50mm f1.0L - At what price would you buy?

[Eldar]

GMC, I realised that I am not a collector, but a user. But when I saw the add I thought it might be fun to have it. Having had a reality check on myself I decided that, apart from art I hang on my walls and wine bottles in my cellar, I am not very interested in anything vintage. I prefer to have whatever is best at doing a job. So I did not buy it.

If anyone should be interested, I can provide contact info to the seller.

 

[aceflibble]

The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.0 is virtually nothing in practice. Between the actual light transmission, the diminishing returns on apertures larger than f/1.4 and the vignetting which takes over more and more of the image, you're only actually gaining about a quarter of a stop in the center and losing a quarter of a stop from the mid-frame outwards compared to the f/1.2. If you stop it down to f/1.2 then you do actually gain about a quarter of a stop at the corners compared to the f/1.2 lens wide open, but then by f/1.4 everything is equal again. This is precisely why the lens was moved from f/1.0 to f/1.2 in the first place. Make no mistake about it, the 50mm f/1.0L was a fantastic lens at the time, but it has been bettered and by modern standards it is positively not a Noctilux. (Which actually does justify its price, optically.)

Given its not giving you any kind of optical advantage over the f1.2—and many would argue even that lens doesn't actually give you any kind of optical advantage over many higher-end but still cheaper 50mm f/1.4 lenses—and the focus is slower, plus wear over time, there's really no point buying a 50mm f/1.0L unless you're a serious collector and you've got enough cash to spare that you'll not notice the hit to your bank balance. As a photographer, it's a worthless relic. It might be fun to use once and show off a little, but in practical terms it is inferior to other fast 50mms that you can buy for a lot less. Myself, I used one a while back and I can't say I would pay anything for one. I'm not a collector; whatever I buy has to actually make sense as a working lens. To that end, the 50mm f/1.0L is only about as valuable as the current 50mm f/1.4 USM is. I'd gladly pony up the money for a Noctilux 50mm f/0.95, if the Leica bodies didn't cost so much, too. For anything less than that, I'd either just buy a new 50mm f/1.2L or, knowing I mostly shoot at f/2-f/4, I'd just buy a f/1.4 lens and pocket the rest of the money for things which will actually make a difference. Three grand for a 50mm f/1.0L is pretty absurd for anybody who isn't a collector with a high income.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.0 is virtually nothing in practice. Between the actual light transmission, the diminishing returns on apertures larger than f/1.4 and the vignetting which takes over more and more of the image, you're only actually gaining about a quarter of a stop in the center and losing a quarter of a stop from the mid-frame outwards compared to the f/1.2. If you stop it down to f/1.2 then you do actually gain about a quarter of a stop at the corners compared to the f/1.2 lens wide open, but then by f/1.4 everything is equal again. This is precisely why the lens was moved from f/1.0 to f/1.2 in the first place. Make no mistake about it, the 50mm f/1.0L was a fantastic lens at the time, but it has been bettered and by modern standards it is positively not a Noctilux. (Which actually does justify its price, optically.)

Given its not giving you any kind of optical advantage over the f1.2—and many would argue even that lens doesn't actually give you any kind of optical advantage over many higher-end but still cheaper 50mm f/1.4 lenses—and the focus is slower, plus wear over time, there's really no point buying a 50mm f/1.0L unless you're a serious collector and you've got enough cash to spare that you'll not notice the hit to your bank balance. As a photographer, it's a worthless relic. It might be fun to use once and show off a little, but in practical terms it is inferior to other fast 50mms that you can buy for a lot less. Myself, I used one a while back and I can't say I would pay anything for one. I'm not a collector; whatever I buy has to actually make sense as a working lens. To that end, the 50mm f/1.0L is only about as valuable as the current 50mm f/1.4 USM is. I'd gladly pony up the money for a Noctilux 50mm f/0.95, if the Leica bodies didn't cost so much, too. For anything less than that, I'd either just buy a new 50mm f/1.2L or, knowing I mostly shoot at f/2-f/4, I'd just buy a f/1.4 lens and pocket the rest of the money for things which will actually make a difference. Three grand for a 50mm f/1.0L is pretty absurd for anybody who isn't a collector with a high income.

f1.0 to f1.4 is quite a large step in brightness and yes at MFD there is a huge difference in the quantity of out of focus background for a whole stop. There's a difference between f1.2 and f1.0 too. The roll off between in focus and out of focus goes up considerably too.

