November 26, 2014, 04:20:37 AM

Author Topic: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0  (Read 20053 times)

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #45 on: November 22, 2013, 11:42:42 AM »
he gets under my skin sometimes but he can write a good article, his piece on the "leica man" is a great read. the world would be a duller place without KR

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/leica-man.htm

Duller, perhaps, and yes, he sometimes makes good points; and he sometimes provides useful information (e.g. yesterday he linked to a remarkable deal on the 28mm IS at Adorama that was not mentioned here as far as I can tell) but his presentation of those points is terrible - unless you like badly written, unedited stream-of-consciousness stuff that constantly repeats itself and contradicts itself from one article to the next (FF is better, no it's not; don't shoot raw, shoot raw; I never use a tripod, these were shot with a tripod; etc., etc.).   Leaving content aside, he badly needs an editor.  That said, given how popular his site is he doesn't have much incentive to do anything about it....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #45 on: November 22, 2013, 11:42:42 AM »

sdsr

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 705
    • View Profile
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #46 on: November 22, 2013, 11:46:11 AM »
KEN ROCKWELL - I have never seen any at least acceptable photo from this guy.
Who is giving anything for his advice?

If that were the criterion we would ignore Roger Cicala too - I don't recall seeing any appealing images on his blog either.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14962
    • View Profile
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #47 on: November 22, 2013, 11:53:01 AM »
If that were the criterion we would ignore Roger Cicala too - I don't recall seeing any appealing images on his blog either.

What photographer wouldn't find this appealing?!?   ;)

EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

MLfan3

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 119
    • View Profile
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #48 on: November 22, 2013, 12:00:42 PM »
is this lens smaller than the Zeiss Otus?
if so I may consider it but if the size is about identical , then I'd get the Otus.
there is no lens even comes close to the Zeiss.

surapon

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2381
  • 80% BY HEART, 15% BY LENSES AND ONLY 5% BY CAMERA
    • View Profile
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #49 on: November 22, 2013, 12:10:15 PM »
If that were the criterion we would ignore Roger Cicala too - I don't recall seeing any appealing images on his blog either.

What photographer wouldn't find this appealing?!?   ;)



+ 100 for me too, Dear Teacher, Mr. neuroanatomist .
I must play this games with my Brother in-law, Dr. Govit,  He is the Biggest Nikon Fan too.
Have a great weekend, Sir.
Surapon

facedodge

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #50 on: November 22, 2013, 12:42:36 PM »
May we never speak of Ken Rockwell at Canon Rumors again.

noisejammer

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #51 on: November 22, 2013, 12:47:42 PM »
Other's have commented (and my tests have confirmed) that my 1D4 and 5D2 cannot actually see light from a cone that's faster than f/1.6.

This is incorrect. There is a loss of light due to the sensor but there is a definitively different blur with f/1.2 vs f/1.4 and f/1.6.


Pi - Ok I'll bite.

We seem to agree that many digital cameras are insensitive to light arriving from large apertures. I know this to be a fact with my 5D2 and 1D4 and all the f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses I've tested. I invite you to test this if you disagree.

Nevertheless, you have a persistent belief that apertures wider than about f/1.4 decrease the depth of field even though very little additional light reaches the photodiode.

I would like to understand how a camera's photodiode can simultaneously detect and not detect light. It is a very clever trick. ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #51 on: November 22, 2013, 12:47:42 PM »

zlatko

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
    • http://www.zlatkobatistich.com
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #52 on: November 22, 2013, 12:53:27 PM »
Nevertheless, you have a persistent belief that apertures wider than about f/1.4 decrease the depth of field even though very little additional light reaches the photodiode.
Of course they do.  You can see it.  Compare a photo taken at f/1 with a photo taken at f/1.4.  The one at f/1 has less depth of field.

Pi

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
    • Math and Photography
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #53 on: November 22, 2013, 12:57:17 PM »
Pi - Ok I'll bite.

We seem to agree that many digital cameras are insensitive to light arriving from large apertures. I know this to be a fact with my 5D2 and 1D4 and all the f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses I've tested. I invite you to test this if you disagree.

Nevertheless, you have a persistent belief that apertures wider than about f/1.4 decrease the depth of field even though very little additional light reaches the photodiode.

I would like to understand how a camera's photodiode can simultaneously detect and not detect light. It is a very clever trick. ;)

Yes, it is. It detects a part of it.

I do not have a belief, I have evidence because I have tested it.

