# the future of 1.2 L lenses ?



## steliosk (Sep 17, 2013)

hi all

I've purchased 5D3 over the 6D, and the main reason was the accurate AF with fast lenses.

I've worked several crop bodies in the past but the FF world plus the accurate AF system delivers something way beyond and solves many many problems such as DOF and focus accuracy.

With that said, i've tested yesterday an EF 85mm f/1.8 at 1.8 on 5D3 and on some EOS Rebel bodies, where this lens failed focusing accurately on the rebels, but focused perfectly with 5D3.

However i'm building a new system and i want to add some lenses but i'm concerned about the age and the quality.
I'm talking about the 50L and the 85L where the price is way up in comparison to 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 which can be focused VERY properly with 5D3, but however the 3D look of those L are unbeatable. I suppose that justify the cost.

Those L lenses are build somewhere in 2005-2006 i think, is there any word out there about replacements?
There are many complains about the 50L softness at 1.2 and the slow USM moter of 85L

Don't get me wrong, i know the idea of "if you need something now, get it now" but i'm not kinda in the rush.
I shoot weddings and this season is over for me so i was thinking about next year.

I just hate to make a move and buy one of them now and a new model like 50L II comes out soon and fixing the softness and stuff. That'll make me feel like an idiot.. who wouldn't?

thanks for your time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2013)

Both lenses are pretty young for L-series lenses, so I would not expect replacements anytime soon.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 17, 2013)

Do your homework and buy refurbished/used/new with rebate at a good price. You can't control when new versions of lenses will come out or their prices (most likely higher) but you can control how much you would lose. And if you lose $100 or less on buying/selling a lens, then it's well within the amount that it'd cost to rent it for a week, which isn't bad at all.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 17, 2013)

If new versions come out, they will carry a much stiffer price tag. That has been the case with all their predecessors. The 2nd hand market will drop slightly, but not much. I also agree with Neuro. It is not likely that they will be replaced in the near future.
The two lenses you're listing are amongst my favourites. The 85 gets all the credit it deserves, but some make more noise about the AF speed than it deserves. It is very slow at close range, but OK when you get normal working distance. Optically it is stunning. The 50 and the 35/1.4L are often critizised for softness wide open. All I can say is; Look at the images that come out of these lenses. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I am confident that you will be very happy with them for many years.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 17, 2013)

steliosk said:


> I just hate to make a move and buy one of them now and a new model like 50L II comes out soon and fixing the softness and stuff. That'll make me feel like an idiot.. who wouldn't?
> 
> thanks for your time.



You should have just bought a 6D. It's newer than the 5D3, thus the 5D3 will become obsolete first. Since you don't like your 50L anymore, you should consider renting it out or something. Perhaps sell it.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 17, 2013)

[/quote]

You should have just bought a 6D. It's newer than the 5D3, thus the 5D3 will become obsolete first. ...
[/quote]

The 5DIII is a much better camera, especially when the issue is focus accuracy at f1.2. He made the right decision.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 17, 2013)

You should have just bought a 6D. It's newer than the 5D3, thus the 5D3 will become obsolete first. ...
[/quote]

The 5DIII is a much better camera, especially when the issue is focus accuracy at f1.2. He made the right decision.
[/quote]

At f/1.2 focus accuracy is only going to be so accurate. There's not that much difference. The 5D3 is not a much better camera, where image quality is concerned. In fact it's less better.


----------



## spacetimeroger (Sep 17, 2013)

The motors in the 50 Ls (going all the way back to the 50/1.0 L days), and 85 Ls have never been speed demons, and won't likely ever be - that's a lot of heavy glass to move around in there... The design(s) are also much older than you might think..."2005-2006" doesn't tell the whole story. The 85/1.2 I came out in 1989...the mk II came out more recently, but optically it's not very different - the motor is updated and the coatings are updated...that's really about it. Go back to the Canon FD days and the FD 85/1.2 isn't terribly different from the current EOS version given the amount of time that has elapsed since then.

I doubt we're going to see super-overhauls of these lenses for quite some time...if ever. There's only so much you can do with lenses this fast in terms of getting wide open sharpness or focusing speed.

Even the $10K Leica Noctilux 50/.95 isn't perfect, so it's pretty unlikely that you're going to see a major improvement to what are already very good lenses at a price that is anywhere in reach of a typical human being. 

