# New ef 50mm 1.2 annoucement coming?



## YuengLinger (Aug 7, 2015)

Ok, definitely a micro-shred of evidence, if it can be called that, for some tenuous conjecture:

I've been watching the refurb in-stock numbers of the ef 50mm 1.2 L on Canon Price Watch. They pop up to roughly 60 left, drop down to about 50, then back up to 60. And CPW is showing a 10% discount code.

The ef 85mm 1.2 L II, on the other hand, came and went, as expected: A few dozen sold out quickly.

Is this some evidence of a pending announcement for the new 50mm 1.2? Is Canon trying to clear out their refurb stock? Do they have a higher than usual refurb stock for the lens? 

Any potential buyers holding back to see what's coming?

I thought hard about getting a refurb myself, but then kept thinking I'd kick myself if the refresh comes soon.


----------



## bereninga (Aug 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok, definitely a micro-shred of evidence, if it can be called that, for some tenuous conjecture:
> 
> I've been watching the refurb in-stock numbers of the ef 50mm 1.2 L on Canon Price Watch. They pop up to roughly 60 left, drop down to about 50, then back up to 60. And CPW is showing a 10% discount code.
> 
> ...



Keep dreaming, buddy. IMO, people are looking to the Sigma Art.  That's my speculation at least. I remember when the 50 1.2L used to fly off the refurb sales, esp when they were near the $1k price mark. Now not so much.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 7, 2015)

Sales of Canon 50mm F1.2 are restricted to people who want a "dreamy" look. I even bought a Sigma 50mm Art, and I know Canon 50mm lenses not provide optical quality so good at F1.4 aperture.

I believe it will be first released an update for Canon F1.4 and months later will see an F1.2.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 7, 2015)

Where's your faith? Your enthusiasm? Go, Canon, go!!!


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Where's your faith? Your enthusiasm? Go, Canon, go!!!


My faith? ???

In an interview, Mr. Maeda of Canon Inc. Japan responded because it took so much to offer low cost 4K cameras: "Because we are slow." 

On the other hand, I believe that the replacement of Canon 50mm lens will be great. Just do not know what year they will come. :


----------



## Ruined (Aug 7, 2015)

TBH I'd rather see an updated 85 with weather sealing, faster focusing, no extending front element when focusing, more protected rear element.

Even if this makes it f/1.4 would love to see this update.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 7, 2015)

A 50mm 1.2 with the sharpness of the Sigma Art, and the dreaminess of the current 50L, plus no more focus shift...I think many who already bought the Sigma Art would trade it in.

And those who own the current 50L? The used market would be flooded!


----------



## Ruined (Aug 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> A 50mm 1.2 with the sharpness of the Sigma Art, and the dreaminess of the current 50L, plus no more focus shift...I think many who already bought the Sigma Art would trade it in.
> 
> And those who own the current 50L? The used market would be flooded!



The problem is the cause of the focus shift is also the cause of the dreaminess.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 7, 2015)

Ruined said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > A 50mm 1.2 with the sharpness of the Sigma Art, and the dreaminess of the current 50L, plus no more focus shift...I think many who already bought the Sigma Art would trade it in.
> ...



Does this mean that a floating element, such as the one in the 85mm 1.2, would significantly change the character of the lens, not just fix the focus-shift?

Ok, just give me the IQ of the 85mm 1.2, but with some serious AF performance, and I'd still be happy.

I agree that a super-duper, sports-action 85 would be great, but right now I'm itching for 50mm. I'm covered at 35mm with that Sigma Art, getting by with my ef 50mm 1.4, and still quite content for portraiture and found still-lifes using the 85mm 1.2 L II.

I tried a 50 Art, had AF problems, and didn't like the "dark" nature of the images. Just seemed a bit harsh and gloomy. 

A 50mm hole to fill...Is that asking too much?


----------



## Ruined (Aug 7, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



Yes. They purposely left uncorrected spherical aberration in the 50 1.2 in order to give it a similar dreamy look to the 50mm 1.0 despite the narrower aperture. The side effect of this is focus shift. This is not uncommon in fast portrait lenses.




> Ok, just give me the IQ of the 85mm 1.2, but with some serious AF performance, and I'd still be happy.
> 
> I agree that a super-duper, sports-action 85 would be great, but right now I'm itching for 50mm. I'm covered at 35mm with that Sigma Art, getting by with my ef 50mm 1.4, and still quite content for portraiture and found still-lifes using the 85mm 1.2 L II.
> 
> ...



Everything is a tradeoff. 85l has great IQ but is slow focusing and fragile due to the front/rear element design,.plus focus by wire.

Take the spherical aberration out of 50l and you will have less dreamy look and lose some of the magic. Make IQ perfect and you will have another clunky lens like the 85l or 50 1.0. I'd rather see a revision of the 85l to make it more like the 50 1.2 than the other way around. Not looking for a 85l sport lens, but one more durable (and faster) for events/oudoors. Focus shift not an issue for me because I usually shoot wide open, and if I dont I simply allow some distance or slightly front focus for proper dof. If you are not shooting wide open the 50mm f1.8 stm is not a bad choice despite it being cheap.

If you haven't tried the 50l 1.2 rent it. It really isn't that hard to master.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 12, 2015)

If Canon decided to go retrofocal design on the 50 L, If all things equal, anyone know how much heavier a 1,2 lens would be compared to a 1,4 lens? For example if the 50 Art were equal, but 1.2.


----------



## wopbv4 (Aug 13, 2015)

I was desperately waiting for an equivalent of the EF 35 F2 IS, I would pay $800 for that.
I have tried the sigma 50 art for about four hours, some 500 shots, and I do not like it.
The pics have something really harsh about them, maybe I have to get used to it.
The autofocus of the sigma has been discussed many times, so let's leave it at that.
In short, the sigma is not an option for me, so I am waiting for a "high" end canon.
So, what is next in line for canon 50 mm?
If they produce something stellar (Zeiss Otus, with autofocus) at F1.4, even at mega bucks, I would probably buy it.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 13, 2015)

wopbv4 said:


> I was desperately waiting for an equivalent of the EF 35 F2 IS, I would pay $800 for that.
> I have tried the sigma 50 art for about four hours, some 500 shots, and I do not like it.
> The pics have something really harsh about them, maybe I have to get used to it.
> The autofocus of the sigma has been discussed many times, so let's leave it at that.
> ...



We know there is a patent that literally is the equivalent of the EF 35mm F/2 IS, specifically the EF 50 f/1.8mm IS. There are equivalent 85mm f/1.8 IS and 135 f/2.8 IS patents also, all similar optical formulas to the EF 35 f/2 IS.

Unfortunately they never released anything more than the 24/28/35 IS primes, probably because they already had the 50 STM lined up (need to give that some time to breathe) and the 85 1.8 is a good lens (though I'd love to see an IS option at that FL).

One thing I have not seen, is a 50mm f/1.4 IS patent. There are several 50mm f/1.4 patents, but none have IS. Perhaps Canon is trying to decide whether to launch a 50mm f/1.4 non-IS lens or a 50mm f/1.8 IS lens to replace the 50mm f/1.4 price point... I don't see both of them coexisting at $599.

Myself, I remain a huge fan of the 50mm f/1.2L. It has a quirk or two, but overall it is my favorite lens in the entire Canon lineup! Puts out magic similar to the 85mm f/1.2, but with a more flexible FL and none of the 85 1.2's numerous disadvantages that discourage shooting it outdoors or at events.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 13, 2015)

Ruined said:


> Myself, I remain a huge fan of the 50mm f/1.2L. It has a quirk or two, but overall it is my favorite lens in the entire Canon lineup! Puts out magic similar to the 85mm f/1.2, but with a more flexible FL and none of the 85 1.2's numerous disadvantages that discourage shooting it outdoors or at events.



I was playing with the 50L at a local beach with a Schneider Variable ND filter. The ND filter worked fine on the 70-200 at all strength levels, but on the 50L, it created haze at the stronger filter settings. At weaker filter settings (~3 stops), it was fine, but it definitely had lots of haze at the strongest setting (~8 stops). I'm guessing it has to do with the reduced sharpness of the 50L.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 13, 2015)

Ruined said:


> wopbv4 said:
> 
> 
> > I was desperately waiting for an equivalent of the EF 35 F2 IS, I would pay $800 for that.
> ...



I've had two copies of the 50mm f1.2 L and I personally think it's the worst L prime in Canon's line up. It's intrinsically soft. Even stopped down it never sharpens to the gliddy levels of the other L primes. Wide open, yes it's dreamy...but the AF is inconsistent and slow. Quite frankly, it's a poor lens when compared to any of the other L primes. Sure it's the best '50 in Canon's line up. It's got great build, great colour and contrast, even wide open...but it's just not as sharp as lens of this caliber or price point should be. Compare it to am 85IIL, a 35L or a 135L and it gets spanked into the back corner. 
At the moment there isn't a serious 50mm contended for the Canon mount. The 50mm f1.4 USM is very fragile and really not reliable in a professional context, the 50mm f1.2 L is the best of a bad bunch...and Sigma, well...lets not go there, except to say that I'm done with Sigma's AF reliability.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 13, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > wopbv4 said:
> ...



