Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L

[paulrossjones]

Pros:
- f1.0
- because

Cons:
- You don't need f1.0
- terrible lens

In summation: who wouldn't want one?

I have owned two of these lenses, and I shoot about a third of my shots with one when I shoot my advertising shots.
I shoot exclusively at f1.0, and the look it produces is absolutely lovely. Second only to the ef 85mm f1.2, which renders an even more beautiful shot.

This lens isn't about sharpness or how low light it can shoot, it is about the look it can produce. This lens really is only about the look, the flare, the blur of the BG. Its really a one trick pony, but the trick is very unique.

Here is a shot I took with one for MGM grand in Los Vegas, its the lens I use when the 85mm is too long.

Saying that the lens is of no use is really missing its best attributes.

paul

 

[Mancubus]

I own the 50mm f/1.2 lens and it is a fantastic lens. It took tons of practice to master it at f/1.2 due to the micro-DOF but gosh darn it, it take some of the most creamy, beautiful shots without need for a flash.

Could you please elaborate more on "tons of practice"?

Is the autofocus reliable at this aperture? Were you using manual?

 

[grainier]

Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.

Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.

A valid criticism, but, unfortunately January and February in Canada at not exactly the prime season for such things and in deference to the value of Craig's property I did not pack the lens along when traveling.

I would think that January and February in Canada provide some prime opportunities for low-light shooting.

 

[Fleetie]

Pros:
- f1.0
- because

Cons:
- You don't need f1.0
- terrible lens

In summation: who wouldn't want one?

I have owned two of these lenses, and I shoot about a third of my shots with one when I shoot my advertising shots.
I shoot exclusively at f1.0, and the look it produces is absolutely lovely. Second only to the ef 85mm f1.2, which renders an even more beautiful shot.

This lens isn't about sharpness or how low light it can shoot, it is about the look it can produce. This lens really is only about the look, the flare, the blur of the BG. Its really a one trick pony, but the trick is very unique.

Here is a shot I took with one for MGM grand in Los Vegas, its the lens I use when the 85mm is too long.

Saying that the lens is of no use is really missing its best attributes.

paul

That is a FANTASTIC photo, and exactly the kind of scene that this lens (50/1.0) would excel at.

Brilliant! I love it!

 

[BBW]

Pros:
- f1.0
- because

Cons:
- You don't need f1.0
- terrible lens

In summation: who wouldn't want one?

I have owned two of these lenses, and I shoot about a third of my shots with one when I shoot my advertising shots.
I shoot exclusively at f1.0, and the look it produces is absolutely lovely. Second only to the ef 85mm f1.2, which renders an even more beautiful shot.

This lens isn't about sharpness or how low light it can shoot, it is about the look it can produce. This lens really is only about the look, the flare, the blur of the BG. Its really a one trick pony, but the trick is very unique.

Here is a shot I took with one for MGM grand in Los Vegas, its the lens I use when the 85mm is too long.

Saying that the lens is of no use is really missing its best attributes.

paul

Well put. The 50mm f1.0 is our most used lens and has the best value 'per click' of all my lenses. It's not always about low light situations; since ISO values and noise have increased/improved enormously since the original 5D. But it's about the 'magic' that gives images a different look.

I own two. One for daily use, one as a spare. The f1.2 is for bad weather and the beach.

 

[Zv]

Nice review I enjoyed reading it! Makes me wish I was actually skilled enough to be able to make use of such a lens!

It must be difficult finding a good background and foreground to blur. With my 135L I mainly only have to think of background blur and for the most part with the distances involved the background is a nice creamy smudge! And the narrower FoV means less chance of distractions.

How people get good wide and shallow dof shots that look really good is a mystery to me! One I hope to crack someday!

 

[YuengLinger]

I own the 50mm f/1.2 lens and it is a fantastic lens. It took tons of practice to master it at f/1.2 due to the micro-DOF but gosh darn it, it take some of the most creamy, beautiful shots without need for a flash.

Could you please elaborate more on "tons of practice"?

Is the autofocus reliable at this aperture? Were you using manual?

The challenges go beyond nailing focus, which is relatively easy with Canon's current AF systems (at least on the 5DIII and lowly 60D). As Zv said, foreground blur is not automatically pleasing, sometimes it's just distracting, can even be ugly.

And with portraits, an arm or hand can become a misshapen glob rater than an asset just because it is creamy. Ears can look silly. Choose the wrong eye to focus on in a shot where the subject is looking slightly to one side or the other, an otherwise nice shot just doesn't work.

