# Something with 50mm L lens that make it different



## eninja (Jul 18, 2014)

i was comparing image taken by 50mm 1.2 L vs 1.4 version.
There something about the image produce by 1.2 L that makes it Wow factor for me.

Like it has something to do with the color and amount of sharpness and gradient balance of depth of field.

Can someone give me insight what the hell is it im liking with the 50mm 1.2 L?


----------



## candyman (Jul 18, 2014)

eninja said:


> i was comparing image taken by 50mm 1.2 L vs 1.4 version.
> There something about the image produce by 1.2 L that makes it Wow factor for me.
> 
> Like it has something to do with the color and amount of sharpness and gradient balance of depth of field.
> ...




Did you not just mentioned it yourself....."the color"....."gradient balance of depth of field" (bokeh)
And...sharpness...I assume that is center sharpness since corner and extreme corner are softer due to 1.2


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 18, 2014)

Asked and answered!


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 18, 2014)

eninja said:


> Can someone give me insight what the hell is it im liking with the 50mm 1.2 L?


Those of us that own and love the 50L can, but the naysayers will be here soon enough... For me, it's the color, contrast, and shallow DOF. It doesn't really show up on test charts, but there is something about the photos it produces - which is all that really matters.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Jul 18, 2014)

The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a great documentary and photojournalist lens. It works great starting at about f/2.0 and really shines at f/4-f-8, especially in black and white. It will do passable work at f/1.4-f/1.8 and is very cost effective for that work. 

But for those looking for images that rely more on artistic expression, the EF 50mm f/1.2 is the far better lens. Wedding photographer? Environmental portraitist? Those photographers will find the color, contrast, bokeh, etc. all add up to a better image for their purposes much, if not most of the time.

I have owned both, and still currently have the 1.4 version. It was one of the first EF lenses I bought way back in the early 90's. I still have my original copy of that lens and it is still going strong, contrary to all the reports of how fragile it can be. Treat it nicely and it will work for a long, LONG time. 

If the 50mm played more in my wedding and portrait shooting, I would have the L version for sure. As the OP asks, I can confirm there is just something "more" about the images I got out of the one I had for a while, when compared to images from my 1.4 version. In my estimation, it is the combination of all performance aspects that create that look. It's almost like that's what the Canon engineers were trying to do! ;-)


----------



## bereninga (Jul 18, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> The EF 50mm f/1.4 is a great documentary and photojournalist lens. It works great starting at about f/2.0 and really shines at f/4-f-8, especially in black and white. It will do passable work at f/1.4-f/1.8 and is very cost effective for that work.
> 
> But for those looking for images that rely more on artistic expression, the EF 50mm f/1.2 is the far better lens. Wedding photographer? Environmental portraitist? Those photographers will find the color, contrast, bokeh, etc. all add up to a better image for their purposes much, if not most of the time.



Wow, this is pretty much on point. I was never able to really put my finger on the difference until this!


----------



## GammyKnee (Jul 18, 2014)

50mm is becoming a really important focal length for me. Right now I've got the 1.4 (good to hear it can last if treated carefully!) but spend most of my time shooting at the bigger apertures, so obviously I keep thinking about either the 50L or possibly the new Sigma. I've looked through lots of shots taken with the 1.4, the 50L and the Sigma, and to my eyes (and in the right hands) the 50L can produce a look that the others can't quite match. It may be as much to do with its weaknesses as its strengths.

Think I going to have to try renting it before splashing the cash though; seems to be a bit of a "marmite" lens!


----------



## alexturton (Jul 18, 2014)

For me it's color and skintone rendition. 

It's the same feeling I get with my 24 1.4 ii and 24 70 ii.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 18, 2014)

Yes, the 50L is my favorite lens. It has a timeless rendition to it that you cannot explain with an MTF chart or sharpness test.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruined said:


> It has a timeless rendition to it that you cannot explain with an MTF chart or sharpness test.



I love that phrase! Mind if I use it in the Sigma 50 classic cult?

Join the cult here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21328.0


----------



## Ruined (Jul 18, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > It has a timeless rendition to it that you cannot explain with an MTF chart or sharpness test.
> ...



Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruined said:


> drmikeinpdx said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



Sorry, mythbuster alert.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=647.msg412040#msg412040


----------



## Ruined (Jul 18, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, it is reserved for f/1.2 and faster lenses only
> ...



Since when was the Sigma 50 being incapable of f/1.2 a myth?


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Jul 18, 2014)

Ruined said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



He was making the point (successfully, I might add) that most can't tell the difference between the Canon 1.2 and most other 50mm lenses in just about all real-world and practical situations. All that "wow it's just so different" bla bla is usually post-hoc judgement once a person knows what lens created the image.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Yes, this.


----------



## bperrey (Jul 18, 2014)

All but one of my lenses are L-type, except for my 50mm f1.4, which produces super images that I have taken up to 13x19" with great sharpness and color, easily the equal in most respects to L lenses in nearby focal lengths, and in most normal exposures, the equal of the 50mm f1.2L.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 20, 2014)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Then, those "most" aren't looking very closely.

If you are trying to argue there are diminishing returns the more expensive the glass gets, then yes, this is true. Even the $99 50mm f/1.8 can put out some fantastic images.

But, the statement that the Sigma 50 1.4 / Canon 50L look the same is blatantly false. When put side-by-side, there are several areas that are immediately noticeable. First, the obvious, the Sigma has less depth of field control as f/1.4 can't render DOF as thin as f/1.2; this is very basic physics that no amount of downplaying can counter. Second, the Sigma has a strong red push; some may like this, personally I think they make the pictures look less realistic and oversaturated. Third, the Canon 50 intentionally has more uncorrected spherical aberration, as lens designers have found this leads to more pleasing bokeh; the Sigma 50 instead corrects these aberrations as this looks better on a test chart. Fourth, the Canon 50 can allow in 50% more light for better ISO performance in low light than the Sigma 50 (again physics). Then there are of course intangibles, but there is no point in going there in terms of this debate.

If you want the best bang per buck, the Canon lenses under $400 are hard to beat. But, some think it is worth it for the rendition the more expensive L lenses offer. What stop you get off on the "good enough" train is purely a personal or professional choice.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 20, 2014)

Ruined said:


> CarlMillerPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



Ruined, 

Take as long as you like, download the 2500px images, look as closely as you can with your critical and experienced eye and tell me which of the examples I posted were shot with the 50 f1.2. You won't be able to, nobody can, unless they cheat. One person had the guts to rise to the challenge and got one right, guessing would be more accurate. The differences between 1.2 and 1.4 are so small that in individual shots it is impossible to say which is which, besides, even a minor crop to an f1.4 shot gives you an f1.2 shot anyway.