KR has tested it, too; You can even see clear difference between f/1.0 and f/1.2:





One can speculate a lot about how exactly light gets lost, and why you lose only a fraction of the light coming from the most oblique rays. There are certain physics principles which could explain this. 

zlatko

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
    • http://www.zlatkobatistich.com
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #54 on: November 22, 2013, 01:02:28 PM »
is this lens smaller than the Zeiss Otus?
if so I may consider it but if the size is about identical , then I'd get the Otus.
there is no lens even comes close to the Zeiss.
They are about the same weight, but the Zeiss Otus is about 2 inches longer.  Despite the price similarity, these lenses are rather different overall.  The Canon lens is long discontinued, while the Zeiss is just coming on the market.  This means that repair of the Canon lens may not be easily available.  The Zeiss will have class-leading superlative sharpness, while the Canon was not known as a very sharp lens (known more for its dreamy quality).  The Canon has autofocus (albeit slow), while the Zeiss is manual focus.  The Zeiss is 55mm and f/1.4, while the Canon is 50mm and f/1.0.  The Canon lens was $2,500 for many years when new and has gone up in price because of rarity, while the Zeiss is coming on the market at $4,000.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • **********
  • Posts: 14962
    • View Profile
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #55 on: November 22, 2013, 01:04:04 PM »
...many digital cameras are insensitive to light arriving from large apertures.

I think you're confusing 'less sensitive' with 'insensitive'. 
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

jason_wen

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #56 on: November 22, 2013, 01:16:26 PM »
I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND ANYONE BUY THIS LENS FOR ANY PRICE, NO MATTER HOW TEMPTING.

In my opinion, this lens's price is way over inflated, due to it's fragile internal electronics.

I have this lens. I bought it used some years ago, still in great shape. Now, it's nothing more than a really expensive curiosity stuffed at the back of my drawer. As it's been said, it focuses electronically at a glacial speed, even in manual mode. The USM gave up without warning on me after 2 years owning it and an authorized canon repair center could do nothing for me, even after contacting Canon Europe, as spare parts are unavailable. They also said Japan wouldn't have parts for the lens. I even contacted Canon US to no avail. The motor is not compatible with any other lens like the 1.2 50 or 85. So, now I have a useless, non-working lens. If I could at least manually focus the lens, I wouldn't have minded nearly so much. I've since bought a 1.2 50 which is far better.

cayenne

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1226
    • View Profile
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #57 on: November 22, 2013, 01:23:55 PM »
.... creates a great buzz for his site to generate traffic and revenue

it's why he can afford to not work, stay at home all day and take his kids to lego land every weekend

Err....sounds like he's doing something RIGHT.

Hell, I'd do it if I could stay at home all day, hit lego land, etc...

;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #57 on: November 22, 2013, 01:23:55 PM »

zlatko

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
    • http://www.zlatkobatistich.com
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #58 on: November 22, 2013, 01:27:59 PM »
I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND ANYONE BUY THIS LENS FOR ANY PRICE, NO MATTER HOW TEMPTING.

In my opinion, this lens's price is way over inflated, due to it's fragile internal electronics.

I have this lens. I bought it used some years ago, still in great shape. Now, it's nothing more than a really expensive curiosity stuffed at the back of my drawer. As it's been said, it focuses electronically at a glacial speed, even in manual mode. The USM gave up without warning on me after 2 years owning it and an authorized canon repair center could do nothing for me, even after contacting Canon Europe, as spare parts are unavailable. They also said Japan wouldn't have parts for the lens. I even contacted Canon US to no avail. The motor is not compatible with any other lens like the 1.2 50 or 85. So, now I have a useless, non-working lens. If I could at least manually focus the lens, I wouldn't have minded nearly so much. I've since bought a 1.2 50 which is far better.

That is useful info that readers don't get from KR.  He is predicting a big price rise for this lens (which is possible), but it may nevertheless be very impractical to use this lens long term.  Canon's 50/1.2 is effectively the replacement for the 50/1.0 and, despite the smaller aperture, is a more practical alternative — faster AF and currently repairable.

Fleetie

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Watching for pigs on the wing
    • View Profile
    • My Facebook
Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #59 on: November 22, 2013, 01:49:16 PM »
Quote
Jessica Claire has a blog post with some good photos made with this lens:http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263/Wedding-with-DJ-Brittany-Rod
[/font]



What BEAST of a camera is she using to get a shutter time of 1/12000 s ?!

Canon 5D3  ,  70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II ,  24-105mm f/4 L IS  ,  50mm f/1.4  ,  85mm f/1.8 ,  EF 2x III
Olympus OM2-SP , 50mm f/1.2 , 55mm f/1.2 , 50mm f/1.4 Silvernose , 135mm f/2.8 , 28mm f/2.8

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0
« Reply #59 on: November 22, 2013, 01:49:16 PM »