 lens.  TDP's results supports this.

You dismissed the LensRentals test results as "wrong".  Well, just dismissing test results doesn't help your argument about the "myth", especially when their results are similar to those on Lenstip, TDP and SLRGear.

I'll grant you that Photozone's test shows the 50/1.4 as much better than the 50/1.2; that stands out as the anomaly among all of these sources.  Of all the sources you cited, this one supports your point.

139

Lenses / Re: Your favorite lens is?

« on: January 14, 2013, 02:27:35 AM »

What would be your favorite lens?  The one you'd say you took your best shots with?

40mm pancake.  because with any other lens mounted, it just stays at home

i bring my camera to work and everywhere i go now

A great reason to own the 40mm pancake!  It's a lens that likes to go everywhere and it makes the whole camera feel smaller.

I have a bunch of favorites, but no single favorite at the moment.

140

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 13, 2013, 08:22:18 PM »

I can now ad a fourth test of 50/1.2.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
compare Canon 50/1.2 and 50/1,4  f-stop by f-stop
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

 http://www.lenstip.com/257.1-Lens_review-Canon_EF_50_mm_f_1.2L_USM-Introduction.html
image - resource  http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1000/cat/10
 http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1

The Digital Picture results look much like LensRentals' results, which showed that the two Canon 50s are very close in resolution.  Depending on whether you look at center, mid or corner, each outperforms the other at various apertures.

Lenstip's results also look roughly consistent with LensRentals' results:   the two Canon 50s are very close in resolution, with one edging out the other depending on where you look.  Which is better at which aperture may come down to sample variation.

Let's look at the LenRentals table:  the resolution top score bounces back and forth between the two Canon 50s, depending on the aperture and depending on whether you look at the center or the average.  Both of them out-resolve the other brands except for Leica and except when you get to f/4 where the Zeiss 50/1.4 takes the lead at center.  But even at f/4 both Canon 50s out-resolve the Zeiss on average.

Photozone is the only anomaly, showing the Canon 50/1.2 as much worse than the Canon 50/1.4.  I don't know why their results are so different.

141

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 13, 2013, 05:55:21 PM »

Nikon has gone the opposite route:  Both their f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm's are absolutely killer.

I haven't tried the Nikon 50/1.8, but the Nikon 50/1.4 is certainly not killer.  It's ok, but the Canon 50/1.2 draws better.  People look at the resolution numbers and seem to ignore the actual photographs.  To judge a lens properly, you have to look at the photographs it makes.  Resolution numbers can only tell you so much.  The Canon 50/1.2 has a very beautiful way of drawing pictures, especially in the f/1.6 to f/2.5 range.  I've gotten wonderful results from it that go beyond what the resolution numbers would tell me.  In that aperture range, there is no issue with focus shift.  And with the 5D3, focus is more reliable than with past camera bodies.  It seems to me that the lens designers had a certain artistic look in mind, and they succeeded brilliantly.  Sure, we all wish for a sharper 50, as good as the $4K Leica 50/1.4, but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities.  And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.

well then they are wrong or yours interpretation is wrong

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1000/cat/10

The LensRentals "Shootout" provides a direct numerical comparison across brands.  Photozone and SLRgear do not.  So those links are not as helpful.  Photozone states very explicitly "tests results are not comparable across the different systems!" and they emphasize that with an exclamation point.  On SLRgear you have to compare the colors of the blur index charts (I didn't find their resolution numbers), but the blur charts seem consistent with LensRentals results:  the Canon 50/1.2 looks a bit sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss 50/1.4 lenses.

the tests shows the difference between the middle and out against sides and corners
these links is more helpful than Lens Renthal, they also  (Photozone) shows CA, Bokeh etc compared to other lenses
here is a third test http://www.lenstip.com/257.11-Lens_review-Canon_EF_50_mm_f_1.2L_USM_Summary.html

To tell others that 50/1,2 is a very sharp lens is based on a myth compared to other 50mm and mounted on  a 24x36mm sensor.
50/1, 2 may have other strengths but not resolution