There are small differences between the lenses, and there are good reasons for buying one over the other, even the f1.2, but the constantly shouted "unique look" clearly doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 20, 2014)

PBD,

I agree with your point in the other thread. What is truly interesting, and there are tons of people claiming it has a unique look vs. the other lenses and yet NO ONE has risen to the challenge and identified which lens for which photo. In the other thread one person claimed that there was "clearly a unique look of color and contrast that sets it apart from the other 50mm lenses" yet that person had no attempt or answer of identifying which photo was taken with which lens. 

Very interesting.

I think it's the internal sense of justification of purchasing something. When I buy something for $1699 or whatever I need to internally validate the purchase and I need to hear from others that yes, it was worth it, especially if I'm insecure about the purchase. It's the same as recommending gear. People tend to think that the gear they bought is best for everyone else, because it was best for them. I did buy the 50L and used it for over a year and was trying to pry at my photos to justify it. I admitted that I couldn't, sold it, and kept the 50 f/1.4.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 20, 2014)

No one took the challenge because it is meaningless. It is like trying to compare two sets of speakers using entirely different songs. You could mix in the Otus, Noctilux, and nifty fifty and get great pictures all around as like I said earlier diminishing returns are there. Without the same scene and lighting comparing lenses is pointless as you don't know how much more appealing it could have looked.

side by side the differences are there as outlined in my previous post; whether you appreciate them or not is a different story.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 20, 2014)

Unfortunately I never really had a great comparison. Most of my 50L shooting days were before the 5D3 was out, and so most of them were done on a 1Ds3. I got the 5D3 and that was consequently about the time I sold the 50L and began shooting with the 50 f/1.4 a lot more. Oh well...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 20, 2014)

Ruined said:


> No one took the challenge because it is meaningless. It is like trying to compare two sets of speakers using entirely different songs. You could mix in the Otus, Noctilux, and nifty fifty and get great pictures all around as like I said earlier diminishing returns are there. Without the same scene and lighting comparing lenses is pointless as you don't know how much more appealing it could have looked.
> 
> side by side the differences are there as outlined above; whether you appreciate them or not is a different story.



That is misdirection of the worst sort. There are so many claims the lens has a "unique", "special", "distinct" look that those distinctions should be readily apparent in images, but clearly they are not. We don't shoot images with two same focal length lenses then ask the client which they prefer, we shoot what are hopefully compelling images with the lenses we have. That a particular image might have had fractionally different oof blur, less dof etc if it were shot with another lens is moot if you can't tell which was used anyway. Compelling images with minimal dof and very smooth oof blur can be shot with three of the Canon 50's and the Sigma's. Digital post processing clouds old film lens characteristics like contrast and colour such that they are irrelevant too, add in this weeks favourite post process and the differences become undetectable even by "experts".

As I have consistently said, there are good reasons for choosing one lens over another, even the 1.2L, but lets stop the bull about unique look when nobody can actually back it up.


----------



## candc (Jul 20, 2014)

> As I have consistently said, there are good reasons for choosing one lens over another, even the 1.2L, but lets stop the bull about unique look when nobody can actually back it up



The lens does look unique. You have to admit, the extra jumbo fatness and the red ring on the front look pretty cool?


----------



## Ruined (Jul 20, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > No one took the challenge because it is meaningless. It is like trying to compare two sets of speakers using entirely different songs. You could mix in the Otus, Noctilux, and nifty fifty and get great pictures all around as like I said earlier diminishing returns are there. Without the same scene and lighting comparing lenses is pointless as you don't know how much more appealing it could have looked.
> ...



For the Nth time, I agree more expensive gear has diminishing returns - but posting random images taken with each lens without the same scene/lighting on other lenses really does mean nothing. For instance, you can shoot a $350 Canon 50mm f/1.4 wide open and have some spectacular images... But would they have looked *more* unique/better/etc on the Canon 1.2 at f/1.2 or f/1.4? Without the comparative image, you have no reference point and thus it means nothing other than cheap lenses can take good photos (which is a known fact).

I also think things like a "unique look" are not magic, but a blend of lens qualities that result in a pleasing image. While I did not engineer the 50L, if I had to guess the qualities that cause this it would be:
1) Slim DOF possible with f/1.2 
2) Enough spherical aberration to soften the image a bit and make it look more "dreamy," but not too much as to make it blurry.
3) Realistic color and contrast

I would argue that the basic tenets used when making the Sigma (f/1.4 + correct as much aberration as possible through retrofocal design) would reduce the ability to get "that look" that the 50L/85L have as consistently. Not to say you can't make unique images with the Sigma as the f/1.4 does allow for some similar type shots, but if you compare to a 50L shot with the same lighting/same scene at f/1.2 there will be some differences - impossible for there not to be. Will you care about or notice the differences? That depends on each person who looks at it.

Additionally, the 50% extra light f/1.2 offers over f/1.4 is most definitely useful and shouldn't be ignored. I had a 50L at a reception last night and it was pegged at 1.2 most of the time because I was able to keep the ISOs down quite low - only time I narrowed the aperture was when I was close up and needed more DOF.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 21, 2014)

Some can see the Unqiue look in lenses, others can't. (Lomo Petzval Lens is a good example.) I like the 50L's unique look to the other canon 50mm's and It matters more to the photographer than client. Most clients can't tell the difference between a 550D and 1Dx in print but it's the photographers job know the difference for them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Some can see the Unqiue look in lenses, others can't. (Lomo Petzval Lens is a good example.) I like the 50L's unique look to the other canon 50mm's and It matters more to the photographer than client. Most clients can't tell the difference between a 550D and 1Dx in print but it's the photographers job know the difference for them.



So far none of you photographers has managed to pick out that "unique look", which illustrates my point perfectly and the extent of your credibility.

I can understand the 50% more light than a 1.4, I can understand the "I only use 'the best'" mentality, I can understand the satisfaction of arriving and working with top of the range gear and I can understand people aspiring to own that gear and enjoying using it for what it is. I cannot understand this constant "unique look" bull that nobody can actually identify, sure people give esoteric descriptions of subtleties mere mortals just can't see, bless us and our poor blind deluded selves, but I hate the fact that when challenged by somebody with a bit of experience and confidence every single one of you aficionados baulks, then fails to identify images shot with that "unique look".


