Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?

I have both lenses and yes, my copy of the 50mm f1.2 L is a tad soft even at the center when shot wide open while my 85mm f1.2 II L is tack sharp.

35 & 50 mm are my favorite focal lengths to use for street photography, but I use the 35 more often because I don't have as many focusing issues compared to the 50. Though the 50 does give a very different, almost surreal "look" when shot wide open which I love.

On both my 1DX and 5Dmk3, the 50mm f1.2 is slow to adjust focus wide open on servo mode. I know it's a lot of glass to move within that lens, hence why I'm gonna rent and test out the Sigma 50 f1.4 to see if it does a better job.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 22, 2013
932
60
To the OP, the answer to this is relatively simple, IMO.

The 85L is sharper, yes. But it requires the working distance of 85mm and a much more hefty/complex lens, plus has slow focus.

The 35L is sharper, yes. But the quality of bokeh is much lower than the 50L; I'd even rank the overall bokeh quality of the 35 f/2 IS higher than the aging 35L.

The 50L is sort of a lovely bridge between these two. It has bokeh reminiscent of the 85L II, while being more workable indoors and in tight spaces like the 35L due to the 50mm focal length. Not to mention it is much smaller, lighter, faster focusing, and has less moving parts than the 85L II.

If they cloned the 85L II at 50mm at some point, that would be great. But currently, for bokeh reminiscent of the 85L II at 50mm, the 50L is the only place you can get that. It offers the flexibility of 50mm with beauty similar to the 85L II's bokeh. As no lens is perfect, the tradeoff is reduced sharpness. But for that bokeh, that is often a tradeoff worth making when 85mm simply won't work (or is not flexible enough).

As an aside, the MFD of the 50L makes for some cool effects not quite replicable on the 85L II. And, the 50L is weatherproofed with a filter! :)
 
Upvote 0

Menace

New Zealand
Apr 5, 2012
1,368
0
New Zealand
mackguyver said:
CarlTN said:
YuengLinger said:
One thing telling, an excellent portrait/wedding photographer in our area, can easily afford any gear. She uses the ef 50mm 1.4 for some fill-in shots of guests and details at weddings. I asked her why she didn't go with the L version as she did with every other lens (including the 85mm), and she said she had tried it and decided it just wasn't reliable enough for what she was doing with a 50mm.

She mainly uses the 24-70mm f/2.8 II, the 85mm f/1.2,II and the 70-200mm /f2.8 IS II. And you should see how she holds a lens between her knees when swapping out! Changes lenses faster than anybody I've ever seen.

I wonder how often she has her sensor cleaned. Admittedly wide aperture images (shot indoors with darker backgrounds) don't show dust spots very easily, which is probably why she's not very cautious about changing lenses so much. But I wouldn't want to buy anything she sells used, after she's done with it. You can't change lenses "fast" without putting excessive wear on the mounts. It's far better to just use more than one camera body, so you can leave lenses in place and switch between them. She should do this, especially since you say she can afford to purchase whatever she needs.
I agree that two (or more bodies is the way to go if you can afford it. Also, changing lenses quickly like that is just an accident waiting to happen. Her luck will run out eventually and that will be a costly mistake. Also, as you say, dust on the sensor at wide apertures isn't much of an issue, but dust on the lens will spoil the bokeh pretty quickly if there's enough of it and it's big enough. Not that most people would notice...

Changing lenses too quickly is asking for trouble - having two bodies helps.

At the week end I shot a wedding with 1Dx + 70-200 and 24-70 on 5DIII - which was great until I wanted to swap the 70-200 for the 85L. Even in the heat of the moment, it's worth taking a few extra seconds to change lenses especially the rear element of the 85L so far out! It would be so easy to damage it.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
Menace said:
mackguyver said:
CarlTN said:
YuengLinger said:
One thing telling, an excellent portrait/wedding photographer in our area, can easily afford any gear. She uses the ef 50mm 1.4 for some fill-in shots of guests and details at weddings. I asked her why she didn't go with the L version as she did with every other lens (including the 85mm), and she said she had tried it and decided it just wasn't reliable enough for what she was doing with a 50mm.