I agree completely. No excuses for the 50 L.

I found a working 50 Art, but it's my fifth Art lens. It is epic though.


----------



## Bernd FMC (Aug 14, 2015)

I am also awaiting an new 50mm, while the 1.4 USM does it´s Job for now, not that bad my Copy i think.

Often i found my 24-70 L II on 35mm, so the CR2(.5) 35mm 1.4 L II would be an Alternative, but bigger Step to the 135mm .

Canon lacks an 50mm witch is really interessting actually.

Sigma is not in my "Focus" .

We will see - Announcement on 14.Aug - that ist Today ! ;D

A few Day´s ago i bought an 100-400 L II - next Lens have to wait to regenerate my Bank Account : .

May other buy first and find the Mistakes - so i hope to do it right for me 8) .

Greetings Bernd


----------



## DomTomLondon (Aug 14, 2015)

I've given up waiting for the new 50 1.4 or 50L. and bought the 24-70II instead.
It's not as fast as the primes, but it's sharper at 2.8 then the 50 f1.4 is stopped down to 2.8.

When Canon finally do give us a new 50mm I'll probably sell the 24-70II, I prefer to have 3 good primes in my bag.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 14, 2015)

I've owned the 50mm 1.4 for a number of years (and the 50mm 1.8).
In the last few months I've added the 50mm 1.2.
Its a great lens. It focuses much better than the 85mm 1.2 L.
It renders a lovely out of focus. 
I find it reasonably sharp at 50mm and very sharp stepped down.
I often agree with peoples criticisms of certain lens but other times I wonder if people blame the gear rather than lack of technique and skill. I'd be very surprised if the current 50mm 1.2L would limit your ability to take a great photograph.
I've never used the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and its had great reviews. 
I couldn't see how it could be much better than the 50mm 1.2L.
1.2 is very special.
I'd love to see a comparison of two 5D Mark III's with one with the 50mm 1.2L and one with 50mm 1.4 Sigma Art and a subject both at 1.4 and the Sigma being in any way producing a better photograph.
I've used the 50mm 1.2L alot over the last two months and its fantastic (and I've alot of good glass to compare it to).


----------



## Ruined (Aug 14, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > wopbv4 said:
> ...



The 50 1.2 is a bit soft by design due to purposefully uncorrected spherical abberation, which also is what gives it the dreamy look and focus shift.

I would not say the 50 1.2 is the least reliable AF, that would go to the 24LII imo. My 24LII at 1.4 randomly front focused for no good reason 25% of the time and was spot on 75% of the time, this is very evident when looking at a burst of frames. Looking at reviews for the lens this is a common occurrenc

The 50 1.2 focus shift is not a big deal for me. First, if you shoot wide open there is no focus shift. Second, if you shoot at medium to long distance focus shift is not noticable. Thus the only time you have to compensate is shooting close stopped down. Canon could have increased the MFD to prevent this but I am glad they did not because 1.2 at close range looks very special with this lena.

The sharpness loss is a tradeoff for the extra dreamy look. You can't have both at a relatively wide 50mm focal length. I shoot mainly people so the dreamy look and draw is far more important than sharpness.

If you are going to shoot stopped down the 50 STM is cheap and good quality, might want to try that. Or, the 24-70 II. If a razor sharp lens is what you desire there are several existing options.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 14, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> I've never used the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and its had great reviews.
> I couldn't see how it could be much better than the 50mm 1.2L.
> 1.2 is very special.
> I'd love to see a comparison of two 5D Mark III's with one with the 50mm 1.2L and one with 50mm 1.4 Sigma Art and a subject both at 1.4 and the Sigma being in any way producing a better photograph.
> I've used the 50mm 1.2L alot over the last two months and its fantastic (and I've alot of good glass to compare it to).


In the categories sharpness and contrast, Sigma 50mm Art is noticeably better, with both at F1.4. Although the Bokeh is subjective, I prefer sure the bokeh of Sigma 50 Art.
See this great article below.

http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/


----------



## Ruined (Aug 14, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > I've never used the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and its had great reviews.
> ...



Although I know this article argues in favor of the Sigma f/1.4, I think the comparison pictures prove the that the 50L's output is better. Look at the second picture, the closeup of the woman's face. As a people shooter, I can tell you there is no woman in the world that would prefer the Sigma's output. The Canon is sharp enough, while being smooth and beautiful. The Sigma is too clinical and rough looking and thus not ideal for people, as it highlights flaws and makeup application. You might be able to try to simulate something similar in post with the Sigma, but that would be very time consuming and likely have more artificial looking results to just shooting with the 50mm f/1.2L to begin with. Virtually all of the flaws noted with the 50mm f/1.2L are due to its purposefully uncorrected spherical aberration, but that spherical aberration is what makes that smooth beautiful look of skin possible.

The 50 f/1.2L is clearly a portrait lens, and at that function it is at the top of the heap.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 14, 2015)

Ruined said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > Hector1970 said:
> ...


If I ask my female clients?

Question 1:
Do you prefer pictures with 18 megapixel or 50?
Certainly, I prefer 50!

Question 2:
Do you prefer super sharp images, or a little smoky?
Certainly, I prefer super sharp!

Question 3:
You want to see every pore of your skin, pimples, scars?
No way!

In fact, the question 3 contradicts the questions 1 and 2. However, it is always possible to decrease the sharpness in an image, or parts of it.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 14, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> If I ask my female clients?
> 
> Question 1:
> Do you prefer pictures with 18 megapixel or 50?
> ...



If you globally reduce sharpness you get a blurry image. You can selectively reduce sharpness to parts of the image to avoid this, but then you risk it looking artificial or simply greatly extending your post time. That is the beauty of the 50L, for people the image looks near ideal without extensive post needed. 

If I know I am shooting people, I want the lens that provides the most pleasing output with least post necessary, and at 50mm that is the 50mm f/1.2L.

If I simply wanted super sharp output, I'd use the 24-70 f/2.8L II , 70-200LII IS, 135L, etc which all have very sharp output.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 14, 2015)

Ruined said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > If I ask my female clients?
> ...



That's it exactly. Photos looks great straight out of the camera with the 50mm 1.2 L.
You can't really create that smooth focus fall off with software. You can try but it doesn't look as good.
Ask someone do they like their portrait with a 50mm 1.2L and they say yes.
I've taken portraits of people with the 85mm 1.2 L at F8 with lights. 
People don't like them as they are too sharp and ever pore, every piece of tooth decay is visible.
I'm sure the Sigma is great in a sharpness type of way but the 1.2L is special in what it can do.
I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it (don't sell any kidneys to pay for it).


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 14, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > I've never used the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art and its had great reviews.
> ...



Seen this article before. One of the best comparisons out there.

I have to agree about the bokeh being nicer in certain cases on the Art, but not in all, for sure.

As for sharpness, I'd rather use a little Portraiture on skin than resort to over-sharpening eyes. Furthermore, 50mm isn't a headshot focal length for me; I run into many faces that even 85mm doesn't work for, and I'm going to 135mm and longer. So having "too much" sharpness on a 50mm does not seem an issue for portraits. For 3/4 and full-length, please give me plenty of sharpness.

And a lens that is sharp and has great bokeh is more versatile and useful in more situations, say for still life or landscapes. A quicker AF would not upset event and action shooters, for sure.

So...I'm hoping the new 50mm 1.2 L will come soon, and that it will have an improved middle-distance bokeh and all around sharpness.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 15, 2015)

I often find the criticism of the 50L has to do more with operator error than the actual lens. Many professionals use this lens exclusively for headshots, as I do. For headshots it is an absolute joy to use and although I've read much about people's comments on front focusing... in the real world with the professionals I know... that never comes up. I've had 3 copies and still own two, all have functioned to perfection.

I have many images from my 50L but here is one from a photographer in London that has excelled with it. I've spoken with him numerous times about it and the 85L, he takes the 50 over the 85 everytime. I'm more half and half...



2013 Professional Photographer of the Year: 1st place (50mm category) by Peter Zelewski, on Flickr


----------



## Rudeofus (Aug 15, 2015)

Ruined said:


> The 50 1.2 is a bit soft by design due to purposefully uncorrected spherical abberation, which also is what gives it the dreamy look and focus shift.



I agree that you can't have tack sharp and dreamy at the same time, although the often derided 135 soft focus lens offers just that: reasonable sharpness at SF0, and extreme dreaminess at SF2 and F/2.8.

I do not agree with your assessment of the focus shift: autofocus is controlled via software, and the software could trivially compensate for this shift. If Canon can change their lens interface just to render old Sigma lenses inoperable, they might as well fix the damn AF for their flagship 50. 

The 50L would be a tremendous lens for newborn shots, but with the focus shift it's entirely useless for this task.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 15, 2015)

Rudeofus said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > The 50 1.2 is a bit soft by design due to purposefully uncorrected spherical abberation, which also is what gives it the dreamy look and focus shift.
> ...



Yes, it does, but not at the same time obviously  

I actually owned that lens and did not like it. The spherical aberration even at a very low setting was too extreme IMO and resulted in a lot of ugly artifacts; it never really did a superb job of being sharp, nor a superb job of offering pleasing dreamy output. Plus it has micromotor focus.



