Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?

[Don Haines]

so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?

Yes, but don't forget to send the camera and lenses in for an oil change every 3000 mount operations.
Otherwise, there will be a few dozen atoms lost after some years.

And this is why Nikons will always be superior! They come from the factory with oil and have the wonderful feature where it gets on the sensor to tell you that you need some more.

 

[wickidwombat]

so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?

Yes, but don't forget to send the camera and lenses in for an oil change every 3000 mount operations.
Otherwise, there will be a few dozen atoms lost after some years.

And this is why Nikons will always be superior! They come from the factory with oil and have the wonderful feature where it gets on the sensor to tell you that you need some more.

i beat you to this joke

 

[Daniel Flather]

I have both - if I had to choose between them, I'll take the 85L every time

+1

+2

The 50's keeper rate is lower, but having owned the 50/1.4 and 50 1.8 mrk 1, I'm very happy with the 50/1.2. Keep in mind you are judging the 50/1.2 to the legendary 85/1.2.

 

[J.R.]

I have noticed this happens a lot on this forum, more so than others, people theorise about something, somebody with actual experience comes along and says your comments might be theoretically sound but your conclusions are off by a factor of, a lot. The theorist then goes on and on posting, giving meaningless comparisons, ever longer lists of calculations and percentages to "prove" their point, meanwhile the poster with actual experienced gets completely pissed off and either leaves the thread or annoys any readers by trying to defend their position which actually answered the point.

One could be forgiven for believing that the above paragraph was written in the context of the Ancient Aliens program on The History Channel.

 

[J.R.]

I have both - if I had to choose between them, I'll take the 85L every time

+1

+2

The 50's keeper rate is lower, but having owned the 50/1.4 and 50 1.8 mrk 1, I'm very happy with the 50/1.2. Keep in mind you are judging the 50/1.2 to the legendary 85/1.2.

+3 ... but then the 50L isn't designed for sharpness anyway - Personally, I bought it for the bokeh and it excels at that.

 

[Menace]

Here is a link on CR for the 85L 1.2II

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=872.0

 

[Etienne]

Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

Not the best analogy maybe, but if you try to read what I said rather than trying to take one sentence out of context, you might understand. THERE IS METAL TO METAL CONTACT. Your reasoning is, there is not enough metal to metal contact to cause any "appreciable" wear. I say, there is certainly metal to metal contact that causes wear, when people rush to change lenses...as if they are changing wheels on an F1 racecar. Oops, there's another car analogy! My whole point was, the mount is far from indestructible, and care should be taken when changing lenses. If you are just wanting to argue, go ahead, but you have to admit, I have a point.

Hold on, let me post under another name to egg this on...oh wait, I'm above that. ;D

If you really must worry about your lenses, worry about scratches, oxidation and discoloration, mould growth, wear and tear on the focus and zoom mechanisms. The lens mount is the least of all problems to worry about. Just dont carelessly ram it on the camera and you should be fine for 20 years.

 

[CarlTN]

Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

Not the best analogy maybe, but if you try to read what I said rather than trying to take one sentence out of context, you might understand. THERE IS METAL TO METAL CONTACT. Your reasoning is, there is not enough metal to metal contact to cause any "appreciable" wear. I say, there is certainly metal to metal contact that causes wear, when people rush to change lenses...as if they are changing wheels on an F1 racecar. Oops, there's another car analogy! My whole point was, the mount is far from indestructible, and care should be taken when changing lenses. If you are just wanting to argue, go ahead, but you have to admit, I have a point.

Hold on, let me post under another name to egg this on...oh wait, I'm above that. ;D

If you really must worry about your lenses, worry about scratches, oxidation and discoloration, mould growth, wear and tear on the focus and zoom mechanisms. The lens mount is the least of all problems to worry about. Just dont carelessly ram it on the camera and you should be fine for 20 years.

I worry about those things too. And the 1D4 I rented, showed signs of people ramming the lens on the camera, and even missing the mount entirely. In the past, I've witnessed people just piling cameras/lenses mounted on tripods, on top of each other into the back of an SUV, as if they were garden shovels! They were in a hurry to get on the road, and nothing was more important than that, apparently. The clanking sound was the equivalent to a human being flogged. Maybe I am too sensitive to it, but I don't like the idea of people being careless, and not appreciating that what they have, cost something, and took a lot of effort to design and manufacture. And that someday, some poor soul will very likely be buying it, either from them, or someone else (at a yard sale even)...and will say "this one's seen some action! What a shame...". To some people, scratching a D700 and its lens, against 8 other cameras/lenses/tripods/heads (total retail had to be $10,000 +) does not even register, I guess. I just have no respect at all for people like that.