She mainly uses the 24-70mm f/2.8 II, the 85mm f/1.2,II and the 70-200mm /f2.8 IS II. And you should see how she holds a lens between her knees when swapping out! Changes lenses faster than anybody I've ever seen.

I wonder how often she has her sensor cleaned. Admittedly wide aperture images (shot indoors with darker backgrounds) don't show dust spots very easily, which is probably why she's not very cautious about changing lenses so much. But I wouldn't want to buy anything she sells used, after she's done with it. You can't change lenses "fast" without putting excessive wear on the mounts. It's far better to just use more than one camera body, so you can leave lenses in place and switch between them. She should do this, especially since you say she can afford to purchase whatever she needs.
I agree that two (or more bodies is the way to go if you can afford it. Also, changing lenses quickly like that is just an accident waiting to happen. Her luck will run out eventually and that will be a costly mistake. Also, as you say, dust on the sensor at wide apertures isn't much of an issue, but dust on the lens will spoil the bokeh pretty quickly if there's enough of it and it's big enough. Not that most people would notice...

Changing lenses too quickly is asking for trouble - having two bodies helps.

At the week end I shot a wedding with 1Dx + 70-200 and 24-70 on 5DIII - which was great until I wanted to swap the 70-200 for the 85L. Even in the heat of the moment, it's worth taking a few extra seconds to change lenses especially the rear element of the 85L so far out! It would be so easy to damage it.

I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.

Fastest way to change a DSLR lens on Vimeo
http://www.jasminestarblog.com/index.cfm?postID=1697&

And if you have to worry about caps.
Canon: Quick Lens Change
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,864
privatebydesign said:
I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.

+1

'Excessive wear on the mounts'?? Even the plastic bayonet mounts on (relatively) low cost lenses are pretty durable, although they'll wear eventually. The metal bayonet mounts of bodies and most lenses will not wear appreciably even with many years of heavy use.
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
privatebydesign said:
I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.

+1

'Excessive wear on the mounts'?? Even the plastic bayonet mounts on (relatively) low cost lenses are pretty durable, although they'll wear eventually. The metal bayonet mounts of bodies and most lenses will not wear appreciably even with many years of heavy use.

+1

Plus, the bayonets are replaceable.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 1, 2013
2,169
0
neuroanatomist said:
privatebydesign said:
I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.

+1

'Excessive wear on the mounts'?? Even the plastic bayonet mounts on (relatively) low cost lenses are pretty durable, although they'll wear eventually. The metal bayonet mounts of bodies and most lenses will not wear appreciably even with many years of heavy use.

Oh really? Ok, so lens mounts on Canon cameras and their lenses, are the only things in existence that do not wear when they come in contact with each other. That's nice to know. I'm glad people worry about me, I feel so loved.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
CarlTN said:
neuroanatomist said:
privatebydesign said:
I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.

+1

'Excessive wear on the mounts'?? Even the plastic bayonet mounts on (relatively) low cost lenses are pretty durable, although they'll wear eventually. The metal bayonet mounts of bodies and most lenses will not wear appreciably even with many years of heavy use.

Oh really? Ok, so lens mounts on Canon cameras and their lenses, are the only things in existence that do not wear when they come in contact with each other. That's nice to know. I'm glad people worry about me, I feel so loved.

Don't be so silly it has got nothing to do with loving, or not, you as a person, it is about erroneous information put out because of speculation, theory, irrationality, bad teaching etc.

The lenses are designed to go on and off. Mechanical wear is brought on by friction and the heat that causes, there is no heat generated in a 60° rotation and the friction is supplied via a spring specifically put there to do that job. Of course there is a microscopic amount of wear, but it is so minimal the lenses I have mounted thousands, if not tens of thousands of times show none and that is an empirical observation.

I remember when Canon moved the FD mount to the FDn mount, everybody said twisting the lens was a terrible idea and we'd get wear in no time, turns out that wasn't true either, and I do have fd lenses I have mounted tens of thousands of times.
 