> I do not agree with your assessment of the focus shift: autofocus is controlled via software, and the software could trivially compensate for this shift. If Canon can change their lens interface just to render old Sigma lenses inoperable, they might as well fix the damn AF for their flagship 50.



If you think about it though, it is not that easy or practical.

Lens always focuses wide open. In order for the focus shift to be compensated for, the lens would need to refocus a variable amount depending on the distance and aperture every time after you have pressed the shutter release button. The problem is, that would result in delay of the shutter release and you could lose a special moment - plus it would reduce max FPS dramatically if you were in AI servo mode for instance.

Since this would impede the performance of the camera, I am not sure it is a worthwhile fix as the focus shift is easy to compensate for when you know the specific cases it arises.



> The 50L would be a tremendous lens for newborn shots, but with the focus shift it's entirely useless for this task.



I do photo shoots with newborns frequently with the 50L, and the results are magical. Focus shift occurs in a only in a very specific case, and is easy to compensate for.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 15, 2015)

Rudeofus said:


> The 50L would be a tremendous lens for newborn shots, but with the focus shift it's entirely useless for this task.



Complete rubbish... I think you have to remember what a hobbyist confirms as useless is often just that, the opinion of a hobbyist.


----------



## Rudeofus (Aug 15, 2015)

Ruined said:


> If you think about it though, it is not that easy or practical.
> 
> Lens always focuses wide open.


Wrong. Lens focuses at F/2.8, at least that's what the AF sensor sees. Extra aperture does not contribute AFAIK. From this I conclude, that the lens already does some compensation, but evidently it does not correct the compensation for apertures between F/2.8 and F/5.6.

Even if that compensation takes time, I'd rather lose some minimal amount of focus speed than the whole shot due to focus shift, but YMMV.



Ruined said:


> > The 50L would be a tremendous lens for newborn shots, but with the focus shift it's entirely useless for this task.
> 
> 
> I do photo shoots with newborns frequently with the 50L, and the results are magical. Focus shift occurs in a only in a very specific case, and is easy to compensate for.


If you have the time to compensate for it, then you'd have plenty of time for the AF system to correct for it.



Pookie said:


> Complete rubbish... I think you have to remember what a hobbyist confirms as useless is often just that, the opinion of a hobbyist.


That shot was taken at F/1.8, at which point focus shift is less of an issue. Often it seems that professionals like to talk big, but lack sorely in the technical field. This shot shows the razor thin DOF and the dreamy bokey of this lens at F/1.8, but let's face it: this shot would have tremendously profited from F/4, and at this aperture this lens doesn't work right.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 15, 2015)

The lack of barrel distortion and vignetting combined with the epic corner sharpness for off center comp wide open makes the Sigma better in every way. Contrast and color I say they are equally punchy, and I correct with ColorChecker anyway.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 16, 2015)

Pookie said:


> Rudeofus said:
> 
> 
> > The 50L would be a tremendous lens for newborn shots, but with the focus shift it's entirely useless for this task.
> ...




Cute baby, Pookie, very, very cute. And I believe I see the intended effect you were after, quite moving. However, and here comes trouble, because how do you criticize a shot of a baby while making clear the baby is incredibly lovely, I think, in terms of bokeh and contrast, this isn't the best example to proclaim the strengths of the lens. The oof arm looks slightly odd, and the back area, the leg(?) has a strong ghosting/halo effect. I'm guessing you were dealing with difficult lighting and applied a lot of sharpening and NR?

Did you have quite a few shots that just missed in the series you chose this from?

For comparison, and of course also open to scathing criticism, attached is a snapshot taken at f/1.8 with the ef 50mm 1.4 on a 60D. *Only global adjustments in LR5.* I think the light in this shot was much easier than what you had to deal with, but, for me, this example shows that for close-ups at least, there is little compelling reason to go with the 1.2L, so widely regarded as problematic, if not an outright disappointment. :

Regarding the portrait by Peter Zelewski, it is a lovely shot--with tons of sharpening selectively applied. It certainly deserves recognition among portraits taken with a 50mm, but I wonder how it would do overall against portraits taken with longer focal lengths--in the eyes of paying clients. Specifically, this portrait is moody, and it conveys what many 50mm shots of slender young women might--a waifish, zoned-out quality. I don't know of many realtors or insurance salespersons who want to portray themselves as waifs in headshots! (Am I hanging with the wrong crowd?) And getting a 50mm shot just right with those of us who don't have cute little noses or just the right facial proportions...I'm simply suggesting that 50mm portraits are specialty items for artistic or photojournalistic, editorialized storytelling--not flattering professional bread and butter work.

And to those who want to hang the messengers because the messengers aren't producing "professional" credentials, please keep in mind that clients, museum curators, and other critics with valuable insights often are not professional photographers. 

What all this comes back to: If Canon offers a new version of the 50mm 1.2 L that focuses as accurately as the 85mm 1.2 L, and is otherwise as sharp, and (hopefully!!!) faster, I'm an early adopter. Weather sealing would be cool too, of course. And, as long as I'm wishing, shorter than the Sigma Art.


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 17, 2015)

I don't get your line of argument on this topic at all.
You must not have much experience with the 50 1.2L or the 85 1.2L.
You should rent / borrow them and try them out and you'll see what the fuss is about.
The 85mm 1.2L is harder to focus with.
The 50mm 1.2L focusing well and is pretty sharp at 1.2


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 17, 2015)

I have the 85mm 1.2 L II. Focuses easily, accurately at all apertures. Not quickly, though.

Thread is about rumor of a new 50 L, and the demand for it. I'd like a sharper version without the focus shift.

Not sure what ''argument'' you are referring to, Hector1970.


----------



## jd7 (Aug 21, 2015)

Rudeofus said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > If you think about it though, it is not that easy or practical.
> ...



I was hoping someone with more knowledge and experience than me would respond, but since that hasn't happened ... I am pretty confident Ruined is absolutely correct that the camera will AF with the lens wide open. An f/2.8 aperture is a cut off point for how certain types of AF points function, eg if the lens has a max aperture of 2.8 or wider, an AF point may function as a double cross type point, but otherwise function as an "ordinary" cross type point. A f/5.6 aperture is another common cut off point, in terms of how AF points perform. However, I believe that AF is always performed at the widest available aperture.

There is a bit of a discussion about it at http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/canon-eos-dslr-autofocus-explained.aspx although if you look around I expect you won't have much trouble finding more technical discussions if you are interested.

Also, my understanding is for a lens like the 50 1.2L, focus shift is at its most significant at apertures around 2 to 2.8. At those apertures, the shift effect from stopping down to that aperture (from 1.2) is relatively significant compared to the depth of field you would commonly expect to be working with (bearing in mind DOF is also dependent on focus distance). That means I would have thought Pookie's shot at f/1.8 was probably a candidate for focus shift to be a potential issue.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 22, 2015)

Heh, I forgot about this thread.

Yeah, I don't know what "AF sensor sees f/2.8" means. 

The lens focuses wide open, period - f/1.2 in this case. Yes, some AF points are sensitive and behave differently at different aperture cut off points as noted. And yes, with the default focusing screen in most Canon cameras you can only see a DOF of around f/2.8. But the lens is still focusing wide open (and you can swap focusing screens to a high precision, which will show you that f/1.2 DOF). So if you wanted to correct focus shift the lens would need to refocus based on distance and aperture for every aperture that is not f/1.2 and it would cause a delay after the shutter release that could cause you to lose the picture you wanted and cut the FPS of AI servo in half - which is not a practical solution.

The focus shift begins to take effect as soon as the lens is stopped down beyond f/1.2. But it is primarily noticeable only at close range within f/1.8-f/2.8, less at further distances and narrower apertures as DOF increases. In all frankness, the focus shift is rarely ever an issue if you know it is there, and you can compensate for it when needed. Again, since it is only noticeable in a certain scenario (close to MFD and f/1.8-f/2.8 ) it does not need to be compensated for in all circumstances.

Canon could have avoided the focus shift complaints by increasing MFD or reducing the special look of the lens draw through spherical aberration correction. I am glad they did neither. f/1.2 at close focus lends some amazing results and getting those amazing results is more important to me than placating people who choose not to learn how to use the lens by increasing MFD. Same thing with lens draw, the Sigma f/1.4 may be sharper but it is a more clinical picture that looks nowhere near as good for people/portraits. And while the 85L has a similar draw, it has so many other disadvantages (slow AF, extending barrel when focusing, bigger/heavier, easy to damage front/back elements, focus by wire, etc) that I'd rather use the 50L in the field.