And then there are shots where the subject becomes secondary to showing off the shallow DoF, and the shot just kind of falls apart. A prime example of this is a portrait where a subject, often an attractive young woman, puts a cheek against a brick wall, and suddenly we see more blurred brick than pretty face.

That's just scratching the surface. My challenge is making soft focused and fully blurred-out elements of the composition complement the actual subject. Nailing focus is the easiest part...

In my experience, the 135 is easier because of the tighter framing, exactly as Zv says. My 85mm 1.2 opens up the frame and the challenges. It focuses slowly but faithfully.

As I've hoped over and over, Canon, please release a 1.2 that optically and AF wise, and with no focus shift, performs slightly better than the 85 1.2 II L and I'll fall in love all over again!

 

[IglooEater]

As I've hoped over and over, Canon, please release a 1.0 that optically and AF wise, and with no focus shift, performs slightly better than the 85 1.2 II L and I'll fall in love all over again!

There. Fixed it for you

 

[d]

I have owned two of these lenses, and I shoot about a third of my shots with one when I shoot my advertising shots.
I shoot exclusively at f1.0, and the look it produces is absolutely lovely. Second only to the ef 85mm f1.2, which renders an even more beautiful shot.

This lens isn't about sharpness or how low light it can shoot, it is about the look it can produce. This lens really is only about the look, the flare, the blur of the BG. Its really a one trick pony, but the trick is very unique.

Saying that the lens is of no use is really missing its best attributes.

paul

Hi Paul,

Thanks for posting the image, and sharing your experiences with this lens. As you're no doubt aware it has a bit of a cult following on the web - I've read quite a few reviews on it over the years, but this is the first time I've read of someone using it for commercial purposes. It's good to see it being used for practical applications - so many of the shots posted using it seem to just want to show off the OOF foreground/background, and not much else. You've proven that despite its exotic nature and idiosyncrasies, it's also a useful tool.

Cheers,
d.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

Pros:
- f1.0
- because

Cons:
- You don't need f1.0
- terrible lens

In summation: who wouldn't want one?

I have owned two of these lenses, and I shoot about a third of my shots with one when I shoot my advertising shots.
I shoot exclusively at f1.0, and the look it produces is absolutely lovely. Second only to the ef 85mm f1.2, which renders an even more beautiful shot.

This lens isn't about sharpness or how low light it can shoot, it is about the look it can produce. This lens really is only about the look, the flare, the blur of the BG. Its really a one trick pony, but the trick is very unique.

Here is a shot I took with one for MGM grand in Los Vegas, its the lens I use when the 85mm is too long.

Saying that the lens is of no use is really missing its best attributes.

paul

What a perfect application of the lens, and this is a shot I wish I'd taken Great color work here, too. You've minimized the shortcomings of the lens and nailed its best qualities. Bravo!

 

[pierlux]

Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.

Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.

You don't need a fast lens to photograph a black cat in a coal mine..... no matter what your Fstop is on the lens, it is going to look like this.......

Wow, viewed 29 times as of now... LOL!

Half minded to click on it myself, too, just to see...

edit OK, done, clicked 10 times.

 

[j-nord]

Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.

Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.

You don't need a fast lens to photograph a black cat in a coal mine..... no matter what your Fstop is on the lens, it is going to look like this.......

Wow, viewed 29 times as of now... LOL!

Half minded to click on it myself, too, just to see...

edit OK, done, clicked 10 times.

I think it's the terrible DR of Canon sensors. With a sony mirrorless body you could recover those shadows!

 

[LAProducer]

I purchased a flawless Canon EF 50mm F/1.0L Lens from an Estate Sale for $300 (among a group of lenses purchased). Perhaps the best deal ever for this model.

Anyways, I have purchased many F/1.2 fast lenses over the years, some modified for Canon by Jim Buchanan such as a few Minolta Rokkor 58mm F/1.2 Lenses and a few Canon FL 55mm F/1.2 Lenses.

In a head to head comparison - Canon FL 55mm F/1.2 vs the Canon EF 50mm F/1.0L (both set to F/1.2) on a 6D, (later both tested on a Canon C100MK II) the FL 55mm F/1.2 was far superior. Much less chromatic aberration and far sharper. Personally, I did not like the F/1.0 image quality at all.

