I'm guessing this will be like the 85 f/1.2, heavy and slow focusing, being used mostly in the studio. I'm not saying it will be a bad lens, just more of a specialty lens. Plus that price tag is daunting.
I think the 85 f1.2 is the penultimate portrait lens for a FF camera. I think the 50 f1.2 will be the ultimate portait lens for a 1.6 crop body. So far as weight and speed go I think you will be suprised. The 85 has a bunch of elements, and the focus travel is long and precise leading to heavy and slow (the MKI more than the MKII) A 50mm f1.2 is not a beastly large manual focus lens, and I doubt it will be a monster akin to the elusive and over zelous f1.0. A 'standard' angle of view lens is the easiest and simplest to build whereas a WA takes many elements to correct distortion and a telephoto many elements to keep sharpness across the frame. I think I read once that for each stop a lens is faster the size of the objective has to double. So by this I think the 50mm f1.2 will be 30% larger than the f1.4 and 60% larger than the plastic fantastic. I think what you can expect from the 50mm f1.2 is a lens with ZERO CA even wide open, perfect field flatness, no distortion, excellent saturation, and unbelievable edge sharpness from f1.8 and smaller. It is also a lens that is just as useable/desireable on a crop body as on a FF body, a lens that will be highly desireable, and comparatively cheap (when compared to the 85 f1.2 or 50 f1.0)
And Canon did it 30+ years ago. When I was purchasing my AT-1, I had a choice between their 50 1.8, a 1.4, or a 1.2. Even earlier, Canon had a 1.0 lens.
Nice to see a much more reasonable thread here. FM is kind of going berzerk over this lens...though it is funny to read.
Considering the 85/1.8 vs 85/1.2 prices, the 50/1.2 price seems about where you'd expect. I probably won't get one since for that money I can get a lot more use out of the 70-200/2.8IS on my wish list. However, I bet blurmore is on the right track here: this might be the holy grail for 1.6 body portraiture. I've played with one of the monster 85/1.2 7 it is a sweet lens, though a little long; knock that back to 50 (or effective 82) and you're right there.
Let's see if we can think of a way to justify the expense. Might be a good game.
The f/1.4 has a reputation of being soft fully open. The common advice is to stop down to f/2.8 or so and then you'll be happy. Perhaps this lens will perform better stopped down to f/1.4? Perhaps it will perform better at every f stop? For the money it should.
Hey, I'm just saying.
BTW, I love my f/1.2 85mm which I bought used from CMR a couple of years ago. It's a beast in more than one way and took me a while to grow into. But once I got the hang of it, I fell in love with it. It was especially great for those ballet performances.
Let's see if we can think of a way to justify the expense. Might be a good game.
The f/1.4 has a reputation of being soft fully open. The common advice is to stop down to f/2.8 or so and then you'll be happy. Perhaps this lens will perform better stopped down to f/1.4? Perhaps it will perform better at every f stop? For the money it should.
Hey, I'm just saying.
BTW, I love my f/1.2 85mm which I bought used from CMR a couple of years ago. It's a beast in more than one way and took me a while to grow into. But once I got the hang of it, I fell in love with it. It was especially great for those ballet performances.
I'm just stirring the pot today, John.
You know I love my 85f1.2 also. But ya gotta admit, 99% of the shots can be done with the 85 f1.8 equally as well and focus faster ( unless you are lucky enuff to get the new 85 f1.2 L II ) or have access to the Boston Ballet which I do not:D:D
I am sure I would love the 50mm f1.2, but the reality is that I shoot with the 24-70 or the 24-105 and almost never use my 50 f1.4 now. I doubt that the f1.2 50mm would change that for me.
Which is what, maybe 1/3 of an fstop?? Whhooo Haa! I can see the appeal.
That's pretty much the tone of the FM thread, only it's taking them 40+ pages to say it.
I'd like to see piccies from the lens. The measurebators are already predicting it will be soft in the corners.
For me, I suspect that this lens will fall into the same category as the 85 1.2 and the 200 1.8 - kinda cool, great results - but too expensive and specialized to belong in my ridiculously large collection of glass.
That's pretty much the tone of the FM thread, only it's taking them 40+ pages to say it.
Dont'cha love that thread? Some of them have already passed judgement on it based on little information other than possible price. Pretty amusing reading though.
