Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L

[Canon Rumors Guy]

I lent Dustin my copy of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L to review, as we both figured it’d be fun to take a look at one of Canon’s most collectible lenses.  The EF  50mm f/1.0L was introduced in September of 1989 and was the fastest SLR  lens available during its production run, which ended in 2000.</p>
<p>This lens isn’t an amazing optical performer, but as someone mentioned on Twitter recently, if you want a unique look, use a unique lens and the EF 50mm f/1.0L fits the bill.</p>
<p>From Dustin:</p>
<blockquote><p>Canon didn’t make this lens (in quantity) for long, but it was a shot across the bows of Nikon, Pentax, and others that said, “Look what we can do!” The technologies (and lens body) pioneered in this lens were implemented into the far more practical (yet still extreme) EF 85mm f/1.2L, and seven years later evolved into the EF 85mm f/1.2L II lens; one of the most prized portrait lenses in the world. The burst of creativity and advanced engineering that resulted in this lens enabled Canon to create more accessible and successful autofocusing f/1.2 lenses (50mm and 85mm), a feat that no one else is replicating even in 2016.  It is worth noting that still today Canon is the only one producing autofocusing lenses with an f/1.2 maximum aperture. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-50mm-f1-0l/">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>I now have the lens back in my possession and look forward to shooting with it on the new EOS-1D X Mark II.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[j-nord]

Pros:
- f1.0
- because

Cons:
- You don't need f1.0
- terrible lens

In summation: who wouldn't want one?

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.

Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.

A valid criticism, but, unfortunately January and February in Canada at not exactly the prime season for such things and in deference to the value of Craig's property I did not pack the lens along when traveling.

 

[Don Haines]

Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.

Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.

You don't need a fast lens to photograph a black cat in a coal mine..... no matter what your Fstop is on the lens, it is going to look like this.......

 

[bchernicoff]

I don't know where he gets the idea that Canon is the only one making an autofocus 1.2 lens. Fuji and Panasonic make f/1.2 lenses with AF. I own the 56mm and it's great.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

I don't know where he gets the idea that Canon is the only one making an autofocus 1.2 lens. Fuji and Panasonic make f/1.2 lenses with AF. I own the 56mm and it's great.

Those aren't full frame DSLR lenses.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.

Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.

Fast lenses aren't only for extreme low light situations.

 

[d]

Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.

Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.

Fast lenses aren't only for extreme low light situations.

But the review *does* describe it as "the ultimate low-light lens". It'd be good to see how it performs on the 1DX II in near dark conditions.

Anyway, isn't a game of scrabble considered a party or event in Canada?

 

[Jopa]

The rendering is quite magical. Thank you for the review Dustin.

 

[geekpower]

thanks for the review.

even though almost none of us will ever own this lens, it is still an interesting history lesson, especially for those of us who do own the 1.2.

also, haters gonna hate. :

 

[Luds34]

I appreciated the review. A bit of a peak into something that, as has been said, "many of us will never own".

With the recent talk of the 50mm f/1.4 replacement. I am left wondering when and what Canon will replace the current 50mm f/1.2L with. Assuming the consumer based 50 f/1.4 is indeed replaced this year, I'd think we'd see a new "L" version in the next couple years.

 

[gmon750]

I just don't understand the hate here. Honestly, this forum is becoming just like the other ones where haters talk much, but say little.

I own the 50mm f/1.2 lens and it is a fantastic lens. It took tons of practice to master it at f/1.2 due to the micro-DOF but gosh darn it, it take some of the most creamy, beautiful shots without need for a flash. That's a huge plus as I'm using my 600EX-RT flash less and less when out and about.

The f/1.0 is certainly an interesting lens. I wish I could try it out. Canon even said they basically wanted to "prove" back in the 80's that this lens could be made. So it's not up to your standards for whatever reason? Guess what, no one cares! Why comment so negatively on something you've never used?

