Something with 50mm L lens that make it different

[bdunbar79]

Unfortunately I never really had a great comparison. Most of my 50L shooting days were before the 5D3 was out, and so most of them were done on a 1Ds3. I got the 5D3 and that was consequently about the time I sold the 50L and began shooting with the 50 f/1.4 a lot more. Oh well...

 

[privatebydesign]

No one took the challenge because it is meaningless. It is like trying to compare two sets of speakers using entirely different songs. You could mix in the Otus, Noctilux, and nifty fifty and get great pictures all around as like I said earlier diminishing returns are there. Without the same scene and lighting comparing lenses is pointless as you don't know how much more appealing it could have looked.

side by side the differences are there as outlined above; whether you appreciate them or not is a different story.

That is misdirection of the worst sort. There are so many claims the lens has a "unique", "special", "distinct" look that those distinctions should be readily apparent in images, but clearly they are not. We don't shoot images with two same focal length lenses then ask the client which they prefer, we shoot what are hopefully compelling images with the lenses we have. That a particular image might have had fractionally different oof blur, less dof etc if it were shot with another lens is moot if you can't tell which was used anyway. Compelling images with minimal dof and very smooth oof blur can be shot with three of the Canon 50's and the Sigma's. Digital post processing clouds old film lens characteristics like contrast and colour such that they are irrelevant too, add in this weeks favourite post process and the differences become undetectable even by "experts".

As I have consistently said, there are good reasons for choosing one lens over another, even the 1.2L, but lets stop the bull about unique look when nobody can actually back it up.

 

[candc]

As I have consistently said, there are good reasons for choosing one lens over another, even the 1.2L, but lets stop the bull about unique look when nobody can actually back it up

The lens does look unique. You have to admit, the extra jumbo fatness and the red ring on the front look pretty cool?

 

[Ruined]

No one took the challenge because it is meaningless. It is like trying to compare two sets of speakers using entirely different songs. You could mix in the Otus, Noctilux, and nifty fifty and get great pictures all around as like I said earlier diminishing returns are there. Without the same scene and lighting comparing lenses is pointless as you don't know how much more appealing it could have looked.

side by side the differences are there as outlined above; whether you appreciate them or not is a different story.

That is misdirection of the worst sort. There are so many claims the lens has a "unique", "special", "distinct" look that those distinctions should be readily apparent in images, but clearly they are not. We don't shoot images with two same focal length lenses then ask the client which they prefer, we shoot what are hopefully compelling images with the lenses we have. That a particular image might have had fractionally different oof blur, less dof etc if it were shot with another lens is moot if you can't tell which was used anyway. Compelling images with minimal dof and very smooth oof blur can be shot with three of the Canon 50's and the Sigma's. Digital post processing clouds old film lens characteristics like contrast and colour such that they are irrelevant too, add in this weeks favourite post process and the differences become undetectable even by "experts".

As I have consistently said, there are good reasons for choosing one lens over another, even the 1.2L, but lets stop the bull about unique look when nobody can actually back it up.

For the Nth time, I agree more expensive gear has diminishing returns - but posting random images taken with each lens without the same scene/lighting on other lenses really does mean nothing. For instance, you can shoot a $350 Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide open and have some spectacular images... But would they have looked *more* unique/better/etc on the Canon 1.2 at f/1.2 or f/1.4? Without the comparative image, you have no reference point and thus it means nothing other than cheap lenses can take good photos (which is a known fact).

I also think things like a "unique look" are not magic, but a blend of lens qualities that result in a pleasing image. While I did not engineer the 50L, if I had to guess the qualities that cause this it would be:
1) Slim DOF possible with f/1.2
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.
3) Realistic color and contrast

I would argue that the basic tenets used when making the Sigma (f/1.4 + correct as much aberration as possible through retrofocal design) would reduce the ability to get "that look" that the 50L/85L have as consistently. Not to say you can't make unique images with the Sigma as the f/1.4 does allow for some similar type shots, but if you compare to a 50L shot with the same lighting/same scene at f/1.2 there will be some differences - impossible for there not to be. Will you care about or notice the differences? That depends on each person who looks at it.

Additionally, the 50% extra light f/1.2 offers over f/1.4 is most definitely useful and shouldn't be ignored. I had a 50L at a reception last night and it was pegged at 1.2 most of the time because I was able to keep the ISOs down quite low - only time I narrowed the aperture was when I was close up and needed more DOF.

 

[RLPhoto]

Some can see the Unqiue look in lenses, others can't. (Lomo Petzval Lens is a good example.) I like the 50L's unique look to the other canon 50mm's and It matters more to the photographer than client. Most clients can't tell the difference between a 550D and 1Dx in print but it's the photographers job know the difference for them.

 

[privatebydesign]

Some can see the Unqiue look in lenses, others can't. (Lomo Petzval Lens is a good example.) I like the 50L's unique look to the other canon 50mm's and It matters more to the photographer than client. Most clients can't tell the difference between a 550D and 1Dx in print but it's the photographers job know the difference for them.

So far none of you photographers has managed to pick out that "unique look", which illustrates my point perfectly and the extent of your credibility.

I can understand the 50% more light than a 1.4, I can understand the "I only use 'the best'" mentality, I can understand the satisfaction of arriving and working with top of the range gear and I can understand people aspiring to own that gear and enjoying using it for what it is. I cannot understand this constant "unique look" bull that nobody can actually identify, sure people give esoteric descriptions of subtleties mere mortals just can't see, bless us and our poor blind deluded selves, but I hate the fact that when challenged by somebody with a bit of experience and confidence every single one of you aficionados baulks, then fails to identify images shot with that "unique look".

 

[RLPhoto]

Some can see the Unqiue look in lenses, others can't. (Lomo Petzval Lens is a good example.) I like the 50L's unique look to the other canon 50mm's and It matters more to the photographer than client. Most clients can't tell the difference between a 550D and 1Dx in print but it's the photographers job know the difference for them.

So far none of you photographers has managed to pick out that "unique look", which illustrates my point perfectly and the extent of your credibility.

I can understand the 50% more light than a 1.4, I can understand the "I only use 'the best'" mentality, I can understand the satisfaction of arriving and working with top of the range gear and I can understand people aspiring to own that gear and enjoying using it for what it is. I cannot understand this constant "unique look" bull that nobody can actually identify, sure people give esoteric descriptions of subtleties mere mortals just can't see, bless us and our poor blind deluded selves, but I hate the fact that when challenged by somebody with a bit of experience and confidence every single one of you aficionados baulks, then fails to identify images shot with that "unique look".

If I'm shooting both the 1.4 and 1.2, I will know what images were with the 1.2. I will see the difference and that translates to a look I want.

However, I don't expect someone like yourself who hasn't shown any images of artistic merit of your own to understand this viewpoint. Perhaps you can attempt to map that on a test chart somewhere to add some credibility to your portfolio.

 

[eninja]

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

Some can see the Unqiue look in lenses, others can't. (Lomo Petzval Lens is a good example.) I like the 50L's unique look to the other canon 50mm's and It matters more to the photographer than client. Most clients can't tell the difference between a 550D and 1Dx in print but it's the photographers job know the difference for them.

So far none of you photographers has managed to pick out that "unique look", which illustrates my point perfectly and the extent of your credibility.

I can understand the 50% more light than a 1.4, I can understand the "I only use 'the best'" mentality, I can understand the satisfaction of arriving and working with top of the range gear and I can understand people aspiring to own that gear and enjoying using it for what it is. I cannot understand this constant "unique look" bull that nobody can actually identify, sure people give esoteric descriptions of subtleties mere mortals just can't see, bless us and our poor blind deluded selves, but I hate the fact that when challenged by somebody with a bit of experience and confidence every single one of you aficionados baulks, then fails to identify images shot with that "unique look".

If I'm shooting both the 1.4 and 1.2, I will know what images were with the 1.2. I will see the difference and that translates to a look I want.

However, I don't expect someone like yourself who hasn't shown any images of artistic merit of your own to understand this viewpoint. Perhaps you can attempt to map that on a test chart somewhere to add some credibility to your portfolio.

