Options
Review: Canon 50mm f/1.2L
I received my 50 f/1.2L yesterday, from my good friends at Tallyn's. Review Here. This lens had been rumored since May of 2005. Canon finally began shipping to dealers this week. I'd shot with one about a month ago, but it was a CPS lens, and so I made no review observations from that copy.
Size, Weight, Feel, Build. It's bigger than the f/1.4 - but you know that. It's not obnoxiously heavy like the bloated beast, the f/1.0. It's more compact-looking and -feeling that I had thought it would be. It feels quite good in hand, balances nicely on the 5D I've been shooting with. The build us pure Canon L. It's smooth, sexy, weather sealed and rugged. The focusing moves internally, though there's not a static front element - the entire works move as you focus. The hood is bayonet mount.
Autofocus: The measurebators are having a field day over this lens. It backfocuses! It frontfocuses! Well, this lens is spot-on for focus, and no, I don't use a ruler, I shoot at something, and if the focus is where I expected it to be, the lens is good. I will be perfoming some real-life tests on AF with this lens as soon as possible. My early observation is that it's faster than the f/1.4 (thankfully!).
Vignetting: This lens is a light sucking machine. But remember, any giant-aperture lens like this will vig when wide open. You'll notice it in some scenes, in other scenes you won't notice it at all. In all cases, vignetting is easily adjusted for in Camera Raw. So, vignetting is something that never bothers me. On this lens, vignetting is no more and no less than I've experienced on Canon's 85 f/1.2. Notes: vignetting will be much less on a 1.6x body. Vignetting is near zero once stopped down to f/2.
Chromatics: CA is well controlled here. Note the extreme examples in the review. I'm waiting for bright overcast sky condition, then I will shoot some outdoor shots, with tree branches. That's a very good situation for CA to appear.
Bokeh: It's delish. Smooth and creamy. Out of focus areas disappear into dreamy nothing-ness. There are reports on the net about the lens, at f/1.2, producing "cat-eye" specular highlights, when you'd expect them to be rounded. The answer to this is, "yes, it can/does." At f/1.2, there can be these shapes. There can also be round shapes. Here's an example. I suppose it has to do with the shape of the object, the way the light reflects from that object and is received/processed by the lens. It's not unheard of in these types of optics, here's an 85 f/1.8 @ f/1.8, showing both round and "cat-eye" shaped out of focus specular highlights.
Compared to Canon's 50 f/1.4 Yes, I did some comparison shots. Have a look in the gallery. The 50 f/1.2L is sharper, at it's widest aperture of f/1.2, than the 50 f/1.4 is at it's widest, f/1.4. This is what I had hoped and I'm pleased to see it.
Summary: Solid build, excellent mechanics, operation, feel, balance. Not overly heavy, as one might expect. Autofocus is faster than the 50 f/1.4, and it is accurate. Not blazing fast though. Color and contrast are excellent - as you'd expect. Bokeh is creamy smooth. Odd "cutting-off" of the out of focus specular highlights, a serious flaw. CA control is average wide open, quite good stopped down. Sharpness - OK wide open, little, if any, difference to the 50 f/1.4 wide open.
Conclusion: This is a lens for folks that need to shoot in the dark, and can't afford to trade ISO or shutter speed, and use a lens that is 1/5th the price, Canon's 50mm f/1.4. No doubt, it can produce great photographs, and many folks, including portraitists, PJs and lens connoisseurs, will benefit from this glass. Me? I'll stick with my 50 f/1.4. I so much wanted this lens to be really great. Canon has missed the boat with this much-hyped lens, and the fact that it sells for $1,600 USD, when there is an alternative for $300 that's for all intents and purposes, just as good, well, just twice about it folks.
Edit: September 2008: I have decided to own this lens after all, and a big reason is the low light performance and sharpness on the Canon 5D II with HD Video
Review, is here: http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2217311
Size, Weight, Feel, Build. It's bigger than the f/1.4 - but you know that. It's not obnoxiously heavy like the bloated beast, the f/1.0. It's more compact-looking and -feeling that I had thought it would be. It feels quite good in hand, balances nicely on the 5D I've been shooting with. The build us pure Canon L. It's smooth, sexy, weather sealed and rugged. The focusing moves internally, though there's not a static front element - the entire works move as you focus. The hood is bayonet mount.
Autofocus: The measurebators are having a field day over this lens. It backfocuses! It frontfocuses! Well, this lens is spot-on for focus, and no, I don't use a ruler, I shoot at something, and if the focus is where I expected it to be, the lens is good. I will be perfoming some real-life tests on AF with this lens as soon as possible. My early observation is that it's faster than the f/1.4 (thankfully!).
Vignetting: This lens is a light sucking machine. But remember, any giant-aperture lens like this will vig when wide open. You'll notice it in some scenes, in other scenes you won't notice it at all. In all cases, vignetting is easily adjusted for in Camera Raw. So, vignetting is something that never bothers me. On this lens, vignetting is no more and no less than I've experienced on Canon's 85 f/1.2. Notes: vignetting will be much less on a 1.6x body. Vignetting is near zero once stopped down to f/2.
Chromatics: CA is well controlled here. Note the extreme examples in the review. I'm waiting for bright overcast sky condition, then I will shoot some outdoor shots, with tree branches. That's a very good situation for CA to appear.
