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

[ahsanford]

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)

You're not the only one. I'd wager this forum is 75% tilted towards the mid-level IS refresh over either the L or the nifty fifty. All three have their place, but the non-L IS 50 is the one that will sell like hotcakes.

- A

 

[florianbieler.de]

And who exactly needs a new 50L after Sigma's 50 Art? They won't beat it price/performance-wise anyway, if they even can outmatch the Arts picture quality. I also waited for years for a new, tack-sharp 1.4 but as it just isn't coming I went with the Art and it's amazing.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I'd buy a 50LII if they can make it decently sharp and fix the focus shift.

I sold it because of these problems. Not sharp except stopping down to f/2-2.8 and frequent focus shift

 

[sanj]

Nice to see so much enthusiasm for this lens. There are many who think 50mm is a boring lens but I believe it is an awesome and 'must have' focal length in most photographers bags...

I will pre order this lens.

 

[Viggo]

And who exactly needs a new 50L after Sigma's 50 Art? They won't beat it price/performance-wise anyway, if they even can outmatch the Arts picture quality. I also waited for years for a new, tack-sharp 1.4 but as it just isn't coming I went with the Art and it's amazing.

Because of AF and weather sealing. And having had 4 Art lenses, I can say that unless AF is working, shooting at 1.4 is like manual focusing with a blindfold.

 

[Maximilian]

If this [CR2] becomes true, there finally is a chance - together with the rumored 50/1.8 STM comming - that there will be a a new 50/1.4 USM (with or without IS) within 2 years. Hopefully much sooner.
But it was clear that Canon had to update the L-50 first and then bring a midprice 50 mm afterwards.

Maaan... how I hate waiting. (and no, the 50 Art is too big and heavy for me)

 

[cayenne]

A 50 f/1.2L II would be nice, but a smaller/lighter non-L 50 f/1.4 IS USM for half the price would be soooooo much better. Half this forum would give their liver for such a lens.

- A

Not me, I want that extra wideness. I've shot dark, dark bars with video with this 50L (rented)..and it turned nighttime into daylight....amazing.

That thing is not that heavy...not sure why so many here complain about weight all the time. For that matter, I love my 70-200 f/2.8....it is a bit heavy, but not THAT bad.

I figure do a little time in the gym and eat your Wheaties...and use really really good glass.

 

[Sarpedon]

And who exactly needs a new 50L after Sigma's 50 Art? They won't beat it price/performance-wise anyway, if they even can outmatch the Arts picture quality. I also waited for years for a new, tack-sharp 1.4 but as it just isn't coming I went with the Art and it's amazing.

I'm probably a minority, but I prefer the 50L, which I bought after using the 50 Art. The Art was way too big for my taste (it's the size of a 24-70), and the copy I tried had auto-focus problems. Despite the focus-shift issue, I found the 50L to give more consistent focus results once I got the hang of it--and I actually liked the feeling of accommodating myself to the lens, of learning its foibles and figuring out how to use it properly (though I understand why most wouldn't want to deal with that). I appreciated the weather-sealing, too, and for street and portraits, it's plenty sharp enough for me. I also preferred its rendering over the Sigma, though I realize that's down to personal taste.

I doubt I'd part with my 50L when its successor comes out, but if the 50L II is about the same size, renders about as nicely, and improves sharpness (no mean feat, combining those three), I might upgrade somewhere down the line. The Sigma, though, doesn't meet my personal needs, so I'd never consider it.

 

[cayenne]

And who exactly needs a new 50L after Sigma's 50 Art? They won't beat it price/performance-wise anyway, if they even can outmatch the Arts picture quality. I also waited for years for a new, tack-sharp 1.4 but as it just isn't coming I went with the Art and it's amazing.

I would.
I need that extra speed for dark environment videos, like I often shoot in dimly lit bars.

The Sigma ART lens says 1.4, but seems to be significantly slower than that, especially compared to the 50L 1.2. I read it has to do with the coatings on the Sigma Art that make it closer to 1.x stops slower than the 50L.