Of course you could.... No wait, if we go back to the last time we did this you couldn't tell the difference between the 135 f2 and the 100 f2.8 when used for the same shoot, so why should we believe you now?

As for the rest of your comment, it is a cheap shot at trolling, not gonna play.

 

[privatebydesign]

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 don't rate it and didn't like it, but if you do then all power to you, get it and love the images.

 

[RLPhoto]

Some can see the Unqiue look in lenses, others can't. (Lomo Petzval Lens is a good example.) I like the 50L's unique look to the other canon 50mm's and It matters more to the photographer than client. Most clients can't tell the difference between a 550D and 1Dx in print but it's the photographers job know the difference for them.

So far none of you photographers has managed to pick out that "unique look", which illustrates my point perfectly and the extent of your credibility.

I can understand the 50% more light than a 1.4, I can understand the "I only use 'the best'" mentality, I can understand the satisfaction of arriving and working with top of the range gear and I can understand people aspiring to own that gear and enjoying using it for what it is. I cannot understand this constant "unique look" bull that nobody can actually identify, sure people give esoteric descriptions of subtleties mere mortals just can't see, bless us and our poor blind deluded selves, but I hate the fact that when challenged by somebody with a bit of experience and confidence every single one of you aficionados baulks, then fails to identify images shot with that "unique look".

If I'm shooting both the 1.4 and 1.2, I will know what images were with the 1.2. I will see the difference and that translates to a look I want.

However, I don't expect someone like yourself who hasn't shown any images of artistic merit of your own to understand this viewpoint. Perhaps you can attempt to map that on a test chart somewhere to add some credibility to your portfolio.

Of course you could.... No wait, if we go back to the last time we did this you couldn't tell the difference between the 135 f2 and the 100 f2.8 when used for the same shoot, so why should we believe you now?

As for the rest of your comment, it is a cheap shot at trolling, not gonna play.

Awww that's cute PBD because I remember almost everyone shutting you down on the 135L vs 100L. Both Factually and Artistically on how the 135L is the superior portrait lens.

But that's none of my business.

 

[privatebydesign]

Awww that's cute PBD because I remember almost everyone shutting you down on the 135L vs 100L. Both Factually and Artistically on how the 135L is the superior portrait lens.

Its not trolling if its true.

And it is true that you couldn't tell which was which from the same shoot.

 

[RLPhoto]

Awww that's cute PBD because I remember almost everyone shutting you down on the 135L vs 100L. Both Factually and Artistically on how the 135L is the superior portrait lens.

Its not trolling if its true.

And it is true that you couldn't tell which was which from the same shoot.

And it's True you've never actually shot both lenses XD XD XD!!!

 

[eninja]

Some can see the Unqiue look in lenses, others can't. (Lomo Petzval Lens is a good example.) I like the 50L's unique look to the other canon 50mm's and It matters more to the photographer than client. Most clients can't tell the difference between a 550D and 1Dx in print but it's the photographers job know the difference for them.

So far none of you photographers has managed to pick out that "unique look", which illustrates my point perfectly and the extent of your credibility.

I can understand the 50% more light than a 1.4, I can understand the "I only use 'the best'" mentality, I can understand the satisfaction of arriving and working with top of the range gear and I can understand people aspiring to own that gear and enjoying using it for what it is. I cannot understand this constant "unique look" bull that nobody can actually identify, sure people give esoteric descriptions of subtleties mere mortals just can't see, bless us and our poor blind deluded selves, but I hate the fact that when challenged by somebody with a bit of experience and confidence every single one of you aficionados baulks, then fails to identify images shot with that "unique look".

If I'm shooting both the 1.4 and 1.2, I will know what images were with the 1.2. I will see the difference and that translates to a look I want.

However, I don't expect someone like yourself who hasn't shown any images of artistic merit of your own to understand this viewpoint. Perhaps you can attempt to map that on a test chart somewhere to add some credibility to your portfolio.

Of course you could.... No wait, if we go back to the last time we did this you couldn't tell the difference between the 135 f2 and the 100 f2.8 when used for the same shoot, so why should we believe you now?