Upvote 0
Feb 1, 2013
2,169
0
privatebydesign said:
CarlTN said:
neuroanatomist said:
privatebydesign said:
I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.

+1

'Excessive wear on the mounts'?? Even the plastic bayonet mounts on (relatively) low cost lenses are pretty durable, although they'll wear eventually. The metal bayonet mounts of bodies and most lenses will not wear appreciably even with many years of heavy use.

Oh really? Ok, so lens mounts on Canon cameras and their lenses, are the only things in existence that do not wear when they come in contact with each other. That's nice to know. I'm glad people worry about me, I feel so loved.

Don't be so silly it has got nothing to do with loving, or not, you as a person, it is about erroneous information put out because of speculation, theory, irrationality, bad teaching etc.

The lenses are designed to go on and off. Mechanical wear is brought on by friction and the heat that causes, there is no heat generated in a 60° rotation and the friction is supplied via a spring specifically put there to do that job. Of course there is a microscopic amount of wear, but it is so minimal the lenses I have mounted thousands, if not tens of thousands of times show none and that is an empirical observation.

I remember when Canon moved the FD mount to the FDn mount, everybody said twisting the lens was a terrible idea and we'd get wear in no time, turns out that wasn't true either, and I do have fd lenses I have mounted tens of thousands of times.

But you said you worried about me. Sorry just taking you at your word, I'll try to remember to not do that in the future.

It's good to know you have observed no wear after changing lenses thousands of times on the same body. I don't plan on doing that, myself, nor do I have the need to. And it's good to know that I can't trust my lying eyes, after seeing the wear I saw on the 1D4 I mentioned, that I rented. I feel more relaxed now, because I know that camera and lens mounts, are a good case where metal on metal contact, causes no wear. If the automakers could only learn this, we could drive our cars with no oil in the engine.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
CarlTN said:
privatebydesign said:
CarlTN said:
neuroanatomist said:
privatebydesign said:
I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.

+1

'Excessive wear on the mounts'?? Even the plastic bayonet mounts on (relatively) low cost lenses are pretty durable, although they'll wear eventually. The metal bayonet mounts of bodies and most lenses will not wear appreciably even with many years of heavy use.

Oh really? Ok, so lens mounts on Canon cameras and their lenses, are the only things in existence that do not wear when they come in contact with each other. That's nice to know. I'm glad people worry about me, I feel so loved.

Don't be so silly it has got nothing to do with loving, or not, you as a person, it is about erroneous information put out because of speculation, theory, irrationality, bad teaching etc.

The lenses are designed to go on and off. Mechanical wear is brought on by friction and the heat that causes, there is no heat generated in a 60° rotation and the friction is supplied via a spring specifically put there to do that job. Of course there is a microscopic amount of wear, but it is so minimal the lenses I have mounted thousands, if not tens of thousands of times show none and that is an empirical observation.

I remember when Canon moved the FD mount to the FDn mount, everybody said twisting the lens was a terrible idea and we'd get wear in no time, turns out that wasn't true either, and I do have fd lenses I have mounted tens of thousands of times.

But you said you worried about me. Sorry just taking you at your word, I'll try to remember to not do that in the future.

It's good to know you have observed no wear after changing lenses thousands of times on the same body. I don't plan on doing that, myself, nor do I have the need to. And it's good to know that I can't trust my lying eyes, after seeing the wear I saw on the 1D4 I mentioned, that I rented. I feel more relaxed now, because I know that camera and lens mounts, are a good case where metal on metal contact, causes no wear. If the automakers could only learn this, we could drive our cars with no oil in the engine.

"You can lead a horse to water......."
Whatever dude.​
 
Upvote 0
privatebydesign said:
CarlTN said:
privatebydesign said:
CarlTN said:
neuroanatomist said:
privatebydesign said:
I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.

+1

'Excessive wear on the mounts'?? Even the plastic bayonet mounts on (relatively) low cost lenses are pretty durable, although they'll wear eventually. The metal bayonet mounts of bodies and most lenses will not wear appreciably even with many years of heavy use.

