Something with 50mm L lens that make it different

[Sporgon]

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.

Not convinced. I agree with you about pulling some of our best images with the 50mm, but is it the L or is it the focal length and double gauze construction ?

 

[Deleted member 7828]

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.

Right...I was looking for a good 50mm lens, a good all-around 50mm lens. After an experience with Tamron I have decided to now stick to first-party (Canon) lenses, at least with my DSLRs. I'm still looking for that 50mm lens and haven't really found it yet.

I typically go for the best I can afford, and in this case the 50L was in my budget. But I tried it at the store and I just could not get a good shot with it. I had no problems with the 85L so I knew it wasn't the 1.2 that was holding me back, but the lens itself. Very frustrating lens to use...especially between 2.8 and 5.6 where it seemed to back-focus considerably. Then I tried the 1.4...much cheaper, decent where the 50 1.2 struggled...but mediocre below f2 (and I lamented its lack of sealing and fragile handling). Still wasn't convinced.

But after reading this discussion it kinda makes sense now. I consider myself to be more of the "technical" type of photographer - I like my shots sharp and well-exposed, at least that's what I go for...so I tend to pick lenses that make attaining that easier for me (the sharpness part, that is). If the 50 1.2 is indeed designed for more of an artistic flair (and I have seen some great shots from it), at the cost of some sharpness, that's probably why I hated it to begin with. The shots out of it were just a bit too soft for my liking, that's all. So, hopefully there'll be a 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4) IS on the way!

I compare that to the 85 which is sharp even at 1.2 (wow!) Plus its images have "that look" to boot...

 

[candc]

I know the 50l has some spherical aberration built in to its design that gives a certain look that most lenses won't under specific conditions. Nikon makes a 135 DC that has a control ring for that.

Now you got me going. All this controversy makes me want one now.

 

[CANONisOK]

To answer the question more seriously: I've owned all 3 of the current Canon 50mm lenses. The f/1.8 was great for the price. I liked the f/1.4 quite a bit more than the nifty fifty. The f/1.2 produced the pictures I liked the best. So, that's the one I kept.

I sincerely hope that meets with everyone's approval... I'd hate to be judged harshly for spending my money in such a foolish manner.

 

[sagittariansrock]

To answer the question more seriously: I've owned all 3 of the current Canon 50mm lenses. The f/1.8 was great for the price. I liked the f/1.4 quite a bit more than the nifty fifty. The f/1.2 produced the pictures I liked the best. So, that's the one I kept.

I sincerely hope that meets with everyone's approval... I'd hate to be judged harshly for spending my money in such a foolish manner.

I'd hate to be judged at all for spending my money

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Hey there Sporgon, thanks for trying. Both wrong.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Tom, I have never said that, I have repeatedly said there are several good reasons to buy the 1.2 over any other 50, what I have stuck to is the fact that not one person has correctly picked a 50 f1.2 image out of a gallery of 50mm images, I think that speaks very loudly by itself.

By definition how could it give a unique look if not one person can correctly distinguish it?

 

[eninja]

PBD

how about, you show us group of images, shot from different lens (50L and others), then we choose which group of photos belongs to which lens.

because we consider a few magical photos before we say that the photo came out unique not just consider one photo. And no post processing.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Yes and no, different calibration tools will return different absolute values, but the point is not as esoteric as that. If the flower was in sunlight it was being illuminated by anything between 2,500K-8,000K, if it was strobe lit it will be around 5,500K, most people calibrate their screens to 6,500K, the screen will have a different colour to the flower under both flash and most times of the day.

 

[privatebydesign]

Two words: weather sealing.

A very good and patently justifiable reason to get the 1.2L

 

[privatebydesign]

To answer the question more seriously: I've owned all 3 of the current Canon 50mm lenses. The f/1.8 was great for the price. I liked the f/1.4 quite a bit more than the nifty fifty. The f/1.2 produced the pictures I liked the best. So, that's the one I kept.

I sincerely hope that meets with everyone's approval... I'd hate to be judged harshly for spending my money in such a foolish manner.

My approval means nothing, even if you wanted it which you clearly don't, and I doubt if you are a fool

The 1.2L does several things better than any other 50, my only grip is with people who profess a "unique look" but can't actually identify it.

 

[privatebydesign]

PBD

how about, you show us group of images, shot from different lens (50L and others), then we choose which group of photos belongs to which lens.

because we consider a few magical photos before we say that the photo came out unique not just consider one photo. And no post processing.

How about you do? I made the discussion, I gave the demo that nobody, not one single person, has got close to right. 28 images, thousands of looks and one person got one right. Probability gets you 33% right, that means a blind person could have done a considerably better job of picking out the "unique look" than all you aficionados have so far.

 

[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.

Yes and no, different calibration tools will return different absolute values, but the point is not as esoteric as that. If the flower was in sunlight it was being illuminated by anything between 2,500K-8,000K, if it was strobe lit it will be around 5,500K, most people calibrate their screens to 6,500K, the screen will have a different colour to the flower under both flash and most times of the day.

