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

[meywd]

I would save more to get the Otus, but since you have the Otus, maybe wait for more Otus to come? ;D

I didn't realize the Otus was an F1.0 design....oh...it's not....so it's in a different classification of lenses then.
This is one of the few lenses ever to enter the f1.0 club.
Just thought of a great gag to use with this lens:
This lens is brighter than the human eye...unfortunately it's also brighter than some human's brains...

Thanks for clarifying that, I knew its not an f/1.0 design, though I was not sure about the last part

what I meant in my previous post was that although this lens is unique, its not worth the price, yes it provides what no other lens can, which is really tempting, but as mentioned by others, if its broken it can't be fixed, and for $1k more you enter the Otus range which contains the best lenses short of super telephotos, and I know Eldar loves his Otus, so is the f stop difference enough to overcome the $1k price, while sharpness, build quality, repair-ability are much less than the Otus? based on value no, and that's what i meant with my answer, though I guess it's too short for some.

 

[sdsr]

I believe anyone buying this lens will have an element of Collectors item in their arguments, given how rare and unique this lens is. From a performance perspective, it can be compared to anything vintage. A mint condition Jaguar E-type is a beautiful car and some people pay small fortunes for them. But compared to even the most modest of modern sport cars it's a horrible driving experience (but a fun driving experience).

I may just have to go for this one ... :

It's pretty clear you want it, so if you can afford it, why not? If you came in search of an enabler, consider me one!

I'm all in favor of the vintage thing, too, though I prefer to play it safe and stick with MF lenses where there's less to go wrong. I recently bought the FD versions of the 50mmL and 85mmL - smaller and lighter than their AF equivalents, nicer to handle, the images are great regardless of how they compare to the AF versions, they cost a third as much as their AF equivalents and, when attached to a camera with an EVF & 10-15 x magnification & focus peaking, easy to use. As for f/1.0, rather than pay the price of the Canon f/1.0 I recently bought the far less prestigious, but still rather impressive and even faster Mikakon 50mm f/0.95 (it's MF too). For the price of all these and the other MF lenses I've been buying I could probably have bought an Otus or two, but I think this is more fun.

 

[dolina]

I wonder how this lens would perform attached to a 5DS or 5DSR

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I wonder how this lens would perform attached to a 5DS or 5DSR

I believe it is a combination of camera and lens very weird.

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

I believe it makes more sense to use a Zeiss lens Otus (or Sigma Art) on the Canon 5DSr.

 

[dolina]

I wonder how this lens would perform attached to a 5DS or 5DSR

I believe it is a combination of camera and lens very weird.

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

Why pay $3,000 for mediocre sharpness? ;D

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I wonder how this lens would perform attached to a 5DS or 5DSR

I believe it is a combination of camera and lens very weird.

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 ...

 

[dolina]

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 ...
[/quote]
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.

 

[Eldar]

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.
[/quote]
Why do people pay loads of money for an abstract painting, when you can get a razor sharp photography for a fraction of the price?
Why do people pay loads of money for a vintage car, when you can get better performance from a brand new one, for a fraction of the price?
Why do people pay loads of money for old stamps, when they can get new ones they can actually use, for a fraction of the price?
... and so on and so forth ...

This lens is a collectors item. It´s the Ferrari California Spider of the 50mm primes ...

If that has no meaning to you, then there is no point in buying such a lens ...

 

[sdsr]

I wonder how this lens would perform attached to a 5DS or 5DSR

I believe it is a combination of camera and lens very weird.

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

Why pay $3,000 for mediocre sharpness? ;D

Do you really think that's what he would be paying for?

 

[Pookie]

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.

Why do people pay loads of money for an abstract painting, when you can get a razor sharp photography for a fraction of the price?
Why do people pay loads of money for a vintage car, when you can get better performance from a brand new one, for a fraction of the price?
Why do people pay loads of money for old stamps, when they can get new ones they can actually use, for a fraction of the price?
... and so on and so forth ...

This lens is a collectors item. It´s the Ferrari California Spider of the 50mm primes ...

If that has no meaning to you, then there is no point in buying such a lens ...
[/quote]

So, this question here posted in this forum has nothing to do with "photography" and everything to do with owning a collectors item. Why ask this question here then... if you "want" it... buy it and don't waste peoples time with questions about your "wants".

 

[Eldar]

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.

Why do people pay loads of money for an abstract painting, when you can get a razor sharp photography for a fraction of the price?
Why do people pay loads of money for a vintage car, when you can get better performance from a brand new one, for a fraction of the price?
Why do people pay loads of money for old stamps, when they can get new ones they can actually use, for a fraction of the price?
... and so on and so forth ...

This lens is a collectors item. It´s the Ferrari California Spider of the 50mm primes ...

If that has no meaning to you, then there is no point in buying such a lens ...

So, this question here posted in this forum has nothing to do with "photography" and everything to do with owning a collectors item. Why ask this question here then... if you "want" it... buy it and don't waste peoples time with questions about your "wants".
[/quote]
The question was what people here would be willing to pay for it and what their thoughts about what it was worth were. I am still not sure what I believe it is worth and what I would be willing to pay or if I am really interested at all ...

And, since you made a point out of it; If we remove all "wants" posts from this forum, it would be a rather boring one.

And, if you feel your time is being wasted, do something else ...

 

[dolina]

Now now guys be nice.

 

[Eldar]

Now now guys be nice.

Indeed we should

 

[meywd]

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.

Why do people pay loads of money for an abstract painting, when you can get a razor sharp photography for a fraction of the price?
Why do people pay loads of money for a vintage car, when you can get better performance from a brand new one, for a fraction of the price?
Why do people pay loads of money for old stamps, when they can get new ones they can actually use, for a fraction of the price?
... and so on and so forth ...

