A New 50mm Lens is Being Tested in the Wild [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Canoneer said:
I’m curious as to the appeal of an f/1. Bragging rights? Tiny depth of field? ISO 100 vs. ISO 120?
Upvote
0
stevelee said:
I can’t think of a single useful reason. I remember way back when, when I think it was Kubrick used a 0.7 lens for a candle lit scene in a movie whose name I can’t remember right now. But those days are long gone.
Truly, it’s almost impossible to focus those really fast lenses, even with direct off the sensor focus. And then, everything needs to be on a tripod anyway, where you can use slower shutter speeds.
Sometimes, what was cutting edge, because of the limitations of technology, becomes completely obsolete as the technology dies out.
With digital now having vastly better high speed IQ than film ever had, super speed lenses are no longer needed. The tiny shrinkage in focus depth is hardly noticeable
Upvote
0
sulla said:
It's been this way for a while, if I'm honest. Hear me out.
When I stare at it long enough, the real mustmustmust priority for me is fast / accurate / consistent AF at wide apertures and perhaps right behind that is 'not too long to fit in a smaller bag'. I care about sharpness, sure, but not nearly enough to buy the Tamron or Sigma and risk whiffing on the AF and missing a great moment. So that throws out all third parties. Done.
50 f/1.8 STM = AF is too slow and I prefer more solidly constructed gear. No.
So the decision to buy now or wait is all about what a 50L would offer me above the 50 f/1.4 USM I use today.
Upsides of the 50L to the 50 f/1.4: A lot. Faster AF, AF doesn't hunt like the f/1.4 does, f/max to f/2 shooting generates much more usable output, way better construction, better bokeh, better color, sealed, etc.
About the same as the 50 f/1.4: Off-center large aperture AF is inconsistent -- it randomly whiffs on two different 50L rentals I've had on my 5D3, even with ruthlessly controlled technique.
Downsides of the 50L to the 50 f/1.4: Heavier (naturally), I'll need to get 72mm filters (small detail of course), pretty sure the f/1.4 is sharper once I stop down past f/2.8 or so (which I do fairly often)
My take is that if I get it, it will clearly be an optical upgrade for wider aperture work and the AF will be quicker, but I'll have paid $900-1000 (refurb) for a lens I still can't trust to nail the AF on the first try. That's a hard sell, especially after renting the 85 f/1.4L IS over Christmas and being amazed/liberated by the coexistence of a perfect AF setup with wide aperture shooting. That's one thing the 50L will never give me.
- A
Upvote
0
melgross said:
It was Barry Lyndon. The Kubrick exhibit at LACMA had that NASA lens and many others there (as Kubrick loved stills shooting). That dude was obsessed with shooting only under candle illumination.
- A
Upvote
0
fullstop said:
All I shoot are stills + my family never stops moving = USM or bust. It's 2018 and wanting AF technology Canon nailed a good 25+ years ago is not an exotic ask.
I appreciate that some STM lenses are quicker than others, but the nifty fifty is not one of them.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
I'm not sure the 50/1.2 is going to suit you. At 'wide apertures', so 1.2 - 2 ? The lens has a fair bit of spherical aberrations ( focus shift) that is most noticeable when shooting in the f/1.6 - f/2 range, the penalty of focusing at f/1.2 with this design and uncorrected. I've always wondered why Canon don't program their cameras to stop down when focusing this particular lens at wide apertures. The other, rather unsatisfactory solution is to focus manually in live view, and stop down at the same time. ( Thanks Canon for finally putting the stop down button in an accessible position for doing this !). Anyway it sounds like you've already tried the 50/1.2, but it's an issue that can be frustrating if you are habitually in the f/1.8 area.
Incidentally the AF on the Tamron 45 is as accurate and consistent as any Canon lens I've had around that focal length, in fact now I've tuned it in the three positions using the Tap-in console ( mine is 0 close, 0 mid focus range and -4 at infinity) it is significantly better than any Canon 50 I've had. At f/1.8 wide open it is also much better than the Canon 50s at the same aperture, and there's no focus shift because it's f/1.8.
Upvote
0
That said, I would use a Nano USM. That's FBW I would stomach -- the testing I've seen says that it is blindingly quick in some cases:
https://www.lenstip.com/503.10-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-300_mm_f_4-5.6_IS_II_USM_Autofocus.html
"What’s more the autofocus performance is sensationally fast. Running through the whole distance scale and confirming the focus at the shorter end of the focal lengths spectrum takes 0.1-0.2 of a second; for the longer focal lengths the process is by 0.1-0.2 of a second longer.
To be honest I am a bit surprised that, for the first time, such technology appears in completely amateur constructions. The working culture of the autofocus, its noiselessness, 100% accuracy, and superior speed put to shame even some professional lenses. A round of applause for Canon!"
- A
https://www.lenstip.com/503.10-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-300_mm_f_4-5.6_IS_II_USM_Autofocus.html
"What’s more the autofocus performance is sensationally fast. Running through the whole distance scale and confirming the focus at the shorter end of the focal lengths spectrum takes 0.1-0.2 of a second; for the longer focal lengths the process is by 0.1-0.2 of a second longer.
To be honest I am a bit surprised that, for the first time, such technology appears in completely amateur constructions. The working culture of the autofocus, its noiselessness, 100% accuracy, and superior speed put to shame even some professional lenses. A round of applause for Canon!"
- A
Upvote
0
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
I'm not sure I'd be a taker because im totally happy with my 50 1.4. It's just been a champ for years.
That said, i'd love for canon to show us the money so i'd have a solid step up option that wont have potential focus issues....and not like that greatly reviewed by generally disappointing 32 IS.
That said, i'd love for canon to show us the money so i'd have a solid step up option that wont have potential focus issues....and not like that greatly reviewed by generally disappointing 32 IS.
Upvote
0
ashmadux said:
You could very well be the first person I've encountered online who doesn't love that thing.
I'll go so far as to state that lens is my reference grade 'premium non-L' Canon prime: one stop slower than the L, 90% as sharp, best AF tech, IS, solid construction in a reasonably small and light package. I absolutely love it. If Canon had a line of such lenses that included 20, 50, 85, etc. I'd probably have 1000 fewer posts here.
I'm (sincerely) curious what you find disappointing about it.
- A
Upvote
0
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
ahsanford said:
I won't get too far into the woods, but generally:
• sharpness wide open is not that great
• bokeh quality is weak. Rakish, especially when used around trees
• doesn't not render as well as the 50 1.4 at all. lacks character
• Can exhibit unfixable ghosting. Canon was able to adjust , but happens occastionally
Let state for the record is that I'm not saying it's "bad". But when comparing with my 50, 24-105, or 70-200, which always create niiiiice images - the 35 was like..."oh, that's it...ah well".
PS- bought it primarily for backstage fashion shows where the 50 was too tight.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