Bokeh: It's delish. Smooth and creamy. Out of focus areas disappear into dreamy nothing-ness. There are reports on the net about the lens, at f/1.2, producing "cat-eye" specular highlights, when you'd expect them to be rounded. The answer to this is, "yes, it can/does." At f/1.2, there can be these shapes. There can also be round shapes. Here's an example. I suppose it has to do with the shape of the object, the way the light reflects from that object and is received/processed by the lens. It's not unheard of in these types of optics, here's an 85 f/1.8 @ f/1.8, showing both round and "cat-eye" shaped out of focus specular highlights.
Compared to Canon's 50 f/1.4 Yes, I did some comparison shots. Have a look in the gallery. The 50 f/1.2L is sharper, at it's widest aperture of f/1.2, than the 50 f/1.4 is at it's widest, f/1.4. This is what I had hoped and I'm pleased to see it.
Summary: Solid build, excellent mechanics, operation, feel, balance. Not overly heavy, as one might expect. Autofocus is faster than the 50 f/1.4, and it is accurate. Not blazing fast though. Color and contrast are excellent - as you'd expect. Bokeh is creamy smooth. Odd "cutting-off" of the out of focus specular highlights, a serious flaw. CA control is average wide open, quite good stopped down. Sharpness - OK wide open, little, if any, difference to the 50 f/1.4 wide open.
Conclusion: This is a lens for folks that need to shoot in the dark, and can't afford to trade ISO or shutter speed, and use a lens that is 1/5th the price, Canon's 50mm f/1.4. No doubt, it can produce great photographs, and many folks, including portraitists, PJs and lens connoisseurs, will benefit from this glass. Me? I'll stick with my 50 f/1.4. I so much wanted this lens to be really great. Canon has missed the boat with this much-hyped lens, and the fact that it sells for $1,600 USD, when there is an alternative for $300 that's for all intents and purposes, just as good, well, just twice about it folks.
Edit: September 2008: I have decided to own this lens after all, and a big reason is the low light performance and sharpness on the Canon 5D II with HD Video
Review, is here: http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/2217311
0
Comments
Andy,
Sounds great! Looking forward to the image samples.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Sorry Richard, that's not true. It's the quality of the out-of-focus areas. It can have points of light, sure, or it can just be smooth and creamy and buttery oh-so-good
By the way, we covered this once before, you and I, here. I'm wondering why you don't believe me
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I could have used it as I dined this evening. I would have been able to show
the beauty of such dishes as scallops or perhaps the lamb chops or
maybe even Paella Rustica.
I can't move.
Oh, that thing has buttery sweet bokeh!
http://milan.smugmug.com
http://500px.com/macmilan
twitter: @milanovec
Hahahahaha my memory is garbage. I very vividly remembered that thread as me saying bokeh is the quality of the out of focus areas and you telling me that it had to have points of light. I didn't want to drag up that thread because I didn't want to show that you were contradicting yourself. Hahahahaha I'm an idiot. Well...still I'd be interested to see how it handles out of focus points of light.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Hmmm, I'm not a fan of that. For some reason the out of focus points of light coming out of that lens seem more bold and defined (relative to the rest of the image) than out of other 1.2 (well...Nikkor 1.2 AIS) and 1.4 lenses I have seen.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
"Osprey Whisperer"
OspreyWhisperer.com
I'm impressed, the f1.2L seems sharper than the f1.4 lens both at f1.2 and f1.4.
If the shots are unprocessed without sharpening or contrast added, I don't think the difference would not be noticable after post processing but unlike the 50mm f1.0L that Canon made in the past that was too soft, this lens seems very sharp.
I still don't think it's worth the money though.
I completely agree. The Canon pricing guys are smoking some seriously good stuff here, to price this lens at $1,600. It's not worth 5 times the 50 f/1.4. Nope.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Setup: One camera, one lens, and one roll of film.
It's nearly One Thousand Three Hundred dollars more. :uhoh
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I appreciate getting the straight dope from someone who knows what they are doing and tells it like it is.
Personally, I could *never* afford one so it was actually very comforting to know that the 'old' 50 f/1.4 will suffice for my needs.
Thanks again, for your efforts...
Anthony
Thats just about all the money in my acct right now
Setup: One camera, one lens, and one roll of film.
What can it do that the f/1.4 cannot?
Not much, IMO. You'll get 1/3 stop (or 1/2, depending on your point of reference), which means you can shoot at ISO 1250 instead of 1600 maybe. But with today's great high-ISO performance, does it really matter? Is that worth $1300? To some, sure, I suppose. To the majority of us, no, I don't think so.
It'll give you a bit creamier bokeh and smoother OOF areas. But not $1300 worth of that, IMO. It'll focus a bit faster. It'll be sharper at most apertures (but the 50 1.4 is pretty darn sharp!). It produces less purple fringe but more strange green fringe around specular highlights.
I woke up today, very angry at Canon for coming out with this lens, thinking about all the development and manufacturing dollars that could have been spent on a sharp wide L prime @ 18mm or 21mm. :pissed
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Remember the trip to the library? Would it have been any different with this lens?
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Well, isn't that answer then? As far as I can tell, P.J. (and studio to a lesser extent) is Canons real pro marketing focus. They think the 16-24 covers the wide thing for this market. Landscape just isn't a priority for them. And once you put the camera on a tripod, well you can stitch multiple images, do HDR, all kinds of things.
Not to say it wouldn't be great to have better fast ultra wide from them. It's just that you can understand what they were thinking. Yes?
It's already on the way back
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter