[/quote]
The problem with "examples" like that is they are post process driven, I could give an image shot taken with any 50mm lens at any aperture (at the same shoot) to a decent post processor and get them to look very similar.
[/quote]
Disagree completely, what plant are you living on?!!
These are a brilliant wee set, shot nicely and processed beautifully to compliment the 50L's creamy quality wide open and take these way beyond what 'any 50 at any aperture' would do.
If you have a personal dislike for processed shots then just say they're not to your taste. but to say any 50 at any aperture with processing would get similar results is nuts!
There's a lot more consideration and skill gone into these than you may think than just processing.
Location, time of day, quality of light, shooting/model position and styling, and then finally processing to complete the shot's mood and style.
If you're sick of too many style centric processed shots everywhere you see then thats a different story, as most of us prob dislike average or crap shots over processed just to look cool or cover up bad shooting technique. But these are made with certain style and subtlety that actually works for the shot. Well done Imaxmax!
[/quote]
Get off your high horse and read what I actually wrote. And, I don't live on a plant [sic].
I cast no judgement and expressed no opinion of the images other than to point out that with that much post processing any lens characteristics are heavily masked. That is not a contentious comment, it is a factual statement.
[/quote]
Hey PD, I'll get of my high horse then.. but would you like to discuss factually how ' an image shot taken with any 50mm lens at any aperture (at the same shoot) to a decent post processor and get them to look very similar.'
To me thats a really generalising statement and technically untrue I believe, and especially invalid in the 50L discussion thread. Maybe could be seen to be 'similar' by joe public for the general processing colour look. But should we not be discussing the 50Ls merits / qualities here and with a very keen eye?
What I see is the 50Ls lovely smooth rendering of the OOF areas and to my eyes that has been brilliantly retained within the processing. I can tell when too much contrast, highlights / shadows pulled in, clarity, sharpening begin to affect the natural look of a lens and the 50L especially. If you process harder sharper it pushes it more towards the 50 1.4 look and feel but at 1.2 and 1.4 you'd never achieve as beautiful lens rendering with any other lens maybe aside from the Otis.
There's a few other examples on this page that I however see some slight heavy handed sharpening on shots not taken as wide open that start to make it harder to me to discern as that '50L Look' This isn't go at anyone else but just technical observations.
Sparda79's fighfighters shots are nicely made ,but to me these don't show the natural 50L qualities that makes the 50L really shine compared to when shot wide openish of a closer portrait. There's a touch too much sharpening on these that hardens the bokeh rings much like the 501.4 does. To me these set of shots would be much harder to say that the 50L was used. And might have been a more valid discussion than Imaxmax's set.
All I'm saying here PD is we should be discussing the lens attributes and be doing it discerningly, and this page is chance to see some great work produced by the lens, and see the differences different subject matters, apertures, light and backgrounds are rendered by this len. For people who already use it and those who are thinking about owning it. It's a special lens and can be difficult to work with so when good results are made is great to see.
But there is a sweat spot it shines at, and that is wideish open but does also rely on the light in scene, the background, subject matter and of course... processing
