New ef 50mm 1.2 annoucement coming?

[ajfotofilmagem]

I've never used the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and its had great reviews.
I couldn't see how it could be much better than the 50mm 1.2L.
1.2 is very special.
I'd love to see a comparison of two 5D Mark III's with one with the 50mm 1.2L and one with 50mm 1.4 Sigma Art and a subject both at 1.4 and the Sigma being in any way producing a better photograph.
I've used the 50mm 1.2L alot over the last two months and its fantastic (and I've alot of good glass to compare it to).

In the categories sharpness and contrast, Sigma 50mm Art is noticeably better, with both at F1.4. Although the Bokeh is subjective, I prefer sure the bokeh of Sigma 50 Art.
See this great article below.

http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/

 

[Ruined]

I've never used the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and its had great reviews.
I couldn't see how it could be much better than the 50mm 1.2L.
1.2 is very special.
I'd love to see a comparison of two 5D Mark III's with one with the 50mm 1.2L and one with 50mm 1.4 Sigma Art and a subject both at 1.4 and the Sigma being in any way producing a better photograph.
I've used the 50mm 1.2L alot over the last two months and its fantastic (and I've alot of good glass to compare it to).

In the categories sharpness and contrast, Sigma 50mm Art is noticeably better, with both at F1.4. Although the Bokeh is subjective, I prefer sure the bokeh of Sigma 50 Art.
See this great article below.

http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/

Although I know this article argues in favor of the Sigma f/1.4, I think the comparison pictures prove the that the 50L's output is better. Look at the second picture, the closeup of the woman's face. As a people shooter, I can tell you there is no woman in the world that would prefer the Sigma's output. The Canon is sharp enough, while being smooth and beautiful. The Sigma is too clinical and rough looking and thus not ideal for people, as it highlights flaws and makeup application. You might be able to try to simulate something similar in post with the Sigma, but that would be very time consuming and likely have more artificial looking results to just shooting with the 50mm f/1.2L to begin with. Virtually all of the flaws noted with the 50mm f/1.2L are due to its purposefully uncorrected spherical aberration, but that spherical aberration is what makes that smooth beautiful look of skin possible.

The 50 f/1.2L is clearly a portrait lens, and at that function it is at the top of the heap.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I'd love to see a comparison of two 5D Mark III's with one with the 50mm 1.2L and one with 50mm 1.4 Sigma Art and a subject both at 1.4 and the Sigma being in any way producing a better photograph.
I've used the 50mm 1.2L alot over the last two months and its fantastic (and I've alot of good glass to compare it to).

In the categories sharpness and contrast, Sigma 50mm Art is noticeably better, with both at F1.4. Although the Bokeh is subjective, I prefer sure the bokeh of Sigma 50 Art.
See this great article below.

http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/

Although I know this article argues in favor of the Sigma f/1.4, I think the comparison pictures prove the opposite. Look at the second picture, the closeup of the woman's face. As a people shooter, I can tell you there is no woman in the world that would prefer the Sigma's output. The Canon is sharp enough, while being smooth and beautiful. The Sigma is too clinical and rough looking and thus not ideal for people, as it highlights flaws.

If I ask my female clients?

Question 1:
Do you prefer pictures with 18 megapixel or 50?
Certainly, I prefer 50!

Question 2:
Do you prefer super sharp images, or a little smoky?
Certainly, I prefer super sharp!

Question 3:
You want to see every pore of your skin, pimples, scars?
No way!

In fact, the question 3 contradicts the questions 1 and 2. However, it is always possible to decrease the sharpness in an image, or parts of it.

 

[Ruined]

If I ask my female clients?

Question 1:
Do you prefer pictures with 18 megapixel or 50?
Certainly, I prefer 50!

Question 2:
Do you prefer super sharp images, or a little smoky?
Certainly, I prefer super sharp!

Question 3:
You want to see every pore of your skin, pimples, scars?
No way!

