Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L II Mention [CR2]

[NancyP]

Granted, I can only evaluate central performance on my 4.3 micron pixel APS-C (60D) camera. But a lot of lenses, including ancient film era legacy lenses, can perform like stars when stopped down. I suspect that the Canon 100s (f/2, f/2.8 nonL, f/2.8 L) can outperform my 40 year old AIS Nikkor 105 f/2.5 used on an adapter, but even that old film lens does quite well at f4 or 5.6. New lenses are nice. Older lenses are still worthwhile.

That being said, I would love to see the Canon 50 f/1.2L II - or an L 50 f/1.4. I have yet to break down and get a modern 50 for my 6D, I have been thinking seriously about the Sigma Art.

 

[vscd]

I have not had a 50mm lens in years, so I am interested the benefits of the very large aperture.

Why is ana F1.2 lens better than an F1.4 or F1.8/F2.0 lens.

Is the lens that much sharper? is the DOF difference noticeable?

It affects the DOF of course. The sharpness sometimes get's also a bit higher if you stop down a bit and compare it to slower lenses, but that's not the point. The faster aperture has some advantages who can be nice on the second view on it. For example, on DSLRs and therefor with mirror you have a far brighter Display than on slower lenses. A Viewfinder (with f1.2 lens attached to it) is 5-6 times brighter than with a "normal" fast f2.8 lens. This helps you to focus in low light a lot. You can even attach Teleconverters to it without loosing doublecross-availabilty on the Autofocus-Modul (possible up to f2.8 in sum).

You can compensate the shorter times with higher ISO, that's right... but rumours say there are still people out there, taking photos in film

 

[YuengLinger]

As I read the CR2 post I just kept thinking, "Pinch me!"

 

[jeffa4444]

I sure would love to hear their reasoning for the lenses they pick for updating when they've got subpar primes that have been allowed to languish for far too long without updates i.e. 20 2.8 (1992), 85 1.8 (1992) and 100 2 (1991). Two of these three lenses I need critically right now but since having used them in the past they're not worth the money spent for their performance issues.

I tend to agree about the Ef 20mm f2.8 and the EF 85 f1.8 but if the EF 100 f2 doesnt rock your boat then I would take a look at the EF 100 f2.8L Macro I use this mainly as a standard 100mm and its a brilliant lens.

 

[Sporgon]

I have not had a 50mm lens in years, so I am interested the benefits of the very large aperture.

Why is ana F1.2 lens better than an F1.4 or F1.8/F2.0 lens.

Is the lens that much sharper? is the DOF difference noticeable?

It affects the DOF of course. The sharpness sometimes get's also a bit higher if you stop down a bit and compare it to slower lenses, but that's not the point. The faster aperture has some advantages who can be nice on the second view on it. For example, on DSLRs and therefor with mirror you have a far brighter Display than on slower lenses. A Viewfinder (with f1.2 lens attached to it) is 5-6 times brighter than with a "normal" fast f2.8 lens. This helps you to focus in low light a lot. You can even attach Teleconverters to it without loosing doublecross-availabilty on the Autofocus-Modul (possible up to f2.8 in sum).

You can compensate the shorter times with higher ISO, that's right... but rumours say there are still people out there, taking photos in film

Yes, a brighter viewfinder, and in theory shallower dof so more precise focus, but in practice if the lens is very soft wide open, which is how we focus, precise focus is less obvious.

I have not had a 50mm lens in years, so I am interested the benefits of the very large aperture.

Why is ana F1.2 lens better than an F1.4 or F1.8/F2.0 lens.

Is the lens that much sharper? is the DOF difference noticeable? how often is the lens shoot wide open and a slower lens would not work? for what type of images? If you had better high ISO camera would you get a slower lens and up the ISO on the camera?

Please no flames. I am genuinely interested in how this lens is used differently than slower 50mm lenses.

Because the 1.2 version should be better at 1.4, or 1.8 etc, than those lenses wide open. Or maybe because Canon chose to use 1.2 on an eight element double gauss design with radiused bonded surfaces in the rear elements - like lens manufacturers did 50 years ago, but are now too cheap to bother. Of course they could have done this with a slower lens, but this expensive element construction seems to require added speed for marketing purposes. If Canon produced a lens that equalled the Super Takumar f/1.4 from 1964 I'm sure everyone ( who doesn't either shoot or monitor test charts and MTF) would be more than happy. Of course they wouldn't want it to be radioactive like the '64 Takumar. Maybe that's why images from those lenses glow.