So no, they aren't perfect, and likely will never be - but if you buy one of the current ones, you'll have the best autofocus, 35mm frame-size 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2 lenses ever made on planet Earth. So that's pretty good. (The Leica 50/.95, and the Zeiss 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 manual focus anniversary editions made for 35mm Contax might be slightly better...maybe.)


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 17, 2013)

The 85mm L will not stop taking great pictures if a new version is released.

I wouldn't expect a replacement for several years. Even if announced today it might be a year or two away.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 17, 2013)

spacetimeroger said:


> The motors in the 50 Ls (going all the way back to the 50/1.0 L days), and 85 Ls have never been speed demons, and won't likely ever be - that's a lot of heavy glass to move around in there... The design(s) are also much older than you might think..."2005-2006" doesn't tell the whole story. The 85/1.2 I came out in 1989...the mk II came out more recently, but optically it's not very different - the motor is updated and the coatings are updated...that's really about it. Go back to the Canon FD days and the FD 85/1.2 isn't terribly different from the current EOS version given the amount of time that has elapsed since then.
> 
> I doubt we're going to see super-overhauls of these lenses for quite some time...if ever. There's only so much you can do with lenses this fast in terms of getting wide open sharpness or focusing speed.
> 
> ...



Very interesting historical perspective, thank you! Also glad to see someone mention the Leica Noctilux...


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 17, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> The 85mm L will not stop taking great pictures if a new version is released.
> 
> I wouldn't expect a replacement for several years. Even if announced today it might be a year or two away.



+1, and whenever there is a replacement, expect it to cost ~40% more.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 17, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> At f/1.2 focus accuracy is only going to be so accurate ...



That´s the main point. If you are looking to get the f1.2 lenses, you should have the best available AF, to cope with the very shallow DOF. And if you can´t afford the 1DX, then 5DIII is next in line.


----------



## distant.star (Sep 17, 2013)

.
I probably know (and care) less about these kinds of issues than anyone here. But two things would seem to preclude any near-term upgrade of these lenses:

1. They are satisfactory performers in almost every regard. Their optical characteristics, as OP has suggested, are well in line with current sensors.

2. Canon seems to have too much on its plate right now to fuss with things that are already going well enough. They're doing lenses for the M line. They're doing lenses for the cinema line. They're changing standard lenses over to STM for the consumer market. They are said to be looking at a medium format venture that will require new lenses. With all that going on, I'd say they'll be leaving the 50L and 85L alone for at least several years.

And, having said that, they'll probably announce upgrade to both lenses the day after tomorrow!

As I've said many time, looking into the mind of Canon is like staring at the sun hoping to see a single hydrogen atom. You'll never see that atom, and you'll go blind trying.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 17, 2013)

Eldar said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > At f/1.2 focus accuracy is only going to be so accurate ...
> ...



The problem is, the best autofocus available is only going to do so much with such shallow depth of field. If we were talking a supertelephoto lens at a daytime sporting event, then yes the 5D3 would very much be the better camera. But for these slow AF portrait lenses, there's not that much advantage to having those 60 AF points. One or more of them might pick something you don't want it to focus on...so if you're going to limit the points in use, on a stationary or slow moving subject (person)...then there isn't really an AF advantage with the 5D3, in my opinion. Indeed there might be a disadvantage in very low light...and certainly there is no significant image quality advantage at low ISO, and really none at all at higher ISO.

He would be better off at least buying a 6D as his "second" camera, rather than worrying about f/1.2L lens obsolescence on his existing and highly compromised-IQ crop bodies...using them as his second body(s). This whole thread is rather silly (L lens obsolescence).


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 17, 2013)

distant.star said:


> .
> I probably know (and care) less about these kinds of issues than anyone here. But two things would seem to preclude any near-term upgrade of these lenses:
> 
> 1. They are satisfactory performers in almost every regard. Their optical characteristics, as OP has suggested, are well in line with current sensors.
> ...