I just don't get it. You either have gear-envy or have nothing better to contribute. Either just enjoy the review and the intent the author was trying to convey, or just go back to your basement and wait for mommy to bring you down supper. Haters just keep hating.

 

[Andyx01]

Pros:
- f1.0
- because

Cons:
- You don't need f1.0
- terrible lens

In summation: who wouldn't want one?

Have you considered a career in journalism?

 

[YuengLinger]

Thank you Dustin and Craig for a review that brings history to life and a fresh perspective to our current production lens choices.

Fun and informative!

 

[jrista]

Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.

Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.

Fast lenses aren't only for extreme low light situations.

Indeed. The thin DOF on this thing, and the background blur, must be something incredible. This is one of the lenses that I like a lot. It may not be a stellar performer...but it is quite unique. Lenses like this, or the MP-E 65mm, etc. are some of the reasons I stick with Canon for my primary imaging gear.

 

[Jopa]

I just don't understand the hate here. Honestly, this forum is becoming just like the other ones where haters talk much, but say little.

Just too many people are coming here from SonyAlphaRumors

 

[Don Haines]

Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.

Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.

Fast lenses aren't only for extreme low light situations.

Indeed. The thin DOF on this thing, and the background blur, must be something incredible. This is one of the lenses that I like a lot. It may not be a stellar performer...but it is quite unique. Lenses like this, or the MP-E 65mm, etc. are some of the reasons I stick with Canon for my primary imaging gear.

+1

My fastest lens is an f1.4.... it really helps when trying to isolate the subject from the background.... An F1.0? ? ? must be incredible!

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.

Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.

Fast lenses aren't only for extreme low light situations.

Indeed. The thin DOF on this thing, and the background blur, must be something incredible. This is one of the lenses that I like a lot. It may not be a stellar performer...but it is quite unique. Lenses like this, or the MP-E 65mm, etc. are some of the reasons I stick with Canon for my primary imaging gear.

+1

My fastest lens is an f1.4.... it really helps when trying to isolate the subject from the background.... An F1.0? ? ? must be incredible!

Yes, although the relatively pedestrian EF 135L will provide more subject isolation. Even at a very close 6 feet the DOF of 2/135mm is .87 inches, while the 1.0/50mm has a DOF of 3.16 inches. That advantage for the 135L only grows as the subject moves further away.

Focal length plays the biggest factor.

 

[IglooEater]

Haters gonna hate
This is a lens that has always made me drool.. I know it's a pipe dream, but I always wished canon would update it to current standards using the top of the line optics we have today. I could never afford it anyway, but one can dream.

Some folks are saying that f/1.0 gives too little dof to be useful, and others are saying that f1.0 at 50mm gives less thin a dof than the 135mm f/2.0. Wait. The 135mm is useful ain't it?

Yes there are lenses that give less dof where that is required, but none give a thinner dof at 50mm
.
Yes there are better alternatives to low light than f/1.0, because of the dof but then again..., the 135f/2.0 is "worse".

It may just be a "this one goes to 11" argument, but it's just a cool lens. Hey, f/1.0 is so much cuter than f/1.4. And besides: bragging rights.

Thanks Dustin for the excellent review. This is a lens I can't read enough reviews of XD

EDIT, just ran some numbers and realized the 135 does not necessarily have less dof, at least when framing is accounted for.

 

[Luds34]

EDIT, just ran some numbers and realized the 135 does not necessarily have less dof, at least when framing is accounted for.

Exactly! Generally speaking, taking framing into account the DOF will be roughly the same at the same aperture. However, the look, and style/quality of bokeh will vary greatly with focal length. A lens like the 135mm has so much compression, bringing far off distance background objects "closer", creating much larger bokeh balls, etc. Contrast that with say a 35mm lens even at f/1.4, which again, will have a very thin DOF, yet will look completely different look with it's wide field of view showing much more of the background in a almost more subdued blur with tiny bokeh balls, etc.