I think the 85 f1.2 is the penultimate portrait lens for a FF camera. I think the 50 f1.2 will be the ultimate portait lens for a 1.6 crop body. So far as weight and speed go I think you will be suprised. The 85 has a bunch of elements, and the focus travel is long and precise leading to heavy and slow (the MKI more than the MKII) A 50mm f1.2 is not a beastly large manual focus lens, and I doubt it will be a monster akin to the elusive and over zelous f1.0. A 'standard' angle of view lens is the easiest and simplest to build whereas a WA takes many elements to correct distortion and a telephoto many elements to keep sharpness across the frame. I think I read once that for each stop a lens is faster the size of the objective has to double. So by this I think the 50mm f1.2 will be 30% larger than the f1.4 and 60% larger than the plastic fantastic. I think what you can expect from the 50mm f1.2 is a lens with ZERO CA even wide open, perfect field flatness, no distortion, excellent saturation, and unbelievable edge sharpness from f1.8 and smaller. It is also a lens that is just as useable/desireable on a crop body as on a FF body, a lens that will be highly desireable, and comparatively cheap (when compared to the 85 f1.2 or 50 f1.0)
:jawdrop Now even I want one - and I am already perfectly happy with the 1.4!
AH no... - hang on it will wheigh a ton, phew - I don't need it after all ( wipes sweat from brow)
Let's see if we can think of a way to justify the expense. Might be a good game.
The f/1.4 has a reputation of being soft fully open. The common advice is to stop down to f/2.8 or so and then you'll be happy. Perhaps this lens will perform better stopped down to f/1.4? Perhaps it will perform better at every f stop? For the money it should.
BTW, I love my f/1.2 85mm which I bought used from CMR a couple of years ago. It's a beast in more than one way and took me a while to grow into. But once I got the hang of it, I fell in love with it. It was especially great for those ballet performances.
The old 50mm/1.0 L wasn't exactly alot better than the current
50mm/1.4. It was actually dissapointingly soft wide open. If the
new 1.2 shows the same behaviour, then the high price is really
hard to justify.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
I think the 85 f1.2 is the penultimate portrait lens for a FF camera. I think the 50 f1.2 will be the ultimate portait lens for a 1.6 crop body. So far as weight and speed go I think you will be suprised. The 85 has a bunch of elements, and the focus travel is long and precise leading to heavy and slow (the MKI more than the MKII) A 50mm f1.2 is not a beastly large manual focus lens, and I doubt it will be a monster akin to the elusive and over zelous f1.0. A 'standard' angle of view lens is the easiest and simplest to build whereas a WA takes many elements to correct distortion and a telephoto many elements to keep sharpness across the frame. I think I read once that for each stop a lens is faster the size of the objective has to double. So by this I think the 50mm f1.2 will be 30% larger than the f1.4 and 60% larger than the plastic fantastic. I think what you can expect from the 50mm f1.2 is a lens with ZERO CA even wide open, perfect field flatness, no distortion, excellent saturation, and unbelievable edge sharpness from f1.8 and smaller. It is also a lens that is just as useable/desireable on a crop body as on a FF body, a lens that will be highly desireable, and comparatively cheap (when compared to the 85 f1.2 or 50 f1.0)
Hmmmmm....maybe I do need one! I rarely use my 85..it's just too long indoors. Would a 50 be a good size for group portraits, say 3-5 people?
Hmmmmm....maybe I do need one! I rarely use my 85..it's just too long indoors. Would a 50 be a good size for group portraits, say 3-5 people?
The 50mm has 46° angle of view (diagonal) the 85mm 28,5°, go figure.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
The math and science in this thread has me in stitches... Come on guys what is the diff in f-stops between f/1.2 and f/1.4 and it isn't ".2"
Well, technically a stop would be the difference between f/1.4 to f/2.8 which would make a f-number change of 0.2 equivalent to approximately 0.14 stops (relative to the f/1.4 lens and slightly higher relative to the f/1.2).
The price per stop would then be the difference in cost between the f/1.2L and f/1.4L over 0.14. That is:
($1300 for f/1.2 - $315 for f/1.4)/0.14 = $7035 per stop. Still expensive. :wow
Well, technically a stop would be the difference between f/1.4 to f/2.8 which would make a f-number change of 0.2 equivalent to approximately 0.14 stops (relative to the f/1.4 lens and slightly higher relative to the f/1.2).
The price per stop would then be the difference in cost between the f/1.2L and f/1.4L over 0.14. That is:
($1300 for f/1.2 - $315 for f/1.4)/0.14 = $7035 per stop. Still expensive. :wow
Erich (geeking out)
No No No Nope!! - it is one full f stop from f1.4 to f2.0 and another to f2.8.
From 1.4 to 1.0 is another stop wider, so f1.2 is half a stop faster than f1.4.
My Bad. Thanks for pointing this out CMR.
Glad to see you hanging around to keep us on the straight and narrow:):
Comments
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
It's exactly 0.2 better.
...$1,299 more expensive.
1,300/0.2=$6,500 per an f/stop
OUCH! When you break it down in those terms, it sounds less and less appealing!!! :uhoh
I used to be a university math professor for more than 10 years.