+1 and very well said. Are the atoms that make up the glowing plasma on the sun's surface hydrogen? I guess they are...sorry to get too literal, haha.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 17, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> The problem is, the best autofocus available is only going to do so much with such shallow depth of field. If we were talking a supertelephoto lens at a daytime sporting event, then yes the 5D3 would very much be the better camera. But for these slow AF portrait lenses, there's not that much advantage to having those 60 AF points. One or more of them might pick something you don't want it to focus on...so if you're going to limit the points in use, on a stationary or slow moving subject (person)...then there isn't really an AF advantage with the 5D3, in my opinion. Indeed there might be a disadvantage in very low light...and certainly there is no significant image quality advantage at low ISO, and really none at all at higher ISO.
> 
> He would be better off at least buying a 6D as his "second" camera, rather than worrying about f/1.2L lens obsolescence on his existing and highly compromised-IQ crop bodies...using them as his second body(s). This whole thread is rather silly (L lens obsolescence).



Yes, I loved getting the ear or nose in focus when using the 5D II's outer points with fast glass when aimed at the eye, or relying on spray and pray for a still object.

The 5D III gives you more freedom in composing the image because the camera still autofocuses accurately using outer points. And AI servo is useable with the outer points as well which makes it much easier photographying young kids whose "sitting still" is not still.


----------



## steliosk (Sep 17, 2013)

Eldar said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > At f/1.2 focus accuracy is only going to be so accurate ...
> ...



that is why i chose 5D3 over the 6D. Plus the ergonomics. ok the 6D is probably a stop better at high ISO, but i really needed the dual card and the AF system of 5D. I've searched it a lot, even here in canonforum before i make a decision on which camera should i buy.

Anyway, i tried the 85 1.8 at 1.8 and it focus accurately. So i'm thinking the f/1.2 would make a perfect combo with the AF of 5D3.

and as much as i read there will be no successors to these lenses any time soon, so i'm going for it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2013)

Eldar said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > At f/1.2 focus accuracy is only going to be so accurate.
> ...



^^ This. AF point accuracy is determined by the 'baseline' - an f/2.8 line is more accurate than an f/4 line, which is in turn more accurate than an f/5.6 line. If your subject happens to be near the center of the frame, the 5DIII has five f/2.8 cross-type, dual-orientation points there, the 6D has...one f/2.8 single orientation line (and a less accurate f/5.6 cross). If your subject is near a rule-of-thirds intersection, the 5DIII has a cross-type dual-orientation point with an f/4 line and an f/5.6 line, and the 6D has...no AF point at all near the rule-of-thirds intersection (the closest AF point is an f/5.6 single-orientation line), and not having an AF point on your subject means focus-recompose, and that means backfocus at f/1.2. 



CarlTN said:


> There's not that much difference. The 5D3 is not a much better camera, where image quality is concerned. In fact it's less better.



I don't consider a misfocused shot to have better image quality than a properly focused shot. There's more to capturing an image than the sensor (and the difference between the image sensors is less than the difference between the AF sensors).


----------



## asmundma (Sep 17, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Agree.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 17, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> ^^ This. AF point accuracy is determined by the 'baseline' - an f/2.8 line is more accurate than an f/4 line, which is in turn more accurate than an f/5.6 line. If your subject happens to be near the center of the frame, the 5DIII has five f/2.8 cross-type, dual-orientation points there, the 6D has...one f/2.8 single orientation line (and a less accurate f/5.6 cross). If your subject is near a rule-of-thirds intersection, the 5DIII has a cross-type dual-orientation point with an f/4 line and an f/5.6 line, and the 6D has...no AF point at all near the rule-of-thirds intersection (the closest AF point is an f/5.6 single-orientation line), and not having an AF point on your subject means focus-recompose, and that means backfocus at f/1.2.


 
What is the baseline of a 70D in liveview? Does the lens aperture actually matter? I'm waiting to see some comparisons of focus accuracy with fast lenses versus the older PDAF.

So far, I've read Brian's review in TDP, and recall that he noted that AF in liveview was not as accurate based on the number of keepers he had while photographing a horse show.

I wonder if the technology is so limited by the manufacturing tolerances and the tiny baseline that is incredibly small.

Maybe I misunderstand how the baseline works in a 70D live autofocus.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> What is the baseline of a 70D in liveview? Does the lens aperture actually matter?
> 
> Maybe I misunderstand how the baseline works in a 70D live autofocus.



I haven't come across a detailed enough technical discussion to feel that I knwo enough about how the technology works, so all I can really do is speculate...