This lens is a collectors item. It´s the Ferrari California Spider of the 50mm primes ...

If that has no meaning to you, then there is no point in buying such a lens ...

So, this question here posted in this forum has nothing to do with "photography" and everything to do with owning a collectors item. Why ask this question here then... if you "want" it... buy it and don't waste peoples time with questions about your "wants".

The question was what people here would be willing to pay for it and what their thoughts about what it was worth were. I am still not sure what I believe it is worth and what I would be willing to pay or if I am really interested at all ...

And, since you made a point out of it; If we remove all "wants" posts from this forum, it would be a rather boring one.

And, if you feel your time is being wasted, do something else ...

I guess what Eldar want is to know the value at which this collector item is worth buying, some would pay $4k and some - as seen in this thread - would only pay under $1500, so what i think is, it all depends on how much you want it, are you able to fight your GAS enough for it to reach a lower price or not? and it seem 3k is a good price if its in a good condition as others have bought it for much more before

 

[chromophore]

While I am sure there there is an element of collectible or rare status to this lens, I am not so convinced that the demand for this lens is due to its rarity.

The closest example of lens with similar circumstances I can think of is the EF 200/1.8L. Like the 50/1.0L, this lens is
[list type=decimal]
[*]rare: few copies were produced and even fewer are extant
[*]focus-by-wire: manual focusing is driven by the AF motor electronically
[*]superseded by a slower-aperture design: in this case, the EF 200/2L IS.[/list]

However, this lens doesn't seem to share the same degree of uniquely coveted status of the 50/1.0L. Yes, there are photographers who would love to own one, but if we operate under the supposition that the desire for either lens is not driven by its collector's value, but by its utility, the excellent performance of the EF 200/2L IS (and having IS over its predecessor) explains in part why relatively fewer photographers covet the 200/1.8L compared to the 50/1.0L over the 50/1.2L.

In other words, the 50/1.2L isn't quite as good a replacement for the 50/1.0L as the 200/2L IS is for the 200/1.8L; so even though the 50/1.0L and 200/1.8L are rare lenses, the former is relatively more coveted than the latter over their newer counterparts, and this is due to the fact that people want to USE the lens, not just put it in a display case.

And although this is pure speculation, if Canon did update the 50/1.0L and make something along the lines of an EF 50/1.0L II--even if it sold for $4000--as long as the performance is there, it would sell; moreover, it would sell at the expense of the 50/1.0L's used price. Like I mentioned before, Canon is selling an 11-24/4 zoom for $3000 and people are absolutely salivating over it despite it being slow-aperture, heavy, unable to take front filters, and so wide as to present challenges in photographic composition. That's because it's wider than any other 35mm format rectilinear lens, prime or zoom, and it is sharp for what it can do. If Canon did update the 50/1.0L, I think it is very likely that would immediately cause a crash in its price on the used market, which suggests again that the current price is driven by the desire to use the lens, not just collect it.

 

[Ruined]

I am not sure what the draw of is of the 50mm f/1.0L. The only reason I would buy an f/1.0L would be if I could sell for a profit, because I'd rather use the 50 f/1.2. The 50mm f/1.2L does everything better except having f/1.0 available. If f/1.0 vs f/1.2 were the only difference, I could see people in certain cases wanting to use the f/1.0... But the f/1.0 comes with so many disadvantages even including optical disadvantages such as massively worse lens flare and other artifacts, plus reduced sharpness. Then there are functional deficits to the f/1.0 such as AF speed and focus by wire, size, weight, fragility.

IMO, the f/1.0 is more of a collector's item than something that people are seeking out for its output. In 99.9% of cases the f/1.2 will be the better lens to use, with the 0.1% case being when f/1.0 will yield a usable picture while f/1.2 will result in an unusable picture.

 

[Eldar]

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

 

[Perio]

I am not sure what the draw of is of the 50mm f/1.0L. The only reason I would buy an f/1.0L would be if I could sell for a profit, because I'd rather use the 50 f/1.2. The 50mm f/1.2L does everything better except having f/1.0 available. If f/1.0 vs f/1.2 were the only difference, I could see people in certain cases wanting to use the f/1.0... But the f/1.0 comes with so many disadvantages even including optical disadvantages such as massively worse lens flare and other artifacts, plus reduced sharpness. Then there are functional deficits to the f/1.0 such as AF speed and focus by wire, size, weight, fragility.

IMO, the f/1.0 is more of a collector's item than something that people are seeking out for its output. In 99.9% of cases the f/1.2 will be the better lens to use, with the 0.1% case being when f/1.0 will yield a usable picture while f/1.2 will result in an unusable picture.

I agree, that's why I've said I'd pay $1500 for 50 1.0. I think at apertures wider than 1.2, the background blur becomes much less attractive and is overwhelming. But if OP wants to buy it for collectible purposes, then yeah, I guess it may be a good investment (if one can call a lens an investment).

 

[sanj]

I would love to own this lens and walk around streets at night. Would be awesome.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

At the end of the day, it's the OP's money and if he want's it...then go and get it.
For me, I sold my 50mm f1.2 L. It was an expensive paper weight because I just wasn't using it. When I did I get very frustrated with it's slow and inconsistent focusing. I enjoy using the 24IIL, 35L, 85IIL and 135L but not the 50 f1.2L.
I wouldn't stump up any serious money for a lens that couldn't be repaired if the AF motor burns out...especially considering that this lens in particular has AF by wire...no motor...then no AF or MF.
Sure the f1.0 sounds like it'll be fun for a specific effect....but....I've also read that it's softer than a liberal's toilet paper.