Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0

[Rienzphotoz]

You guys are all jealous of Ken's awesomeness ... people like him are one in a billion ;D

You mean there are another six people like him in the world?

To our good fortune, yes there are at least six more of them in the world ... a few of them frequent CR for DR ;D

 

[Viggo]

KR aside, that lens looks EPIC and it is.. The ONLY thing stopping me from buying one is that it is too expensive to own and use when it can't be fixed if broken, and that is a shame.

And if Canon made a new one, being the same size and even being heavier than the 85 L at 4500 usd , I would stop writing this sentence and place the order.

 

[infared]

;D I have to admit...those are some real "masterpiece" images KR uses to portray and review such a "masterpiece" lens. 8) ??? : :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(

Didn't know that the lens existed...but I know less about it now. :-0

 

[Marsu42]

And if Canon made a new one, being the same size and even being heavier than the 85 L at 4500 usd , I would stop writing this sentence and place the order.

From a marketing perspective I don't quite understand Canon not updating or releasing a f1.0 lens - given all the enthusiasts with deep pockets out there they'll sell tons of it no matter the price.

Most likely Canon feels that using digital sensors and esp. the upcoming high mp versions the light gain of f1.4+ is too little since today's cameras can only harvest a small part of it and the manufacturer has to cheat raising ISO. Last not least as argued and the usability of such a thin dof is extremely small, and again the larger the sensor resolution gets people looking @100% crop are bound to complain.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

And if Canon made a new one, being the same size and even being heavier than the 85 L at 4500 usd , I would stop writing this sentence and place the order.

From a marketing perspective I don't quite understand Canon not updating or releasing a f1.0 lens - given all the enthusiasts with deep pockets out there they'll sell tons of it no matter the price.

Most likely Canon feels that using digital sensors and esp. the upcoming high mp versions the light gain of f1.4+ is too little since today's cameras can only harvest a small part of it and the manufacturer has to cheat raising ISO. Last not least as argued and the usability of such a thin dof is extremely small, and again the larger the sensor resolution gets people looking @100% crop are bound to complain.

I think it not makes sense to resurrect a F1.0 lens that has few benefits for digital cameras. Poor sharpness in the maximum opening, and significant loss of light reaching the sensor, but it does not penetrate due to the very steep angle (ISO is pushed secretly to compensate). It makes more sense a new version of the F1.2 model with enhanced sharpness, and focus-shift corrected.

 

[P_R]

Yes a unique lens. But there have been others too that have come and gone...500mm f/8 mirror lens anyone?

At least the 50mm f/1.0 was practical/usable. Have wondered why canon have not released a new version given leica has a faster version at f/0.95 and they must be still selling it.

I have a soft spot for interesting lenses that might produce interesting images.

P.

 

[Viggo]

Light gathering with f1.0 vs f1.2 isn't important to me, it's the dof and feel and look. And I wouldn't want the optical qualities of the old one, really, I would want a 2013 version of a 50 f1.0. If the made it the same size and weight as the 70-200 and have it with Otus quality, I would still buy it. Seeing images from the 200 f1.8 vs 200 f2 is also the same sort of different look a smaller change in aperture can have.

 

[Marsu42]

Light gathering with f1.0 vs f1.2 isn't important to me, it's the dof.

My suspicion is that some people might not be precise when choosing terms for what they want - personally, I want strong background blur (subject isolation, no background distraction) & nice bokeh (interesting look and highlights). What I usually do not want is thin dof because at larger print/view sizes most of the subject is out of focus unless it's 90 degrees angle to the lens.

Now thin dof and strong blur are interdependent, but you can also get a strong blur by changing the focal length and camera-subject-background relation w/o the negative side effects of thin dof, which is what I'm usually trying to do... it really depends if you're a fan of the "only one eye in focus" shot type.

 

[noisejammer]

Ah - another insightful rant from Clueless Kenny, the uber math whiz.
I'm quite curious how f/1.0 can be 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster than f/1.2... what causes it to vary? Phase of the moon?

Comparing the entrance pupils, the ratio must be (1.2)^2 = 1.44. In terms of stops that's 0.52. Ok, so it's half a stop faster than f/1.2 ....

But it's only half a stop better if the camera detects the light. Other's have commented (and my tests have confirmed) that my 1D4 and 5D2 cannot actually see light from a cone that's faster than f/1.6. This does vary from lens to lens - some modern lenses are telecentric so that all the light gets to the photodiode. However, the 50/1.0 comes from the film era and is not telecentric. Ergo, NO fast aperture, NO narrow DoF and NO benefit.