This is now way off the 50 f/1.2 topic, I apologize for my part in it!

 

[justaCanonuser]

If you have been looking at images taken at f1.2 then I guess it is because the 85 is significantly sharper than the 50 at this aperture:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Clearly the 85 is a much more expensive lens, but the 50 is hardly cheap. I presume on the 85 focal length it was possible to achieve excellent bokeh with more chromatic aberration correction than on a 50 focal length.

Here are another two excellent reviews worth checking:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/502-canon_85f12ff

I love my 85/1.2 much and I'd really love to upgrade my 50/1.2 - but such reviews make me really wonder wether this 50 would disappoint me. I do not expect those superfast lenses being as tack sharp as macros, but the 85 delivers this perfect balance between decent sharpness and creamy bokeh.

 

[sparda79]

Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

Not the best analogy maybe, but if you try to read what I said rather than trying to take one sentence out of context, you might understand. THERE IS METAL TO METAL CONTACT. Your reasoning is, there is not enough metal to metal contact to cause any "appreciable" wear. I say, there is certainly metal to metal contact that causes wear, when people rush to change lenses...as if they are changing wheels on an F1 racecar. Oops, there's another car analogy! My whole point was, the mount is far from indestructible, and care should be taken when changing lenses. If you are just wanting to argue, go ahead, but you have to admit, I have a point.

Hold on, let me post under another name to egg this on...oh wait, I'm above that. ;D

If you really must worry about your lenses, worry about scratches, oxidation and discoloration, mould growth, wear and tear on the focus and zoom mechanisms. The lens mount is the least of all problems to worry about. Just dont carelessly ram it on the camera and you should be fine for 20 years.

I worry about those things too. And the 1D4 I rented, showed signs of people ramming the lens on the camera, and even missing the mount entirely. In the past, I've witnessed people just piling cameras/lenses mounted on tripods, on top of each other into the back of an SUV, as if they were garden shovels! They were in a hurry to get on the road, and nothing was more important than that, apparently. The clanking sound was the equivalent to a human being flogged. Maybe I am too sensitive to it, but I don't like the idea of people being careless, and not appreciating that what they have, cost something, and took a lot of effort to design and manufacture. And that someday, some poor soul will very likely be buying it, either from them, or someone else (at a yard sale even)...and will say "this one's seen some action! What a shame...". To some people, scratching a D700 and its lens, against 8 other cameras/lenses/tripods/heads (total retail had to be $10,000 +) does not even register, I guess. I just have no respect at all for people like that.

This is now way off the 50 f/1.2 topic, I apologize for my part in it!

For your own sake, avoid watching DigitalRev's youtube videos at all cost.

 

[Sporgon]

I know it's off topic, but in recent times DSLRs have bayonet mounts made from machined brass alloy, plated with something like chrome or nickel. All these metals have 'self lubrication' properties so friction of 'metals rubbing together' is almost non existent, especially as the spring behind the tab provides friction.

In days gone by high quality cameras had mounts made from machined stainless steel. They were a tighter fit but much more expensive to produce. My 36 year old Nikon FM has a graphite-like micro smear to the mount surface but it is still as tight as the day it was new.

Modern mounts are not as tight, and this coupled with the types of metal used means you'll never wear it enough to cause practical issues. Careless / rushed handling is more likely to blur or damage the edge of the mounting 'tabs', but if this did happen mounts are about the most easy part of the camera to change.

 

[YuengLinger]

If you have been looking at images taken at f1.2 then I guess it is because the 85 is significantly sharper than the 50 at this aperture:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Clearly the 85 is a much more expensive lens, but the 50 is hardly cheap. I presume on the 85 focal length it was possible to achieve excellent bokeh with more chromatic aberration correction than on a 50 focal length.

There have been a lot of helpful replies to my original question, including Sporgon's link (which I've already thanked him for). This link did plenty to put me off, but Neuro's discussion of the focus shift issue also dissuades me--I was looking for something a little wider than the 85mm 1.2 and with less of a minimum focusing distance.