In fact, the question contradicts 3 questions 1 and 2. However, it is always possible to decrease the sharpness in an image, or parts of it.

If you globally reduce sharpness you get a blurry image. You can selectively reduce sharpness to parts of the image to avoid this, but then you risk it looking artificial or simply greatly extending your post time. That is the beauty of the 50L, for people the image looks near ideal without extensive post needed.

If I know I am shooting people, I want the lens that provides the most pleasing output with least post necessary, and at 50mm that is the 50mm f/1.2L.

If I simply wanted super sharp output, I'd use the 24-70 f/2.8L II , 70-200LII IS, 135L, etc which all have very sharp output.

 

[Hector1970]

If I ask my female clients?

Question 1:
Do you prefer pictures with 18 megapixel or 50?
Certainly, I prefer 50!

Question 2:
Do you prefer super sharp images, or a little smoky?
Certainly, I prefer super sharp!

Question 3:
You want to see every pore of your skin, pimples, scars?
No way!

In fact, the question contradicts 3 questions 1 and 2. However, it is always possible to decrease the sharpness in an image, or parts of it.

If you globally reduce sharpness you get a blurry image. You can selectively reduce sharpness to parts of the image to avoid this, but then you risk it looking artificial or simply greatly extending your post time. That is the beauty of the 50L, for people the image looks near ideal without extensive post needed.

If I know I am shooting people, I want the lens that provides the most pleasing output with least post necessary, and at 50mm that is the 50mm f/1.2L.

If I simply wanted super sharp output, I'd use the 24-70 f/2.8L II , 70-200LII IS, 135L, etc which all have very sharp output.

That's it exactly. Photos looks great straight out of the camera with the 50mm 1.2 L.
You can't really create that smooth focus fall off with software. You can try but it doesn't look as good.
Ask someone do they like their portrait with a 50mm 1.2L and they say yes.
I've taken portraits of people with the 85mm 1.2 L at F8 with lights.
People don't like them as they are too sharp and ever pore, every piece of tooth decay is visible.
I'm sure the Sigma is great in a sharpness type of way but the 1.2L is special in what it can do.
I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it (don't sell any kidneys to pay for it).

 

[YuengLinger]

I've never used the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and its had great reviews.
I couldn't see how it could be much better than the 50mm 1.2L.
1.2 is very special.
I'd love to see a comparison of two 5D Mark III's with one with the 50mm 1.2L and one with 50mm 1.4 Sigma Art and a subject both at 1.4 and the Sigma being in any way producing a better photograph.
I've used the 50mm 1.2L alot over the last two months and its fantastic (and I've alot of good glass to compare it to).

In the categories sharpness and contrast, Sigma 50mm Art is noticeably better, with both at F1.4. Although the Bokeh is subjective, I prefer sure the bokeh of Sigma 50 Art.
See this great article below.

http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/

Seen this article before. One of the best comparisons out there.

I have to agree about the bokeh being nicer in certain cases on the Art, but not in all, for sure.

As for sharpness, I'd rather use a little Portraiture on skin than resort to over-sharpening eyes. Furthermore, 50mm isn't a headshot focal length for me; I run into many faces that even 85mm doesn't work for, and I'm going to 135mm and longer. So having "too much" sharpness on a 50mm does not seem an issue for portraits. For 3/4 and full-length, please give me plenty of sharpness.

And a lens that is sharp and has great bokeh is more versatile and useful in more situations, say for still life or landscapes. A quicker AF would not upset event and action shooters, for sure.

So...I'm hoping the new 50mm 1.2 L will come soon, and that it will have an improved middle-distance bokeh and all around sharpness.

 

[Pookie]

I often find the criticism of the 50L has to do more with operator error than the actual lens. Many professionals use this lens exclusively for headshots, as I do. For headshots it is an absolute joy to use and although I've read much about people's comments on front focusing... in the real world with the professionals I know... that never comes up. I've had 3 copies and still own two, all have functioned to perfection.

