September 23, 2014, 06:42:53 AM

Author Topic: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L  (Read 49526 times)

tortilla

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #75 on: January 14, 2013, 11:31:37 AM »
I'm just gonna make one last attempt to help balance the review by posting the test image I'd taken last year, then I'll look away from this thread.

I've seen this image before, a couple of months ago. It really impressed me, and it still does.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #75 on: January 14, 2013, 11:31:37 AM »

Zlatko

  • Guest
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #76 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.

Studio1930

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
    • View Profile
    • Studio 1930
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #77 on: January 14, 2013, 01:25:57 PM »
The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.

That is not true.  I can easily afford it.  I bought it  I used it.  I returned it.  The focus shift issue was the reason I returned it.  I don't care how sharp or not sharp a lens is if I cannot focus it accurately.  For me, this lens was not usable.  For others who use it differently and don't experience the focus shift issues, it might be a great lens.
-Darrin
Studio 1930
www.studio1930.com

Zlatko

  • Guest
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #78 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.

drjlo

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 630
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #79 on: January 14, 2013, 01:51:29 PM »
The only people who bash the 1.2L are the people who can't afford it.

That is not true.  I can easily afford it.  I bought it  I used it.  I returned it.  The focus shift issue was the reason I returned it.  I don't care how sharp or not sharp a lens is if I cannot focus it accurately. 

Do you remember the date code on that 50L and on which camera body?  Reading through the large amount of user reviews out there, one gets the feeling Canon changed *something* with the 50L in the last couple/few years without official announcement, either some sort of hardware/firmware change or maybe even change/tightening of QC.  People with the latest batch of 50L and camera bodies seem much happier than before, e.g. I am very happy with sharpness and focusing of 2011 50L + 5D MkIII combo, with -3 lens microadjustment. 

Zlatko

  • Guest
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #80 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.

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3453
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #81 on: January 14, 2013, 02:06:08 PM »
It is not much to own to that price, it is only ( and now Im using the word uninformed people) who think 50/1,2 is something special. good luck and Elvis is still alive, live in Motala Sweden

Had all the canon 50mm's, and the 50L is the best performing from F1.2-2.8. Its fantastic.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #81 on: January 14, 2013, 02:06:08 PM »

Marsu42

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4565
  • ML-66d / 100L / 70-300L / 17-40L / 600rts
    • View Profile
    • 6D positive spec list
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #82 on: January 14, 2013, 02:07:02 PM »
I've addressed all of the test results

Thanks for that from me, this thread has been very interesting concerning the 50L real world performance - though that doesn't change the fact that most people seem think it's overpriced even if it can be a good tool at wider apertures.

DigiAngel

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
    • Dominic Schulz Fotografie
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #83 on: January 14, 2013, 03:05:08 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.

sorry i thought the pictures itself would make it clear. the left one with the bad halos is the 50 1.4 @1.4, the right one is the 50 1.2 @1.4. even if you count slight focus variations in, you can see how bad the 50 1.4 handles this situation. both pictures are 100% crops slightly off-center from an 5D II image, just converted via adobe acr, no corrections or lens profile used.

DigiAngel

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 17
    • View Profile
    • Dominic Schulz Fotografie
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #84 on: January 14, 2013, 03:33:22 PM »
man the forum ate my posting...

and again -.-

okay third and last try: your image is an f4. there is nothing wrong with the lens from f2....f2.8 and up, it might be even better then the L at those apertures.  it just has that severe lack of contrast and bad halation wide open. i used several copies over the years and everyone behaved the same, so i rule out a defective lens. its just and old design.

as for the rubbish bokeh: its a well known fact that it can produce very harsh backgrounds. i once did a comparision between the canon 1.4 and the sigma 1.4, see attachments. the 1.2 L tends to be as good, or better then the sigma, depending on the situation. sometimes its very creamy, sometimes much harsher then f.e. the 85 1.8 USM - but its easily much better then the 50 1.4 ;)

6017 is the sigma, 6018 the canon..obviously
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 03:36:52 PM by DigiAngel »

Boyer U. Klum-Cey

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #85 on: January 14, 2013, 03:34:16 PM »
With a video background, while relearning stills, I have to say that the 5DII- 1.2L  combo is $ in the bank.  Also, very nice for my deserted streets at 4 AM/PM folio.  And, it is good to see the word "pedantic", one of my favorites, get some press.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2013, 03:42:34 PM by Boyer U. Klum-Cey »
All theories are wrong, but some are useful, eh?

erwinwang

  • Guest
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #86 on: January 14, 2013, 03:44:36 PM »
[quote authoActuallwr=Zlatko link=topic=12286.msg218426#msg218426 date=1358013859]
Quote from: Matthew Saville link=topic=12286.msg218396#msg218396 date=1358008671
Nikon has gone the opposite route:  Both their f/1.4 and f/1.8 50mm's are absolutely killer.
[/quote
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 respect all results fm these sites(good or bad)but there is one major factor ignored among your argument with Zlatko-SHOOTING DISTANCE. pls be noted lensrental results base on a 15feet distance while PZ is around 2feet(to my recall).They are all TRUE, but just different angles rendering the same picture -50L is amazingly good in resolution when shooting beyond 4feet , while incredibly nasty within 2feet.

Zlatko

  • Guest
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #87 on: January 14, 2013, 03:52:39 PM »
I respect all results fm these sites(good or bad)but there is one major factor ignored among your argument with Zlatko-SHOOTING DISTANCE. pls be noted lensrental results base on a 15feet distance while PZ is around 2feet(to my recall).They are all TRUE, but just different angles rendering the same picture -50L is amazingly good in resolution when shooting beyond 4feet , while incredibly nasty within 2feet.
That may explain the difference.  Thank you!  I hope PZ is not testing at 2 feet because that is very close.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #87 on: January 14, 2013, 03:52:39 PM »

erwinwang

  • Guest
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #88 on: January 14, 2013, 04:01:34 PM »
actually 50L is the only reason I still got a 5D Mark2,meanwhile my only 35system glass left . portraits using this glass wide open  have been enlarged to 3feet and resolution is not a  problem at all. color /contrast /rendering are all superb.focusing is a problem coz the shallow DOF, yet not a big one to me.  but just bear in mind :NEVER ever use it like a macro lens.

marinien

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #89 on: January 14, 2013, 04:37:13 PM »
It is not much to own to that price, it is only ( and now Im using the word uninformed people) who think 50/1,2 is something special. good luck and Elvis is still alive, live in Motala Sweden

Had all the canon 50mm's, and the 50L is the best performing from F1.2-2.8. Its fantastic.
Tell me which one of the four links i have
 Provided shows that 50/1,2 is better at 2,0 than 50/1,4
Are all this 4 test humbug? Like some think about DXO  Dr test

Which one of your four links compare the bokeh of the 50 f/1.2 to the 50 f/1.4 @f/2?
Mikael, bokeh may be irrelevant to you, because you prefer take photos of flat scenes, e.g. test charts, I GOT it!
When I looked at the comparison of background blur @f/2.8 of the three EF50mm f/1.2, f/1.4 and f/1.8 in your first link http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.2-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx , I know without doubt which one is my favourite  ;)
7D | EF-S 17-55 | EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro | 580EX II | Benro C3780T + Markins M20

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Review - Canon EF 50 f/1.2L
« Reply #89 on: January 14, 2013, 04:37:13 PM »