I have a need....a need for speed as they say.


If I was just shooting stills, I'd likely get the Sigma Art, I had them both side by side rented awhile back, the Sigma felt great and solid and was fun to shoot with...but for my needs for low light video, I would go the 1.2 any day of the week.

 

[Maximilian]

I figure do a little time in the gym and eat your Wheaties...and use really really good glass.

To those wanting a smaller, lighter lens it's very often not about how to handle the big weight and having not done the workout but about beeing more descrete, stealthy, convenient and so on.

 

[chukronos]

Yes, please!!

 

[ahsanford]

I figure do a little time in the gym and eat your Wheaties...and use really really good glass.

To those wanting a smaller, lighter lens it's very often not about how to handle the big weight and having not done the workout but about beeing more descrete, stealthy, convenient and so on.

This. +500. I'll use something 90-95% as good as the best in class if it's half as big, half as heavy and half the cost. I'll take the non-L 50 f/nooneknows IS USM for the win.

- A

 

[jdramirez]

A 50 f/1.2L II would be nice, but a smaller/lighter non-L 50 f/1.4 IS USM for half the price would be soooooo much better. Half this forum would give their liver for such a lens.

- A

Not me, I want that extra wideness. I've shot dark, dark bars with video with this 50L (rented)..and it turned nighttime into daylight....amazing.

That thing is not that heavy...not sure why so many here complain about weight all the time. For that matter, I love my 70-200 f/2.8....it is a bit heavy, but not THAT bad.

I figure do a little time in the gym and eat your Wheaties...and use really really good glass.

I absolutely agree with you about the weight issue... until you have a toddler in one arm, carrying a body/lens with the other, climbing up 500 some uneven, slippery steps.

Then... it isn't a matter of weight as much as what the fudge was I thinking.

 

[Memdroid]

Apparently the new 50L is going to be lighter. Which is a HUGE bonus in itself, not that the current version was heavy but just build very solid with a balanced weight.

 

[Random Orbits]

Apparently the new 50L is going to be lighter. Which is a HUGE bonus in itself, not that the current version was heavy but just build very solid with a balanced weight.

As long as it delivers top notch performance corner to corner.

 

[ahsanford]

Apparently the new 50L is going to be lighter. Which is a HUGE bonus in itself, not that the current version was heavy but just build very solid with a balanced weight.

As long as it delivers top notch performance corner to corner.

Get the Sigma, then. Don't even wait for the next L.

Consider: Canon doesn't do corner to corner anything with it's large aperture primes: of the 24 1.4L II, 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L, as 85 1.2L II, all deliver corners as soft as pillows. I keep getting told: "That's not what these lenses are for." These lenses are about center sharpness / bokeh / draw / color / 'that magical certain something'.

Hence, I'd recommend you go for the Sigma or wait for the non-L IS refresh like I am. Those two lenses will give you corners.

- A

 

[lintoni]

Apparently the new 50L is going to be lighter. Which is a HUGE bonus in itself, not that the current version was heavy but just build very solid with a balanced weight.

As long as it delivers top notch performance corner to corner.

Get the Sigma, then. Don't even wait for the next L.

Consider: Canon doesn't do corner to corner anything with it's large aperture primes: of the 24 1.4L II, 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L, as 85 1.2L II, all deliver corners as soft as pillows. I keep getting told: "That's not what these lenses are for." These lenses are about center sharpness / bokeh / draw / color / 'that magical certain something'.

Hence, I'd recommend you go for the Sigma or wait for the non-L IS refresh like I am. Those two lenses will give you corners.

- A

They may not have been known for having the sharpest primes in the box, but consider that they have been upgrading their L zooms for the arrival of the mega mp cameras, which land soon, so you can expect that new L primes will be designed to complement said high mp bodies.

 

[ahsanford]

So want to have rent one as I guess it will be the rumoured 50/1.x IS USM non-L that I will end up owning at some point. But I do want to experience what this supposed lens can do.

