Something with 50mm L lens that make it different

[RLPhoto]

PBD,
So what is the point of your comments, and those in the other thread? Should we all be saving money and not renting/buying/shooting the L lens? The only way you will convince me of this is by showing me the same scene shot with the different lenses in question, wide open and with no post processing. If it is a complex scene with some depth and some small points of light in it. I guarantee I could tell the difference.

Anyone have multiple 50mms to do a test?

Tom

Don't expect too much from PBD experience wise. He after all doesn't use the gear to the extent to know and see the differences. From experience, if you take the 1.4 and 1.2 out to shoot, you'll like the 50L every time if that's the look your going for. Something that PBD won't ever be able to understand.

 

[privatebydesign]

PBD,
So what is the point of your comments, and those in the other thread? Should we all be saving money and not renting/buying/shooting the L lens? The only way you will convince me of this is by showing me the same scene shot with the different lenses in question, wide open and with no post processing. If it is a complex scene with some depth and some small points of light in it. I guarantee I could tell the difference.

Anyone have multiple 50mms to do a test?

Tom

Don't expect too much from PBD experience wise. He after all doesn't use the gear to the extent to know and see the differences. From. From experience, if you take the 1.4 and 1.2 out to shoot, you'll like the 50L every time if that's the look your going for. Something that PBD won't ever be able to understand.

You are so sweet, I probably sold my last (owned) 50 1.2L before you knew what a camera was, but that is fine, stick to the personal insults rather than try and guess which images have, in your words, a "unique look", because lets be honest, you are far better at insulting people than proving your point.

 

[Sporgon]

This was my basis for starting this thread:

Few months ago i rented 50 1.2 L.

Recently, I have invested lens average lens, 35mm f2 IS, 40mm and 85mm 1.8,
I also have tried 24-105, 16-35 f2.8 and 24-70 2.8. I used to have 28 1.8.

looking at the pictures taken from these lenses. I always go back to the pictures taken by 50 1.2 L. Even at smaller apertures, the 50 1.2 L produces the wow effect (not all pictures, but most of them).

To be honest, i have not personally tried ef 50 1.4. only look at pictures on line.

Thus I post this thread and see how people like the 50 1.2 L.

I think here lies part of the problem. The 50 1.4 can produce that glassy, liquid, smooth feeling to the image without any post processing, given the right condition. Certainly when compared with the other lenses you mention.

But then I've shot images that I swore were taken on the 50/1.4 only to find they were actually taken on the 24-105.

I've often shot shallow dof stuff with the 50/1.4 and thought "that looks just like it was shot on a 50/1.2"

Regarding the 135L vs 100L, I still have the 100L but sold the 135 a while ago through lack of use ( I find the 85 much more versatile and 200 more useful ). I wouldn't like to try to distinguish between them.

 

[3kramd5]

2) Enough spherical aberration to soften the image a bit and make it look more "dreamy," but not too much as to make it blurry.

This is the one that often comes up that I believe PBD is attempting to shed light on. Forget everything that requires side by side constant lighting to compare, and just point out which of the images in his collage are 50L dreamy. I can not. Can you?

Side by side yes, I'm sure most people could pick out differences. But the common assertion is that there is a specific unique look to the 50L. If that assertion is true, and if the viewer knows what that specific unique look is, he need not have a side by side comparison, he only need look at a single photograph to determine whether or not that specific unique look is present. Right?

 

[9VIII]

Remind me an instance. I am sure the color of petals is near to orange but she insist its near to red.
thus the argument. I can not give up because its really near to orange than red. but she insist sees otherwise.
maybe we are both correct, its how we see it.

That was a missed opportunity. In this day and age there should be no room for arguments over what colour is.

Colour is a wavelength of light, it's not subjective in any way. Going a step further, when you're looking at it on your monitor most editing programs have a string of numbers that tell you the exact colour of any given pixel. In this case it's hard to say if the colour being produced is just like the one that was captured, but at least you can say quite precisely what colour is being displayed.
The last step to ensure accuracy is to have a calibrated monitor, but even if you don't it's probably not going to be that far off.

