I have always from day 1 preferred a wide lens and just getting closer to my subject, than having a 50 and not being able to back up far enough.Back in the 90s, when I had at least a dozen EF lenses, I read a guy say you just needed the 17-35, 50/1.4, and 70-200. He wasn't exactly wrong.
In the 70s, the US Army gave you a 35, 50, and 135 I think.
I'd advise people who want to get into photog to start off with a 50/1.4 even today. Then get a tilt/rotate flash, then a bounce panel, then an off-camera flash cord. The lighting is really more important than focal length a lot of time.
I had all the 50mm optics (1.8 MkI, 1.4, 1.2, 1.0) for the EF and probably shot 20% of my shots with the 1.4 or 1.8. (1.8 was my always-in-the-backpack lens until I got a Contax G2 outfit.)
I agree, but my point was that the 3 stops (or whatever was mentioned) isn't the amount of vignetting across the range, it could very well be 1 stop less at portrait distances.What I should say is that the vignette is a compromise I'm willing to live with, that, for me, is not problematic.
This sounds like those girls who insist that the prettiest girl is a b**** and stuck up.
Guy none of us have ever met shows a lot of personality, confidence, and presumably is very successful at what he does. That can really make some people feel insecure.
I thought the perspective on the versatility of the lens was useful, and how it can create isolated images that can make a big 70-200 unnecessary. I like mine for indoor family/kids shooting.
Also agreed. I have a 35/1.4 and 75/1.4 for the Leica M. On the Contax G2 I had the 28 45 and 90 but probably should have had the 35. But on SLRs, 50mm's are so much more compact and larger-aperture compared to 35mms, that I shot 50s. (I had the first-gen 35/1.4 but only a few pictures with it worth remembering: such a huge bump up in size yet not a great lens optically.)I have always from day 1 preferred a wide lens and just getting closer to my subject, than having a 50 and not being able to back up far enough.
something Chinese, can't remember the brand, I just went to check and have already fogotten but the time it took to get back to the computer. It was cheap and poorly made (nearly impossible to unlatch from the lens) but otherwise works fine. And thx to the highlighting mode for manual focus, my focus is FAR better than it ever was with the actual Leica M6...What adapter are you using for the Leica M to RF mount?
If I could only bring two lenses it would be RF 24-70 f2.8 and RF 70-200 2.8.
Back in the film days when zoom lenses were heavy, expensive, and not so great, I had a selection of prime lenses. My “normal” lens was a 58mm (or was it 55?) f/1.2. I used it a lot, but when I was carrying along just 3 lenses, I took 28mm, 85mm, and 200mm lenses. Those covered pretty well everything I wanted to shoot.50mm is a pretty versatile focal length. I don’t use my 50 very often but I get the argument. He also clearly said that the video was about the focal length and not the RF 1.2 specifically.
My first two L lenses were the 24-70 2.8L II and the 70-200 2.8L IS II. And I still think that was the best decision. Both excellent and versatile. But over time I needed other lenses for specific applications: fast primes for low light dance (weddings), macro for ring shots, etc. 85 prime was probably easiest purchase… easy to justify a fast 85 for portraits. The 35 1.4L II was probably the toughest call and least justifies purchase, but is now my absolutely favorite! I own the RF 50 1.2 and I’m still a little torn. Probably my least used prime… it is clearly excellent, but if I’m carrying two cameras with primes attached, they are probably the 84 1.4L and that 35!If I could only bring two lenses it would be RF 24-70 f2.8 and RF 70-200 2.8.
24mm is wide for most things and can become wider if you shoot a quick pano which is easier than ever now with IBIS and Lightroom.
200mm is long enough for most things (besides wildlife). With 45MP sensor you can get up to 300mm range quite easily and still have enough MP.
Both lenses are sharp enough to cut yourself and offer great balance for video even in dawn/dusk conditions.
They will only get more versatile as bodies improve.
Would really love a 18/20mm f1.4 or f1.8 lens from Canon though in case I have room for a third lens.
50mm is my favorite focal length. Nearly all of my shots with the 50L I take @ 1.2, because otherwise why bother using such a fast lens?Perhaps if 50mm was one of your favorite focal lengths, if shallow depth of field something you cherished and incorporated often, and if you shot with this lens for a few weeks, you'd understand "the hype." I don't mind the weight, and in real-world use, the vignette is no problem for me. The R6/R5 shadows clean up so nicely that, even when a subject is not centered, everything is fine.
The cost of the lens is tough to swallow, but with inflation, it is negligibly higher than its EF counterpart introduced in 2006. Furthermore it uses more material and has a lot of tech crammed in that wasn't part of the older L-series lens.
As for others comparing to zoom lenses, that's a different conversation.
The Youtuber is just trying to convey some of his excitement about the image quality of a great lens, and also some thoughts on the versatility of the focal length and aperture range. I don't think he was trying to scientifically, once and for all prove that 50mm is the ultimate, best ever focal length. In the online world, we have to put up with clickbait titles. For now. Maybe they'll fade from fashion some day.
I shot color slide film in a rangefinder camera with a fixed 45mm lens for years. I could visualize the composition without putting the camera up to my eye. I had to get everything right in the first place. It was a great way to learn. I made many of my best pictures that way. And 45mm is even closer to theoretical “normal” than 50mm.if a newbie were to ask me: 'One 50mm and one 50mm alone, my advice would be. And no other for at least 1 year. It forces you to do everything right or fail or stay mediocre. Get close, get far away...get on your knees, stop and wait. If you have to earn money in the first place, this tip is maybe not worth much.
interesting point you make.There are very few that are improved across the board without a tradeoff,
It's slightly taller and a tiny bit wider than the EF100L + EF-RF adapter. Apart from the 1:1.x feature it has much better AF and when using it with an IBIS equipped R camera, much, much better IS. The IS on the EF100L was sometimes fighting the IBIS and making things worse.[..]
I think the 100Mac, with it's spherical aberation control, and 1.4x, may be improvement-only? Or is it a lot bigger than the EF 100Mac?
interesting point you make.
I agree for instance 70-200/2.8, nice that it's smaller in the camera bag, but can't use TE?!!? I mean, I'm totally going f/4 trinity these days anyway and not even playing with the f/2.8s in stores, but I agree that's a step forward and step back.
50mm/1.2 is literally 10x sharper. It's 30lp/mm lines are higher contrast than the EF at 10lp/mm, basically meaning you can more than triple the blowup linearly, or 10x by area, and get the same sharpness. It's huge in comparison, but it's not huge in an absolute sense, it's maybe smaller than the EF 24-70/2.8 most people used as their standard lens, no?