I've shot the 50 f/1.2L and honestly prefer the ancient 50 f/1.4 USM to it for what I shoot. I rarely shoot wider than f/2, and sharpness is more important to me than dreamy color. Sure, the focus hunts in lower light but it's generally reliable. I must have a decent copy as many have had a poor AF experience with it.

I recognize that preferring the f/1.4 to the f/1.2 puts me in the minority. The 50L is a lovely piece of kit, but no lens is perfect. That lens simply prioritizes performance considerations I don't value and underdelivers on things that I do value. So my money has always stayed in my pocket and I've snapped away with my 50 f/1.4.

But YMMV. I recommend renting the 50L and trying it out if you get the chance.

- A

 

[Sarpedon]

A 50 f/1.2L II would be nice, but a smaller/lighter non-L 50 f/1.4 IS USM for half the price would be soooooo much better. Half this forum would give their liver for such a lens.

- A

Not me, I want that extra wideness. I've shot dark, dark bars with video with this 50L (rented)..and it turned nighttime into daylight....amazing.

That thing is not that heavy...not sure why so many here complain about weight all the time. For that matter, I love my 70-200 f/2.8....it is a bit heavy, but not THAT bad.

I figure do a little time in the gym and eat your Wheaties...and use really really good glass.

I absolutely agree with you about the weight issue... until you have a toddler in one arm, carrying a body/lens with the other, climbing up 500 some uneven, slippery steps.

Then... it isn't a matter of weight as much as what the fudge was I thinking.

Ugh, enough of this. Some people just prefer a smaller kit. That's why mirrorless is so popular, and that's why a lot of pros have switched to Sony's FE mount. If Sony got their act together and fixed the A7R's useability problems, I'd consider switching over myself.

This not-too-heavy-for-me bravado really gets on my nerves. You people aren't impressing anyone. Some folks don't care about weight. Good for you. Some people do, and there's no reason to puff yourself up by disparaging them. I'm tall and I lift weights; I could (and do) carry heavy camera equipment. But I prefer a lighter kit, and so do a lot of people. There's no need to flash your tough-guy card about it, and there's no reason we can't respect each other's preferences.

 

[YuengLinger]

A 50 f/1.2L II would be nice, but a smaller/lighter non-L 50 f/1.4 IS USM for half the price would be soooooo much better. Half this forum would give their liver for such a lens.

- A

Not me, I want that extra wideness. I've shot dark, dark bars with video with this 50L (rented)..and it turned nighttime into daylight....amazing.

That thing is not that heavy...not sure why so many here complain about weight all the time. For that matter, I love my 70-200 f/2.8....it is a bit heavy, but not THAT bad.

I figure do a little time in the gym and eat your Wheaties...and use really really good glass.

I absolutely agree with you about the weight issue... until you have a toddler in one arm, carrying a body/lens with the other, climbing up 500 some uneven, slippery steps.

Then... it isn't a matter of weight as much as what the fudge was I thinking.

I'll go along with the idea that weight and balance are important, especially when doing a lot of walking about, but the idea that even a pancake lens on a DSLR could be considered STEALTHY is pretty silly. In a world of camera phones, anybody putting a DSLR up to their face is immediately spotted. It isn't the profile of the camera with extending lens that draws attention, it's the body, the strap, the gesture, and then the diameter of the lens.

(And don't forget the vest and tripod and backpack!!!)

Some photographers are either always or from time to time excruciatingly self-conscious, so we get the idea that everybody is looking at our lens, that the red ring stands out, that we look geeky...Only the last part is true. We do look geeky! Which, apart from brainless convenience, is the reason people who never took photos in the past are obsessive with their camera phones.

But back to the 50L, I admit, if it balances nicely on a 5DIII, I'd rather be walking around with it than with the Sigma 50mm A (which I sent back due to erratic AF).

I love the feel of my 85mm 1.2 II, gooney bird that it is, and a slightly smaller 50mm 1.2 should be even better.