Right now I can confidently work from three feet to my subject with the 85mm, but, if I'm understanding the focus shift problem, the "real" working distance with the 50mm when using AF is about four feet. While there might be times I used Live View for static subjects, I'd mostly be using this for creative portraits of paying customers and soon-to-be-delivered first child. ;D

Another little twist somebody added to this thread was a mention of the 50mm 1.2 being improved in and after 2010...Does that mean the link referred to in Sporgon's post is now out of date???


The "sub-thread" about changing lenses and gear handling in general is interesting. The photographer I mentioned (she holds one lens between her knees when swapping out) is among the higher end (price-wise) photographers in the southeastern US. She takes good care of her gear, but when she is working a wedding or commercial project, she is focused 100% on getting the job done superbly. (I believe she began her career as an army photographer in the Middle-East.) She does keep a second camera close by (usually held by her assistant), but she happens to be only 5' tall, and her style involves a lot of kneeling down and even laying on her belly or back, so having two cameras around her neck just wouldn't work.

I read some time ago in a Moose Peterson blog about metal particles being a component of sensor dust, and he recommends wiping the lens and body mount rings fairly often to reduce the amount of particles which get intot the camera.

As for myself, many fellow photographers laugh at me because I have to put my camera down and the lens I want to put on it down to change. I've simply never developed the confidence to swap lenses regularly while standing, though having a vest pocket does make it possible for me. I try to always keep the body facing down to reduce dust falling in (though I know dust swirls up a lot too); and I try to switch very fast.

I've lost shots at times because I was too worried about switching to the appropriate lens during the extreme pollen times we have in our area--especially on windy days.

In a way, this discussion of changing lenses is pertinent, because many of us seem to agree that both the 50mm and the 85mm are lenses for specific shots, not for the majority of work at an event. Having the confidence and competence to swap out quickly when needed is, in my opinion, one of the basic requirements of a topnotch photographer. Otherwise, why use a DSLR? I wish I could get faster and not be so worried about dust.

 

[mackguyver]

Right now I can confidently work from three feet to my subject with the 85mm, but, if I'm understanding the focus shift problem, the "real" working distance with the 50mm when using AF is about four feet. While there might be times I used Live View for static subjects, I'd mostly be using this for creative portraits of paying customers and soon-to-be-delivered first child. ;D

Another little twist somebody added to this thread was a mention of the 50mm 1.2 being improved in and after 2010...Does that mean the link referred to in Sporgon's post is now out of date???

My understanding is that the close focusing issue was improved, and my 2 copies haven't exhibited horrible issues that I've heard about. Here's a shot at minimum focus distance (at f/16, so not a great example) but the focus was fine. I think I hit the AF button two or three times to get it perfect, which is what you have to do at MFD, but that took all of 3 seconds.

With the 50mm focal length, you generally don't want to take portraits from closer than 3 or 4 feet anyways as it introduces enough perspective distortion to make noses look big and things like that. I typically use the 85 and 50 at roughly the same distances - usually 6-20 feet away depending on my framing.

I've lost shots at times because I was too worried about switching to the appropriate lens during the extreme pollen times we have in our area--especially on windy days.

In a way, this discussion of changing lenses is pertinent, because many of us seem to agree that both the 50mm and the 85mm are lenses for specific shots, not for the majority of work at an event. Having the confidence and competence to swap out quickly when needed is, in my opinion, one of the basic requirements of a topnotch photographer. Otherwise, why use a DSLR? I wish I could get faster and not be so worried about dust.

With the older SLRs like the 5D classic and somewhat with the 5DII, dust was an issue, particularly for landscape and macro shooters who typically shoot at f/11-16 or even f/22, but with the newer bodies, I think people are a little overly paranoid about changing lenses. Unless it's a really windy day, say 20+ mph winds or a really dusty environment like the beach, desert, or dry mud, I wouldn't get too caught up in things. If you point the body down and use yourself to block the wind, you can change lenses without much fear, even if it takes 1 minute or so. I live in a place with TONS of pollen and that's never been an issue. As you say, being able to change lenses IS the whole reason for an SLR, after all

 

[YuengLinger]

Thanks, mackguyver, for addressing both points head on, and especially for posting the image of the seashells.

With baby on the way, I just keep thinking that a stellar 50mm would be wonderful for those first years from birth through early grade school.

You are right about the distortion when getting too close, it is something that can make subjects wince a bit, but I was thinking also in terms of isolating features for shots that are part of an album or collage. Good to be reminded, though, about noses!

One thing I really hate doing is ordering an item to try out, then returning it. That's why I've been reaching out on the forum and closely following discussion of the new Sigma 50mm. I like so much I see in the 50mm 1.2 L, but if using anything other than the center point means losing sharpness around the eyes when it counts...

