The much anticipated tilt shift gets reviewed
“So in the end we have a unique lens, which has capabilities beyond anything else currently on the market (Nikon's PC-E 24mm F3.5D ED comes close, but has the tilt axis fixed with respect to shift). It's certainly an improvement on its predecessor, with better optics (especially in terms of chromatic aberration), improved build, and of course more flexible movements. Against this is the high price, which is almost twice that of the older lens; but to be fair, it's only about 10% higher than the Nikon equivalent, and certain to drop once stocks of the older lens have sold out. But for Canon users who need the capabilities of a tilt and shift lens, and understand how to make the most of them, this lens will almost certainly not disappoint.”
There you have it. A glowing review.
I can't wait to get my hands on this lens!
Full Review: DPReview
cr
40 Comments
Surely a 1.2 doesn’t have to be used at its widest aperture though? If the DOF is too shallow reduce the aperture. The difference between the 1.2 and the 1.4 is that it will get ‘sharper’ at wider apertures, given that no lens is sharpest at its widest they all benefit from being stopped down.
Not sure what “those AF are pretty horrible” means in this context though. “AF (autofocus) at those apertures is pretty horrible”, possibly?
A fast-aperture lens is usually less sharp than a slower-aperture lens at the same f-stop.
ie. At f/1.4, Canon’s 50mm f/1.4 should be sharper at f/1.4 than the 50 f/1.2 lens. That is, if Canon is designing lens carefully… ;o)
Check this site, you’ll find useful information about optics and lens design :
http://www.imx.nl/photo/index.html
its okay, but how many times you use f1.4? i think its still too shallow, i use maximum f1.8, but mostly from f2.2, i think that is the proper value for the AF accuracy of the 50mm f1.4
and i dont think there is noticeable difference between 50mm f1.2L at f1.4 and 50mm f1.4 at f1.4 in sharpness, maybe in vignetting and contrast (in contrast the L version is slightly better) thats why i think a 50mm f1.4L will be lovely, smaller, ligter, and more contrast than the 50mm f1.4 (and way less CA whit the new coatings (and less less less flare, i think it is the biggest problem of the lens and the ring type usm)
Awesome, thanks!
The coatings have nothing to do with CA
The purple fringing and that sort of CA that it has a lot of near wide open well that needs a full APO design to get rid of which would mean they would have to do away with the very simple, inexpensive design and raise the price a bit (granted a $650 1.4L would be a lot nice for most people than the 1.2L monster, I think)
Anyway it needs a new AF system badly, the clutch-type micro-USM is a disaster in all respects, not precise at all and 1.4 NEEDS precision and very prone to breakdown (I’ve seen copies with a bad clutch straight out the box, new, even). Even the same design but just with a proper ring USM for just a few bucks more would be awfully welcome! But I guess they rather try to push the L on everyone (not that most 1.4 users go for it though….)
Anyway a 50mm 1.4 with ring USM, a new 17-40, new 24-70 IS (both f/2.8 and f/4 versions) would be nice.
It is nice to see this new TS-E though