I think in practice the focus shift of the 50L is not an issue for those who use it. It may be an issue for fence sitters who want the perfect lens with no tradeoffs (does not exist), or for those who simply want to point and shoot with little thought, but for a serious photographer that is deliberate when shooting it is a spectacular tool. The reason it is not an issue is because it is a constant and there is a way to compensate for it if you need to take a picture that might potentially expose it. This is in contrast to the 24L II, which many copies of randomly and inconsistently front focus even when the focus target is not changed - or the Sigma 50A which has tremendously inconsistent autofocus; those lenses I could see AF being a complaint because the focus is inconsistent. The focus on the 50L is consistent, you just need to know how it works and adjust accordingly.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 22, 2015)

First off, all lenses focus when they are wide open, however that isn't the end of the story. AF modules have an effective aperture, Canon AF modules have been said to have an aperture of f2.8, just like the standard focusing screens have an aperture of f2.8 or so. Ever tried manually focusing an f1.2 through the viewfinder? It is very difficult because you are seeing a dimmer and deeper dof view than the lens actually is. Put your lens to f4 and push the dof preview button look through the viewfinder and take your finger off the dof preview button, that is the difference between what you see through an f 1.2 lens through your viewfinder and the AF module 'sees' through it's opening, and what the sensor sees through an f1.2 lens.

The fact that the AF module has an aperture slower than the lens doesn't mean it can't focus it accurately though, it just means it is more difficult for it to see than it needed to be if it had a wider aperture. Don't forget dof is considered to be a range of 'acceptably sharp focus', any mirror down DSLR AF system will always try to attain maximum contrast which should, in ideal situations, be the plane of focus you actually want.

AF module aperture and focus breathing have nothing to do with each other, neither does AF module aperture and lens aperture until you go the other way. Once you get to slow lenses wide open at f8 the view for the AF module becomes so dark it can't reliably attain accurate focus, it is looking for contrast but the lights are so dark there isn't enough, hence the slowdown in AF speed when we use TC's, and why some people find f8 easy to use (bright sunny day with a 100-400 and 1.4 TC with a high contrast bird in the sky), and some people find it totally useless (same lens but very late afternoon trying to focus on a bear in the woods, lower light levels and much lower contrast).

So:-
1/ All lenses focus on our DSLR's wide open (unless you are using old lenses and stopping them down manually).
2/ Anything that views light has an effective aperture (viewfinders, eyes, etc).
3/ AF modules have an effective aperture.
4/ The AF module aperture does not limit its ability to attain highest contrast, which is normally the plane of sharpest focus, ergo an f2.8 module can accurately focus an f1.2 lens. 
5/ Focus shift has nothing to do with AF.
6/ There isn't an offset value to which lenses are focused after AF has been achieved to allow for focus shift.
7/ Focus shift is an intrinsic design element of a lens.
8/ Focus shift can only happen when a lens is stopped down.
9/ Focus shift can only be noticeable when the dof doesn't cover the shift distance. 
10/ DOF gets greater the further from the camera.

From all that we can know that only fast lenses stopped down a modest amount at closer focus distances with an intrinsic design will display noticeable focus shift. Many will use their 50 f1.2's and never lose a shot to focus shift, many, generally who don't own or use one, will forever worry about the shots they might lose never considering the shots they can't take! Very few people who use the 50 f1.2 do so in such a manner that the focus shift is so problematic as to be unworkable.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 24, 2015)

Viggo said:


> The lack of barrel distortion and vignetting combined with the epic corner sharpness for off center comp wide open makes the Sigma better in every way. Contrast and color I say they are equally punchy, and I correct with ColorChecker anyway.



Ok, Viggo...I really want a 50mm before my baby grows up, so I'm giving up on Canon's rumored new 1.2L for the time being and giving the Sigma Art ONE more try. (I've only tried one copy so far, last year...Maybe I'll get lucky like you.) Should arrive this afternoon.

Cheers!


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 25, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> A 50mm 1.2 with the sharpness of the Sigma Art, and the dreaminess of the current 50L, plus no more focus shift...I think many who already bought the Sigma Art would trade it in.
> 
> And those who own the current 50L? The used market would be flooded!


No doubt that this will be a killer lens. I had the current 50L and sold it not long after purchasing.
However, nowdays people is selecting Sigma 50mm Art because of its IQ


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 25, 2015)

Boo hoo, boo hoo. :-[ :-[

Tried my second Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art, and it was worse than the first one I sent back last year. Shooting on 5DIII, AF all over the freaking place. Good focus only about 25% of the time in good light with high shutter speeds. Even when doing an AFMA, got completely different results from one series to another. Crazy. In actual use, one shot spot on, next two, nothing changed, front focus. Completely unpredictable! Impossible with people, because expressions change so fast. I didn't get a 50mm for found still-lifes!

So...Back to waiting for Canon's second coming...

Viggo, you don't know how lucky you got!


----------



## Viggo (Aug 26, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Boo hoo, boo hoo. :-[ :-[
> 
> Tried my second Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art, and it was worse than the first one I sent back last year. Shooting on 5DIII, AF all over the freaking place. Good focus only about 25% of the time in good light with high shutter speeds. Even when doing an AFMA, got completely different results from one series to another. Crazy. In actual use, one shot spot on, next two, nothing changed, front focus. Completely unpredictable! Impossible with people, because expressions change so fast. I didn't get a 50mm for found still-lifes!
> 
> ...



Oh man, sorry to hear that... I know that feeling all too well... I see the 35 L II might me around the corner, both the 50 Art and 16-35 will have to go to fund it, and I'll be a very happy camper. The 50 Art is stable AF-wise now, but it is still slow and after I bought the 135 again and compared them, it's really no contest for precision with fast erratic subjects.


----------



## zim (Sep 3, 2015)

With the new 35 design (size and weight) and IQ which must follow through to the 50s I'm beginning to think that the next 50s will be f2.0 IS USM to replace the 1.4 and a 1.4L USM to replace the 1.2L

Anyone else think the 1.2 days may be numbered?


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 4, 2015)

zim said:


> With the new 35 design (size and weight) and IQ which must follow through to the 50s I'm beginning to think that the next 50s will be f2.0 IS USM to replace the 1.4 and a 1.4L USM to replace the 1.2L



Non sequitur.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 4, 2015)

zim said:


> Anyone else think the 1.2 days may be numbered?



No, absolutely not.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 4, 2015)

zim said:


> With the new 35 design (size and weight) and IQ which must follow through to the 50s I'm beginning to think that the next 50s will be f2.0 IS USM to replace the 1.4 and a 1.4L USM to replace the 1.2L
> 
> Anyone else think the 1.2 days may be numbered?



Unfortunately the 50L is a newer design than many of the other primes in the Canon lens portfolio. So it's reasonable to assume that it's a low priority on Canon's "to-do" list. I'm sure they will get around to it eventually...but with the news of the new 35mm f1.4 II L and the fact that the 135mm f2 L and 16-35II L potential upgrades...all three lenses are big sellers for Canon.
If Canon were to make a "state of the art" 50mm L prime, I believe that it would be big seller. Many semi pro photographers like to use f2.8 zooms ('oly trinity etc), but like a single fast prime in their bag for occasional low light situations. The 50mm is THE most versatile of all the general focal lengths (although I tend to prefer a 35mm). So instead of just selling to the 24/50/100 macro community, they would also sell to the 16-35/24-70/70-200 f2.8 community and that's a bigger market than the "primesters".


----------



## zim (Sep 4, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > With the new 35 design (size and weight) and IQ which must follow through to the 50s I'm beginning to think that the next 50s will be f2.0 IS USM to replace the 1.4 and a 1.4L USM to replace the 1.2L
> ...



How? Look at the size and weight increase of the new 35, if followed through to a 50L would result in a fairly hefty lens no? how would you limit weight and size one obvious option would be to reduce it to 1.4
It was just a thought based on a single simple extrapolation, one which I hope is wrong incidentally.


----------



## 7enderbender (Sep 4, 2015)

Interesting. I just saw this rumor this morning. Obviously, this is nothing new. I personally think it would be a pity if this great lens was to be removed from the line-up. Frankly, the 50 1.2 was one of the key reasons I stayed with Canon when switching from the FD system to digital. Nikon doesn't have a lens like this so that was that.

I understand that it's not for everyone and, yes, it has limitations and weaknesses. But trying to eliminate them would result in a very different outcome from what I know. Why not simply take the 50 1.4 and give it a more professional build quality. I'd buy that one too. My 50L is and remains my most used lens.


----------



## Murilo_mms (Sep 4, 2015)

I´m waiting for the new 50L but I can wait with no stress 

As a lot of owners of it I do love this lens.

Yes, focus shif occurs sometimes, but in my experience what I do is:

- If focus point is beyond 2.5m (8.2ft) I can use 1.2 with no focus shift
- Below that distance focus shift appears sometimes, so I take 1 or 2 photos @ 1.2 and others photos @ 1.8 or 2.0 to guarantee the focus.

I never thought to sell this lens because of focus shift.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 4, 2015)

If they make improvements similar to other recent lenses, I would go for either one of these 50's ! But I may get that new Tamron 45 1.8 IS if it's really good, and that might just quench my thirst for a new 50.


----------



## Cali Capture (Sep 4, 2015)

Anyone think that Canon may go Bigger f/? As in bring back the f/1.0? If the new lens strategy is to push technology and offer lenses that Nikon, Sigma, Tamron can't touch, why not push the 50. The 11-24 does this, yea 11mm is crazy wide, but hey this is a zoom that can pound out 12mm, 13mm also. So can a 1.0 be more optimized for the corners at higher f/ stops while still delivering center sharp f/1.0? You also grab Astro folks where Canon is weak. Plus we'll probably see blue gel in all the new 50-85 primes. I think the 135 will get IS!