You've provided 3 links so far, and none of your links provides a direct comparison of the Canon 50/1.2 lens to any other lens.  Not one.  The LensRentals Shootout does.  It's easy to maintain that something is a "myth" without any direct comparison.  Sharpness is not the selling point of this lens, but its sharpness tests very well when there is a direct comparison to other fast lenses.  LensRentals shows this.  The blur charts on SLRGear also show this if you bring them up side by side:

you seem to have difficult to keep things apart, my answer was about resolution, nothing else.
and three different tests shows the same results, choosing a 50/1, 2 for resolution is a expensive and bad/poor choice
Photozones figures are based on 5dmk2  together with 50/1,2 and 50/1,4

I don't know what three different tests you're referring to.  LensRentals shows the Canon 50/1.2 and 50/1.4 as very close in resolution, and SLRGear shows the 50/1.2 as better.  Since you brought up SLRGear, let's look at their results, first with the 50/1.2 at 1.2 and next with both lenses at 1.4. 

142

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS not good for NASA?

« on: January 13, 2013, 04:38:53 PM »

I'm pretty sure NASA has used Canon, but perhaps only for video.  There is a glass case with cameras used in space at the National Air & Space Museum in Virginia.  I'm pretty sure there is a Canon in there too, along with Nikon, Hasselblad and Leica.

Edited:  here you go ... Canon camcorder used on the Space Shuttle in the background of this pic (behind the Hasselblad):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cdevers/5777971567/#in/photostream/

143

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 13, 2013, 03:08:58 PM »

I'm just saying that Canon intentionally leaves their 1.4 at sub-par performance levels on purpose.

They do ... until they don't.  Canon has been upgrading their small primes.  It's just a matter of time before the 50/1.4 gets upgraded.  But an upgrade also means a price increase.  Not just because they can, but also because better products generally cost more to build.  Lenses are built for a price point.  You want better optics — better bokeh, better AF, better durability, better close focus performance, better color, better flare resistance, etc. — every improvement adds to the cost.  Your wish for a lens with identical "build quality and overall image rendition" won't happen for $500.  Sigma didn't achieve that (although their 50 may be very fine). 

144

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 13, 2013, 11:40:38 AM »

Nikon has gone the opposite route:  Both their f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm's are absolutely killer.

I haven't tried the Nikon 50/1.8, but the Nikon 50/1.4 is certainly not killer.  It's ok, but the Canon 50/1.2 draws better.  People look at the resolution numbers and seem to ignore the actual photographs.  To judge a lens properly, you have to look at the photographs it makes.  Resolution numbers can only tell you so much.  The Canon 50/1.2 has a very beautiful way of drawing pictures, especially in the f/1.6 to f/2.5 range.  I've gotten wonderful results from it that go beyond what the resolution numbers would tell me.  In that aperture range, there is no issue with focus shift.  And with the 5D3, focus is more reliable than with past camera bodies.  It seems to me that the lens designers had a certain artistic look in mind, and they succeeded brilliantly.  Sure, we all wish for a sharper 50, as good as the $4K Leica 50/1.4, but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities.  And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.

well then they are wrong or yours interpretation is wrong

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1000/cat/10

The LensRentals "Shootout" provides a direct numerical comparison across brands.  Photozone and SLRgear do not.  So those links are not as helpful.  Photozone states very explicitly "tests results are not comparable across the different systems!" and they emphasize that with an exclamation point.  On SLRgear you have to compare the colors of the blur index charts (I didn't find their resolution numbers), but the blur charts seem consistent with LensRentals results:  the Canon 50/1.2 looks a bit sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss 50/1.4 lenses.

the tests shows the difference between the middle and out against sides and corners
these links is more helpful than Lens Renthal, they also  (Photozone) shows CA, Bokeh etc compared to other lenses
here is a third test http://www.lenstip.com/257.11-Lens_review-Canon_EF_50_mm_f_1.2L_USM_Summary.html

To tell others that 50/1,2 is a very sharp lens is based on a myth compared to other 50mm and mounted on  a 24x36mm sensor.
50/1, 2 may have other strengths but not resolution

You've provided 3 links so far, and none of your links provides a direct comparison of the Canon 50/1.2 lens to any other lens.  Not one.  The LensRentals Shootout does.  It's easy to maintain that something is a "myth" without any direct comparison.  Sharpness is not the selling point of this lens, but its sharpness tests very well when there is a direct comparison to other fast lenses.  LensRentals shows this.  The blur charts on SLRGear also show this if you bring them up side by side:

145

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 13, 2013, 01:32:37 AM »

but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities.  And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.