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Some can see the Unqiue look in lenses, others can't. (Lomo Petzval Lens is a good example.) I like the 50L's unique look to the other canon 50mm's and It matters more to the photographer than client. Most clients can't tell the difference between a 550D and 1Dx in print but it's the photographers job know the difference for them.
> ...


If I'm shooting both the 1.4 and 1.2, I will know what images were with the 1.2. I will see the difference and that translates to a look I want. 

However, I don't expect someone like yourself who hasn't shown any images of artistic merit of your own to understand this viewpoint. Perhaps you can attempt to map that on a test chart somewhere to add some credibility to your portfolio.


----------



## eninja (Jul 21, 2014)

This was my basis for starting this thread: 

Few months ago i rented 50 1.2 L.

Recently, I have invested lens average lens, 35mm f2 IS, 40mm and 85mm 1.8,
I also have tried 24-105, 16-35 f2.8 and 24-70 2.8. I used to have 28 1.8.

looking at the pictures taken from these lenses. I always go back to the pictures taken by 50 1.2 L. Even at smaller apertures, the 50 1.2 L produces the wow effect (not all pictures, but most of them).

To be honest, i have not personally tried ef 50 1.4. only look at pictures on line.

Thus I post this thread and see how people like the 50 1.2 L.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Of course you could.... No wait, if we go back to the last time we did this you couldn't tell the difference between the 135 f2 and the 100 f2.8 when used for the same shoot, so why should we believe you now?

As for the rest of your comment, it is a cheap shot at trolling, not gonna play.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2014)

eninja said:


> This was my basis for starting this thread:
> 
> Few months ago i rented 50 1.2 L.
> 
> ...



I don't rate it and didn't like it, but if you do then all power to you, get it and love the images.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Awww that's cute PBD because I remember almost everyone shutting you down on the 135L vs 100L. Both Factually and Artistically on how the 135L is the superior portrait lens.

But that's none of my business.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Awww that's cute PBD because I remember almost everyone shutting you down on the 135L vs 100L. Both Factually and Artistically on how the 135L is the superior portrait lens.
> 
> Its not trolling if its true.



And it is true that you couldn't tell which was which from the same shoot.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Awww that's cute PBD because I remember almost everyone shutting you down on the 135L vs 100L. Both Factually and Artistically on how the 135L is the superior portrait lens.
> ...


And it's True you've never actually shot both lenses XD XD XD!!!


----------



## eninja (Jul 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Pbd,

I do get the point you trying to make. 

But but but.

Sometime you cant just tell the difference, or sometimes you can. But people wont believe you.
I am referring to portrait shots. I wish I can share the pictures. 
People argue on what they see and believe in, we can not blame anyone.

Remind me an instance. I am sure the color of petals is near to orange but she insist its near to red.
thus the argument. I can not give up because its really near to orange than red. but she insist sees otherwise.
maybe we are both correct, its how we see it.

Well Pdb, if you can not see it. then look again.
In my case, im still in doubt, thats why I ask.. 
good to know others also see the difference.


----------



## talicoa (Jul 21, 2014)

PBD,
So what is the point of your comments, and those in the other thread? Should we all be saving money and not renting/buying/shooting the L lens? The only way you will convince me of this is by showing me the same scene shot with the different lenses in question, wide open and with no post processing. If it is a complex scene with some depth and some small points of light in it. I guarantee I could tell the difference. 

Anyone have multiple 50mms to do a test?

Tom


----------



## vulie504 (Jul 21, 2014)

Does the 35mm 1.4L have that "special" look that the 50 and 85 L give?


----------



## Act444 (Jul 21, 2014)

vulie504 said:


> Does the 35mm 1.4L have that "special" look that the 50 and 85 L give?



When I had it, it was probably my sharpest lens...and had a very smooth rendering of the background. The difference in a flower shot between that and my 24-105 was night and day. I think it was at that point that I realized that the lens you use really DOES make a difference in the end...

But as much as I liked it, I no longer have it. I just wasn't using it frequently enough...sold it and recently picked up the f2 IS version.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2014)

talicoa said:


> PBD,
> So what is the point of your comments, and those in the other thread? Should we all be saving money and not renting/buying/shooting the L lens? The only way you will convince me of this is by showing me the same scene shot with the different lenses in question, wide open and with no post processing. If it is a complex scene with some depth and some small points of light in it. I guarantee I could tell the difference.
> 
> Anyone have multiple 50mms to do a test?
> ...



My point was photography, by definition, is a visual medium. A lot of people talk a lot of bull that they just can't back up, I like to try to cut through some of that by demonstrating that these aficionados can't actually tell the difference between a good photo taken with a 50mm f1.8 and a 50mm f1.2L. And they can't, they have demonstrated that time and time again.

As I have always said, there are very good reasons to buy a 1.2 over a 1.8, but if you can't tell me which one was used to make an image don't try and tell me one of them has a "unique look", because if you can't tell, again by definition, it doesn't. Use any of the multiple other very good reasons to argue the case, not least of which is pride and confidence, two very important factors in lens use that are never considered by most.

Sure I get trolled and make myself unpopular, people don't like to be called out, but that doesn't alter the fact that if something has a "unique look" then those professing that should be able to pick it out of individual images, but *they never can*, am I the only one interested in why they can't?


----------



## Standard (Jul 21, 2014)

i have been following this thread from day one and have refrained from commenting. Too many people here obsess over their gear and quite frankly, spend too much time in the forums, and not enough time out shooting. I am not gonna try to even make a comment about why the 50L is special or justify why it's a great lens but I will say this. I shoot daily with this lens. It has more than paid for itself, as have most, or all, of my lenses. If you love the 50mm focal length, then go out and buy a 50mm lens. I have a large collection of 50mm lens, including rare, vintage lenses. Each yields a different look and feel. I look at lenses Iike I look at paint brushes. They're simply tools. The more expensive, the better the tools they tend to be. That said, I also have a bunch of cheap, crappy brushes that I use and they too yield gorgeous results. It's all in how you use them. I care less about the technical specs and more about how they contribute to the whole process. For those that are interested, below are two examples taken with the 50L and the last two with vintage lenses (the Meyer Oreston Pentacon Auto MC 50mm f/1.8 and the Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 Early 8-Element):



Hello by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr



The Cobbler by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr



Untitled by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr



Blue Eyes by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 21, 2014)

Standard said:


> i have been following this thread from day one and have refrained from commenting. Too many people here obsess over their gear and quite frankly, spend too much time in the forums, and not enough time out shooting. I am not gonna try to even make a comment about why the 50L is special or justify why it's a great lens but I will say this. I shoot daily with this lens. It has more than paid for itself, as have most, or all, of my lenses. If you love the 50mm focal length, then go out and buy a 50mm lens. I have a large collection of 50mm lens, including rare, vintage lenses. Each yields a different look and feel. I look at lenses Iike I look at paint brushes. They're simply tools. The more expensive, the better the tools they tend to be. That said, I also have a bunch of cheap, crappy brushes that I use and they too yield gorgeous results. It's all in how you use them. I care less about the technical specs and more about how they contribute to the whole process. For those that are interested, below are two examples taken with the 50L and the last two with vintage lenses (the Meyer Oreston Pentacon Auto MC 50mm f/1.8 and the Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 Early 8-Element):


Great shots and I agree, it's all about the results and the tools you use to achieve them. Having multiple lenses in a single focal length allows one to do that. Some of us love the 50L, others don't. What matters to me is the final photo and none of my clients have ever asked "What lens did you use?"