I have many images from my 50L but here is one from a photographer in London that has excelled with it. I've spoken with him numerous times about it and the 85L, he takes the 50 over the 85 everytime. I'm more half and half...

2013 Professional Photographer of the Year: 1st place (50mm category) by Peter Zelewski, on Flickr

 

[Rudeofus]

The 50 1.2 is a bit soft by design due to purposefully uncorrected spherical abberation, which also is what gives it the dreamy look and focus shift.

I agree that you can't have tack sharp and dreamy at the same time, although the often derided 135 soft focus lens offers just that: reasonable sharpness at SF0, and extreme dreaminess at SF2 and F/2.8.

I do not agree with your assessment of the focus shift: autofocus is controlled via software, and the software could trivially compensate for this shift. If Canon can change their lens interface just to render old Sigma lenses inoperable, they might as well fix the damn AF for their flagship 50.

The 50L would be a tremendous lens for newborn shots, but with the focus shift it's entirely useless for this task.

 

[Ruined]

The 50 1.2 is a bit soft by design due to purposefully uncorrected spherical abberation, which also is what gives it the dreamy look and focus shift.

I agree that you can't have tack sharp and dreamy at the same time, although the often derided 135 soft focus lens offers just that: reasonable sharpness at SF0, and extreme dreaminess at SF2 and F/2.8.

Yes, it does, but not at the same time obviously

I actually owned that lens and did not like it. The spherical aberration even at a very low setting was too extreme IMO and resulted in a lot of ugly artifacts; it never really did a superb job of being sharp, nor a superb job of offering pleasing dreamy output. Plus it has micromotor focus.

I do not agree with your assessment of the focus shift: autofocus is controlled via software, and the software could trivially compensate for this shift. If Canon can change their lens interface just to render old Sigma lenses inoperable, they might as well fix the damn AF for their flagship 50.

If you think about it though, it is not that easy or practical.

Lens always focuses wide open. In order for the focus shift to be compensated for, the lens would need to refocus a variable amount depending on the distance and aperture every time after you have pressed the shutter release button. The problem is, that would result in delay of the shutter release and you could lose a special moment - plus it would reduce max FPS dramatically if you were in AI servo mode for instance.

Since this would impede the performance of the camera, I am not sure it is a worthwhile fix as the focus shift is easy to compensate for when you know the specific cases it arises.

The 50L would be a tremendous lens for newborn shots, but with the focus shift it's entirely useless for this task.

I do photo shoots with newborns frequently with the 50L, and the results are magical. Focus shift occurs in a only in a very specific case, and is easy to compensate for.

 

[Pookie]

The 50L would be a tremendous lens for newborn shots, but with the focus shift it's entirely useless for this task.

Complete rubbish... I think you have to remember what a hobbyist confirms as useless is often just that, the opinion of a hobbyist.

 

[Rudeofus]

If you think about it though, it is not that easy or practical.

Lens always focuses wide open.

Wrong. Lens focuses at F/2.8, at least that's what the AF sensor sees. Extra aperture does not contribute AFAIK. From this I conclude, that the lens already does some compensation, but evidently it does not correct the compensation for apertures between F/2.8 and F/5.6.

Even if that compensation takes time, I'd rather lose some minimal amount of focus speed than the whole shot due to focus shift, but YMMV.

The 50L would be a tremendous lens for newborn shots, but with the focus shift it's entirely useless for this task.

I do photo shoots with newborns frequently with the 50L, and the results are magical. Focus shift occurs in a only in a very specific case, and is easy to compensate for.

If you have the time to compensate for it, then you'd have plenty of time for the AF system to correct for it.

Complete rubbish... I think you have to remember what a hobbyist confirms as useless is often just that, the opinion of a hobbyist.