Oh really? Ok, so lens mounts on Canon cameras and their lenses, are the only things in existence that do not wear when they come in contact with each other. That's nice to know. I'm glad people worry about me, I feel so loved.

Don't be so silly it has got nothing to do with loving, or not, you as a person, it is about erroneous information put out because of speculation, theory, irrationality, bad teaching etc.

The lenses are designed to go on and off. Mechanical wear is brought on by friction and the heat that causes, there is no heat generated in a 60° rotation and the friction is supplied via a spring specifically put there to do that job. Of course there is a microscopic amount of wear, but it is so minimal the lenses I have mounted thousands, if not tens of thousands of times show none and that is an empirical observation.

I remember when Canon moved the FD mount to the FDn mount, everybody said twisting the lens was a terrible idea and we'd get wear in no time, turns out that wasn't true either, and I do have fd lenses I have mounted tens of thousands of times.

But you said you worried about me. Sorry just taking you at your word, I'll try to remember to not do that in the future.

It's good to know you have observed no wear after changing lenses thousands of times on the same body. I don't plan on doing that, myself, nor do I have the need to. And it's good to know that I can't trust my lying eyes, after seeing the wear I saw on the 1D4 I mentioned, that I rented. I feel more relaxed now, because I know that camera and lens mounts, are a good case where metal on metal contact, causes no wear. If the automakers could only learn this, we could drive our cars with no oil in the engine.

"You can lead a horse to water......."
Whatever dude.​

Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!
 
Upvote 0
Feb 1, 2013
2,169
0
privatebydesign said:
Ripley said:
Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

Not the best analogy maybe, but if you try to read what I said rather than trying to take one sentence out of context, you might understand. THERE IS METAL TO METAL CONTACT. Your reasoning is, there is not enough metal to metal contact to cause any "appreciable" wear. I say, there is certainly metal to metal contact that causes wear, when people rush to change lenses...as if they are changing wheels on an F1 racecar. Oops, there's another car analogy! My whole point was, the mount is far from indestructible, and care should be taken when changing lenses. If you are just wanting to argue, go ahead, but you have to admit, I have a point.

Hold on, let me post under another name to egg this on...oh wait, I'm above that. ;D
 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
CarlTN said:
privatebydesign said:
Ripley said:
Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

Not the best analogy maybe, but if you try to read what I said rather than trying to take one sentence out of context, you might understand. THERE IS METAL TO METAL CONTACT. Your reasoning is, there is not enough metal to metal contact to cause any "appreciable" wear. I say, there is certainly metal to metal contact that causes wear, when people rush to change lenses...as if they are changing wheels on an F1 racecar. Oops, there's another car analogy! My whole point was, the mount is far from indestructible, and care should be taken when changing lenses. If you are just wanting to argue, go ahead, but you have to admit, I have a point.

Hold on, let me post under another name to egg this on...oh wait, I'm above that. ;D

And you are speculating that opinion from your own fantastical mind. I am saying I, personally, have had at least half a dozen cameras that have had thousands and thousands of lens changes and neither the lenses nor mounts showed any wear. You are now changing the point from "fast lens changes cause wear" to a more subtle and easier to "prove" "metal to metal contact causes wear".

I have noticed this happens a lot on this forum, more so than others, people theorise about something, somebody with actual experience comes along and says your comments might be theoretically sound but your conclusions are off by a factor of, a lot. The theorist then goes on and on posting, giving meaningless comparisons, ever longer lists of calculations and percentages to "prove" their point, meanwhile the poster with actual experienced gets completely pissed off and either leaves the thread or annoys any readers by trying to defend their position which actually answered the point.

Take it or leave it Carl I am not your enemy, but on this point you are talking rubbish.
 
Upvote 0
ahab1372 said:
skullyspice said:
so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?
Yes, but don't forget to send the camera and lenses in for an oil change every 3000 mount operations.
Otherwise, there will be a few dozen atoms lost after some years.

Now this is the reason I love this forum! You know if you use synthetic oil on your lens mounts you can go up to 10,000 lens mount operations! I move lenses like a crankshaft to a piston at 9,000 rpms but still no wear!
 
Upvote 0