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

[Pookie]

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.

Couldn't agree more... unfort I kept mine and it now sits in a glass cabinet. I bought mine in 95' and tried often to use it until one day it was put up and never came out again. Still works but the 1.2 is hands down the winner of these two fifties.

 

[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?

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.

It makes sense, but both my 300 f2.8 and 200 f2 were produced a month before buying it. And if I bought a 50 1.0 L in 1997 and it was produced in 1991, I would be a bit upset.

 

[chromophore]

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.

It makes sense, but both my 300 f2.8 and 200 f2 were produced a month before buying it. And if I bought a 50 1.0 L in 1997 and it was produced in 1991, I would be a bit upset.

Why would you find that upsetting? A lens is not carton of milk. It's an electromechanical device. Properly stored, it will outlast you, your children, and their children. Complaining that it was manufactured six years before you bought it makes no sense, when what matters is that the company that made it has ensured that when it gets sold, it is in impeccable condition.

As I happen to have described elsewhere recently, supertelephoto lenses have a different production process that has to do with the fact that large diameter elements require a lot more individual attention; thus it is actually more likely that they are produced on an as-needed basis than other lenses whose size, complexity, and materials make them more amenable to larger-scale production. For instance, the cost of fluorite crystal and the labor-intensive process of precision polishing them makes the supertelephotos uneconomical to produce in batches, to be sold years down the line. Canon isn't going to make the time, cost, and resources investment to pre-manufacture a thousand EF 800/5.6L IS lenses and let them sit on a shelf to be sold off one at a time over the next decade for this reason.

Bottom line is that it's a peculiar combination of lens design and the expected demand. I would not be surprised, for example, if you buy an MP-E 65mm 1-5x lens from B&H and find the date code was from a few years ago. Not many people are in the market for one, yet its design is easily mass produced in batches and peculiar enough to warrant a moderate production run from time to time.

 

[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?

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.

It makes sense, but both my 300 f2.8 and 200 f2 were produced a month before buying it. And if I bought a 50 1.0 L in 1997 and it was produced in 1991, I would be a bit upset.

Why would you find that upsetting? A lens is not carton of milk. It's an electromechanical device. Properly stored, it will outlast you, your children, and their children. Complaining that it was manufactured six years before you bought it makes no sense, when what matters is that the company that made it has ensured that when it gets sold, it is in impeccable condition.

As I happen to have described elsewhere recently, supertelephoto lenses have a different production process that has to do with the fact that large diameter elements require a lot more individual attention; thus it is actually more likely that they are produced on an as-needed basis than other lenses whose size, complexity, and materials make them more amenable to larger-scale production. For instance, the cost of fluorite crystal and the labor-intensive process of precision polishing them makes the supertelephotos uneconomical to produce in batches, to be sold years down the line. Canon isn't going to make the time, cost, and resources investment to pre-manufacture a thousand EF 800/5.6L IS lenses and let them sit on a shelf to be sold off one at a time over the next decade for this reason.

Bottom line is that it's a peculiar combination of lens design and the expected demand. I would not be surprised, for example, if you buy an MP-E 65mm 1-5x lens from B&H and find the date code was from a few years ago. Not many people are in the market for one, yet its design is easily mass produced in batches and peculiar enough to warrant a moderate production run from time to time.

Not sure where you find your facts, but electronic devices outlasting three generations? Not so much.

 

[chromophore]

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.

It makes sense, but both my 300 f2.8 and 200 f2 were produced a month before buying it. And if I bought a 50 1.0 L in 1997 and it was produced in 1991, I would be a bit upset.

Why would you find that upsetting? A lens is not carton of milk. It's an electromechanical device. Properly stored, it will outlast you, your children, and their children. Complaining that it was manufactured six years before you bought it makes no sense, when what matters is that the company that made it has ensured that when it gets sold, it is in impeccable condition.

As I happen to have described elsewhere recently, supertelephoto lenses have a different production process that has to do with the fact that large diameter elements require a lot more individual attention; thus it is actually more likely that they are produced on an as-needed basis than other lenses whose size, complexity, and materials make them more amenable to larger-scale production. For instance, the cost of fluorite crystal and the labor-intensive process of precision polishing them makes the supertelephotos uneconomical to produce in batches, to be sold years down the line. Canon isn't going to make the time, cost, and resources investment to pre-manufacture a thousand EF 800/5.6L IS lenses and let them sit on a shelf to be sold off one at a time over the next decade for this reason.

Bottom line is that it's a peculiar combination of lens design and the expected demand. I would not be surprised, for example, if you buy an MP-E 65mm 1-5x lens from B&H and find the date code was from a few years ago. Not many people are in the market for one, yet its design is easily mass produced in batches and peculiar enough to warrant a moderate production run from time to time.