I'm guessing that these old stellar lenses, including the superb Pentax SMC 50mm f/1.2 and Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s probably suffered from the same field curvature and focus shift as the modern Canon lens, but of course people were less into MTF, DXO, TDP et al/i] in those days.

 

[YuengLinger]

Truly, best photography gear news I've heard in years. Go, Canon, GO!

 

[privatebydesign]

I have not had a 50mm lens in years, so I am interested the benefits of the very large aperture.

Why is ana F1.2 lens better than an F1.4 or F1.8/F2.0 lens.

Is the lens that much sharper? is the DOF difference noticeable?

It affects the DOF of course. The sharpness sometimes get's also a bit higher if you stop down a bit and compare it to slower lenses, but that's not the point. The faster aperture has some advantages who can be nice on the second view on it. For example, on DSLRs and therefor with mirror you have a far brighter Display than on slower lenses. A Viewfinder (with f1.2 lens attached to it) is 5-6 times brighter than with a "normal" fast f2.8 lens. This helps you to focus in low light a lot. You can even attach Teleconverters to it without loosing doublecross-availabilty on the Autofocus-Modul (possible up to f2.8 in sum).

You can compensate the shorter times with higher ISO, that's right... but rumours say there are still people out there, taking photos in film

Yes, a brighter viewfinder, and in theory shallower dof so more precise focus, but in practice if the lens is very soft wide open, which is how we focus, precise focus is less obvious.

But you need a special focusing screen to see either. Standard focusing screens are around f2.8, so anything brighter or shallower is not apparent, you are still looking at your f1.2 lens through an f2.8 window.

 

[ahsanford]

I sure would love to hear their reasoning for the lenses they pick for updating when they've got subpar primes that have been allowed to languish for far too long without updates i.e. 20 2.8 (1992), 85 1.8 (1992) and 100 2 (1991). Two of these three lenses I need critically right now but since having used them in the past they're not worth the money spent for their performance issues.

I tend to agree about the Ef 20mm f2.8 and the EF 85 f1.8 but if the EF 100 f2 doesnt rock your boat then I would take a look at the EF 100 f2.8L Macro I use this mainly as a standard 100mm and its a brilliant lens.

+1 on the 100L. That's a rockstar short tele for me that also happens to be able to take 1:1 macro shots. It's small size and weight often makes it into a small bag as my second lens when I'm shooting walkaround. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II often stays at home just for size and weight reasons. (When I need it, it's ridiculous, but when I don't, it's ridiculously heavy. )

If you are a bokeh fanatic and want a 100 f/2, look on either side of the focal length and go for the 85 f/1.8 (if budget constrained) or 135 f/2L. It's not like Canon crippled us for options with portraiture.

- A

 

[KAS]

But you need a special focusing screen to see either. Standard focusing screens are around f2.8, so anything brighter or shallower is not apparent, you are still looking at your f1.2 lens through an f2.8 window.

Hence my disappointment that the new 5Ds does not have an interchangeable focus screen. Why did the 5D classic, but then no subsequent 5D? One of the reasons I'm stilling hanging onto the 1Ds3.

No doubt, I'd love to get my hands on a 50L II.

 

[The Bad Duck]

I....must....resist!!!!
Must....not.....open.....wallet!!!!

Bah who am I kidding?

(would still prefer 50 /1.4 IS USM or even 50 /2 IS USM)

 

[candc]

The 50l gets 50/50 love/hate it seems. Nobody seems to say its ok or pretty good. I reckon the new lens will sell to the hate group but the love group won't want to part with the present lens. I don't care if the new one sets every internet test chart on fire with its sharpness.

