JD, I've bought step-down rings from many different vendors and brands, but they all appear to be the same, and I've never had any issues with them. Keep in mind that the hood won't work if you use, them, though. I ended up buying a 72mm ND filter for my 50L / 85L II. One shoot in the sun with the "1/8000s" flashing in the viewfinder until you hit f/2.8 or f/4 was enough for me
Random Orbits said:
ScottyP said:
I don't get it. Bryan's test at TDP is a complete blowout; not even close. The Sigma is sharper in center and much much much sharper than the 1.2L away from center and in corners, and the CA on the 50L is bad, while nearly non-existent on the Sigma.
In comparing any two other lenses, where there is no brand loyalty or investment-justification involved, that kind of test result would simply be a clear blowout, and there would be no further discussion. Not here though. Here we see the defensive comments and a retreat to the trenches of the intangibles like bokeh (which is not clearly different in any sample shot I have seen anyone point to specifically) and creaminess, and the supposed uselessness of test charts (but only for this lens).
What don't you get? I'm sure people that have the 50L love the fact that some are saying their lens sucks and that the Sigma is the bee's knees. I think it's more the attitude of some posters that are getting people to be defensive. The 50L doesn't get any worse now that the Sigma is coming out, and for many that have the 50L, the decision is not as clear cut, especially if they're waiting for the 50L II to come out before making a decision to switch the S50A.
I've tried Canon's 50 f/1.4 and have the 50L and my experience is that the 50L is better than the 50 f/1.4 wide open to about f/2.8, which is consistent with the results of LensRentals 50mm shootout while TDP shows the 50 f/1.4 to be a better performer. But the 50L AFs a lot better and can be used wide open. The 50 f/1.4's AF was not accurate from f/1.4-f/2.
With Sigma's success with the S35, I'd expect the S50 to perform well AF-wise. Over time, I'd suspect that many would trade the 50L for the S50A, but it is a bit premature when it still is not available to everyone. And if one has the 24-70 II, then the 50L would be used for portraiture/low light only, so edge/corner performance is not as important. The S50 is even better than the 24-70 II at 50mm. Is everyone now going to say that the 24-70 II sucks too for landscape and that the S50 A should be used instead?
Well said, Random, and I'm sure it's just a matter of time before we see the comparisons between the S50A at f/11 and the 24-70 II at f/11. The S50A appears to be sharper. I fall into the portraiture category and just as my 24-70 Mk I photos don't suddenly suck because I have the 24-70 II, the same goes here.
Back to ScottyP, I think what many of us are trying to say is that sharpness and a flat field were clearly not Canon's highest priority in designing the 50L. If you read the
Press Release, you'll see that it was designed for, "[W]edding and portrait photographers, as well as professional photojournalists." For these subjects, it is an excellent lens and the bokeh, color, and contrast are what makes it great. Look at these photos on
500px if you think I'm crazy.
Yes, the Sigma is better at test charts, and yes, it looks like it will ultimately prove to be the better lens in terms of IQ. No, it's not the only lens that does poorly on test charts but works better in actual use. The 24-70 Mk I also had horrible field curvature, but produced excellent photos. The 85 f/1.2 II is also softer on the test charts (outer frame) than it is in use. The 180L macro is another interesting one - some sites list at as the sharpest lens they've tested, while many show it to be only above average. My copy is just short of my 300 f/2.8 IS II.
Also, I think what many of us are saying is that the other factors (bokeh, color, contrast, flare resistance) ARE more important for portraits than sharpness. That's not to say that the Sigma won't beat the Canon on those factors as well. Most of us who are saying this have a bag full of sharp lenses that we use for everything else, but sometimes we want a unique look that can't be achieved by the 24-70 II or other lenses.
For me, one of the reasons I like the 50L is because it's small and relatively light compared to my other lenses. It's much less conspicuous to walk around with it on my 5DIII than my 24-70 II or 85 II.
Finally, I think Canon 50L (soft overpriced crap lens?) and Sigma fans (poor QA, crap AF?) alike are going to be defensive on this one, but it's no surprise given what Roger over at
LensRentals says about the 50L:
"Well, we could talk about this for hours: this is one of the most controversial, irritating, and spectacular lenses in the lineup. I won’t pretend to know what you’ll think of it, but our customers are evenly divided with “I love it” and “I hate it.” Here are a couple of pointers:
- If you’re not used to working with very narrow depth of field (f/1.2 close up is NARROW) this lens will take some practice. Use one autofocus point only or it will focus where it pleases, not where you want.
- The plane of focus is not flat; it’s slightly curved. Focus-recomposing will guarantee you an out of focus shot. Just don’t do it.
- The 50 f/1.2 L exhibits focus-shift for near distance shots, meaning that shooting objects a few feet away between f/2 and f/4 the lens will probably not autofocus accurately. At f/1.2 it’s accurate, and by f/5.6 the depth of field is wide enough that you won’t see the effect.
- The 50 f/1.2 L is camera specific: a copy that is wonderful on one camera may backfocus on another. It’s best used, for that reason, on cameras with focus adjustment like the 1D series or the 5D mkIII. If you don’t use autofocus adjustment, your images are likely going to be back or front focused.
The bottom line: when this lens is right, the shots are spectacular and the background blur is awesome, just like the 85 f/1.2. But it’s more finicky and more difficult to get those shots with this lens.
