Now we see through a glass, darkly...
- Apr 5, 2016
What I originally said was:Thanks for the lecture, Mikey, though we all know this. Your initial, and quite mistaken, claim wasn't about lens designs but lenses themselves. I'm kind of insulted that you think the readership of this forum would forget your initial thesis and applaud your scrambling attempt to support it, but no, we can scroll up and see what you were initially talking about. When you're caught out wrong, just admit it and learn something. Don't double down on stupid.
"The EF 50mm f/1.2 was not primarily designed to be the sharpest lens around. It was designed to do other things, because back then most folks cared more about how the actual photos they took looked than how sharp they could take a photo of a flat test chart. Some of us still do, but the flat test chart lenses are what sell now, even if the out of focus areas don't look near as good as some of the older lenses do."
Nothing I've said since backs away from that in any way. It was not designed to be a Macro lens. Canon already had plenty of Macro lenses when the EF 85mm f/1.2 L ( and later EF 85mm f/1.2L II) was introduced. Flat field performance was not the overriding design feature that lens was created to meet. Disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. If Canon had wanted to create an 85mm lens with superior flat field performance they'd already previously demonstrated rather well that they could have done so. They didn't, ergo that was not what they created the 85/1.2 to do.