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 4, 2015)

In my very humble opinion:

1) The 50mm f/1.2L is a niche (= portraiture lens), and as such doesn't and wouldn't compete with the new top of the line 50mm f/1.4 lenses. Canon would leave it as is, and that's it.

2) The 50mm f/1.8 is the cheapo kit lens from film days that remained in production because people kept buying it as an entry into the fast primes world.

3) The 50mm f/1.8 STM, takes the cheap jump into the fast primes world, and therefore...

The 50mm f/1.8 can be upgraded along the 24/28/35 lenses - with IS, USM, and a ~$550 price tag.

4) The 50mm f/1.4 USM would be upgraded to compete with new 50mm f/1.4 lenses, with a price tag to match, probably ~$1,700 (near that of the Nikkor 58mm f/1.4G AF-S).

Having four 50mm lenses might be a little confusing, so I wouldn't be surprised if the new 50mm f/1.4, or possibly the upgraded 50mm f/1.2L whenever it arrives, would have a slightly different focal length.

____ Edit, October 2nd 2015 ____

Photo Rumors site reported a Canon 58mm f/1.4 patent - http://egami.blog.so-net.ne.jp/2015-10-02


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 4, 2015)

Good luck to any new L, but I still believe the festering, sucking belly wound in Canon's lens portfolio is not the the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM. 

For me, in this context of this thread, there is not a single 50mm prime in the EF mount that *autofocuses quickly* and *consistentl*y and is *sharp across the frame*. That's all I want.

The Canon 50L is not sharp across the frame.

The Canon 50 f/1.4 USM is sharp across the frame by f/4 or so, and if you get a good copy it will focus consistently. But is famous for hunting, so total time to focus is not great.

The Sigma 50 Art is easily the sharpest, but its AF is not consistent. This has been well documented, and it is a dealbreaker for me.

The Canon 50 f/1.8 STM (or II) does not focus quickly enough for me.

I'll buy the damn L if such an all-rounder of a lens is made, but my money's still riding on the f/1.4 getting the non-L IS refresh love. A thousand dollars would leave my pocket on the day of the announcement were such a lens offered. (I know it's more of a $799 kind of lens, but I just want it that badly.)

- A


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 4, 2015)

Given the release of the new 35L Mk II, it only makes sense that a new 50L is at least underway, if not nearing some sort of formal announcement (within the next 6 months I suppose). Those two focal lengths seems to go together for a lot of pros and obviously the roadmap for design is mostly done via the new 35. I can't imagine the new 50L being delayed more than a year at this point and honestly I'd be stunned if it was that long. Now, will it still be 1.2 (as in, a true MK II)? Or, will it go to 1.4 (and therefore NOT be a MK II)? That's still debatable, but what certainly does NOT seem in question anymore is that a new 50L must be on the imminent horizon as next year will mark the 50L 1.2 10 year anniversary and now we have a radically redesigned and seemingly notably optically superior 35 MK II that will certainly NOT remain lonely for long.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 4, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Given the release of the new 35L Mk II, it only makes sense that a new 50L is at least underway, if not nearing some sort of formal announcement (within the next 6 months I suppose). Those two focal lengths seems to go together for a lot of pros and obviously the roadmap for design is mostly done via the new 35. I can't imagine the new 50L being delayed more than a year at this point and honestly I'd be stunned if it was that long. Now, will it still be 1.2 (as in, a true MK II)? Or, will it go to 1.4 (and therefore NOT be a MK II)? That's still debatable, but what certainly does NOT seem in question anymore is that a new 50L must be on the imminent horizon as next year will mark the 50L 1.2 10 year anniversary and now we have a radically redesigned and seemingly notably optically superior 35 MK II that will certainly NOT remain lonely for long.



I still believe Canon wants a three price point 50 prime market:

50 f/1.2L --> 50 f/1.2L II: A lens built around draw/bokeh, meant to be used almost exclusively for small DOF work, portraiture, etc.

50 f/1.4 USM --> 50 f/nooneknows IS USM: A fully featured lens (internal focusing, distance scale, IS, etc.) that is meant for general use.

50 f/1.8 II --> 50 f/1.8 STM: The gateway prime that gets you hooked on primes' two major selling points over zooms: sharpness and small DOF. Spartan feature set: focus by wire, no distance scale, telescoping external focusing, etc.

For that very reason, I have a hard time seeing Canon slow down the 50L II to f/1.4 as it's quite possible the 50 f/nooneknows IS USM would also be f/1.4 and Canon would have a hard time selling a $1,500 lens against a similarly max apertured (est.) $750 lens.

- A


----------



## PureClassA (Sep 4, 2015)

And I agree with everything you just said, my only point that while the particulars of the new L may be debatable, the fact that a new L (of some aperture and variety) should not be in doubt whatsoever. Canon isn't going to leave that new 35 all by its lonesome self for very long at all. 



ahsanford said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > Given the release of the new 35L Mk II, it only makes sense that a new 50L is at least underway, if not nearing some sort of formal announcement (within the next 6 months I suppose). Those two focal lengths seems to go together for a lot of pros and obviously the roadmap for design is mostly done via the new 35. I can't imagine the new 50L being delayed more than a year at this point and honestly I'd be stunned if it was that long. Now, will it still be 1.2 (as in, a true MK II)? Or, will it go to 1.4 (and therefore NOT be a MK II)? That's still debatable, but what certainly does NOT seem in question anymore is that a new 50L must be on the imminent horizon as next year will mark the 50L 1.2 10 year anniversary and now we have a radically redesigned and seemingly notably optically superior 35 MK II that will certainly NOT remain lonely for long.
> ...


----------



## NancyP (Sep 4, 2015)

The 50 f/1.2L is a specialty lens for portraiture and shouldn't go away.
A sharp at f/1.4 to f/2.0, IS, 50mm lens would be nice to have.
The cheap STMs are a necessity for users with budgets. I love my 40mm f/2.8 STM as a landscape lens, especially as a "backup" lens when primarily shooting macro or birds, and wanting to carry a moderate-wide angle lens for any landscape opportunities that show up. 130 grams - can't beat that.


----------



## TeT (Sep 4, 2015)

35 L II
50 L II (2016)
85 L III (2017)

all coming; my dates are pure guesstimation

the 50 1.4 replacement will show up along the way probably equivalent to the 35 2 IS in quality (which will make most everyone drool a little on the way to the store)


----------



## The Flasher (Sep 4, 2015)

I'd toss my recently purchsed Sigma Art 50 for this - if the optics are on par with the new generation of Canon glass.


----------



## dolina (Sep 4, 2015)

Film-era L lenses. Year cut off is 2004

Primes
1993 EF 400mm f/5.6L USM
1996 EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM
1996 EF 135mm f/2L USM
1996 EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
1997 EF 300mm f/4L IS USM

Zooms
1995 EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
1999 EF 70-200mm f/4L USM
2004 EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

We are now in the era where in old lenses will show their design flaws on high pixel density cameras like the 5DS & 5DS R

I am keen on the 135 replacement.

The 50/1.2 came out in 2006. Would be interesting to see how much better it will be over the Art and Otus.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Sep 4, 2015)

I'm still seeing the following...

50mm f1.8 - current cheapo 
50mm f1.8/2.0 IS - new, just like the 35mm f2.0 IS, priced similarly 
50mm f1.4 L - New Sigma smasher with blue glass tech etc
50mm f1.2 L - Existing model 

50mm macro dumped


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 4, 2015)

CR calls the 50mm 1.2L ''flawed''!

That settles it!

Didn't we have a CR1 industry insider rumor about a new one some months back?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 4, 2015)

Haydn1971 said:


> I'm still seeing the following...
> 
> 50mm f1.8 - current cheapo
> 50mm f1.8/2.0 IS - new, just like the 35mm f2.0 IS, priced similarly
> ...



I think the two in bold above will just be one new L lens (not in addition -- I mean a 50L replacement), and they will abandon the relatively simple design and go big/heavy as if it were an Art lens. Don't expect the next-L to be tiny -- this is the era of the pickle jar primes.

- A


----------



## cayenne (Sep 4, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Sales of Canon 50mm F1.2 are restricted to people who want a "dreamy" look. I even bought a Sigma 50mm Art, and I know Canon 50mm lenses not provide optical quality so good at F1.4 aperture.
> 
> I believe it will be first released an update for Canon F1.4 and months later will see an F1.2.



I've been lusting after one, because it has allowed me to shoot some VERY low light video situations with my 5D3.....I've been thinking of buying a 50L, but have held off when I heard there might be a redesign some time after the first of the year...

But it isn't all about the stills...video is nice for that fast a lens too!! I got some shots in what almost were pitch black bars here in New Orleans...and the 50L turned nighttime almost into daylight...

Cayenne


----------



## Rudeofus (Sep 4, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> First off, all lenses focus when they are wide open, however that isn't the end of the story. AF modules have an effective aperture, Canon AF modules have been said to have an aperture of f2.8, just like the standard focusing screens have an aperture of f2.8 or so.