 

[Dylan777]

Wow....NEW 35mm f1.4 & 50mm f1.2

 

[switters]

If this is true, it seems even less likely that we'll see an updated 50/1.4 anytime soon. That's a shame, because I'd prefer a light, compact, sharp, fast-focusing 50/1.4 to a new 50L. I shoot primarily with two big zooms (24-70 II and 70-200 IS), so I would love a discreet, lightweight but excellent IQ 50mm prime. I tried the 50A but despite the fantastic quality it was just too big and heavy for what I want.

I guess Canon must be thinking that if they released a fantastic 50/1.4, that would eat into their current 50L and future 50L II sales.

 

[Ruined]

The 50l gets 50/50 love/hate it seems. Nobody seems to say its ok or pretty good. I reckon the new lens will sell to the hate group but the love group won't want to part with the present lens. I don't care if the new one sets every internet test chart on fire with its sharpness.

If a 50L II comes out that retains the look of the 50L f/1.2 while improving some aspects, I'd be willing to upgrade. But if the 50L II is just a clinical sharpness-fest, that would make it a tough sell/non-starter for me.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I'm in, im getting it regardless of price, and i bet it will be a winner and will kick that sigmas ass a 4th time over again.

I dunno, the fact that people are favorably comparing a $ 800, f/1.4 Sigma to a $ 1500 f/1.2 Canon (yes, there are some reports on AF problems but look at the overwhelming majority) tells me otherwise. You know?

But you need a special focusing screen to see either. Standard focusing screens are around f2.8, so anything brighter or shallower is not apparent, you are still looking at your f1.2 lens through an f2.8 window.

Hence my disappointment that the new 5Ds does not have an interchangeable focus screen. Why did the 5D classic, but then no subsequent 5D? One of the reasons I'm stilling hanging onto the 1Ds3.

No doubt, I'd love to get my hands on a 50L II.

Both the 5DII and the 6D have interchangeable screens.



Personally, I'd like a 50L II. I don't plan to buy a 50mm anytime soon, so when I do there will be enough copies on the 2nd hand/refurb market as this isn't a really prime (excuse the pun) lens for me to buy.

 

[candc]

The 50l gets 50/50 love/hate it seems. Nobody seems to say its ok or pretty good. I reckon the new lens will sell to the hate group but the love group won't want to part with the present lens. I don't care if the new one sets every internet test chart on fire with its sharpness.

If a 50L II comes out that retains the look of the 50L f/1.2 while improving some aspects, I'd be willing to upgrade. But if the 50L II is just a clinical sharpness-fest, that would make it a tough sell/non-starter for me.

I haven't had the focus problems that I read about all the time. Mine is a recent one so maybe that makes a difference? I mostly use it on a 6d and the af is dead nuts on with no afma, maybe that's just luck and I love the look it gives. I honestly would not trade it for the Otus or any other 50 out there now. That look I love comes from designed in spherical aberration. If they design it to be technically perfect then I don't see how it can have the same look but we'll see.

 

[RGF]

Thanks for the explanations about why a F1.2 is better than an F1.4 or F1.8

I guess I am glad that they don't make a 600 F1.2 (or F2) - better and low light focusing would be great but not at the cost and weight of that beast.

Rich

 

[P_R]

I have been looking for a 50mm lens of late. The only reason I've delayed going for the 50L is that I read as many positives as negatives about this lens. And while the Zeiss seems to have universally great reviews, it is manual focus, so that adds its own requirements (technique, maybe different focus screens) and of course the price.

If the new 50L improves on the existing ones' characteristics, Canon should have a winner. It will be then interesting to see it in a comparison with other lenses, and not just via charts but real world issues such as handling and the like.

 

[Perio]

This is a great news, and although I don't have any lens wider than 70mm, I will buy this one once it's released. I think updated 1.2ii version will attract more customers than the release of updated 1.0ii version that some people were talking about just recently.

I really like how Canon approaches needs of many photographers lately by releasing new telephoto, UW and portrait lenses. Considering quality of the 100-400 and 11-24 lenses, 50 1.2ii should be amazing in terms of IQ and build.

 

[jdramirez]

Wow....NEW 35mm f1.4 & 50mm f1.2

Admit it... you staged the theft so you could get new gear. I'm kidding... but I'm a little excited too... provided it is significantly better than the sigma counterparts... I can't imagine giving up my 85 f/1.2 for a 50... but who knows...