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 21, 2014)

talicoa said:


> PBD,
> So what is the point of your comments, and those in the other thread? Should we all be saving money and not renting/buying/shooting the L lens? The only way you will convince me of this is by showing me the same scene shot with the different lenses in question, wide open and with no post processing. If it is a complex scene with some depth and some small points of light in it. I guarantee I could tell the difference.
> 
> Anyone have multiple 50mms to do a test?
> ...


Don't expect too much from PBD experience wise. He after all doesn't use the gear to the extent to know and see the differences. From experience, if you take the 1.4 and 1.2 out to shoot, you'll like the 50L every time if that's the look your going for. Something that PBD won't ever be able to understand.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> talicoa said:
> 
> 
> > PBD,
> ...



You are so sweet, I probably sold my last (owned) 50 1.2L before you knew what a camera was, but that is fine, stick to the personal insults rather than try and guess which images have, in your words, a "unique look", because lets be honest, you are far better at insulting people than proving your point.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 21, 2014)

eninja said:


> This was my basis for starting this thread:
> 
> Few months ago i rented 50 1.2 L.
> 
> ...



I think here lies part of the problem. The 50 1.4 _can_ produce that glassy, liquid, smooth feeling to the image without any post processing, given the right condition. Certainly when compared with the other lenses you mention. 

But then I've shot images that I swore were taken on the 50/1.4 only to find they were actually taken on the 24-105. 

I've often shot shallow dof stuff with the 50/1.4 and thought "that looks just like it was shot on a 50/1.2" 

Regarding the 135L vs 100L, I still have the 100L but sold the 135 a while ago through lack of use ( I find the 85 much more versatile and 200 more useful ). I wouldn't like to try to distinguish between them.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 21, 2014)

Ruined said:


> 2) Enough spherical aberration to soften the image a bit and make it look more "dreamy," but not too much as to make it blurry.



This is the one that often comes up that I believe PBD is attempting to shed light on. Forget everything that requires side by side constant lighting to compare, and just point out which of the images in his collage are 50L dreamy. I can not. Can you?

Side by side yes, I'm sure most people could pick out differences. But the common assertion is that there is a specific unique look to the 50L. If that assertion is true, and if the viewer knows what that specific unique look is, he need not have a side by side comparison, he only need look at a single photograph to determine whether or not that specific unique look is present. Right?


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 21, 2014)

eninja said:


> Remind me an instance. I am sure the color of petals is near to orange but she insist its near to red.
> thus the argument. I can not give up because its really near to orange than red. but she insist sees otherwise.
> maybe we are both correct, its how we see it.



That was a missed opportunity. In this day and age there should be no room for arguments over what colour is.

Colour is a wavelength of light, it's not subjective in any way. Going a step further, when you're looking at it on your monitor most editing programs have a string of numbers that tell you the exact colour of any given pixel. In this case it's hard to say if the colour being produced is just like the one that was captured, but at least you can say quite precisely what colour is being displayed.
The last step to ensure accuracy is to have a calibrated monitor, but even if you don't it's probably not going to be that far off.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > talicoa said:
> ...



As far as we know, you haven't shot the inside of a paper bag but if others like to take your opinions with weight based on zero actual photography made, that's none of my business. However, my opinions are based on my work and how the lens works for me. If you disagree, that's cool but don't attempt to justify yourself with zero actual photography.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2014)

9VIII said:


> eninja said:
> 
> 
> > Remind me an instance. I am sure the color of petals is near to orange but she insist its near to red.
> ...



At the danger of opening another front, that is a vast oversimplification.

The flower is reflecting light, the colour of the light being shone on it will affect the colour it appears to be. A similar problem happens with prints, metamerism is an issue that has largely been overcome with modern digital ink sets, but not entirely.

On the computer monitor you only know what you are being shown if you use an external meter (and that is subjective), an internal colour picker is not telling you what you are seeing, it is telling what that pixel should be before your screen profile, and every screen has a profile. Do this, open PS and put the colour picker on a pixel, now adjust your screens brightness, the pickers value doesn't change but the actual pixel does, same thing if you change the WB, the colour of the pixel you see changes, but the pickers values don't.

Colour is a huge can of worms that most of the time is best left alone!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



I don't, I have posted hundreds of images here, I just choose not to link to my websites or try for YouTube and blog hits. But I am not the one proclaiming a "unique look" and then failing, 100%, to actually be able to pick it out.

As 3kramd5 says _"But the common assertion is that there is a specific unique look to the 50L. If that assertion is true, and if the viewer knows what that specific unique look is, he need not have a side by side comparison, he only need look at a single photograph to determine whether or not that specific unique look is present. Right?"_

Why can't you, or any other self proclaimed aficionado, answer that question?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Why can't you show us your real work? Oh that's right, you shoot images of pools and the occasional snapshot. Wow, you have the utmost authority on something completely subjective as this topic.

Do you even have a style in your photos? I couldn't tell. They were all pretty bland and grey. Perhaps that's your unique look. 

You don't understand that each little nuance in every step of an image makes someone's style. The way a lens renders is a piece, so is post processing, and so is lighting. Nonetheless, no two lenses actually render perfectly alike, thus even scientifically they are all unique in a way but that's just a conjecture to think about.

The uniqueness of the 50L may be minute to some and others more but it's the photographer who uses the lenses who will notice the difference. Clients can't tell, the general public can't tell, but the man behind the camera can tell. That's what counts because he's the one who has to make the photos.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 21, 2014)

Having never used a 50L, I shall try to explain the conflict with a more generalized perspective. 

Given the exact _*same*_ situation, it is perfectly reasonable to accept that the 50L will produce a very different look compared to a different 50mm lens, say a Canon or Sigma f/1.4. According to many of its users, and according to Canon's information brochure, it is supposed to be superior for certain uses. 