 

[RLPhoto]

PBD,
So what is the point of your comments, and those in the other thread? Should we all be saving money and not renting/buying/shooting the L lens? The only way you will convince me of this is by showing me the same scene shot with the different lenses in question, wide open and with no post processing. If it is a complex scene with some depth and some small points of light in it. I guarantee I could tell the difference.

Anyone have multiple 50mms to do a test?

Tom

Don't expect too much from PBD experience wise. He after all doesn't use the gear to the extent to know and see the differences. From. From experience, if you take the 1.4 and 1.2 out to shoot, you'll like the 50L every time if that's the look your going for. Something that PBD won't ever be able to understand.

You are so sweet, I probably sold my last (owned) 50 1.2L before you knew what a camera was, but that is fine, stick to the personal insults rather than try and guess which images have, in your words, a "unique look", because lets be honest, you are far better at insulting people than proving your point.

As far as we know, you haven't shot the inside of a paper bag but if others like to take your opinions with weight based on zero actual photography made, that's none of my business. However, my opinions are based on my work and how the lens works for me. If you disagree, that's cool but don't attempt to justify yourself with zero actual photography.

 

[privatebydesign]

Remind me an instance. I am sure the color of petals is near to orange but she insist its near to red.
thus the argument. I can not give up because its really near to orange than red. but she insist sees otherwise.
maybe we are both correct, its how we see it.

That was a missed opportunity. In this day and age there should be no room for arguments over what colour is.

Colour is a wavelength of light, it's not subjective in any way. Going a step further, when you're looking at it on your monitor most editing programs have a string of numbers that tell you the exact colour of any given pixel. In this case it's hard to say if the colour being produced is just like the one that was captured, but at least you can say quite precisely what colour is being displayed.
The last step to ensure accuracy is to have a calibrated monitor, but even if you don't it's probably not going to be that far off.

At the danger of opening another front, that is a vast oversimplification.

The flower is reflecting light, the colour of the light being shone on it will affect the colour it appears to be. A similar problem happens with prints, metamerism is an issue that has largely been overcome with modern digital ink sets, but not entirely.

On the computer monitor you only know what you are being shown if you use an external meter (and that is subjective), an internal colour picker is not telling you what you are seeing, it is telling what that pixel should be before your screen profile, and every screen has a profile. Do this, open PS and put the colour picker on a pixel, now adjust your screens brightness, the pickers value doesn't change but the actual pixel does, same thing if you change the WB, the colour of the pixel you see changes, but the pickers values don't.

Colour is a huge can of worms that most of the time is best left alone!

 

[privatebydesign]

PBD,
So what is the point of your comments, and those in the other thread? Should we all be saving money and not renting/buying/shooting the L lens? The only way you will convince me of this is by showing me the same scene shot with the different lenses in question, wide open and with no post processing. If it is a complex scene with some depth and some small points of light in it. I guarantee I could tell the difference.

Anyone have multiple 50mms to do a test?

Tom

Don't expect too much from PBD experience wise. He after all doesn't use the gear to the extent to know and see the differences. From. From experience, if you take the 1.4 and 1.2 out to shoot, you'll like the 50L every time if that's the look your going for. Something that PBD won't ever be able to understand.

You are so sweet, I probably sold my last (owned) 50 1.2L before you knew what a camera was, but that is fine, stick to the personal insults rather than try and guess which images have, in your words, a "unique look", because lets be honest, you are far better at insulting people than proving your point.

As far as we know, you haven't shot the inside of a paper bag but if others like to take your opinions with weight based on zero actual photography made, that's none of my business. However, my opinions are based on my work and how the lens works for me. If you disagree, that's cool but don't attempt to justify yourself with zero actual photography.