Well, I suppose your wallet would be lighter, even if your camera bag wasn't.

 

[Marsu42]

I'm quite curious how f/1.0 can be 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster than f/1.2... what causes it to vary? Phase of the moon?

No , it's sensor resolution (pixel density) - digital sensors can harvest only part of the lens coming from lenses with very big open aperture, that's why manufacturers have to silently "cheat" to gain the expected light gain by silently raising iso... it's not really cheating because there are some papers about it, but they don't spread around the fact to willingly either

 

[Pi]

Other's have commented (and my tests have confirmed) that my 1D4 and 5D2 cannot actually see light from a cone that's faster than f/1.6.

This is incorrect. There is a loss of light due to the sensor but there is a definitively different blur with f/1.2 vs f/1.4 and f/1.6.

 

[dstppy]

Seriously . . . what EVERYONE else said.

Roger can sum it up in two short paragraphs:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/canon-50mm-f1.0l

 

[sanj]

But it's only half a stop better if the camera detects the light. Other's have commented (and my tests have confirmed) that my 1D4 and 5D2 cannot actually see light from a cone that's faster than f/1.6. This does vary from lens to lens - some modern lenses are telecentric so that all the light gets to the photodiode. However, the 50/1.0 comes from the film era and is not telecentric. Ergo, NO fast aperture, NO narrow DoF and NO benefit.

vot?

 

[danski0224]

I don't know... seemed like there were some bits of usefulness in the write-up.

That said, I've only seen this lens in pictures and auction listings. I've never used one or even touched one. I haven't looked into renting one, but that could be neat.

I took the sample images as examples of everyday uses for this lens, for those with the means to afford it. I wasn't expecting art-quality images with weeks, months or years of composition time or thought.

And for what they were, the images looked good here on my end. I'm not downloading the full res samples, though.

 

[xvnm]

Ah - another insightful rant from Clueless Kenny, the uber math whiz.
I'm quite curious how f/1.0 can be 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster than f/1.2... what causes it to vary? Phase of the moon?

The problem is rounding. "f/1.2" doesn't mean 1.200000... It may be anywhere from 1.15 to 1.25 (or even 1.29 if the manufacturer is lax) "rounded to the nearest decimal place".

f/1.0 plus 1/2 stop is f/1.18920711500272... f/1.0 plus 2/3 stop is f/1.25992104989487... Both would be displayed as f/1.2 by your camera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Typical_one-half-stop_f-number_scale

 

[Jim O]

I don't know, I saw those comments about perfect focus and figured the whole thing was a joke.

From his site:

I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page.

BTW, for any of you who criticize him (and I often find myself in that group), his site has an Alexa ranking in the top 5000 for US and top 8000 globally. He could choose to monetize that with Google ads (and make A LOT of money), but he doesn't. Yes, he posts affiliate links and solicits contributions, but no one is forced to give a donation or click on a link. Just saying...

 

[Pi]

BTW, for any of you who criticize him (and I often find myself in that group), his site has an Alexa ranking in the top 5000 for US and top 8000 globally.

Nobody ever criticized him for not being able to attract traffic to his site.

 

[Jim O]

BTW, for any of you who criticize him (and I often find myself in that group), his site has an Alexa ranking in the top 5000 for US and top 8000 globally.

Nobody ever criticized him for not being able to attract traffic to his site.

You (conveniently) took part of my post out of context. If you care to comment, please do so about the point I made (I'll make it easy for you - they're the two sentences that follow the one you decided to quote, especially the first one), not the supporting data.

Then consider how other photo sites, like this one, are totally monetized and use affiliate links as well.

 

[Pi]

BTW, for any of you who criticize him (and I often find myself in that group), his site has an Alexa ranking in the top 5000 for US and top 8000 globally.

Nobody ever criticized him for not being able to attract traffic to his site.

You (conveniently) took part of my post out of context.

And you took my comment out of context. How much traffic he attracts and in what way he profits from it or not (your next 2 sentences) is rarely the reason he is criticized even though he is often ridiculed for mentioning his "ever growing family". The criticism is for his trollish behavior, his "reviews" of equipment he never touched, his incorrect statements (not opinions), his hypocrisy (sharpness and cameras do no matter, BTW, have you seen how crazy sharp my Leica is? Look at my 6"x7" shots form Italy).

BTW, this particular review is very good but he still does not miss the opportunity to be dishonest. He calls well downsized images "full resolution". He just cannot help it.

 

[mrsfotografie]

You guys are all jealous of Ken's awesomeness ... people like him are one in a billion ;D

...fortunately ;D