However, that does not exclude the possibility that a Canon f/1.4 lens can produce similarly superior look in a *different* condition, or through post-processing). 
So, I don't see those who say "50L producing a superior look compared to 50/1.4 lenses under the *same* condition" might automatically be expected to identify which images were shot with the 50L in a bunch of "superior look" images.

I can understand that a lot of people falsely claim this superior look because they have purchased an expensive lens or due to confirmation bias, and I appreciate the effort to call them out. But I don't believe this is the most scientific way of doing it.

I think all lenses can produce magical images- the 50L _*might have*_ some factors built in that requires less of an effort while composing or post-processing. I know my 135L can create beautiful portraits with little help from myself, and I have to work a little bit harder getting the same results with my 70-200. Fortunately, the 135L has fewer critics because it doesn't have any obvious shortcoming, and is quite inexpensive for an L lens.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 21, 2014)

I'd like the chime in with a neutral stance. I owned the 50L for over a year and also own the nifty fifty and the 50 f/1.4. Love all 3 of them. The 50L was brilliant from f/1.2 to f/2.8. Absolutely brilliant. After f/2.8 though, it was the worst of the 3 lenses. In fact, at f/5.6, the 1.4 lens looked much better and was much sharper and if I were shooting stopped down I always went for the 1.4. Now of course I go for the 24-70 f/2.8L II because I don't shoot wider than f/2.8 anymore.

Should I take up photography again at razor thin DOF then I'd definitely consider buying it again, probably refurbished. 

Depends on which aperture for sure on this issue. This is a weird case where the 50L is good at one aperture range while the 1.4 is best at the other. Odd situation.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 21, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I can understand that a lot of people falsely claim this superior look because they have purchased an expensive lens or due to confirmation bias, and I appreciate the effort to call them out. But I don't believe this is the most scientific way of doing it.


Ahh, the placebo effect. That may be a possibility, though there are differences between the f/1.2 and f/1.4 such as the larger physical aperture, better coatings, and much better USM & build quality that make using this lens a pleasure. For scientific side-by-side comparisons, at least the ones I've seen, the photos are very similar, but they don't represent real-world shooting where flare resistance and the ability to get reliable focus lock matter.



bdunbar79 said:


> I'd like the chime in with a neutral stance. I owned the 50L for over a year and also own the nifty fifty and the 50 f/1.4. Love all 3 of them. The 50L was brilliant from f/1.2 to f/2.8. Absolutely brilliant. After f/2.8 though, it was the worst of the 3 lenses. In fact, at f/5.6, the 1.4 lens looked much better and was much sharper and if I were shooting stopped down I always went for the 1.4. Now of course I go for the 24-70 f/2.8L II because I don't shoot wider than f/2.8 anymore.


I found my f/1.4 almost useless until f/2 - when it actually had contrast - but I agree. Unless it's the only lens I'm carrying, the 50L stays between f/1.2 and f/2. I also use it almost exclusively for portraits. If I want the best above f/2.8, the 24-70 f/2.8 II is what I use. If you use the 50L as a general purpose lens, you're likely to be disappointed, though I find it's small size and large aperture a nice thing if I'm traveling and only take a single lens.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> .... but the man behind the camera can tell.



What does any of that, and your disdain for my illustrative images have to do with the point? You can be as insulting as you like, I will not get drawn into it. 

However as for the part of your comment that you keep saying, why then do you keep failing to actually do it?

Your answer to the question I ask you, _show me you can discern the "unique look" of the 50L_ is not met by guesses, it is met with insults.

I hope I never attain your level of professionalism.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 21, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I can understand that a lot of people falsely claim this superior look because they have purchased an expensive lens or due to confirmation bias, and I appreciate the effort to call them out. But I don't believe this is the most scientific way of doing it.
> ...



Note that I say "a lot of people falsely claim"- I don't think everyone who praises a 50L is capable of appreciating its unique features. You and some of the proponents on this forum might have appreciated it for its worth- but I bet there's a bunch who praise it without even having used the lens (as I said, confirmation bias). There is also a bunch who have used it, but not appreciated the difference first hand.

I agree with you about the 50/1.4 in my experience. I feel the images below f/2.8 are quite bland for my liking and need serious enhancement in PP. f/2.8 and above is equal or inferior to my 24-70II. Therefore, it is on Craigslist and FredMiranda at the moment. And this was my 3rd 50/1.4- the first was on APS-C where it was inferior to my 50/1.8 at any aperture above f/2. The second one has slight front-focusing which wasn't working for me as my 5D didn't have AFMA.
So I think it will take a better photographer than myself to get magical photos with the 50/1.4.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 21, 2014)

I'll have a stab at PBD's challenge seeing as no one else will, but only two. I think the picture of the girl has a Sigma signature, and the picture of the dog is a blurry mess so I presume it is meant to look as if it was shot at f1.2. In truth I cannot tell the difference between the EF 50 1.2 and the 1.4 unless you shot the same subject at f1.4 - 1.6 and then compared the central image sharpness.


----------



## llmogen (Jul 21, 2014)

Long time lurker and first time poster, i registered just to chime in 2 cents-

I understand PDB's stance (a objective stance on things)- but there comes a point when 1+1 no longer equals 2; where having all the settings exactly right doesn't guarantee you an awesome shot. A sharp, perfectly exposed one, yes. but breathtakingly beautify, no. The more I shoot, the more I realize i'm good enough to bump up against the technical limits of my ability (and gear)- but unable to transcend my "technical" style. Whenever I do happen to take a jaw-droppingly great shot, though, more often than not it's with the 50L.

for what it's worth, I saw Standard's photographs and immediately pegged the first one (the tabby) as a 50L shot. Not all photographs are distinctive enough to distinguish lenses, but IMO that one is. The last pic of the siamese cat has the same 'feel', but still noticeably different.


----------



## talicoa (Jul 21, 2014)

(show me you can discern the "unique look" of the 50L)
PBD,
Unfortunately what you have done with all of your examples photos, is confuse things. Your insistence, that because we can't tell what lens made each photo, we don't really need the 50L, is what is hard to understand.

Would you agree that the out of focus highlights are more pleasant using the 50L than the 50 1.8: because they are rounder? Could you manipulate these in Photoshop? Probably, but very tricky.
Would you agree that the Depth of field is narrower for a given distance with the 50L? Could you get closer with the 50 1.4 and simulate a similar Bokeh. Yes, probably, but sometimes you can't or don't want to change your composition.
Would you agree at f1.4 the contrast of the 50L is greater than the 50 1.4? Can you bump the contrast in post? Sure.