That shot was taken at F/1.8, at which point focus shift is less of an issue. Often it seems that professionals like to talk big, but lack sorely in the technical field. This shot shows the razor thin DOF and the dreamy bokey of this lens at F/1.8, but let's face it: this shot would have tremendously profited from F/4, and at this aperture this lens doesn't work right.

 

[Viggo]

The lack of barrel distortion and vignetting combined with the epic corner sharpness for off center comp wide open makes the Sigma better in every way. Contrast and color I say they are equally punchy, and I correct with ColorChecker anyway.

 

[YuengLinger]

The 50L would be a tremendous lens for newborn shots, but with the focus shift it's entirely useless for this task.

Complete rubbish... I think you have to remember what a hobbyist confirms as useless is often just that, the opinion of a hobbyist.

Cute baby, Pookie, very, very cute. And I believe I see the intended effect you were after, quite moving. However, and here comes trouble, because how do you criticize a shot of a baby while making clear the baby is incredibly lovely, I think, in terms of bokeh and contrast, this isn't the best example to proclaim the strengths of the lens. The oof arm looks slightly odd, and the back area, the leg(?) has a strong ghosting/halo effect. I'm guessing you were dealing with difficult lighting and applied a lot of sharpening and NR?

Did you have quite a few shots that just missed in the series you chose this from?

For comparison, and of course also open to scathing criticism, attached is a snapshot taken at f/1.8 with the ef 50mm 1.4 on a 60D. Only global adjustments in LR5. I think the light in this shot was much easier than what you had to deal with, but, for me, this example shows that for close-ups at least, there is little compelling reason to go with the 1.2L, so widely regarded as problematic, if not an outright disappointment. :

Regarding the portrait by Peter Zelewski, it is a lovely shot--with tons of sharpening selectively applied. It certainly deserves recognition among portraits taken with a 50mm, but I wonder how it would do overall against portraits taken with longer focal lengths--in the eyes of paying clients. Specifically, this portrait is moody, and it conveys what many 50mm shots of slender young women might--a waifish, zoned-out quality. I don't know of many realtors or insurance salespersons who want to portray themselves as waifs in headshots! (Am I hanging with the wrong crowd?) And getting a 50mm shot just right with those of us who don't have cute little noses or just the right facial proportions...I'm simply suggesting that 50mm portraits are specialty items for artistic or photojournalistic, editorialized storytelling--not flattering professional bread and butter work.

And to those who want to hang the messengers because the messengers aren't producing "professional" credentials, please keep in mind that clients, museum curators, and other critics with valuable insights often are not professional photographers.

What all this comes back to: If Canon offers a new version of the 50mm 1.2 L that focuses as accurately as the 85mm 1.2 L, and is otherwise as sharp, and (hopefully!!!) faster, I'm an early adopter. Weather sealing would be cool too, of course. And, as long as I'm wishing, shorter than the Sigma Art.

 

[Hector1970]

I don't get your line of argument on this topic at all.
You must not have much experience with the 50 1.2L or the 85 1.2L.
You should rent / borrow them and try them out and you'll see what the fuss is about.
The 85mm 1.2L is harder to focus with.
The 50mm 1.2L focusing well and is pretty sharp at 1.2

 

[YuengLinger]

I have the 85mm 1.2 L II. Focuses easily, accurately at all apertures. Not quickly, though.

Thread is about rumor of a new 50 L, and the demand for it. I'd like a sharper version without the focus shift.

Not sure what ''argument'' you are referring to, Hector1970.

 

[jd7]

If you think about it though, it is not that easy or practical.

Lens always focuses wide open.

Wrong. Lens focuses at F/2.8, at least that's what the AF sensor sees. Extra aperture does not contribute AFAIK. From this I conclude, that the lens already does some compensation, but evidently it does not correct the compensation for apertures between F/2.8 and F/5.6.

Even if that compensation takes time, I'd rather lose some minimal amount of focus speed than the whole shot due to focus shift, but YMMV.

The 50L would be a tremendous lens for newborn shots, but with the focus shift it's entirely useless for this task.