I don't, I have posted hundreds of images here, I just choose not to link to my websites or try for YouTube and blog hits. But I am not the one proclaiming a "unique look" and then failing, 100%, to actually be able to pick it out.

As 3kramd5 says "But the common assertion is that there is a specific unique look to the 50L. If that assertion is true, and if the viewer knows what that specific unique look is, he need not have a side by side comparison, he only need look at a single photograph to determine whether or not that specific unique look is present. Right?"

Why can't you, or any other self proclaimed aficionado, answer that question?

 

[RLPhoto]

PBD,
So what is the point of your comments, and those in the other thread? Should we all be saving money and not renting/buying/shooting the L lens? The only way you will convince me of this is by showing me the same scene shot with the different lenses in question, wide open and with no post processing. If it is a complex scene with some depth and some small points of light in it. I guarantee I could tell the difference.

Anyone have multiple 50mms to do a test?

Tom

Don't expect too much from PBD experience wise. He after all doesn't use the gear to the extent to know and see the differences. From. From experience, if you take the 1.4 and 1.2 out to shoot, you'll like the 50L every time if that's the look your going for. Something that PBD won't ever be able to understand.

You are so sweet, I probably sold my last (owned) 50 1.2L before you knew what a camera was, but that is fine, stick to the personal insults rather than try and guess which images have, in your words, a "unique look", because lets be honest, you are far better at insulting people than proving your point.

As far as we know, you haven't shot the inside of a paper bag but if others like to take your opinions with weight based on zero actual photography made, that's none of my business. However, my opinions are based on my work and how the lens works for me. If you disagree, that's cool but don't attempt to justify yourself with zero actual photography.

I don't, I have posted hundreds of images here, I just choose not to link to my websites or try for YouTube and blog hits. But I am not the one proclaiming a "unique look" and then failing, 100%, to actually be able to pick it out.

As 3kramd5 says "But the common assertion is that there is a specific unique look to the 50L. If that assertion is true, and if the viewer knows what that specific unique look is, he need not have a side by side comparison, he only need look at a single photograph to determine whether or not that specific unique look is present. Right?"

Why can't you, or any other self proclaimed aficionado, answer that question?

Why can't you show us your real work? Oh that's right, you shoot images of pools and the occasional snapshot. Wow, you have the utmost authority on something completely subjective as this topic.

Do you even have a style in your photos? I couldn't tell. They were all pretty bland and grey. Perhaps that's your unique look.

You don't understand that each little nuance in every step of an image makes someone's style. The way a lens renders is a piece, so is post processing, and so is lighting. Nonetheless, no two lenses actually render perfectly alike, thus even scientifically they are all unique in a way but that's just a conjecture to think about.

The uniqueness of the 50L may be minute to some and others more but it's the photographer who uses the lenses who will notice the difference. Clients can't tell, the general public can't tell, but the man behind the camera can tell. That's what counts because he's the one who has to make the photos.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Having never used a 50L, I shall try to explain the conflict with a more generalized perspective.

Given the exact same situation, it is perfectly reasonable to accept that the 50L will produce a very different look compared to a different 50mm lens, say a Canon or Sigma f/1.4. According to many of its users, and according to Canon's information brochure, it is supposed to be superior for certain uses.

However, that does not exclude the possibility that a Canon f/1.4 lens can produce similarly superior look in a different condition, or through post-processing).
So, I don't see those who say "50L producing a superior look compared to 50/1.4 lenses under the same condition" might automatically be expected to identify which images were shot with the 50L in a bunch of "superior look" images.

I can understand that a lot of people falsely claim this superior look because they have purchased an expensive lens or due to confirmation bias, and I appreciate the effort to call them out. But I don't believe this is the most scientific way of doing it.

I think all lenses can produce magical images- the 50L might have some factors built in that requires less of an effort while composing or post-processing. I know my 135L can create beautiful portraits with little help from myself, and I have to work a little bit harder getting the same results with my 70-200. Fortunately, the 135L has fewer critics because it doesn't have any obvious shortcoming, and is quite inexpensive for an L lens.