A controlled test would show you the differences. Sadly, I can't provide this. You provided the complete opposite of a controlled test. I'm not sure what that tells you other than you can do amazing things with photoshop. You can even make a cheap lens look like an expensive lens. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't enjoy using a lens that does a lot of the hard work for me.

Tom


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> On the computer monitor you only know what you are being shown if you use an external meter (and that is subjective)



Are you saying there is reason to doubt the colour calibration tools commonly available? Otherwise I've already covered the topics you describe.


----------



## CANONisOK (Jul 21, 2014)

Two words: *weather sealing*.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > .... but the man behind the camera can tell.
> ...


They are not your images and I could careless about your pointless meanderings about them. I've shot many 50mms, actually made money with them and can say without a doubt that the 50L has a unique rendering that when I look at my images and my favorites consistently are taken with it. My IMAGES. Not yours or someone elses. My images and If it's true in my experiences, perhaps it will be true for others who want the creamy look of the 50L. Your not a photographer but more of a snob to put down others who also see the difference. I hope to never reach your level of staunched ignorance. 

Then again, My original post had nothing to do with you. However, you decided you wanted to debate something that in itself is completely subjective. I surprised more people haven't called you out on your lack of portfolio with such strong opinions as yours.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 21, 2014)

llmogen said:


> Long time lurker and first time poster, i registered just to chime in 2 cents-
> 
> I understand PDB's stance (a objective stance on things)- but there comes a point when 1+1 no longer equals 2; where having all the settings exactly right doesn't guarantee you an awesome shot. A sharp, perfectly exposed one, yes. but breathtakingly beautify, no. The more I shoot, the more I realize i'm good enough to bump up against the technical limits of my ability (and gear)- but unable to transcend my "technical" style. Whenever I do happen to take a jaw-droppingly great shot, though, more often than not it's with the 50L.
> 
> for what it's worth, I saw Standard's photographs and immediately pegged the first one (the tabby) as a 50L shot. Not all photographs are distinctive enough to distinguish lenses, but IMO that one is. The last pic of the siamese cat has the same 'feel', but still noticeably different.



Not convinced. I agree with you about pulling some of our best images with the 50mm, but is it the L or is it the focal length and double gauze construction ?


----------



## Act444 (Jul 22, 2014)

bdunbar79 said:


> I'd like the chime in with a neutral stance. I owned the 50L for over a year and also own the nifty fifty and the 50 f/1.4. Love all 3 of them. The 50L was brilliant from f/1.2 to f/2.8. Absolutely brilliant. After f/2.8 though, it was the worst of the 3 lenses. In fact, at f/5.6, the 1.4 lens looked much better and was much sharper and if I were shooting stopped down I always went for the 1.4. Now of course I go for the 24-70 f/2.8L II because I don't shoot wider than f/2.8 anymore.



Right...I was looking for a good 50mm lens, a good all-around 50mm lens. After an experience with Tamron I have decided to now stick to first-party (Canon) lenses, at least with my DSLRs. I'm still looking for that 50mm lens and haven't really found it yet. 

I typically go for the best I can afford, and in this case the 50L was in my budget. But I tried it at the store and I just could not get a good shot with it. I had no problems with the 85L so I knew it wasn't the 1.2 that was holding me back, but the lens itself. Very frustrating lens to use...especially between 2.8 and 5.6 where it seemed to back-focus considerably. Then I tried the 1.4...much cheaper, decent where the 50 1.2 struggled...but mediocre below f2 (and I lamented its lack of sealing and fragile handling). Still wasn't convinced.

But after reading this discussion it kinda makes sense now. I consider myself to be more of the "technical" type of photographer - I like my shots sharp and well-exposed, at least that's what I go for...so I tend to pick lenses that make attaining that easier for me (the sharpness part, that is). If the 50 1.2 is indeed designed for more of an artistic flair (and I have seen some great shots from it), at the cost of some sharpness, that's probably why I hated it to begin with. The shots out of it were just a bit too soft for my liking, that's all. So, hopefully there'll be a 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4) IS on the way!

I compare that to the 85 which is sharp even at 1.2 (wow!) Plus its images have "that look" to boot...


----------



## candc (Jul 22, 2014)

I know the 50l has some spherical aberration built in to its design that gives a certain look that most lenses won't under specific conditions. Nikon makes a 135 DC that has a control ring for that.

Now you got me going. All this controversy makes me want one now.


----------



## CANONisOK (Jul 22, 2014)

To answer the question more seriously: I've owned all 3 of the current Canon 50mm lenses. The f/1.8 was great for the price. I liked the f/1.4 quite a bit more than the nifty fifty. The f/1.2 produced the pictures I liked the best. So, that's the one I kept.

I sincerely hope that meets with everyone's approval... I'd hate to be judged harshly for spending my money in such a foolish manner.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 22, 2014)

CANONisOK said:


> To answer the question more seriously: I've owned all 3 of the current Canon 50mm lenses. The f/1.8 was great for the price. I liked the f/1.4 quite a bit more than the nifty fifty. The f/1.2 produced the pictures I liked the best. So, that's the one I kept.
> 
> I sincerely hope that meets with everyone's approval... I'd hate to be judged harshly for spending my money in such a foolish manner.



I'd hate to be judged at all for spending _*my*_ money


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I'll have a stab at PBD's challenge seeing as no one else will, but only two. I think the picture of the girl has a Sigma signature, and the picture of the dog is a blurry mess so I presume it is meant to look as if it was shot at f1.2. In truth I cannot tell the difference between the EF 50 1.2 and the 1.4 unless you shot the same subject at f1.4 - 1.6 and then compared the central image sharpness.



Hey there Sporgon, thanks for trying. Both wrong.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

talicoa said:


> Your insistence, that because we can't tell what lens made each photo, *we don't really need the 50L*, is what is hard to understand.



Tom, I have never said that, I have repeatedly said there are several good reasons to buy the 1.2 over any other 50, what I have stuck to is the fact that not one person has correctly picked a 50 f1.2 image out of a gallery of 50mm images, I think that speaks very loudly by itself. 

By definition how could it give a unique look if not one person can correctly distinguish it?


----------



## eninja (Jul 22, 2014)

PBD

how about, you show us group of images, shot from different lens (50L and others), then we choose which group of photos belongs to which lens.

because we consider a few magical photos before we say that the photo came out unique not just consider one photo. And no post processing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

9VIII said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > On the computer monitor you only know what you are being shown if you use an external meter (and that is subjective)
> ...