 

[Pookie]

Had an introvert reality check and landed on being a user, not a collector. So, regardless of worth or price, I´ll pass.

Indeed... total waste of time...

 

[Corneria]

Well, I'm a lifetime Nikon user, but bought the Canon 50/1.0L simply because I love fast glass. Yes, the difference between f/1.0 and f/1.2 is not huge, especially if you consider the extra vignetting or decrease in transmission at f/1.0. But still, the lens gives you possibilities that are impossible elsewhere!

Sharpness in the centre is surprisingly good actually. And I noticed people in this thread complaining about the bokeh and flare - well, that's exactly what I like! It's truly unique and gives you many creative possibilities! I've used the 50/1.2L on several occasions, and that didn't impress me. Yes, it's probably sharper at f/1.2 (still not that sharp if I compare to many f/1.4 lenses), but I found it a boring lens.

When I want a more "clinical" and "perfect" lens, I use my Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G, which is a fantastic lens. But the Canon 50/10L - boy, that's something else!

 

[Viggo]

Eldar, if you've changed your mind, the lens in question is back on the market at foto.no and finn.no ;D

 

[privatebydesign]

I'd happily pay $3,000 for one, if it had the hood, case and box. I'd keep it as long as I wanted, which knowing me would be a long time, and sell it when I didn't want it any longer. As a professional photographer I am a pragmatic purchaser in general, but as an enthusiast who has taken pictures since my teens and developed film in my bedroom in the '70's the 50 f1.0 is one of those few pieces of equipment I'd resort to 'enthusiast' mode for.

I was recently talking to a guy who had one on CL, but he was in a similar situation to me, he would take $4,000 for it but wasn't interested in selling it if he couldn't get his asking price.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

GMC, I realised that I am not a collector, but a user. But when I saw the add I thought it might be fun to have it. Having had a reality check on myself I decided that, apart from art I hang on my walls and wine bottles in my cellar, I am not very interested in anything vintage. I prefer to have whatever is best at doing a job. So I did not buy it.

If anyone should be interested, I can provide contact info to the seller.

Eldar, I think you've made a wise choice.

 

[privatebydesign]

Why use a camera capable of high sharpness, combined with a lens capable of mediocre sharpness?

Why pay $3,000 for mediocre sharpness? ;D
If you can just spend $ 600 on a Lensbaby Velvet ...

If I owned a 50/1.0 I would have put it up for sale it as soon as rumors of the 5DS outresolving lenses marketed earlier than 2010 started making the rounds.

Anybody that thinks like that is clearly lost when it comes to feel and look. Nothing wrong with being a slave to absolute sharpness just that it is not really relevant to this conversation, besides, anybody that thinks any lens or any sensor "out resolves" it's companion obviously doesn't understand the first notion of system resolution.

 

[Eldar]

As Private says, this is about more than pure sharpness and state-of-the-art performance. With the 55 Otus I have all the sharpness I need and with a Sigma 50 Art, which seems to work this time, I have working AF. But this 50/1.0 lens is iconic and a collectors item.

I´ll make him an offer he probably wont accept, but is acceptable to me if I get it ... (to be continued ...)

PS! Does anyone know a good place for a character improvement program? :

 

[LonelyBoy]

+1 -- I bet the Otus wide open has better image quality than the f/1 at f/1.4, and wide open the f/1 is certainly worse. So what's the point? Also wondering about the next Otus.

I never understood the point of spending megabucks on a fast lens that don't give good results wide open, or damned close-to.

 

[privatebydesign]

+1 -- I bet the Otus wide open has better image quality than the f/1 at f/1.4, and wide open the f/1 is certainly worse. So what's the point? Also wondering about the next Otus.

I never understood the point of spending megabucks on a fast lens that don't give good results wide open, or damned close-to.

It is about soul.

Listen to Nina Simone and her 10 minute one take version of Sinnerman, if you hear noise and repetitive caterwauling then you won't 'get' the 50 f1.0, if you hear the most sublime nuance from some of the best musicians you probably would get the point of the 50 f1.0. Again, not saying one is right or better than the other, but there are things to appreciate more than ultimate sharpness from a lens or sheer volume from music.

 

[privatebydesign]

As Private says, this is about more than pure sharpness and state-of-the-art performance. With the 55 Otus I have all the sharpness I need and with a Sigma 50 Art, which seems to work this time, I have working AF. But this 50/1.0 lens is iconic and a collectors item.

