Best Value "Normal" Lens for 6d?

[ankorwatt]

sharper, realy

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm_1.2L/index.htm and the TDP comparison that TrumpetPower linked.

But probably some copy variation issues.  Roger Cicala (lensrentals.com) tested multiple copies, and it's basically a wash in terms of sharpness based on his results.

Regardless, the two key points are:

• The 50L is an excellent (but expensive) portrait lens, optimized for better bokeh and sacrificing some other aspects of optical performance to achieve that creamy bokeh
• Stating that the only differences between the f/1.4 and f/1.2L lenses are build quality and cost is an oversimplification

then lens tip must also have  been unlucky and got a bad copy of the 50/1.2 compared to 50/1.4 and sharpness.

[ankorwatt]

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

The strange thing is that even the SLR gear has also  a bad copy of 50/1.2 and all 3 tests  exhibit poor edge sharpness.
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1000/cat/10

[Dick]

Textbooks can say what they please. I'd say that real life use determines things for most of us.

You are, of course, free to make up whatever definitions you like for words and use them however you like.

Just don't be surprised when people haven't a clue what you're talking about.

40mm on 135 format may "feel" like a wide-angle lens to you, but it's most emphatically a normal lens as far as the rest of the world uses these terms.

But don't take my word for it. Have a look for yourself to see what category Canon places the Shorty McForty in the EF lens lineup:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup

Cheers,

b&

I think you are missing my point. We all know the definitions commonly used. What I was trying to say is that I can't imagine many photographers using a 35mm as a wide lens. Instead it's quite common as the main "normal" lens at weddings and such.

Surely 35mm is officially defined as wide angle, but that is just something people have agreed on. People agree on all kind of things. 1+1=2... If you have an apple & a banana you may have 2 fruits, but the units aren't exactly the same.

[neuroanatomist]

then lens tip must also have  been unlucky and got a bad copy of the 50/1.2 compared to 50/1.4 and sharpness.

Well, silly me...I thought that overall IQ was about more than just sharpness. I guess since that's easy to measure (relatively), we pay more attention to it.  And yes, the edges of the 50L aren't sharp. You want the center soft, too, try the 50/1.0L.  But an f/1.8 portrait with a busy background is going to look better with the 50/1.2L than with the 50/1.4 (and possibly even better with the 50/1.0L).  No question that the 50/1.4 is a better value.  But heck, if sharpness per $/£/€/¥ is your most important criterion in choosing a 50mm prime, the 50/1.8 II is much better than the 50/1.4. 

[TrumpetPower!]

You want the center soft, too, try the 50/1.0L.

You ain't kiddin'.

Last time I was at Tempe Camera (the local pro camera shop), they had a mint-condition 50 f/1.0L on consignment. Just for giggles, I mounted it to my 5DIII. Wide open, it's a coke bottle.

I don't remember what they were asking for it, but it was pretty reasonable -- in line with the going rate. I keep thinking that, if they still have it the next time I'm there, I'll offer them an insultingly low amount for it...and then I remember that it's probably not even worth as much as the 50 f/1.2L lens to me. Realistically, the lens has no use beyond the giggle factor of seeing the meter read 1.0.

Cheers,

b&