I will say that for f/1.2 on the 85mm, I've developed the habit of taking two or three shots at a time, both to improve the odds of beating any camera shake, and also to make sure I've hit the target with such sharp depth of field. So I might first (using the most accurate AF setting on the 5DIII) target the border of the iris, then maybe a lower eye lid, then back up to the catch-light in the pupil. I think I'm having good success with this so far, especially after careful AFMA. I am pressing the shutter button all three times--not just rapid firing.

Does using backbutton/AI servo really help on the 50mm 1.2?

 

[Sporgon]

As Mack says, don't get hung up on lens changes causing dust issues. If you only shot primes and changed them a lot, assuming non extreme conditions, you'll have a lot less dust issues than the guy who's pumping his variable length zoom in and out !

Sure the later versions are 'weather sealed', but that doesn't stop microscopic dust getting past the brush seal on the barrel, and the eye piece on the camera.

Lenses such as the 24-105, 24-70, 70-300, 100-400 will bring more dust into the camera than changing lenses ever will.

 

[Marsu42]

As Mack says, don't get hung up on lens changes causing dust issues. If you only shot primes and changed them a lot, assuming non extreme conditions, you'll have a lot less dust issues than the guy who's pumping his variable length zoom in and out !

I always have dust on my sensors as I have an external zoom (70-300L), shoot outdoors a lot and change lenses all the time in a hurry. But it isn't a problem because ....
* LR5 has a much better healing brush
* a dust spec on a 20mp ff sensor (6d) is much smaller than on a 18mp crop sensor (60d)
* I'm rather good at cleaning the sensor by now

 

[Axilrod]

I had a the 50L for a while and really enjoyed it, but it definitely has it's flaws. I traded it a few years ago for a Zeiss 50mm Makro and haven't regretted it for a second. Although I think I may pick up the Sigma if it's as good as everyone says it is.

 

[CarlTN]

Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

Not the best analogy maybe, but if you try to read what I said rather than trying to take one sentence out of context, you might understand. THERE IS METAL TO METAL CONTACT. Your reasoning is, there is not enough metal to metal contact to cause any "appreciable" wear. I say, there is certainly metal to metal contact that causes wear, when people rush to change lenses...as if they are changing wheels on an F1 racecar. Oops, there's another car analogy! My whole point was, the mount is far from indestructible, and care should be taken when changing lenses. If you are just wanting to argue, go ahead, but you have to admit, I have a point.

Hold on, let me post under another name to egg this on...oh wait, I'm above that. ;D

If you really must worry about your lenses, worry about scratches, oxidation and discoloration, mould growth, wear and tear on the focus and zoom mechanisms. The lens mount is the least of all problems to worry about. Just dont carelessly ram it on the camera and you should be fine for 20 years.

I worry about those things too. And the 1D4 I rented, showed signs of people ramming the lens on the camera, and even missing the mount entirely. In the past, I've witnessed people just piling cameras/lenses mounted on tripods, on top of each other into the back of an SUV, as if they were garden shovels! They were in a hurry to get on the road, and nothing was more important than that, apparently. The clanking sound was the equivalent to a human being flogged. Maybe I am too sensitive to it, but I don't like the idea of people being careless, and not appreciating that what they have, cost something, and took a lot of effort to design and manufacture. And that someday, some poor soul will very likely be buying it, either from them, or someone else (at a yard sale even)...and will say "this one's seen some action! What a shame...". To some people, scratching a D700 and its lens, against 8 other cameras/lenses/tripods/heads (total retail had to be $10,000 +) does not even register, I guess. I just have no respect at all for people like that.

This is now way off the 50 f/1.2 topic, I apologize for my part in it!

For your own sake, avoid watching DigitalRev's youtube videos at all cost.

I like the videos I've seen from them. If something is done in a humorous context by people who can afford to ruin cameras, so be it. I just didn't like seeing people be so careless and unconscious of what they were doing.

 

[CarlTN]

If you have been looking at images taken at f1.2 then I guess it is because the 85 is significantly sharper than the 50 at this aperture:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=397&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Clearly the 85 is a much more expensive lens, but the 50 is hardly cheap. I presume on the 85 focal length it was possible to achieve excellent bokeh with more chromatic aberration correction than on a 50 focal length.