I´ll make him an offer he probably wont accept, but is acceptable to me if I get it ... (to be continued ...)

PS! Does anyone know a good place for a character improvement program? :

Eldar, if there is a difference between your price and his price that encompasses my price, maybe we could make a deal...............

P.S. I have character, so I am told, but I am not sure you'd want any of it

 

[crontab]

As Private says, this is about more than pure sharpness and state-of-the-art performance. With the 55 Otus I have all the sharpness I need and with a Sigma 50 Art, which seems to work this time, I have working AF. But this 50/1.0 lens is iconic and a collectors item.

I´ll make him an offer he probably wont accept, but is acceptable to me if I get it ... (to be continued ...)

PS! Does anyone know a good place for a character improvement program? :

I do. Moscow city

 

[LonelyBoy]

It is about soul.

Listen to Nina Simone and her 10 minute one take version of Sinnerman, if you hear noise and repetitive caterwauling then you won't 'get' the 50 f1.0, if you hear the most sublime nuance from some of the best musicians you probably would get the point of the 50 f1.0. Again, not saying one is right or better than the other, but there are things to appreciate more than ultimate sharpness from a lens or sheer volume from music.

I can get it from music, but not lenses, for whatever reason.

 

[privatebydesign]

It is about soul.

Listen to Nina Simone and her 10 minute one take version of Sinnerman, if you hear noise and repetitive caterwauling then you won't 'get' the 50 f1.0, if you hear the most sublime nuance from some of the best musicians you probably would get the point of the 50 f1.0. Again, not saying one is right or better than the other, but there are things to appreciate more than ultimate sharpness from a lens or sheer volume from music.

I can get it from music, but not lenses, for whatever reason.

Well it is the same thing. That intangible that you get from the music you like can also be had by some from a lens, especially an unusual lens. Photography for many can be enhanced by the photographers mental state, if they are feeling creative they will be creative, if they have a unique lens that has particular characteristics they will produce images that are enhanced by those characteristics. The 50mm f1.0 is one of those lenses, for many it makes no sense at all but for a few it can bring out a deeper creative thought process that only a particular lens can enhance and create.

My current muse is the 11-24, the 16-35 f4 IS is a killer lens that on paper bests the IQ of the 11-24 almost everywhere, but the 11-24 pushes my creative mindset into places the 16-35 didn't.

 

[Ruined]

IMO, the 50mm f/1.0L is inferior in nearly every way to the 50mm f/1.2L, aside from f/1.0 vs f/1.2.

I don't think the difference between f/1.0 and f/1.2 is worth all of the tradeoffs of the 50 f/1.0L vs the 1.2:
- Much more lens flare
- Much slower focusing
- Focus by wire
- Less sharp and draw is not necessarily better, since the f/1.2's draw is phenomenal
- Less contrast
- No weather sealing
- Larger
- Heavier
- Easier to damage front and rear elements
...all of this is not worth f/1.0 over f/1.2 IMO, and that is not even considering that Canon won't repair the lens if it breaks.

Thus, its value boils down to a collectors item, something you put in a display case instead of use. How much a collectors item is worth can dramatically vary based on the amount of bidders interested in an item at a time. I think the allure of this item is just that "it goes to f/1.0," and not much else as the replacement f/1.2 lens bests it in most other areas.

So in my book, the only way I'd buy this lens is if I could make a good profit reselling it as I'd rather use the 50mm f/1.2 for photos, and I don't collect lenses to put in display cases. Thus I'd check eBay for the last 10 sold auctions, average them, and pay 60% so I can make the other 40% profit reselling.

 

[WillThompson]

It is a paperweight.

At f1.0 nothing nearby is sharp!

Sold my copy over ten years ago whilst still serviceable.

Glad I did.

The f1.2 is a far better lens, even with all its shortcomings.


Will T.

 

[Viggo]

Why are "all" 50 f1.0 L copies from 1991? Checked on ebay and the onbe here in Norway and a few other places, and all of them are "UF". Wasn't it produced up until 2000?

 

[privatebydesign]

Why are "all" 50 f1.0 L copies from 1991? Checked on ebay and the onbe here in Norway and a few other places, and all of them are "UF". Wasn't it produced up until 2000?

Well it might have been listed as made until 2000 but I think you will find for things like high end lenses they make a production run and stock them, they then turn the production line over to another lens and back again if and when the need arises. This is certainly what they do with the super tele production line and the 50 f1.0 was sold in very small numbers so stock piling them would make sense from a production line point of view.