The narrower the aperture, the smaller the physical separation between the two parts of the phase detector - the halves of an f/2.8 line are much further apart (they're at the edges of the AF sensor) than the halves of an f/5.6 line. But the pixel density of the sensor line itself also plays a role (that's how some 1-series bodies achieve f/8 AF). The fact that PDAF works with max apertures as narrow as f/11 suggests a small baseline...but Canon's graphics imply that the baseline is a single pixel, and I don't think that's possible. Rather, I suspect small, physically separate pixel arrays are used as the phase detection elements, and the baseline is variable based on the max aperture of the lens in use. That would mean the baseline is appropriate for the max aperture, widely spaced for f/2.8, closely spaced for f/11. I wonder if they can also vary it based on the position, and have an even wider baseline for fast primes when the focus point is central in the frame?


----------



## pwp (Sep 18, 2013)

Eldar said:


> If new versions come out, they will carry a much stiffer price tag. That has been the case with all their predecessors. The 2nd hand market will drop slightly, but not much.


Sometimes the opposite can apply because the new lens is premium priced, and thus dragging the outgoing models price upward in its expensive slipstream. Case in point is the 24-70 f/2.8. When the new 24-70 MkII shipped at around $2300 the used price for the MkI 24-70 f/2.8 jumped by a few hundred dollars. 

-pw


----------



## Chris Jankowski (Sep 18, 2013)

I would predict that we may never see F1.2 updates to the current 50L and 85L.

Originally the main driver for the design of F1.2 lenses was low light photography in the film days. Remember ISO 64 films? F1.2 lenses gave you a fighting chance to take a photo in low light on film.

This need is gone. You can get now serviceable results at ISO 12,800, which means 250 times shorter exposure time at the same aperture opening.

Shallow DOF was just an optical side effect. But who really needs 2 cm DOF that 85mm gives you at f1.2 with 1.5 meters distance. It really gets in a way most of the time.

The disadvantages of F1.2 lenses are known - huge amount of glass translating into large mass, size, cost and slower AF. You can't just plonk bigger motor in to improve AF speed, as there are available power restrictions.

So, if we see 50L and 85L redone in the future, they may be between F1.4 and F2.0, but sharp as a tack from corner to corner from full opening, weather sealed, smaller and with IS and fast AF. They won't be cheaper though -)).

I believe that in this form they would be generally more useful for modern FF digital cameras then the current models. I certainly would consider them then.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 18, 2013)

Chris Jankowski said:


> I would predict that we may never see F1.2 updates to the current 50L and 85L.
> 
> Originally the main driver for the design of F1.2 lenses was low light photography in the film days. Remember ISO 64 films? F1.2 lenses gave you a fighting chance to take a photo in low light on film.
> 
> ...


No doubt, someday Canon 50mm L will be updated. However, in the face of modern cameras with ISO 6400 pretty good, people will buy F1.2 only by shallow DOF, and not by the lack of light. Canon should be afraid of a future 50mm F1.4 IS with better sharpness wide open, will cannibalize sales of 50L, but if Canon do not, Sigma will do. I think Canon 85L would have a replacement even better, making a Canon 85mm F1.4 IS, which would be lighter and could have autofocus much faster. Again, Canon will be required to do if Sigma do one with great quality.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 18, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> Yes, I loved getting the ear or nose in focus when using the 5D II's outer points with fast glass when aimed at the eye, or relying on spray and pray for a still object.
> 
> The 5D III gives you more freedom in composing the image because the camera still autofocuses accurately using outer points. And AI servo is useable with the outer points as well which makes it much easier photographying young kids whose "sitting still" is not still.



The 6D's AF is quite a bit better than the 5D2's, like it or not. The 6D has no problem with focus accuracy with the outer points. It's just that they can have more trouble locking focus in a short amount of time, due to them not being cross type. To each their own.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't consider a misfocused shot to have better image quality than a properly focused shot. There's more to capturing an image than the sensor (and the difference between the image sensors is less than the difference between the AF sensors).



Neither do I. But the 6D is more than a sensor, and its AF is superior to the 5D2's, which sold for a $1k higher price than the 6D has sold for during most of its initial year on the market. Therefore the 6D is a fantastic camera for the price, period.