Canon's (and any other company's FWIW) phase detect AF sensors don't introduce this F/2.8 limit for fun and to create pain. Quite to the contrary: this limit aperture is an essential element of such an AF system. This document gives a good explanation how such systems work. The AF sensor "sees" even less than the full F/2.8 aperture, it "sees" just two small sections of the outer ring of this aperture.



privatebydesign said:


> Ever tried manually focusing an f1.2 through the viewfinder? It is very difficult because you are seeing a dimmer and deeper dof view than the lens actually is.


This is a property of the ground glass used in most modern cameras and only marginally related to the AF system. The AF system does not look at the ground glass. In fact there are replacement parts for your camera's ground glass which will "see" larger apertures than F/2.8, yet the AF system will remain the same.



privatebydesign said:


> Once you get to slow lenses wide open at f8 the view for the AF module becomes so dark it can't reliably attain accurate focus, it is looking for contrast but the lights are so dark there isn't enough, hence the slowdown in AF speed when we use TC's, and why some people find f8 easy to use (bright sunny day with a 100-400 and 1.4 TC with a high contrast bird in the sky), and some people find it totally useless (same lens but very late afternoon trying to focus on a bear in the woods, lower light levels and much lower contrast).


The problem with F/16 lenses is NOT the darkness of the image, even very bright subject matter won't AF correctly at F/16. The problem is that the AF sensor doesn't receive any light from such a lens, as it looks only in the direction where an F/2.8 lens would send light from but an F/16 lens doesn't. Replace the term F/2.8 with F/4, F/5.6 and F/8 for the respective AF sensors.



privatebydesign said:


> 5/ Focus shift has nothing to do with AF.
> 6/ There isn't an offset value to which lenses are focused after AF has been achieved to allow for focus shift.



I have a Sigma F/2.8 28-70 EX DF lens which proves you wrong: even in AI servo mode it will reliably and consistently front focus on the center AF point of my EOS 3, and that front focus is strong enough to be very visible even in the view finder. This would be utterly impossible without stored correction values which tell the camera "if your AF sensor is happy, move x amount in direction y anyway".

Doug Kerr calls this focus correction BFCV in this posting. The problem with Canon's 50L is that these BFCVs are tabulated for focal length and subject distance, but not for selected aperture. Evidently Canon did not consider this issue when they initially laid out their AF algos, and later AF algo revisions put more emphasis at making third party lenses incompatible than at making the 50L work correctly.

The posting also states clearly, that "The AF subdetectors each work with rays through a small subaperture, essentially all rays passing through the overall aperture at a small range of distances from its center.". I hope this finally puts the "the AF sensor uses the whole F/1.2 area to focus the 50L" myth to rest.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 4, 2015)

Cali Capture said:


> Anyone think that Canon may go Bigger f/? As in bring back the f/1.0? If the new lens strategy is to push technology and offer lenses that Nikon, Sigma, Tamron can't touch, why not push the 50. The 11-24 does this, yea 11mm is crazy wide, but hey this is a zoom that can pound out 12mm, 13mm also. So can a 1.0 be more optimized for the corners at higher f/ stops while still delivering center sharp f/1.0? You also grab Astro folks where Canon is weak. Plus we'll probably see blue gel in all the new 50-85 primes. I think the 135 will get IS!



I hope they don't pass on a 50 f/1.2 in favor of a 50 f/1.0 for a couple of reasons: 1. It would be huge and slow focusing, and 2. It would be really expensive, probably prohibitively so. f/1.2 is already really large aperture, and I'd even give up 1/3 stop for IS (50 f/1.4 IS) as long as the IQ was great.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 5, 2015)

Etienne said:


> Cali Capture said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone think that Canon may go Bigger f/? As in bring back the f/1.0? If the new lens strategy is to push technology and offer lenses that Nikon, Sigma, Tamron can't touch, why not push the 50. The 11-24 does this, yea 11mm is crazy wide, but hey this is a zoom that can pound out 12mm, 13mm also. So can a 1.0 be more optimized for the corners at higher f/ stops while still delivering center sharp f/1.0? You also grab Astro folks where Canon is weak. Plus we'll probably see blue gel in all the new 50-85 primes. I think the 135 will get IS!
> ...



On the matter of size, I agree with you -- it's one of many many reasons why I want an non-L 50 f/nooneknows IS: I expect it to be in a relatively small package like the 35 f/2 IS USM.

But also on the matter of size, consider that the 50L has been pasted by two competitive lenses that are _just a weeeeee bit bigger_ (see pic. Yes that's a Zeiss 85 as the comparison site didn't have a 55 in its database, but TDP claims they are roughly the same size.)

So the question we need to ask is: Is Canon's next 50L going to stick with the compact design (it's 'double gauss', right?) or abandon it for the weapon-like pickle jars it now faces competition from? Surely, it cannot be tack sharp when stopped down _and_ dreamy when wide open unless it goes big, right?

- A


----------



## Etienne (Sep 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Cali Capture said:
> ...



I have zero knowledge of lens design, and I have no desire to learn, but a 50 f/1.4 is fast enough for me. I'm more interested in improving the sharpness wide open, contrast, and bokeh, than going to f/1.2 or larger. And IS would be great! But if I had to choose between a great 50 f/1.2 and a great 50 f/2 IS, I'd probably pick the 50 f/1.2 unless the price and/or size/weight was outrageous.


----------



## dolina (Sep 5, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> CR calls the 50mm 1.2L ''flawed''!
> 
> That settles it!
> 
> Didn't we have a CR1 industry insider rumor about a new one some months back?


I have to agree with CR. This is the reason why I never bothered with it.


----------



## Solar Eagle (Sep 5, 2015)

I didn't know there was a 50 1.8 IS patent out there. I'd probably buy the mythical 50 in the 35 IS sized body over a larger 1.4 or 1.2 without IS.

If Canon actually does redo all their 50's and adds in one with IS I'm sure the one with IS will be the highest volume seller, new nifty fifty aside, so it would make sense to save it until last. 

If I were Canon I would do 50 1.8 > 50 1.2 > 50 1.4 then 50 1.8 IS. I think that would get the maximum number of people to buy more than one of those lenses. The way it is I already have to buy two, since I already bought the 50 1.8. lol


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 5, 2015)

I'm quite content to shoot with an 850g 24-70mm f/2.8 lens (with 82mm front filter) , which has a lens barrel that extends to a length of 135mm (over 5") in order to shoot images at 50mm. Should I be filled with discontent if a dedicated 50mm lens was developed which was more than 2 stops faster but of a similar size and weight?


----------



## vscd (Sep 5, 2015)

> I have zero knowledge of lens design, and I have no desire to learn, but a 50 f/1.4 is fast enough for me. I'm more interested in improving the sharpness wide open, contrast, and bokeh, than going to f/1.2 or larger.



If you have a good 50mm f1.2 you hav probalbly a better f1.4 on it (stopped down) as on a 50mm f1.4 (wide open).



> Ok, just give me the IQ of the 85mm 1.2, but with some serious AF performance, and I'd still be happy.



To all nagging on the AF of the 85L II... it's awesome. There is no competitor on the market who did a AF in a 85 1.2 anyway, and to move a kilogram of glass is quite a task. The 85L is a portraitlens and no sportsvehicle... the 85mm 1.8 is the right choice for such usage.

I think Canon recently proved with the 35mm 1.4L II that they can beat Sigma easily. Maybe it was quite a good time to get a bit pressure on Canon... both sided won.


----------



## CanonGuy (Sep 5, 2015)

vscd said:


> I think Canon recently proved with the 35mm 1.4L II that they can beat Sigma easily. Maybe it was quite a good time to get a bit pressure on Canon... both sided won.



But canon 35mm will cost about 2.2 times in Canada. So, no, canon didn't beat sigma 'easily'! It's like saying Otus 35 beats canon 35 easily! You can not compare lenses those are so different price wise. Canon 35 is GOOD, 35 art is also GOOD. And I'm sure the 35 art will still claim major market share of 35mm as most people won't pay more than double for comparable IQ.


----------



## infared (Sep 5, 2015)

I think that the current Canon 50mm f/1.2L and the Sigma 50mm Art are BOTH incredible lenses for creating images. They are also tools for two different disciplines. I could see owning both. Truly.
I would bet that a new 50mm f/1.2L would be something aimed at satisfying the new hi-rez sensors...right?


----------



## George D. (Sep 5, 2015)

The beauty of the out-of-focus region is something so abstract I don't quite get it how we can agree on an "upgrade". Prominent reviews of the EF 70-200/2.8L II say "harsher rendition of the out of focus region" yet this lens is considered better than its predecessor. Now we're talking about upgrade of the 50/1.2L for the sake of the bokeh at 1.2? I don't think it's quite an easy thing to "fix". I can imagine Canon engineers making prototypes one after the other to decide the final formula, and I wouldn't like to be in the position to decide which would be the one to finally market. 

For the 50/1.4 even more than technical upgrade, this lens practically comes from the FD era. 50/1.4 is called "a lens with which all others are measured". A 30+ years successful formula is hot potato to tamper with. 

So the way I see it upgrading these two lenses goes much deeper than some improved technical formula or a BR gel add-on. It's about the essence of Canon as a leading photographic equipment manufacturer. Art so to speak.