There have been a lot of helpful replies to my original question, including Sporgon's link (which I've already thanked him for). This link did plenty to put me off, but Neuro's discussion of the focus shift issue also dissuades me--I was looking for something a little wider than the 85mm 1.2 and with less of a minimum focusing distance.

Right now I can confidently work from three feet to my subject with the 85mm, but, if I'm understanding the focus shift problem, the "real" working distance with the 50mm when using AF is about four feet. While there might be times I used Live View for static subjects, I'd mostly be using this for creative portraits of paying customers and soon-to-be-delivered first child. ;D

Another little twist somebody added to this thread was a mention of the 50mm 1.2 being improved in and after 2010...Does that mean the link referred to in Sporgon's post is now out of date???


The "sub-thread" about changing lenses and gear handling in general is interesting. The photographer I mentioned (she holds one lens between her knees when swapping out) is among the higher end (price-wise) photographers in the southeastern US. She takes good care of her gear, but when she is working a wedding or commercial project, she is focused 100% on getting the job done superbly. (I believe she began her career as an army photographer in the Middle-East.) She does keep a second camera close by (usually held by her assistant), but she happens to be only 5' tall, and her style involves a lot of kneeling down and even laying on her belly or back, so having two cameras around her neck just wouldn't work.

I read some time ago in a Moose Peterson blog about metal particles being a component of sensor dust, and he recommends wiping the lens and body mount rings fairly often to reduce the amount of particles which get intot the camera.

As for myself, many fellow photographers laugh at me because I have to put my camera down and the lens I want to put on it down to change. I've simply never developed the confidence to swap lenses regularly while standing, though having a vest pocket does make it possible for me. I try to always keep the body facing down to reduce dust falling in (though I know dust swirls up a lot too); and I try to switch very fast.

I've lost shots at times because I was too worried about switching to the appropriate lens during the extreme pollen times we have in our area--especially on windy days.

In a way, this discussion of changing lenses is pertinent, because many of us seem to agree that both the 50mm and the 85mm are lenses for specific shots, not for the majority of work at an event. Having the confidence and competence to swap out quickly when needed is, in my opinion, one of the basic requirements of a topnotch photographer. Otherwise, why use a DSLR? I wish I could get faster and not be so worried about dust.

Very good points, and well stated too, thank you. However, in my opinion, or at least for me...it's not an issue of "confidence". It's an issue of "consciousness". But I agree, if I was making $8k a week shooting weddings (during the wedding season), I would not give a second thought to switching lenses quickly, or doing whatever I needed to do, to get the job done. (I don't know if I could hold something between my knees, due to my anatomy, but I'm willing to try it sometime...haha. My thighs are not small, and it's not fat.) Unfortunately I do not make enough money from my photography, to take such an approach with my gear. Nor do I want to need to. And about pollen...well, that can get inside your lens, even if you don't take it off the camera (and even if it is weather sealed). I don't have the "confidence" to rip my lenses down and wipe the internal dust out on a regular basis, though I'm sure some on here not only do it regularly, but have done it hundreds of thousands of times, etc.

Also agree with the point about the metal fragments...but I suppose since the mount has a spring, that makes everything fine, there's no metal fragments. I can sleep better now.

If the reason to own an SLR, is to change lenses as much as possible...that's a race I don't feel the need to compete in. I change lenses when I need to, and try to avoid doing it outdoors. I am a neat freak that way. Others aren't, and that's fine. I don't miss shots too often doing this. Obviously it depends on how often you need a different lens. Again I would own more than one body, and work around that.

 

[Ripley]

I have the 85 1.2 and love love it
and I also have the 24/70 II 2.8 With those two you will have it going on LOL

I was not very happy with several copies of the 24/70 II 2.8. I found it very soft at 70mm and the AFMA was not linear across the focus distance which made it extremely difficult to get consistent focus with. I've seen this issue with some fixed lenses like the 24 F1.4 II but it's a bigger problem on a zoom.

I returned them all and kept my 24/70 I 2.8...which has it's own issues but so far so good.

I've never used the 50 1.2 but the 85 1.2L II gets the most use out of all of my lenses. 600 F4 is #2.

I seen a small number say that but mine is so sharp it will cut your eyes it looks almost 3D THE 85 1.2 & THE 24/70 II Will never be sold l I Die with them they are that good !

I don't have the 85L, but I have the 24-70 II and it's the best lens I've ever had. I'm thinking about getting the 85L or the 135L because I'm getting tired of lugging the 70-200 II to portrait shoots.