So your point is that the colour of an object will change depending on circumstances. This has nothing to do with the objectivity of colour (whatever colour you see at any given moment can be measured).

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

Yes and no, different calibration tools will return different absolute values, but the point is not as esoteric as that. If the flower was in sunlight it was being illuminated by anything between 2,500K-8,000K, if it was strobe lit it will be around 5,500K, most people calibrate their screens to 6,500K, the screen will have a different colour to the flower under both flash and most times of the day.

So your point is that the colour of an object will change depending on circumstances. This has nothing to do with the objectivity of colour (whatever colour you see at any given moment can be measured).

You seem to be missing the point, if the screen isn't calibrated to the same colour as the original subjects illuminant then the colours can't match, and nobody changes screen profiles for every image. Yes you can measure the flowers reflectance value, and yes you can measure the screens illuminant value, but even if you make a custom camera profile for that shot and adjust your image until one shade is the same, if your screen is not calibrated to the original subjects illumination, then the other shades will not be the same.

This is where rendering intent becomes so important.

 

[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.

Hey there Sporgon, thanks for trying. Both wrong.

;D

Not surprised !

 

[Aglet]

I'll take a shot at that 50mm challenge but it sure has a lot like pickin' fly-specs out of a pepper pile.

My best guesses using very limited clues in the images:

Canon 50/1.4 shots: girl in hallway, dog, doll with book, girl bottom left
Canon 50/1.2 L shots: leaf in centre, B&W whisk, blonde girl in dry grass, girl bottom right

unspecified shots, like the closeups in the upper and middle R side or top left could be 50/1.2 L or anything really.


EDIT: forgot to add, that's from the untitled 2 tile.

the untitled 1 tile only the girl on the escalator strikes me as likely a 50/1.4 lens shot, maybe the one below it as well.
all the others don't show enough info to differentiate much so I'll just guess:


50/1.2; barley field, horse muzzle, guitar, kid 2nd from top on right,
50/1.4; roses, girl w umbrella top left, possibly the others not stated above.


score me, PBD.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I'll take a shot at that 50mm challenge but it sure has a lot like pickin' fly-specs out of a pepper pile.

My best guesses using very limited clues in the images:

Canon 50/1.4 shots: girl in hallway, dog, doll with book, girl bottom left
Canon 50/1.2 L shots: leaf in centre, B&W whisk, blonde girl in dry grass, girl bottom right

unspecified shots, like the closeups in the upper and middle R side or top left could be 50/1.2 L or anything really.

score me, PBD.

both the girls look the same, and neither look like 50L
the leaf is clearly photoshopped
IMO the whisk and the girl in the bottom with the blowing blossoms are 50L, and maybe the bottom right as well
but having never owned a 50L, even if I am right that is just by excluding those which don't seem likely

 

[notapro]

I'll take a guess at one photo. The plant (grass?) at far top right of the set, above the flower and to the right of the young woman in the pink dress. The colors seem a bit muted, but this guess will be as good as any other I might make.

Is that one shot with the 50 1.2L?

 

[privatebydesign]

Aglet, sagittariansrock and notapro, thanks for your guesses.


I'll post the correct answers tomorrow.

Aglet:- out of your 14 guesses off the two sheets, 4 are correct.
sagittariansrock:- I am not certain which two girls you mean, sorry. The leaf is not a composite, if that is what you meant by photoshopped. If I score you on your two firm guesses it will tell anybody else what was used, but I will post the answers later.
notapro: Same as sagittariansrock, if I say yes or no to one image it tells anybody interested what that one is or isn't, so you'll have to wait a little longer.

 

[talicoa]

PBD,
OK, One right wasn't good enough. Here are some better answers where I actually downloaded the files and looked closer last night. My hit ratio may go down, but my total correct should go up, because I made more guesses.
For a lot of these they are so manipulated in post it is pretty hard to tell the difference. But as I have been saying, that isn't a valid reason, for a lot of people, why not to get the 50 1.2L.

Girl W/ Umbrella 50 1.2L
Leaves W/ Ants 50 1.8
Red Haired Young Person 50 1.4
Flower 50 1.2L
Tall Grass 50 1.4
Young Boy Smiling 50 1.4
Escalator Girl 50 1.2L
Horse Nose 50 1.8
Girl Looking up 50 1.2 but Looks like a tilt shift, odd plane of focus.
Woman looking at roof. Manipulated in post or tilt shift.
Guitar Strings 50 1.4
Flower Petals 50 1.4

Images#2
Grass 50 1.2L
Girl in Mall 50mm 1.2L
Girl in front of lake 50mm 1.2L
Weeds 50mm 1.2L
Figurine reading book 50mm 1.2L
Maple Leaf 50mm 1.8
Orchid 50mm 1.8
Whisk 50mm 1.4
Girl with Spiky hair 50mm 1.8
Backlit girl 50mm 1.4
Small dog 50mm 1.4
Girl on mirror 50 Stopped down. Impossible to tell.