As for the rest of your comment, it is a cheap shot at trolling, not gonna play.

Pbd,

I do get the point you trying to make.

But but but.

Sometime you cant just tell the difference, or sometimes you can. But people wont believe you.
I am referring to portrait shots. I wish I can share the pictures.
People argue on what they see and believe in, we can not blame anyone.

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.

Well Pdb, if you can not see it. then look again.
In my case, im still in doubt, thats why I ask..
good to know others also see the difference.

 

[talicoa]

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

 

[vulie504]

Does the 35mm 1.4L have that "special" look that the 50 and 85 L give?

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Does the 35mm 1.4L have that "special" look that the 50 and 85 L give?

When I had it, it was probably my sharpest lens...and had a very smooth rendering of the background. The difference in a flower shot between that and my 24-105 was night and day. I think it was at that point that I realized that the lens you use really DOES make a difference in the end...

But as much as I liked it, I no longer have it. I just wasn't using it frequently enough...sold it and recently picked up the f2 IS version.

 

[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

My point was photography, by definition, is a visual medium. A lot of people talk a lot of bull that they just can't back up, I like to try to cut through some of that by demonstrating that these aficionados can't actually tell the difference between a good photo taken with a 50mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.2L. And they can't, they have demonstrated that time and time again.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to buy a 1.2 over a 1.8, but if you can't tell me which one was used to make an image don't try and tell me one of them has a "unique look", because if you can't tell, again by definition, it doesn't. Use any of the multiple other very good reasons to argue the case, not least of which is pride and confidence, two very important factors in lens use that are never considered by most.

Sure I get trolled and make myself unpopular, people don't like to be called out, but that doesn't alter the fact that if something has a "unique look" then those professing that should be able to pick it out of individual images, but they never can, am I the only one interested in why they can't?

 

[Standard]

i have been following this thread from day one and have refrained from commenting. Too many people here obsess over their gear and quite frankly, spend too much time in the forums, and not enough time out shooting. I am not gonna try to even make a comment about why the 50L is special or justify why it's a great lens but I will say this. I shoot daily with this lens. It has more than paid for itself, as have most, or all, of my lenses. If you love the 50mm focal length, then go out and buy a 50mm lens. I have a large collection of 50mm lens, including rare, vintage lenses. Each yields a different look and feel. I look at lenses Iike I look at paint brushes. They're simply tools. The more expensive, the better the tools they tend to be. That said, I also have a bunch of cheap, crappy brushes that I use and they too yield gorgeous results. It's all in how you use them. I care less about the technical specs and more about how they contribute to the whole process. For those that are interested, below are two examples taken with the 50L and the last two with vintage lenses (the Meyer Oreston Pentacon Auto MC 50mm f/1.8 and the Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 Early 8-Element):

Hello by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr

The Cobbler by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr

Untitled by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr

Blue Eyes by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr

 

[mackguyver]

i have been following this thread from day one and have refrained from commenting. Too many people here obsess over their gear and quite frankly, spend too much time in the forums, and not enough time out shooting. I am not gonna try to even make a comment about why the 50L is special or justify why it's a great lens but I will say this. I shoot daily with this lens. It has more than paid for itself, as have most, or all, of my lenses. If you love the 50mm focal length, then go out and buy a 50mm lens. I have a large collection of 50mm lens, including rare, vintage lenses. Each yields a different look and feel. I look at lenses Iike I look at paint brushes. They're simply tools. The more expensive, the better the tools they tend to be. That said, I also have a bunch of cheap, crappy brushes that I use and they too yield gorgeous results. It's all in how you use them. I care less about the technical specs and more about how they contribute to the whole process. For those that are interested, below are two examples taken with the 50L and the last two with vintage lenses (the Meyer Oreston Pentacon Auto MC 50mm f/1.8 and the Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 Early 8-Element):

Great shots and I agree, it's all about the results and the tools you use to achieve them. Having multiple lenses in a single focal length allows one to do that. Some of us love the 50L, others don't. What matters to me is the final photo and none of my clients have ever asked "What lens did you use?"