The price of the 5D3 is mostly the difference between the AF sensors, and a good bit of faster/more processing...and a whopping 1.5 frames per second of extra multi-shooting. But like it or not, in most situations you simply have to try to upset the 6D's AF sensor to make it misbehave...*which is something you might take pleasure in...in order to goad 6D users...*but owners of this camera are happy to work around its shortcomings...and we get fantastic images doing so...most of which are in focus. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it can only grow so big before it pops. 

I have to ask though, do you own a 5D3? If you like it so much, you really should buy one, and sell that crappy 7D of yours. It's not like the cost is going to set you back that much. You already own the 1DX, so I have to wonder why you are so in favor of the 5D3, when you didn't even feel the need to buy one for yourself?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I don't consider a misfocused shot to have better image quality than a properly focused shot. There's more to capturing an image than the sensor (and the difference between the image sensors is less than the difference between the AF sensors).
> ...



I was comparing two contemporary cameras, the 5DIII and 6D, not a 5-year old camera that has been replaced. But yes, the 6D is a fantastic camera, for it's price. My Subaru is a fantastic car for its price, as well. It can go through over a foot of snow on the driveway, with drifts as high as the hood of the car, if I need to get out before the plow service comes. It even has heated seats to keep my butt warm. But a well-equipped Volvo (5DIII) would be better, and a well equipped Mercedes (1D X) would be better still. The point is, while the Subaru meets my needs as a car, the 6D does not meet my needs as a camera.



CarlTN said:


> The price of the 5D3 is mostly the difference between the AF sensors, and a good bit of faster/more processing...and a whopping 1.5 frames per second of extra multi-shooting. But like it or not, in most situations you simply have to try to upset the 6D's AF sensor to make it misbehave...*which is something you might take pleasure in...in order to goad 6D users...*but owners of this camera are happy to work around its shortcomings...and we get fantastic images doing so...most of which are in focus. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it can only grow so big before it pops.



A *33%* increase in frame rate (plus a more durable shutter) and a _much_ better AF sensor are significant improvements. "Try to upset the 6D's AF sensor to make it misbehave?" Yes, how dare I try to take images of running children and expect good tracking? My 5DII couldn't do it very well, and despite it's 'AF superior to the 5D2', the 6D isn't really any better at it. I don't think that upsets the 6D's AF nearly as much as complaints about the 6D upset you. 



CarlTN said:


> I have to ask though, do you own a 5D3? If you like it so much, you really should buy one, and sell that crappy 7D of yours. It's not like the cost is going to set you back that much. You already own the 1DX, so I have to wonder why you are so in favor of the 5D3, when you didn't even feel the need to buy one for yourself?



No, I don't own a 5DIII, although I've used one. Since we're talking about AF, the 5DIII is very relevant, since it has the same AF sensor as the 1D X, and it's more affordable which as you know is an important consideration for many people. I sold my 7D quite some time ago, it doesn't offer any advantages over the 1D X, for me. But it was a very good camera. A year ago, calling the 7D 'crappy' on this forum was sure to draw out a response from the staunch defenders of 7D awesomeness. Those folks are quiet these days, but their spirit lives on in the staunch defender (or defenders, if there's more than one) of the 6D. 

I see no need to buy a 5DIII, as I have no plans to carry two cameras around routinely, and the EOS M is more convenient as an emergency backup. Since I prefer a gripped body, and the gripped 5DIII is larger, heavier, and less comfortable to hold than the 1D X, if I absolutely needed a second body, I'd get a second 1D X. But the 5DIII is an excellent camera, great IQ _and_ great AF performance.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 18, 2013)

Amen


----------



## Eldar (Sep 18, 2013)

Just for the records, I have both the 5DIII and 1DX and I am very happy with both. The 1DX is clearly a better camera though. 
I also bought a 6D/24-105 kit for my sister, which I played with for 2 weeks before she got it. It produces stunning pictures and is clearly a lot of camera for the money. But, when using the very fast primes, you need very accurate focusing and the AF system of the 6D cannot compete with the 5DIII/1DX. 