The 50 1.4 from canon looks better there actually.

That's true, but just a tiny bit. The point is that the Canon 50/1.2 is sharper than the 50/1.4 lenses from Nikon, Sigma and Zeiss (unless you stop down to f/4), so it's not an unsharp lens and not the dog that some people make it out to be. 

While the Canon 50/1.4 may deliver on sharpness, it doesn't quite deliver the look of the 50/1.2 at wide apertures, and the AF is not as reliable.

146

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 12, 2013, 11:33:43 PM »

Nikon has gone the opposite route:  Both their f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm's are absolutely killer.

I haven't tried the Nikon 50/1.8, but the Nikon 50/1.4 is certainly not killer.  It's ok, but the Canon 50/1.2 draws better.  People look at the resolution numbers and seem to ignore the actual photographs.  To judge a lens properly, you have to look at the photographs it makes.  Resolution numbers can only tell you so much.  The Canon 50/1.2 has a very beautiful way of drawing pictures, especially in the f/1.6 to f/2.5 range.  I've gotten wonderful results from it that go beyond what the resolution numbers would tell me.  In that aperture range, there is no issue with focus shift.  And with the 5D3, focus is more reliable than with past camera bodies.  It seems to me that the lens designers had a certain artistic look in mind, and they succeeded brilliantly.  Sure, we all wish for a sharper 50, as good as the $4K Leica 50/1.4, but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities.  And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.

well then they are wrong or yours interpretation is wrong

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=1

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1000/cat/10

The LensRentals "Shootout" provides a direct numerical comparison across brands.  Photozone and SLRgear do not.  So those links are not as helpful.  Photozone states very explicitly "tests results are not comparable across the different systems!" and they emphasize that with an exclamation point.  On SLRgear you have to compare the colors of the blur index charts (I didn't find their resolution numbers), but the blur charts seem consistent with LensRentals results:  the Canon 50/1.2 looks a bit sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss 50/1.4 lenses. 

147

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L

« on: January 12, 2013, 01:04:19 PM »

Nikon has gone the opposite route:  Both their f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm's are absolutely killer.

I haven't tried the Nikon 50/1.8, but the Nikon 50/1.4 is certainly not killer.  It's ok, but the Canon 50/1.2 draws better.  People look at the resolution numbers and seem to ignore the actual photographs.  To judge a lens properly, you have to look at the photographs it makes.  Resolution numbers can only tell you so much.  The Canon 50/1.2 has a very beautiful way of drawing pictures, especially in the f/1.6 to f/2.5 range.  I've gotten wonderful results from it that go beyond what the resolution numbers would tell me.  In that aperture range, there is no issue with focus shift.  And with the 5D3, focus is more reliable than with past camera bodies.  It seems to me that the lens designers had a certain artistic look in mind, and they succeeded brilliantly.  Sure, we all wish for a sharper 50, as good as the $4K Leica 50/1.4, but the Canon 50/1.2 has some very positive qualities.  And as for sharpness, the Canon 50/1.2 was among the sharpest lenses in LensRentals.com's "Great 50mm Shootout" - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout - sharper than Nikon, Sigma or Zeiss.

148

Lenses / Re: TS-E lens

« on: January 10, 2013, 02:33:15 PM »

Good tutorials here ... Part 1:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/02/12/architectural-photography-primer-for-the-somewhat-uninitiated/
and Part II:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/09/15/an-architectural-primer-part-ii-by-james-klotz/

149

EOS Bodies / Re: Got this here itch

« on: January 10, 2013, 01:07:57 AM »

I'm ectlectic in my images, everything from BIF to landscapes to macro...anything but people. Currently use a 1DsIII and, am a believer in photoshop.

... any suggestions?

You already have a great camera.  Not sure what you need that's better.

150

Speedlites, Printers, Accessories / Re: Reikan Focal Mac Client is NOT native

« on: January 09, 2013, 12:05:43 PM »

Reikan FoCal is a great concept and it works.  Saves me time.  I don't care how they get it done.  The need for Mono is explained before you buy it.