 

[bdunbar79]

I'd like the chime in with a neutral stance. I owned the 50L for over a year and also own the nifty fifty and the 50 f/1.4. Love all 3 of them. The 50L was brilliant from f/1.2 to f/2.8. Absolutely brilliant. After f/2.8 though, it was the worst of the 3 lenses. In fact, at f/5.6, the 1.4 lens looked much better and was much sharper and if I were shooting stopped down I always went for the 1.4. Now of course I go for the 24-70 f/2.8L II because I don't shoot wider than f/2.8 anymore.

Should I take up photography again at razor thin DOF then I'd definitely consider buying it again, probably refurbished.

Depends on which aperture for sure on this issue. This is a weird case where the 50L is good at one aperture range while the 1.4 is best at the other. Odd situation.

 

[mackguyver]

I can understand that a lot of people falsely claim this superior look because they have purchased an expensive lens or due to confirmation bias, and I appreciate the effort to call them out. But I don't believe this is the most scientific way of doing it.

Ahh, the placebo effect. That may be a possibility, though there are differences between the f/1.2 and f/1.4 such as the larger physical aperture, better coatings, and much better USM & build quality that make using this lens a pleasure. For scientific side-by-side comparisons, at least the ones I've seen, the photos are very similar, but they don't represent real-world shooting where flare resistance and the ability to get reliable focus lock matter.

I'd like the chime in with a neutral stance. I owned the 50L for over a year and also own the nifty fifty and the 50 f/1.4. Love all 3 of them. The 50L was brilliant from f/1.2 to f/2.8. Absolutely brilliant. After f/2.8 though, it was the worst of the 3 lenses. In fact, at f/5.6, the 1.4 lens looked much better and was much sharper and if I were shooting stopped down I always went for the 1.4. Now of course I go for the 24-70 f/2.8L II because I don't shoot wider than f/2.8 anymore.

I found my f/1.4 almost useless until f/2 - when it actually had contrast - but I agree. Unless it's the only lens I'm carrying, the 50L stays between f/1.2 and f/2. I also use it almost exclusively for portraits. If I want the best above f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8 II is what I use. If you use the 50L as a general purpose lens, you're likely to be disappointed, though I find it's small size and large aperture a nice thing if I'm traveling and only take a single lens.

 

[privatebydesign]

.... but the man behind the camera can tell.

What does any of that, and your disdain for my illustrative images have to do with the point? You can be as insulting as you like, I will not get drawn into it.

However as for the part of your comment that you keep saying, why then do you keep failing to actually do it?

Your answer to the question I ask you, show me you can discern the "unique look" of the 50L is not met by guesses, it is met with insults.

I hope I never attain your level of professionalism.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I can understand that a lot of people falsely claim this superior look because they have purchased an expensive lens or due to confirmation bias, and I appreciate the effort to call them out. But I don't believe this is the most scientific way of doing it.

Ahh, the placebo effect. That may be a possibility, though there are differences between the f/1.2 and f/1.4 such as the larger physical aperture, better coatings, and much better USM & build quality that make using this lens a pleasure. For scientific side-by-side comparisons, at least the ones I've seen, the photos are very similar, but they don't represent real-world shooting where flare resistance and the ability to get reliable focus lock matter.

Note that I say "a lot of people falsely claim"- I don't think everyone who praises a 50L is capable of appreciating its unique features. You and some of the proponents on this forum might have appreciated it for its worth- but I bet there's a bunch who praise it without even having used the lens (as I said, confirmation bias). There is also a bunch who have used it, but not appreciated the difference first hand.