Prior to my current bodies, I had the 1DsIII and 5DII. I was extremely happy with both at the time I got them. But objectively, the 6D would compare very favorably to those two and probably beat them in most areas. In a couple of years we will get the 5DIV and 1DXI and then we will (probably) discuss how much better they are than the current generation.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 18, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Just for the records, I have both the 5DIII and 1DX and I am very happy with both. The 1DX is clearly a better camera though.
> I also bought a 6D/24-105 kit for my sister, which I played with for 2 weeks before she got it. It produces stunning pictures and is clearly a lot of camera for the money. But, when using the very fast primes, you need very accurate focusing and the AF system of the 6D cannot compete with the 5DIII/1DX.
> 
> Prior to my current bodies, I had the 1DsIII and 5DII. I was extremely happy with both at the time I got them. But objectively, the 6D would compare very favorably to those two and probably beat them in most areas. In a couple of years we will get the 5DIV and 1DXI and then we will (probably) discuss how much better they are than the current generation.



Agreed, we certainly will.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> I was comparing two contemporary cameras, the 5DIII and 6D, not a 5-year old camera that has been replaced. *But yes, the 6D is a fantastic camera, for it's price. *  My Subaru is a fantastic car for its price, as well. It can go through over a foot of snow on the driveway, with drifts as high as the hood of the car, if I need to get out before the plow service comes. It even has heated seats to keep my butt warm. But a well-equipped Volvo (5DIII) would be better, and a well equipped Mercedes (1D X) would be better still. The point is, while the Subaru meets my needs as a car, the 6D does not meet my needs as a camera.



Glad we can agree on something! It's amusing you compare the 5D3 to a Volvo, thanks for that!


----------



## cayenne (Sep 18, 2013)

I just put in an order to lensrental.com for the 50L f/1.2

I'm actually going to need it for a video shoot with the 5D3 this weekend (see other thread about shooting in dark places like bars)....

I'm anxious to see how it works for video, and I'm getting it for 7 days and shooting stills too. I've been wanting this lens, so this is a good chance to try it out.

I've hear the main problem with this lens is a *back-focusing* problem.

Can someone describe to me what exactly this problems is...how it happens and what I should look for when shooting stills with it to see if I see this happening and how to avoid or shoot around it?

I'm guessing this isn't a problem shooting video with it, since that is all manual focus....but I'd really appreciate a nice primer on what to look for in the backfocusing I've read about....

Thanks!!

cayenne


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2013)

cayenne said:


> I just put in an order to lensrental.com for the 50L f/1.2
> 
> I'm actually going to need it for a video shoot with the 5D3 this weekend (see other thread about shooting in dark places like bars)....
> 
> ...



It's not really a back focus issue, but rather *focus shift*. No issue when shooting wide open, but when you stop down a bit, the focal plane shifts backward. This occurs because AF is done wide open, then the lens is stopped down as the shot is taken - you're correct that it will have no effect in manually focused video, _as long as you're focusing in Live View_. 

The issue is most evident with very close subjects, and is mitigated as you stop down to the point where the deeper DoF overcomes the focus shift.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 18, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > I just put in an order to lensrental.com for the 50L f/1.2
> ...



Thank you (as usual) for the excellent info and explanation!!


Is there a set of distances vs f/stops where the focus shift classically happens for everyone on this lens, or does it vary a bit from lens/camera combo to lens/camera combo?

I have the 5D3 that I'll be pairing with it. Is there any way to avoid this focus shifting other than not shoot as x feet with f/x.y ?

Thanks in advance,

C


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 19, 2013)

cayenne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...



You should be able to make the camera autofocus during live view while shooting video. At least...I have done it with the 6D (the 5D3 should work similarly should it not?). It helps if you are shooting a situation where the ambient noise overwhelms the noise from the lens focus motor.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 19, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Sorry, I was talking two separate issues....

I was asking my questions about how to avoid focus shifting when shooting stills.

For my video needs this weekend, I'll be shooting fully manual focus through LiveView.

Hmm..I didn't think the 5D3 had autofocus with video...?

C


----------



## Skirball (Sep 19, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I was comparing two contemporary cameras, the 5DIII and 6D, not a 5-year old camera that has been replaced. *But yes, the 6D is a fantastic camera, for it's price. *  My Subaru is a fantastic car for its price, as well. It can go through over a foot of snow on the driveway, with drifts as high as the hood of the car, if I need to get out before the plow service comes. It even has heated seats to keep my butt warm. But a well-equipped Volvo (5DIII) would be better, and a well equipped Mercedes (1D X) would be better still. The point is, while the Subaru meets my needs as a car, the 6D does not meet my needs as a camera.
> ...