I do photo shoots with newborns frequently with the 50L, and the results are magical. Focus shift occurs in a only in a very specific case, and is easy to compensate for.

If you have the time to compensate for it, then you'd have plenty of time for the AF system to correct for it.

Complete rubbish... I think you have to remember what a hobbyist confirms as useless is often just that, the opinion of a hobbyist.

That shot was taken at F/1.8, at which point focus shift is less of an issue. Often it seems that professionals like to talk big, but lack sorely in the technical field. This shot shows the razor thin DOF and the dreamy bokey of this lens at F/1.8, but let's face it: this shot would have tremendously profited from F/4, and at this aperture this lens doesn't work right.

I was hoping someone with more knowledge and experience than me would respond, but since that hasn't happened ... I am pretty confident Ruined is absolutely correct that the camera will AF with the lens wide open. An f/2.8 aperture is a cut off point for how certain types of AF points function, eg if the lens has a max aperture of 2.8 or wider, an AF point may function as a double cross type point, but otherwise function as an "ordinary" cross type point. A f/5.6 aperture is another common cut off point, in terms of how AF points perform. However, I believe that AF is always performed at the widest available aperture.

There is a bit of a discussion about it at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/canon-eos-dslr-autofocus-explained.aspx although if you look around I expect you won't have much trouble finding more technical discussions if you are interested.

Also, my understanding is for a lens like the 50 1.2L, focus shift is at its most significant at apertures around 2 to 2.8. At those apertures, the shift effect from stopping down to that aperture (from 1.2) is relatively significant compared to the depth of field you would commonly expect to be working with (bearing in mind DOF is also dependent on focus distance). That means I would have thought Pookie's shot at f/1.8 was probably a candidate for focus shift to be a potential issue.

 

[Ruined]

Heh, I forgot about this thread.

Yeah, I don't know what "AF sensor sees f/2.8" means.

The lens focuses wide open, period - f/1.2 in this case. Yes, some AF points are sensitive and behave differently at different aperture cut off points as noted. And yes, with the default focusing screen in most Canon cameras you can only see a DOF of around f/2.8. But the lens is still focusing wide open (and you can swap focusing screens to a high precision, which will show you that f/1.2 DOF). So if you wanted to correct focus shift the lens would need to refocus based on distance and aperture for every aperture that is not f/1.2 and it would cause a delay after the shutter release that could cause you to lose the picture you wanted and cut the FPS of AI servo in half - which is not a practical solution.

The focus shift begins to take effect as soon as the lens is stopped down beyond f/1.2. But it is primarily noticeable only at close range within f/1.8-f/2.8, less at further distances and narrower apertures as DOF increases. In all frankness, the focus shift is rarely ever an issue if you know it is there, and you can compensate for it when needed. Again, since it is only noticeable in a certain scenario (close to MFD and f/1.8-f/2.8 ) it does not need to be compensated for in all circumstances.

Canon could have avoided the focus shift complaints by increasing MFD or reducing the special look of the lens draw through spherical aberration correction. I am glad they did neither. f/1.2 at close focus lends some amazing results and getting those amazing results is more important to me than placating people who choose not to learn how to use the lens by increasing MFD. Same thing with lens draw, the Sigma f/1.4 may be sharper but it is a more clinical picture that looks nowhere near as good for people/portraits. And while the 85L has a similar draw, it has so many other disadvantages (slow AF, extending barrel when focusing, bigger/heavier, easy to damage front/back elements, focus by wire, etc) that I'd rather use the 50L in the field.

I think in practice the focus shift of the 50L is not an issue for those who use it. It may be an issue for fence sitters who want the perfect lens with no tradeoffs (does not exist), or for those who simply want to point and shoot with little thought, but for a serious photographer that is deliberate when shooting it is a spectacular tool. The reason it is not an issue is because it is a constant and there is a way to compensate for it if you need to take a picture that might potentially expose it. This is in contrast to the 24L II, which many copies of randomly and inconsistently front focus even when the focus target is not changed - or the Sigma 50A which has tremendously inconsistent autofocus; those lenses I could see AF being a complaint because the focus is inconsistent. The focus on the 50L is consistent, you just need to know how it works and adjust accordingly.

 

[privatebydesign]

First off, all lenses focus when they are wide open, however that isn't the end of the story. AF modules have an effective aperture, Canon AF modules have been said to have an aperture of f2.8, just like the standard focusing screens have an aperture of f2.8 or so. Ever tried manually focusing an f1.2 through the viewfinder? It is very difficult because you are seeing a dimmer and deeper dof view than the lens actually is. Put your lens to f4 and push the dof preview button look through the viewfinder and take your finger off the dof preview button, that is the difference between what you see through an f 1.2 lens through your viewfinder and the AF module 'sees' through it's opening, and what the sensor sees through an f1.2 lens.

The fact that the AF module has an aperture slower than the lens doesn't mean it can't focus it accurately though, it just means it is more difficult for it to see than it needed to be if it had a wider aperture. Don't forget dof is considered to be a range of 'acceptably sharp focus', any mirror down DSLR AF system will always try to attain maximum contrast which should, in ideal situations, be the plane of focus you actually want.

AF module aperture and focus breathing have nothing to do with each other, neither does AF module aperture and lens aperture until you go the other way. Once you get to slow lenses wide open at f8 the view for the AF module becomes so dark it can't reliably attain accurate focus, it is looking for contrast but the lights are so dark there isn't enough, hence the slowdown in AF speed when we use TC's, and why some people find f8 easy to use (bright sunny day with a 100-400 and 1.4 TC with a high contrast bird in the sky), and some people find it totally useless (same lens but very late afternoon trying to focus on a bear in the woods, lower light levels and much lower contrast).

So:-
1/ All lenses focus on our DSLR's wide open (unless you are using old lenses and stopping them down manually).
2/ Anything that views light has an effective aperture (viewfinders, eyes, etc).
3/ AF modules have an effective aperture.
4/ The AF module aperture does not limit its ability to attain highest contrast, which is normally the plane of sharpest focus, ergo an f2.8 module can accurately focus an f1.2 lens.
5/ Focus shift has nothing to do with AF.
6/ There isn't an offset value to which lenses are focused after AF has been achieved to allow for focus shift.
7/ Focus shift is an intrinsic design element of a lens.
8/ Focus shift can only happen when a lens is stopped down.
9/ Focus shift can only be noticeable when the dof doesn't cover the shift distance.
10/ DOF gets greater the further from the camera.

From all that we can know that only fast lenses stopped down a modest amount at closer focus distances with an intrinsic design will display noticeable focus shift. Many will use their 50 f1.2's and never lose a shot to focus shift, many, generally who don't own or use one, will forever worry about the shots they might lose never considering the shots they can't take! Very few people who use the 50 f1.2 do so in such a manner that the focus shift is so problematic as to be unworkable.

 

[YuengLinger]

The lack of barrel distortion and vignetting combined with the epic corner sharpness for off center comp wide open makes the Sigma better in every way. Contrast and color I say they are equally punchy, and I correct with ColorChecker anyway.

Ok, Viggo...I really want a 50mm before my baby grows up, so I'm giving up on Canon's rumored new 1.2L for the time being and giving the Sigma Art ONE more try. (I've only tried one copy so far, last year...Maybe I'll get lucky like you.) Should arrive this afternoon.

Cheers!

 

[Hjalmarg1]

A 50mm 1.2 with the sharpness of the Sigma Art, and the dreaminess of the current 50L, plus no more focus shift...I think many who already bought the Sigma Art would trade it in.

And those who own the current 50L? The used market would be flooded!

No doubt that this will be a killer lens. I had the current 50L and sold it not long after purchasing.
However, nowdays people is selecting Sigma 50mm Art because of its IQ