----------



## FTb-n (Sep 5, 2015)

I'll jump on the Prediction Train. The new lineup of 50's will be:

- *50 f1.8 STM at $125.99.* This will replace the 50 f1.8 II (once stock runs out).

- *50 f1.4 USM IS at $699.99.* This will replace the 50 f1.4 USM and compliment the 28 f2.8 USM IS, 35 f2 USM IS. At some point, I expect to see an *85 f1.8 USM IS* to complete this line.

- *50 f1.2L II USM at $1,899.00.* This will replace the 50 f1.2L USM and compliment the 35 f1.4L II USM and the 85 f1.2L II USM.

This leaves the 100 f2.0 USM as the oddball. If the 85 f1.8 USM is replaced with an IS version, will the 100 be replaced as well?


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 5, 2015)

dilbert said:


> It is interesting that in threads about the Sigma 50/1.4 Art and how much sharper it was, many people wrote comments to defend the 50/1.2L for being soft because it had a "softness and look" that no other lens does.



Both are true to some extent, and the debate still rages today. 

However, the Sigma Art camp brings data and the Canon 50L camp brings opinion -- it's really hard to _quantify_ the beauty of transition to OOF areas. 

So one group says "Sharpness!" and the other says "Magic!" It ends up becoming an argument between a mathematician and a poet -- neither is speaking each other's language. If you're sharpness obsessed, you've already bought the Art, and if you are bokeh fanatic, you've already bought the 50L.

- A


----------



## dadohead (Sep 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > It is interesting that in threads about the Sigma 50/1.4 Art and how much sharper it was, many people wrote comments to defend the 50/1.2L for being soft because it had a "softness and look" that no other lens does.
> ...



And if you are both, you bought an Otus.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 5, 2015)

dadohead said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



And lament the fact that it isn't AF................


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 5, 2015)

The other bit that always confuses me is that many believe (including myself) that the non-L IS refresh treatment of the 24/28/35 lenses will definitely come to the 50, 85, 100, etc.

But we have to remember that there really were two price points under the L at one point. 


The 24/28/35 lenses were 'Simple' lenses with the squeaky old AF motors like the 50 f/1.8.
And the faster version of the 28, along with the 20/50/85/100, came years later (with USM). They were a higher class of lens than the 24/28/35 lenses.

So the 24/28/35 non-L IS refresh of a few years ago simply cleaned out Canon's remaining old AF motor lenses. The 20/fast28/50/85/100 were in a different class at that time, so perhaps Canon didn't feel the pressure to update those as much as the 24/28/35.

- A


----------



## TheOx (Sep 5, 2015)

I'm surprised I haven't heard much about a new update to the 20mm 2.8 or a possible upgrade. Canon has been doing a lot with wide angle lenses lately and I personally would love a new wide prime in this range with a possible upgrade to an F2 or one with IS. It would be a great option for wedding photography and indoor low light photography in general. Nikon has a relatively new full-frame 20mm 1.8G that almost made me want to jump over and try it out. It has gotten pretty good reviews as well. The Canon 20mm 2.8 is over 20 years old so I wonder if they ever plan on replacing it or just letting this focal length die out. Maybe it isn't a lens in high demand but I think an update would be fantastic as long as it is super sharp and the weight stays reasonably low.


----------



## ahsanford (Sep 5, 2015)

TheOx said:


> I'm surprised I haven't heard much about a new update to the 20mm 2.8 or a possible upgrade. Canon has been doing a lot with wide angle lenses lately and I personally would love a new wide prime in this range with a possible upgrade to an F2 or one with IS. It would be a great option for wedding photography and indoor low light photography in general. Nikon has a relatively new full-frame 20mm 1.8G that almost made me want to jump over and try it out. It has gotten pretty good reviews as well. *The Canon 20mm 2.8 is over 20 years old so I wonder if they ever plan on replacing it or just letting this focal length die out.* Maybe it isn't a lens in high demand but I think an update would be fantastic as long as it is super sharp and the weight stays reasonably low.



Fast + wide + prime = a very technically demanding design, and thus are usually priced out of the non-L market. 

Personally, of the original USM primes set (i.e. the 'Middle' column of my prior chart), it's quite possible they only update the 50 and 85 and call it good. I would not be shocked to see Canon abandon the 20mm as a niche player and 100mm as already having two macro lenses that serve very capably as short tele primes. 

That said, Canon needs to develop a fast, coma-free prime on the wider side for the astro community if no other reason. Many astro enthusiasts often opt for Zeiss or RokiBowYang glass instead of Canon's offerings, and one would think coma is the reason.

- A


----------



## vscd (Sep 5, 2015)

> But canon 35mm will cost about 2.2 times in Canada. So, no, canon didn't beat sigma 'easily'!



That's wrong and I heard it now several times. The 35mm 1.4 Art came out @999$, the Canon is listened @1799$ at the Moment. So this is "just" 1,8 time the Price with *weathersealing*. Not a bargain but not that far as you might think. You should compare the Prices fair from introduction (or wait 3 Years for the Canon to fall down to 1300/1400$). If I look at the Prices of the 35mm 1.4L I the Price will be more stable as for the Sigma-lenses. 

My Samyang is optically better/equal to the Sigma @*350$*. No Autofocus, but I don't Need one... as Zeiss don't need one, too


----------



## jd7 (Sep 6, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Haydn1971 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still seeing the following...
> ...



My "prediction" (guess!!) is there will be only one L 50 (as ahansford predicts), and I reckon it will remain at f/1.2 as a differentiator from the competition. The other question to answer is what ahansford will get in response to his wish for a 50/nooneknows IS  I am unconvinced about a 50/2 IS or 50/1.8 IS. The newer zoom lenses are so good it seems to me the most significant appeal of a prime these days is having a wide aperture, although the appeal of size/weight and price need some consideration too. On balance, I think Canon will go with 

50 1.8 STM.

50 1.4 USM II. 50 1.4 IS is a possibility but I think only if Canon can do it without making the lens too large, heavy or expensive. Otherwise I think they will sacrifice IS to keep f/1.4 and a moderate size and cost. The role of a small, moderately wide aperture prime with IS is already filled by the 35/2 IS, and even though we're talking about different focal lengths, I feel like more people would go for both a 35/2 IS and 50/1.4 in their kits than a 35/2 IS and a 50/2 IS (or is that just me?!).

50 1.2L II - possibly 50 1.2L IS but my guess is it will forego IS, just as the 35L II has. I don't expect this to be small and light (or cheap!).

That said, Tamron's new 45 1.8 VC perhaps does mean Canon will be motivated to have a 50 IS of some sort ...?

Will be interesting to see what Canon actually does!


----------



## moreorless (Sep 6, 2015)

jd7 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Haydn1971 said:
> ...



That would be my prediction as well, the big advantage of F/1.2 is that not only is it a differentiator now but also likely into the future as 3rd party manufactures will likely keep to Nikon's limit of F/1.4.

The Tamron 45mm might only be F/1.8 but the size/price and MTF's look like its aiming high like the Sigma rather than looking to be a budget option, probably hoping the VC and close focus trumps extreme speed for some.

Its interesting that we don't seem to have had any really cheap 3rd party 50mmish lenses, I spose you could argue it might be akin to kit lenses where even if there not packaged with the cameras a lot of the market is users who don't look beyond brand designs or perhaps simply economies of scale.


----------



## rs (Sep 6, 2015)

moreorless said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > My "prediction" (guess!!) is there will be only one L 50 (as ahansford predicts), and I reckon it will remain at f/1.2 as a differentiator from the competition.
> ...



+1

There's nothing in it for Sigma or anyone else to develop an f1.2 with AF lens for the EF mount and then have to develop an f1.4 lens for other mounts (Nikon F, and while they're at it, the dying Sony A mount). Canon have a clear advantage here with no distractions of smaller throat lens mounts, so embracing this advantage by further developing the f1.2 line is just one way to keep their optics clearly ahead of the competition.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Sep 6, 2015)

rs said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > jd7 said:
> ...


Is there a reason why you say f/1.2 wouldn't work on other full frame mounts? The Mitakon 85mm f/1.2 is currently made for Canon EF / Nikon F / Sony FE mounts. I know it's not an AF lens, but is there some other issue?


----------



## moreorless (Sep 6, 2015)

rs said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > That would be my prediction as well, the big advantage of F/1.2 is that not only is it a differentiator now but also likely into the future as 3rd party manufactures will likely keep to Nikon's limit of F/1.4.
> ...



The 50mmish market also to me seems to naturally be spilt into high end and low end sales with not much inbetween. It makes sense I would say as either it tends to be the cheapest prime with DOF control potential for people on a budget or its something for people after extreme performance. 

You look at say the Nikon 50mm F/1.4 G which doesn't seem to have sold that well because its aiming between the two where as the more recent 50mm F/1.8 G that's a good deal cheaper has had a lot more success.