Not sure where you find your facts, but electronic devices outlasting three generations? Not so much.

They will last indefinitely IN CONTROLLED STORAGE. Not in active usage. If you think that such devices somehow break all on their own while sitting in a warehouse somewhere, then you don't have any understanding of physics, chemistry, or science in general. There is no shortage of examples of EF lenses that, even after having been used for 30+ years, are still perfectly operable. There is no shortage of examples of electronics from 50 years ago that were stored and forgotten somewhere, and once uncovered, are still in working condition. You make it sound like six years is too long to wait and that all the metal in the PCB and contacts will oxidize to rust in your precious lens, or that the glass is going to melt or cloud over and turn to dust.

 

[Viggo]

My education is in repairing electronice, and soldering and capacitors will not last forever. And 6-9 years old lens when you're buying it new in a store doesn't upset you? Fine, most people I know including myself would be upset. And it has NEVER happened with any lens I have bought new. And when you want to sell it again it also matters. And rubber and other things will also become brittle. I know I'm a fan of old cars. Even if they were stored in vacuum I wouldn't pay full retail for a 9 year old Lens.

 

[Corneria]

My mind is telling me to sell my 50/1.0L, while my heart is telling no. I haven't use my Canon camera for a long time, and of course the lens neither. I absolutely love how it renders colours and bokeh, but it's just isn't smart to keep it any longer. If someone is interested, please PM me!

 

[iaind]

Price is dependant on intended use. Are you going to use it daily and shoot multiple images or is it going to lie at the bottom of your bag. The fact that it is now non-repairable should also affect its price. How much is a good paperweight.

 

[hendrik-sg]

i was lucky, that a photographer allowed me to use his 50 1.0 in my camera, and yes, it's iconic to have 1.0 opening instead of 1.2 (which i own)

Already on the camera Display i could see, that the (technical and uniconic)performance of this lens is as bad as it gets, but yes, it's a beautiful historic item which i would love to own.

But if a friend asks me to take low light pics of his wedding Party, i would leave it at home and use the 50 1.2 which focusses fairly well with help of the infrared light of the Flash. If the next friend would ask me to take bokeh Portraits, i would rent a 200 2.0, which equals to 50 0.5 (technically only) or maybe a 85 1.2

Unloved DXO claimed in an article, that digital sensors other than film have less eficiency at openings lower than 2.0. This article and underying measurements Sound trustable for me, and if true anything below 2.0 would be obsolete for low light Situation, means helpfull for bokeh only or maybe for reduced vignetting.

I never claimed to be artistic or creative at all, so what i would be willing to pay for, would be a wide open good 50 1.4-2.0 IS lens without flaws, with reliable autofocos, maybe a 50 Art with 300 2.8 IS ii autofocus , for this one i would pay 2000.-

And as a collectors item, i would buy any industrial item from 1920's or older not a 1990 optical item and not a 1990 sports car, from which 1000's of pieces were produced

 

[Maiaibing]

There´s one of these rather rare lenses on sale here, for about $3.000. It is clearly not a lens I need, but since that is the case with most of my lenses, I was wondering at what price I should be tempted.

At what price would you be tempted?

I would never buy it myself. I had a friend who did - and it was worthless wide open - which is the only reason to get this lens. This was in the film days when we could not "spray and pray". Spraying was too expensive and praying did not help in itself.

If you are serious about using the lens there's a guy in Hong Kong that modifies the AF so it will actually take sharp pictures(!). If I got this lens for anything other than the bragging rights I'd include the MOD. His before/after samples are impressive.

 

[9VIII]

There is no shortage of examples of EF lenses that, even after having been used for 30+ years, are still perfectly operable. There is no shortage of examples of electronics from 50 years ago that were stored and forgotten somewhere, and once uncovered, are still in working condition. You make it sound like six years is too long to wait and that all the metal in the PCB and contacts will oxidize to rust in your precious lens, or that the glass is going to melt or cloud over and turn to dust.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisker_(metallurgy)

As of 2006 the EU banned lead in electronics, that means "tin whiskers" are a real possibility. Post 2006 electronic devices may randomly fry themselves given enough time.

I would be very interested to hear what measures the camera manufacturers are using to try and mitigate the problem.

 

[BBW]

Price is dependant on intended use. Are you going to use it daily and shoot multiple images or is it going to lie at the bottom of your bag. The fact that it is now non-repairable should also affect its price. How much is a good paperweight.

As a 1.0 owner I can safely say that this lens is by far the cheapest lens I own if you consider the average price per image taken, even more so if you only count the 'amazing' images.

That being said, I also own a f/1.2 just because I don't want to bring my 1.0 with me to the beach or on vacation since it's not sealed and cannot be repaired. The 1.2 however misses the magic of the 1.0 that's almost glued to my Canon 5D mk III even though I have enough other lenses to choose from.