I agree with you about the 50/1.4 in my experience. I feel the images below f/2.8 are quite bland for my liking and need serious enhancement in PP. f/2.8 and above is equal or inferior to my 24-70II. Therefore, it is on Craigslist and FredMiranda at the moment. And this was my 3rd 50/1.4- the first was on APS-C where it was inferior to my 50/1.8 at any aperture above f/2. The second one has slight front-focusing which wasn't working for me as my 5D didn't have AFMA.
So I think it will take a better photographer than myself to get magical photos with the 50/1.4.

 

[Sporgon]

I'll have a stab at PBD's challenge seeing as no one else will, but only two. I think the picture of the girl has a Sigma signature, and the picture of the dog is a blurry mess so I presume it is meant to look as if it was shot at f1.2. In truth I cannot tell the difference between the EF 50 1.2 and the 1.4 unless you shot the same subject at f1.4 - 1.6 and then compared the central image sharpness.

 

[llmogen]

Long time lurker and first time poster, i registered just to chime in 2 cents-

I understand PDB's stance (a objective stance on things)- but there comes a point when 1+1 no longer equals 2; where having all the settings exactly right doesn't guarantee you an awesome shot. A sharp, perfectly exposed one, yes. but breathtakingly beautify, no. The more I shoot, the more I realize i'm good enough to bump up against the technical limits of my ability (and gear)- but unable to transcend my "technical" style. Whenever I do happen to take a jaw-droppingly great shot, though, more often than not it's with the 50L.

for what it's worth, I saw Standard's photographs and immediately pegged the first one (the tabby) as a 50L shot. Not all photographs are distinctive enough to distinguish lenses, but IMO that one is. The last pic of the siamese cat has the same 'feel', but still noticeably different.

 

[talicoa]

(show me you can discern the "unique look" of the 50L)
PBD,
Unfortunately what you have done with all of your examples photos, is confuse things. Your insistence, that because we can't tell what lens made each photo, we don't really need the 50L, is what is hard to understand.

Would you agree that the out of focus highlights are more pleasant using the 50L than the 50 1.8: because they are rounder? Could you manipulate these in Photoshop? Probably, but very tricky.
Would you agree that the Depth of field is narrower for a given distance with the 50L? Could you get closer with the 50 1.4 and simulate a similar Bokeh. Yes, probably, but sometimes you can't or don't want to change your composition.
Would you agree at f1.4 the contrast of the 50L is greater than the 50 1.4? Can you bump the contrast in post? Sure.

A controlled test would show you the differences. Sadly, I can't provide this. You provided the complete opposite of a controlled test. I'm not sure what that tells you other than you can do amazing things with photoshop. You can even make a cheap lens look like an expensive lens. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't enjoy using a lens that does a lot of the hard work for me.

Tom

 

[9VIII]

On the computer monitor you only know what you are being shown if you use an external meter (and that is subjective)

Are you saying there is reason to doubt the colour calibration tools commonly available? Otherwise I've already covered the topics you describe.

 

[CANONisOK]

Two words: weather sealing.

 

[RLPhoto]

.... but the man behind the camera can tell.

What does any of that, and your disdain for my illustrative images have to do with the point? You can be as insulting as you like, I will not get drawn into it.

However as for the part of your comment that you keep saying, why then do you keep failing to actually do it?

Your answer to the question I ask you, show me you can discern the "unique look" of the 50L is not met by guesses, it is met with insults.

I hope I never attain your level of professionalism.

They are not your images and I could careless about your pointless meanderings about them. I've shot many 50mms, actually made money with them and can say without a doubt that the 50L has a unique rendering that when I look at my images and my favorites consistently are taken with it. My IMAGES. Not yours or someone elses. My images and If it's true in my experiences, perhaps it will be true for others who want the creamy look of the 50L. Your not a photographer but more of a snob to put down others who also see the difference. I hope to never reach your level of staunched ignorance.

Then again, My original post had nothing to do with you. However, you decided you wanted to debate something that in itself is completely subjective. I surprised more people haven't called you out on your lack of portfolio with such strong opinions as yours.