That's the advantage of keeping the old Canon 50mm F/1.4 around, the price stays low. I wouldn't actually be shocked if they either didn't replace it or just gave it a limited workover with different build and AF motor.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 6, 2015)

moreorless said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



You might be right.. but for people like me, I want the speed and accuracy of ring USM, a decent aperture and good enough sharpess and boke for A3 printing. Take the existing 50 1.4, put a propper AF on it, newest lens coatings and do something to make the sharpness a little better wide open, nothing extreme, just good enough, and for people like me you'll get a sales, I'm just an amateur and I won't buy L glass unless I come into money, sure it's nice, but I can't justify it for what I do.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 6, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



Many people seem to believe the Nikon mount is too small for lenses faster than f1.4, which just shows a lack of familiarity with the Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AI-s, which mounts and works well enough on most DSLR's, though it isn't AF.

Now looking at an image of the back of that lens does seem to support the notion that f1.2 is a hard limit, and maybe f1.4 is a limit for AF lenses, but whilst many people have opinions it is rarely backed up with actual evidence.

Here is an image from this review by Mr Rockwell http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f12.htm

It does seem to illustrate f1.2 as a hard, or close to, limit. Even at f1.2 they had to mess with the rear element a little to make the mechanicals fit and if you look in the front of the lens, also in that review, you will notice you can actually see part of the lens mount!

I don't see why AF f1.2 lenses aren't possible with the Nikon F mount though I do agree faster than that looks unlikely to be possible.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 6, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



Count me in on that too, I am a generalist and don't want an f1.2 one trick pony, I really like my 50 f1.4 but know it needs an upgrade, my 35 f2 IS is the lens I'd like it modeled on, great performance, size, weight, character etc. I am not driven by the price but this is the feature set I am interested in, f1.4, IS, simple design, don't care about "weatherproofing" nor a red ring, ring type USM.


----------



## FTb-n (Sep 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...


+1, Except my current 50 f1.4 is a 40 year-old FD mount that I used extensively on the FTb-n. I also have the 35 f2 IS and would like to add a 50 f1.4 IS USM to my kit. Might even consider adding an 85 f1.8 IS USM, but 50 mm is the focal length that I'm more interested in for my current needs in a prime lens.


----------



## moreorless (Sep 6, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > rs said:
> ...



The big issue is the pin connectors on a modern F-mount lens, they mean you can't make the rear element quiet so large.

Everyone talks about the 50mm F/1.4 but I actually wonder whether if your looking at charging a bit of a premium but not $1000+ the best option might be to update the old 50mm F2.5 macro. Tamron have gone a bit this way with there 45mm but a 50mm F/2 IS 1:2 half macro is a very versatile lens indeed, I paid $700 for a used Ziess 50mm F/2 Makro because it could do multiple jobs but IS and AF as well would make it even more of an all rounder potentially replacing 2-3 lenses.


----------



## HighLowISO (Sep 8, 2015)

moreorless said:


> ....
> Everyone talks about the 50mm F/1.4 but I actually wonder whether if your looking at charging a bit of a premium but not $1000+ the best option might be to update the old 50mm F2.5 macro. Tamron have gone a bit this way with there 45mm but a 50mm F/2 IS 1:2 half macro is a very versatile lens indeed, I paid $700 for a used Ziess 50mm F/2 Makro because it could do multiple jobs but IS and AF as well would make it even more of an all rounder potentially replacing 2-3 lenses.


Well if it could be 50mm f/1.4 IS and 1:2 reproduction ratio? ...that would be wonderful. The f/1.4 needs an update, but it needs some differentation from what's already out there. I own the Art so if canon produces an update I hope is still relatively small, and lightweight. It has to have ring USM, and 1:2 would be killer.

That said with the STM just released, the 40mm very good, and Canon needing to update a few lenses I think we're still going to wait a while for the 50mm f/1.4 to be updated. It's going to be interesting to see what they come up with and when that will be.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 8, 2015)

The size of the rear element has nothing to do with the lens maximum aperture. It's a relationship between the focal legnth, the iris size and objective lens size. It's quite possible to make an f1.2 lens with the rear element the same size as the aperture / Iris hole. 
When Canon chose to go Auto focus, they decided they needed an entirely new mount. Which is why the EF mount was created. Canon chose their larger mount for versatility and future possible applications. Canon also chose to fit custom motors into each lens. Nikon on the other hand...added AF to their existing mount and was stuck with their legacy mount diameter. Quite a few of the current Nikon lenses even to this day rely on ancient worm drive, where the camera's motor drives the lens and one motor fits all approach. Where as all of the Canon lenses are EF.
It used to make me laugh when the D3/D700 came out and hoards of photographers jumped ship (who were mostly nikon fans using Canon because Nikon had no viable alternative). Stating the AF as the biggest reason, and yet it was only better with a handful of f2.8 zoom lenses. The rest of the Nikon range (excluding the super tele's) were in the dark ages. It is only recently that Nikon has added an 85mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4 and 24mm f1.4 to their lens portfolio...but with new AF systems.


----------



## midluk (Sep 8, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The size of the rear element has nothing to do with the lens maximum aperture. It's a relationship between the focal legnth, the iris size and objective lens size. It's quite possible to make an f1.2 lens with the rear element the same size as the aperture / Iris hole.


The f-number gives you the the apparent size of the aperture as seen from the sensor, i.e. the angle under which the aperture appears from a given point of the sensor. So the rear element has to have at least the diameter d/N, where d is the distance of the rear element from the focal plane (sensor) and N is the f-number.
I think smaller diameters would violate Liouville's theorem.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 8, 2015)

midluk said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > The size of the rear element has nothing to do with the lens maximum aperture. It's a relationship between the focal legnth, the iris size and objective lens size. It's quite possible to make an f1.2 lens with the rear element the same size as the aperture / Iris hole.
> ...



To quote from Wikipedia:
An f stop is the focal length divided by the size of the entrance pupil. 

No mention of the rear element, which it may be assumed to the the same size or larger than the pupil...it's not mentioned anywhere.


----------



## chromophore (Sep 8, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > GMCPhotographics said:
> ...



I have previously discussed this misunderstanding at great lengths. The reality is that the f-number is *both* of these relationships: f-number = focal length / entrance pupil diameter = exit pupil to image plane distance / exit pupil diameter. The quantities involved are not independent.

I have also pointed to documentation, written by an actual lens designer at Zeiss, if nobody cares to believe what I say, since on the internet, anyone can claim anything:

http://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cln_archiv/cln35_en_web_special_bokeh.pdf

Basic and elementary reasoning should force one to arrive at the conclusion that if what the sensor sees of the exit pupil is only a tiny aperture of light, the f-number cannot possibly be, say, f/1.2 or f/1.0. You cannot, by doing something with the optical path, "concentrate" the intensity of photons passing through that tiny aperture somehow: you can only lose photons through losses in transmission, for a fixed number of photons reflected off the scene and reaching the lens.

Furthermore, to address the earlier comment about Nikon's maximum relative aperture of the F mount,

http://www.pierretoscani.com/echo_shortpres.html#shortpres04

This should again put to rest various nebulous claims and speculations. Thorough research and presentation of evidence and a basic understanding of optics should be more than sufficient.


----------



## krautland (Sep 21, 2015)

to all those who have called the Canon 1.2 soft and begun using replacements ... which ones do have AF (sorry, Zeiss) and are sharp? Is the Sigma worth checking out? Does it have AF?

I'm getting ready to ebay my Canon off.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 21, 2015)

krautland said:


> to all those who have called the Canon 1.2 soft and begun using replacements ... which ones do have AF (sorry, Zeiss) and are sharp? Is the Sigma worth checking out? Does it have AF?
> 
> I'm getting ready to ebay my Canon off.


I have the Sigma 50 Art is wonderfully crisp even when used in F1.4. In some bodies Canon, Sigma Art has trouble focusing through the viewfinder (phase-detection), but works well with Live View, and optimally well with Dual Pixel AF.

I know Bokeh is subjective, but for me the quality of the bokeh Sigma 50 Art, is better than the Canon 50L. Yes, the 50L is capable of a larger background blur, but Sigma Art has a smoothness on the boundary of the "balls" Bokeh, which pleases me very much.


----------



## rfdesigner (Sep 21, 2015)

chromophore said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > midluk said:
> ...



+1

light cone approaching the sensor will be f1.2 on a f1.2 lens, Canon sensor to mount distance is ~44mm.

to get f1.2 you need at least 36mm diameter rear element.. and that will only get you f1.2 in the centre of the field.

In the corners of a full field lens/camera combination you won't beat f2.7 (sigma 85mm f1.4)

That's one thing I like about my 100f2.0 it achieves f3.4 in the corners.. even if I sign a blank cheque to canon I can't get much more than half a stop improvement in the corners.

If you want a lens that's faster in ther corners then you need a bigger mount.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 24, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> krautland said:
> 
> 
> > to all those who have called the Canon 1.2 soft and begun using replacements ... which ones do have AF (sorry, Zeiss) and are sharp? Is the Sigma worth checking out? Does it have AF?
> ...



Most of us longing for a better 50mm 1.2 have already given the Sigma Art a try. Or several tries. Abject failure with 5DIII AF for me. But the 35mm Art is fine. 

Live View? Are you serious? 

Anecdotal claims of the Art being more reliable with the 7DII don't convince or impress.

Personally, I found the 50mm Art tended to be a bit dark, harsh...Call it grungy. But adequate--when it hit.


----------