To each their own. If my needs are for a rally car, I'll take the Suby over the Volvo or Merc any day of the week.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 19, 2013)

Skirball said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Speaking of rally cars...the only channel on directv that seems to show any of WRC now is 214, and that's in standard def...very soft and letterboxed. Now that Speed channel has gone extinct, it's time for someone else to make a new speed channel and do it right this time!


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 19, 2013)

steliosk said:


> There are many complains about the 50L softness at 1.2 and the slow USM moter of 85L



Doesn't matter, since Nikon doesn't build f1.2 lenses for their system Canon will keep them coming  ... no matter if f1.2 with current sensors is really necessary or how many people actually are able to focus them wide open.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Doesn't matter, since Nikon doesn't build f1.2 lenses for their system Canon will keep them coming  ... no matter if f1.2 with current sensors is really necessary or how many people actually are able to focus them wide open.



...or how much Canon has to secretly push the ISO to compensate for light lost due to the extreme oblique angle of light from an f/1.2 lens, especially since higher sensor pixel density means more push is needed.


----------



## steliosk (Sep 20, 2013)

The only reason to buy 1.2 glass is the DOF!

the f/1.2 world is way too different than the f/2.8...

many thanks for your answers!


----------



## Fleetie (Sep 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't matter, since Nikon doesn't build f1.2 lenses for their system Canon will keep them coming  ... no matter if f1.2 with current sensors is really necessary or how many people actually are able to focus them wide open.
> ...


No, you're not getting away with that, Neuro!

In an earlier thread, you objected to my saying something like "secretly" about this issue, by retorting that it is explained in some documentation somewhere (I forget the link), and is therefore not a secret.

You can't have it both ways. Stop sitting on the fence. Make your mind up, and stay with it!


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 20, 2013)

Fleetie said:


> No, you're not getting away with that, Neuro!



I do sympathize imagining his conflict, I really do - being a Canon gear collector and brand loyalist means one should be inclined to be understanding of Canon's policy, at least up to some point that might change over time or between forum posts 

Btw where's the documentation what Canon is doing with iso & the f1.2 lenses?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2013)

Fleetie said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Marsu42 said:
> ...



You mean this thread? I wasn't objecting to you calling it sneaky, it is - Canon, Nikon and Sony certainly don't publicize it. But Canon _doing it_ secretly doesn't mean it's really a secret. My point (objection, if you like) in that thread was the lack of novelty - someone observed the phenomenon on one thread, you replicated it, but it wasn't news - DxOMark had previously quantified the effect (on multiple brands) and published the data. Next up on new discoveries - when you focus your lens on a close subject, you're getting a shorter focal length than printed on the barrel. We can run out and do a bunch of tests to confirm that......but it might be easier to just Google "focus breathing". 

Marsu42, the DxOMark data are here.


----------



## Marsu42 (Sep 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42, the DxOMark data are here.



Thanks a lot, that's really interesting... 

... 1/2 stop isn't that much so fast lenses are still a valid design vs. f2.8, but this might be part of the answer why Canon recently uses IS primes instead of f1.4 - I doubt a lot of people know about this issue.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2013)

It's funny I was searching for that data just the other day.

There used to be two core reasons for f1.2 lenses, light gathering, at which they always made huge image quality compromises, and very narrow depth of field. With modern iso capabilities the light gathering aspect has become less important, but the ultra narrow dof is as important as ever. Canon have always delighted in their lens selection and the speciality lenses have always been a key component of their lens system. I don't see the f 1.2's going anywhere, interesting that they have come out with a $5,000 CN-E 35 T1.5 before an EF 35mm f1.4 MkII.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 20, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> It's funny I was searching for that data just the other day.
> 
> There used to be two core reasons for f1.2 lenses, light gathering, at which they always made huge image quality compromises, and very narrow depth of field. With modern iso capabilities the light gathering aspect has become less important, but the ultra narrow dof is as important as ever. Canon have always delighted in their lens selection and the speciality lenses have always been a key component of their lens system. I don't see the f 1.2's going anywhere, interesting that they have come out with a $5,000 CN-E 35 T1.5 before an EF 35mm f1.4 MkII.



Is the CN-E the same optical formula as the 35L (with focus breathing removed) or is it better?


----------



## meli (Sep 20, 2013)

There are also other issues related to fast lenses and bayer sensors, CA for example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/6147351879/#


----------