Math kinda helps you put things into a perspective....
SmugMug Technical Account Manager
Travel = good. Woo, shooting!
nickwphoto
How dramatically bigger f1.2 is than f1.4 .....
Olympus did it 25 years ago.....
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
looks like 30% larger
And Canon did it 30+ years ago. When I was purchasing my AT-1, I had a choice between their 50 1.8, a 1.4, or a 1.2. Even earlier, Canon had a 1.0 lens.
Correction: the 1.2 was 55mm. Source.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
"Last 10% cost 90%".
It's universal.
You can't fight it.
Welcome to the Dark Side! :-)
Considering the 85/1.8 vs 85/1.2 prices, the 50/1.2 price seems about where you'd expect. I probably won't get one since for that money I can get a lot more use out of the 70-200/2.8IS on my wish list. However, I bet blurmore is on the right track here: this might be the holy grail for 1.6 body portraiture. I've played with one of the monster 85/1.2 7 it is a sweet lens, though a little long; knock that back to 50 (or effective 82) and you're right there.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Which is what, maybe 1/3 of an fstop?? Whhooo Haa! I can see the appeal.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
The f/1.4 has a reputation of being soft fully open. The common advice is to stop down to f/2.8 or so and then you'll be happy. Perhaps this lens will perform better stopped down to f/1.4? Perhaps it will perform better at every f stop? For the money it should.
Hey, I'm just saying.
BTW, I love my f/1.2 85mm which I bought used from CMR a couple of years ago. It's a beast in more than one way and took me a while to grow into. But once I got the hang of it, I fell in love with it. It was especially great for those ballet performances.
H: Pssst. The math is right on, but the equation is slightly flawed.
J&H
I'm just stirring the pot today, John.
You know I love my 85f1.2 also. But ya gotta admit, 99% of the shots can be done with the 85 f1.8 equally as well and focus faster ( unless you are lucky enuff to get the new 85 f1.2 L II ) or have access to the Boston Ballet which I do not:D:D
I am sure I would love the 50mm f1.2, but the reality is that I shoot with the 24-70 or the 24-105 and almost never use my 50 f1.4 now. I doubt that the f1.2 50mm would change that for me.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I'd like to see piccies from the lens. The measurebators are already predicting it will be soft in the corners.
For me, I suspect that this lens will fall into the same category as the 85 1.2 and the 200 1.8 - kinda cool, great results - but too expensive and specialized to belong in my ridiculously large collection of glass.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Dont'cha love that thread? Some of them have already passed judgement on it based on little information other than possible price. Pretty amusing reading though.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
then buy one!
...pics..
:jawdrop Now even I want one - and I am already perfectly happy with the 1.4!
AH no... - hang on it will wheigh a ton, phew - I don't need it after all ( wipes sweat from brow)
...pics..
yes yes - keep going, Im listening
you taking pictures while doing ballet???
...pics..
50mm/1.4. It was actually dissapointingly soft wide open. If the
new 1.2 shows the same behaviour, then the high price is really
hard to justify.
duell of the fifties: 1.0 1.4 1.8:
http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/50mm/index.htm
― Edward Weston
Hmmmmm....maybe I do need one! I rarely use my 85..it's just too long indoors. Would a 50 be a good size for group portraits, say 3-5 people?
The 50mm has 46° angle of view (diagonal) the 85mm 28,5°, go figure.
― Edward Weston
Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
Well, technically a stop would be the difference between f/1.4 to f/2.8 which would make a f-number change of 0.2 equivalent to approximately 0.14 stops (relative to the f/1.4 lens and slightly higher relative to the f/1.2).
The price per stop would then be the difference in cost between the f/1.2L and f/1.4L over 0.14. That is:
($1300 for f/1.2 - $315 for f/1.4)/0.14 = $7035 per stop. Still expensive. :wow
Erich (geeking out)
No No No Nope!! - it is one full f stop from f1.4 to f2.0 and another to f2.8.
From 1.4 to 1.0 is another stop wider, so f1.2 is half a stop faster than f1.4.
My Bad. Thanks for pointing this out CMR.
Glad to see you hanging around to keep us on the straight and narrow:):
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
No.
Full stop differences would be (all figures rounded to 0.1):
f/1.0, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6...
Half stop differences would be:
f/1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0, 2.4, 2.8, 3.4, 4.0, 4.8, 5.6...
One third stop differences would be:
f/1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, 2.8, 3.2, 3.4, 3.6, 4.0, 4.5, 4.8, 5.0, 5.6...
The difference from 1.4 to 1.2 is one half stop.
http://www.robert-barrett.com/photo/exposure_calculator.html
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky