Disappointed with 50 f/1.2 sharpness @ f/1.2
- Thread starter Birger.Niss
- Start date
- Status
Its not uncommon for lenses to be a bit fuzzy at close range. Macro lenses have a different design that makes them sharp even at mfd.
The new 24-70mmL f/2.8L MK II is another lens that is not at its best when you get near mfd.
The new 24-70mmL f/2.8L MK II is another lens that is not at its best when you get near mfd.
Upvote
0
Then you should have read up about it. The 50mm f/1.4 is sharper at f/1.4 than the f/1.2 is at f/1.4 Actually the f/1.4 is sharper than the f1.2 at almost every aperture (save for f/1.2 which it can't do).
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout
Upvote
0
You're right - I should have done my homework. After a good nights sleep and the input from all you good people I am now satisfied with my acquisition and ready to go out and use it for what it was intended for.jdramirez said:
Upvote
0
vscd said:>The 85mm f/1.2...on the other hand...
Yes. There they showed what Canon is able to do...
This lens is one of the reasons that I am, sometimes begrudgingly, sticking with Canon
It's a gorgeous piece of glass in every sense of the word.
Upvote
0
The 50L in my opinion is way too expensive for its performance, you don't buy a 1.2 lens to not shoot at 1.2 because it's not really sharp. Don't misunderstand me, I had it for some weeks and it got me some good shots but they all were just not comparable to the sharpness of a Sigma 35mm 1.4 or a Canon 135mm 2.0.
That and the exorbitant age of the current 50 1.4 is why everyone screams for a new 50 1.4.
That and the exorbitant age of the current 50 1.4 is why everyone screams for a new 50 1.4.
Upvote
0
The 50L can be fairly sharp at f/1.2, just not as sharp as perhaps the 85L II. Sharpness isn't everything, and this lens has fantastic color and contrast reproduction as well as great bokeh (which is why I shoot it wide open). Here's an example of it wide open:
http://stinkfoot.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2024
Lots of CA, and certainly not sharp like the 135L but I don't mind
http://stinkfoot.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2024
Lots of CA, and certainly not sharp like the 135L but I don't mind
Upvote
0
vscd said:This picture could've been done with the 50mm f1.4 aswell. But I drift your catch. Don't know why to spend a
grand more as told before, but well, a f1.2 pic
Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.
I had the 50mm f/1.4 once long ago and it's a decent lens, but only decent. The differences between the two (and other 50mm lenses) have been covered here and elsewhere 1000 times so I won't go any further. I'll only say this: A friend of mine once dropped his 50mm f/1.4 to the kitchen floor and it absolutely fell to pieces. I've (embarrassingly enough) dropped my 50mm f/1.2 several times and it's still in one piece.
Upvote
0
e-d0uble said:Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.
Yes, you could. Assuming the man is exaclty 3 meters away, just go 25 cm closer to him and crop the picture to
the same frame. Voila, you got the same depth of field (0.25m). At the same time you could adjust the ISO to 1/3
of a stop brighter if you like the speed of shutter.
Sorry to disappoint you. Physic beats money
And the colors are not that well choicen...
Upvote
0
vscd said:e-d0uble said:Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.
Yes, you could. Assuming the man is exaclty 3 meters away, just go 25 cm closer to him and crop the picture to
the same frame. Voila, you got the same depth of field (0.25m). At the same time you could adjust the ISO to 1/3
of a stop brighter if you like the speed of shutter.
Sorry to disappoint you. Physic beats money
These forums rarely disappoint me, and Mr. Spock wouldn't dig that fallacious argument, but I'll stop there.
Upvote
0
vscd said:This picture could've been done with the 50mm f1.4 aswell. But I drift your catch. Don't know why to spend a
grand more as told before, but well, a f1.2 pic
Unless I had a bad copy, but my last 50 f1.4 couldn't be used at f1.4 to 1.6 - just soft. From f2 and down the f1.4 performs better. Contrast & color are not there.
My 50L is really sharp @ f1.4 to f1.6. Focus shift starts from f2 to f2.8 - shifts about 1.5" or so. Look forward to have this issue fixed in version II.
Upvote
0
I can't chime in here because I don't go that wide. Heck I was nervous with my 135L going to f/2.2 in basketball ;D
Upvote
0
vscd said:e-d0uble said:Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.
Yes, you could. Assuming the man is exaclty 3 meters away, just go 25 cm closer to him and crop the picture to
the same frame. Voila, you got the same depth of field (0.25m). At the same time you could adjust the ISO to 1/3
of a stop brighter if you like the speed of shutter.
Sorry to disappoint you. Physic beats money
Try that on 2yrs & 4yrs running kids :
Upvote
0
vscd said:e-d0uble said:Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.
Yes, you could. Assuming the man is exaclty 3 meters away, just go 25 cm closer to him and crop the picture to
the same frame. Voila, you got the same depth of field (0.25m). At the same time you could adjust the ISO to 1/3
of a stop brighter if you like the speed of shutter.
Sorry to disappoint you. Physic beats money
Speaking about physics - if you get close, you cannot crop to the same frame. You can do that if you step back. In neither case you will take the same picture.
If you do crop, and the crop factor is about 1/3 stop indeed, you get f/1.6, not f/1.2, where f=57 or so.
Upvote
0
Birger.Niss said:Learned friends,
One week ago I bought the Canon 50 mm f/1.2 for my new 5D Mark III, specifically for the very shallow DOF at f/1.2.
I am however disappointed with the sharpness of the lens at f/1.2. At f/2.8 its excellent.
I enclose two 100 % crops showing some text at f/1.2 and at f/2.8. The two images were taken at an angle of about 30 degrees, thus making the test independent of AFMA settings - it is clear that there is a focus shift, but that is not what I am complaining about.
I trust that you will agree that the f/1.2 image is a lot fuzzier than the f/2.8 image. My question to you experts is whether such a difference in sharpness is to be expected or if I should return my glas? Your help is highly appreciated
Hello Birger.Niss
Took this shot of my daughter having her bath as an example of "Real World" results...(Canon 1Ds MK3, 50L @ f1.2 and 580EX II) Note the DoF is so bloody thin that even her nose and left eye are already OOF
All I've done to this picture was a bit of white balance correction and cropping to 100%
I don't think there is anything else that I could possibly ask this lens to do for me, You can count her eyelashes!!!... Everything else is just semantics and virtual blablabla
Attachments
Upvote
0
e-d0uble said:vscd said:e-d0uble said:Actually, that shot couldn't have been done with the 50mm f/1.4, because it was taken at f/1.2.
Yes, you could. Assuming the man is exaclty 3 meters away, just go 25 cm closer to him and crop the picture to
the same frame. Voila, you got the same depth of field (0.25m). At the same time you could adjust the ISO to 1/3
of a stop brighter if you like the speed of shutter.
Sorry to disappoint you. Physic beats money
These forums rarely disappoint me, and Mr. Spock wouldn't dig that fallacious argument, but I'll stop there.
+1
Now...Dr Spock ?!?!?! LOL That really made me laugh here on the other side of the planet .....Sad but true tho...
Upvote
0
What truly amazes me about these threads/arguments is that people only post shots from one of the lenses. "The 50 f/1.2L is better than the 50 f/1.4, see!" And then we get a 50 f/1.2L shot and NO 50 f/1.4 shot. Granted, in this particular case the shot was done at f/1.2, so obviously no other Canon 50mm lens could have taken the shot! If you REALLY want to know if it's better though, wouldn't you need two shots, taken at the same aperture/settings? The only comparisons I have seen are on Bryan Carnathan's site.
However,
I don't think there is really any reason for 50 f/1.2L owners to defend and justify their purchase/ownership. If it is working for you and you love it, do you really care what anybody else thinks? I know I wouldn't.
However,
I don't think there is really any reason for 50 f/1.2L owners to defend and justify their purchase/ownership. If it is working for you and you love it, do you really care what anybody else thinks? I know I wouldn't.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