I sold the Canon EF 50mm F/1.0 Lens to a broker (for a 900% profit which was still dirt cheap for this lens)

 

[slclick]

The right lens in the right hands....

 

[Don Haines]

Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.

I figured it out!
Infrared photography! 7D2 at ISO51200, 50mmF1.4 lens, infrared 770nm filter, and the obligatory black cat.....

 

[Berowne]

Pros:
- f1.0
- because

Cons:
- You don't need f1.0
- terrible lens

In summation: who wouldn't want one?

I have owned two of these lenses, and I shoot about a third of my shots with one when I shoot my advertising shots.
I shoot exclusively at f1.0, and the look it produces is absolutely lovely. Second only to the ef 85mm f1.2, which renders an even more beautiful shot.

This lens isn't about sharpness or how low light it can shoot, it is about the look it can produce. This lens really is only about the look, the flare, the blur of the BG. Its really a one trick pony, but the trick is very unique.

Here is a shot I took with one for MGM grand in Los Vegas, its the lens I use when the 85mm is too long.

Saying that the lens is of no use is really missing its best attributes.

paul

Very nice. Thank you for posting.

 

[Respinder]

I really REALLY hope Canon does the right thing and release a new version of this lens, as opposed to releasing an upgraded f1.2 or f1.4 lens. I think Canon really needs another engineering marvel - they released the fantastic 11-24, and it just makes sense to release a new modern equivalent of the 1.0.

 

[privatebydesign]

I really REALLY hope Canon does the right thing and release a new version of this lens, as opposed to releasing an upgraded f1.2 or f1.4 lens. I think Canon really needs another engineering marvel - they released the fantastic 11-24, and it just makes sense to release a new modern equivalent of the 1.0.

They won't, they have already proven they can do it, along with various other lenses that have no equal. Like the 85 f1.2 (which is very closely related to the 50 f1.0 but which has considerably more practical value), 200mm f1.8, MP-E65, TS-E17, 8-15 fisheye zoom, 11-24 zoom etc.

How many 'engineering marvels' do you demand? How many do other companies release to demonstrate such lens system domination? Besides I think the newer lenses are far more worthwhile from the perspective of more photographers needs and desires and the 50 f1.0 can retire into folklore, without a MkII messing with its mythical reputation.

 

[Don Haines]

I really REALLY hope Canon does the right thing and release a new version of this lens, as opposed to releasing an upgraded f1.2 or f1.4 lens. I think Canon really needs another engineering marvel - they released the fantastic 11-24, and it just makes sense to release a new modern equivalent of the 1.0.

They won't, they have already proven they can do it, along with various other lenses that have no equal. Like the 85 f1.2 (which is very closely related to the 50 f1.0 but which has considerably more practical value), 200mm f1.8, MP-E65, TS-E17, 8-15 fisheye zoom, 11-24 zoom etc.

How many 'engineering marvels' do you demand? How many do other companies release to demonstrate such lens system domination? Besides I think the newer lenses are far more worthwhile from the perspective of more photographers needs and desires and the 50 f1.0 can retire into folklore, without a MkII messing with its mythical reputation.

Agreed!
They have already proven that they can do it, but was it worthwhile? Did they sell enough? If the answer was a resounding no, then the odds of it being re-introduced is quite low.

 

[AshtonNekolah]

Pros:
- f1.0
- because

Cons:
- You don't need f1.0
- terrible lens

In summation: who wouldn't want one?

I have owned two of these lenses, and I shoot about a third of my shots with one when I shoot my advertising shots.
I shoot exclusively at f1.0, and the look it produces is absolutely lovely. Second only to the ef 85mm f1.2, which renders an even more beautiful shot.

This lens isn't about sharpness or how low light it can shoot, it is about the look it can produce. This lens really is only about the look, the flare, the blur of the BG. Its really a one trick pony, but the trick is very unique.

Here is a shot I took with one for MGM grand in Los Vegas, its the lens I use when the 85mm is too long.

Saying that the lens is of no use is really missing its best attributes.

paul

Well put. The 50mm f1.0 is our most used lens and has the best value 'per click' of all my lenses. It's not always about low light situations; since ISO values and noise have increased/improved enormously since the original 5D. But it's about the 'magic' that gives images a different look.

I own two. One for daily use, one as a spare. The f1.2 is for bad weather and the beach.

Haha for bad weather and the beach. very cool, one day ill invest in one of these being my 1.2 is my most used.