Yes and no, different calibration tools will return different absolute values, but the point is not as esoteric as that. If the flower was in sunlight it was being illuminated by anything between 2,500K-8,000K, if it was strobe lit it will be around 5,500K, most people calibrate their screens to 6,500K, the screen will have a different colour to the flower under both flash and most times of the day.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

CANONisOK said:


> Two words: *weather sealing*.



A very good and patently justifiable reason to get the 1.2L


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

CANONisOK said:


> To answer the question more seriously: I've owned all 3 of the current Canon 50mm lenses. The f/1.8 was great for the price. I liked the f/1.4 quite a bit more than the nifty fifty. The f/1.2 produced the pictures I liked the best. So, that's the one I kept.
> 
> I sincerely hope that meets with everyone's approval... I'd hate to be judged harshly for spending my money in such a foolish manner.



My approval means nothing, even if you wanted it which you clearly don't, and I doubt if you are a fool 

The 1.2L does several things better than any other 50, my only grip is with people who profess a "unique look" but can't actually identify it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

eninja said:


> PBD
> 
> how about, you show us group of images, shot from different lens (50L and others), then we choose which group of photos belongs to which lens.
> 
> because we consider a few magical photos before we say that the photo came out unique not just consider one photo. And no post processing.



How about you do? I made the discussion, I gave the demo that nobody, not one single person, has got close to right. 28 images, thousands of looks and one person got one right. Probability gets you 33% right, that means a blind person could have done a considerably better job of picking out the "unique look" than all you aficionados have so far.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



So your point is that the colour of an object will change depending on circumstances. This has nothing to do with the objectivity of colour (whatever colour you see at any given moment can be measured).


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

9VIII said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



You seem to be missing the point, if the screen isn't calibrated to the same colour as the original subjects illuminant then the colours can't match, and nobody changes screen profiles for every image. Yes you can measure the flowers reflectance value, and yes you can measure the screens illuminant value, but even if you make a custom camera profile for that shot and adjust your image until one shade is the same, if your screen is not calibrated to the original subjects illumination, then the other shades will not be the same.

This is where rendering intent becomes so important.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I'll have a stab at PBD's challenge seeing as no one else will, but only two. I think the picture of the girl has a Sigma signature, and the picture of the dog is a blurry mess so I presume it is meant to look as if it was shot at f1.2. In truth I cannot tell the difference between the EF 50 1.2 and the 1.4 unless you shot the same subject at f1.4 - 1.6 and then compared the central image sharpness.
> ...



;D

Not surprised !


----------



## Aglet (Jul 22, 2014)

I'll take a shot at that 50mm challenge but it sure has a lot like pickin' fly-specs out of a pepper pile.

My best guesses using very limited clues in the images:

Canon 50/1.4 shots: girl in hallway, dog, doll with book, girl bottom left
Canon 50/1.2 L shots: leaf in centre, B&W whisk, blonde girl in dry grass, girl bottom right

unspecified shots, like the closeups in the upper and middle R side or top left could be 50/1.2 L or anything really.


EDIT: forgot to add, that's from the untitled 2 tile.

the untitled 1 tile only the girl on the escalator strikes me as likely a 50/1.4 lens shot, maybe the one below it as well.
all the others don't show enough info to differentiate much so I'll just guess:


50/1.2; barley field, horse muzzle, guitar, kid 2nd from top on right, 
50/1.4; roses, girl w umbrella top left, possibly the others not stated above.


score me, PBD.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 22, 2014)

Aglet said:


> I'll take a shot at that 50mm challenge but it sure has a lot like pickin' fly-specs out of a pepper pile.
> 
> My best guesses using very limited clues in the images:
> 
> ...



both the girls look the same, and neither look like 50L
the leaf is clearly photoshopped
IMO the whisk and the girl in the bottom with the blowing blossoms are 50L, and maybe the bottom right as well
but having never owned a 50L, even if I am right that is just by excluding those which don't seem likely


----------



## notapro (Jul 22, 2014)

I'll take a guess at one photo. The plant (grass?) at far top right of the set, above the flower and to the right of the young woman in the pink dress. The colors seem a bit muted, but this guess will be as good as any other I might make.

Is that one shot with the 50 1.2L?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

Aglet, sagittariansrock and notapro, thanks for your guesses. 


I'll post the correct answers tomorrow.

Aglet:- out of your 14 guesses off the two sheets, 4 are correct.
sagittariansrock:- I am not certain which two girls you mean, sorry. The leaf is not a composite, if that is what you meant by photoshopped. If I score you on your two firm guesses it will tell anybody else what was used, but I will post the answers later.
notapro: Same as sagittariansrock, if I say yes or no to one image it tells anybody interested what that one is or isn't, so you'll have to wait a little longer.


----------



## talicoa (Jul 22, 2014)

PBD,
OK, One right wasn't good enough. Here are some better answers where I actually downloaded the files and looked closer last night. My hit ratio may go down, but my total correct should go up, because I made more guesses.
For a lot of these they are so manipulated in post it is pretty hard to tell the difference. But as I have been saying, that isn't a valid reason, for a lot of people, why not to get the 50 1.2L.

Girl W/ Umbrella 50 1.2L
Leaves W/ Ants 50 1.8
Red Haired Young Person 50 1.4
Flower 50 1.2L
Tall Grass 50 1.4
Young Boy Smiling 50 1.4
Escalator Girl 50 1.2L
Horse Nose 50 1.8
Girl Looking up 50 1.2 but Looks like a tilt shift, odd plane of focus.
Woman looking at roof. Manipulated in post or tilt shift.
Guitar Strings 50 1.4
Flower Petals 50 1.4

Images#2
Grass 50 1.2L
Girl in Mall 50mm 1.2L
Girl in front of lake 50mm 1.2L
Weeds 50mm 1.2L
Figurine reading book 50mm 1.2L
Maple Leaf 50mm 1.8
Orchid 50mm 1.8
Whisk 50mm 1.4
Girl with Spiky hair 50mm 1.8
Backlit girl 50mm 1.4
Small dog 50mm 1.4
Girl on mirror 50 Stopped down. Impossible to tell.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

talicoa,

Nice try, you did far and away the best and assuming you didn't cheat you beat the probability of guessing randomly by a few images.

You got 12 out of 24  50% right, 50% wrong.


----------



## talicoa (Jul 22, 2014)

PBD,
No, I didn't cheat, there is seriously no fun in cheating. There were a few where I had really no idea and had to guess. It will be interesting to see the results to see if what I got correct was based on what I thought, or if I got lucky.

You are very well mannered about all of this, I will give you that. Even in the face of people getting upset with it. You dodged my questions though about if you think you could see the differences in out of the camera images?

Tom


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

talicoa said:


> PBD,
> No, I didn't cheat, there is seriously no fun in cheating. There were a few where I had really no idea and had to guess. It will be interesting to see the results to see if what I got correct was based on what I thought, or if I got lucky.
> 
> You are very well mannered about all of this, I will give you that. Even in the face of people getting upset with it. You dodged my questions though about if you think you could see the differences in out of the camera images?
> ...



I didn't intentionally dodge anything, just missed a few bits here and there.

The question of noticing differences out of camera is interesting, and obviously the backbone of my post in the other thread, which started this, was that we do so much post processing virtually all intrinsic lens characteristics are masked, and almost all of us do some post processing.

I was watching a Joel Grimes video the other day and he doesn't care what lens or even camera he uses, he will mix Pentax 645D and Canon 5D MkIII files shot with a variety of lenses for his composites, mostly the 24-70 f2.8 MkII always at f7.1 and the 24 TS-E with the Canon, and he is a sharpness freak. But he gets all the images to have the same colour and contrast characteristics. Whether we like it or not it is predominately our post handling of the captured images that makes the image, even a simple crop can change an f1.4 shot to an f1.2 shot!

Do I think I could tell the differences in ooc images? Like most of you, sometimes yes but most times no, I certainly profess no special powers! I found with the EF50 1.2L that there was a *very* narrow window of usability where it shone, and if you shoot predominantly in that window then the lens is very good. But a scalpel is no good if you are cutting bread, and most of us cut bread a lot more often than we perform operations, to most of us a scalpel is dead weight and of no practical use, however a good surgeon can perform most operations with a bread knife.

I know which images were shot with which lens, and I have slightly bigger copies of them, but even I, with a relatively keen eye and experience of all the lenses used and literally thousands of 50 f1.4 images, don't believe some of them.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> But a scalpel is no good if you are cutting bread, and most of us cut bread a lot more often than we perform operations, to most of us a scalpel is dead weight and of no practical use, however a good surgeon can perform most operations with a bread knife.



Agree with the rest, but I don't believe a good surgeon (even the greatest surgeon) can perform even the most basic of operations with a bread knife, or even with a dull scalpel for that matter (I have to do surgeries for a living  ). There is something about the right tool for the job.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > But a scalpel is no good if you are cutting bread, and most of us cut bread a lot more often than we perform operations, to most of us a scalpel is dead weight and of no practical use, however a good surgeon can perform most operations with a bread knife.
> ...



You haven't watched enough "The Walking Dead"  Or how about the various emergency tracheotomies done with a ball pen? 

Cut me a bit of slack with my metaphor!


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 22, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> You seem to be missing the point, if the screen isn't calibrated to the same colour as the original subjects illuminant then the colours can't match



We're talking about two different things.
I'm just saying that the computer can tell you what you are looking at in that moment, what flavour of light is coming out of the screen, which is what many people seem to debate. I'm not debating the accuracy of the image capture system.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2014)

9VIII said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to be missing the point, if the screen isn't calibrated to the same colour as the original subjects illuminant then the colours can't match
> ...



I don't think we are. 

As a purely hypothetical point you are saying that one section of the flower reflects a specific wavelength of light, and that one screen pixel can emit that same single wavelength, here we agree, where we differ is you say the whole flower will look identical to the screen, I am saying it won't unless the screen is specifically calibrated to every image illuminant on the fly. One tone, hue, and saturation of the flower and screen might "match", but the rest won't, they will be shifted by the screen calibration, go to "correct" another pixel for tone, hue, and saturation and the first will shift.

In this hypothetical theoretical situation, the flower and screen can't possibly reflect and emit the same light wavelengths unless the screen calibration and spectral characteristics are exactly the same as the flowers illuminant spectral characteristics, for every single shot. That is not how it works. You might think that a colour picker registering 146,37,101 would be the same colour everywhere, but it isn't. 

You cannot get around the screen calibration limitation, more specifically, you can't get around the difference between the screens spectral characteristics and the image illuminations spectral characteristics, in talking about accurate colours you can't ignore the inaccuracies and limitations of the image capture and reproduction systems.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 24, 2014)

So the answer. 

Three lenses, all Canon 50's the 1.8, the 1.4 and the 1.2L.


----------



## notapro (Jul 24, 2014)

Well, PBD, looks like it's possible for you to tell others that you've had at least one person identify without error when a 50L 1.2 was used . . . I picked just one image and it was a 1.2 shot. Just call me Mr. 100% 

I'm sure glad I didn't pick the horse. I would have hit 50% immediately, but the grass at the top left would have taken me back to 66.66%. Your images made for a pleasant diversion, since it really was somewhat of a roll of the dice (for me, anyway) as to what I selected. Glad I went with the grass and quit guessing right then and there


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 24, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> So the answer.
> 
> Three lenses, all Canon 50's the 1.8, the 1.4 and the 1.2L.


Hmm, could foreground/background distance relationship have more to do with shallow DOF than the aperture? Or PP vs. native lens contrast? I think so. I think the only shot is obviously not to the f/1.4 or f/1.2 and that's the little figurine with the book because the bokeh looks less smooth. Then again, poor use of contrast in post could make bokeh harsh, too.

Nice challenge - maybe you should start a new one in its own thread - battle of the 35L vs. f/2 IS vs. f/2.8 or maybe 70-200 f/2.8 (all versions) vs. 135 f/2?


----------



## talicoa (Jul 25, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > So the answer.
> ...



The distance relationship was a big part of how I guessed. There is one with a girl sitting in a field pretty far away from the camera. The shallower depth of field in that one, I think could only be from the 1.2 wide open. It is pretty extreme for that distance. Like wise, the Horse is relatively close, if it were the 1.2 wide open, there would be a much smaller slice in focus. 

I based my guesses on the fact that all of the lenses were shot wide open, but that isn't true, and some of the photos have been blurred artificially, like the one of the lady looking up the roof. There is no way to get that plane of focus without a tilt shift lens, or some post processing.

Still this was fun, and I say make more of these. Just make sure the exif shows the lenses wide open, and watchout for any major manipulation.

Also, it is too late to do the math, but my 50% correct was significantly better than guessing. Guessing would average a 33%, and that additional 17% is hard to come buy, especially when there were shots stopped down, and manipulated in post. So I feel pretty good that you can see differences.


----------

