# Review - Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 18, 2016)

```
I lent Dustin my copy of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.0L to review, as we both figured it’d be fun to take a look at one of Canon’s most collectible lenses.  The EF  50mm f/1.0L was introduced in September of 1989 and was the fastest SLR  lens available during its production run, which ended in 2000.</p>
<p>This lens isn’t an amazing optical performer, but as someone mentioned on Twitter recently, if you want a unique look, use a unique lens and the EF 50mm f/1.0L fits the bill.</p>
<p>From Dustin:</p>
<blockquote><p>Canon didn’t make this lens (in quantity) for long, but it was a shot across the bows of Nikon, Pentax, and others that said, “Look what we can do!” The technologies (and lens body) pioneered in this lens were implemented into the far more practical (yet still extreme) EF 85mm f/1.2L, and seven years later evolved into the EF 85mm f/1.2L II lens; one of the most prized portrait lenses in the world. The burst of creativity and advanced engineering that resulted in this lens enabled Canon to create more accessible and successful autofocusing f/1.2 lenses (50mm and 85mm), a feat that no one else is replicating even in 2016.  It is worth noting that still today Canon is the only one producing autofocusing lenses with an f/1.2 maximum aperture. <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-50mm-f1-0l/">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p>I now have the lens back in my possession and look forward to shooting with it on the new EOS-1D X Mark II.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## j-nord (Apr 18, 2016)

Pros:
- f1.0
- because

Cons:
- You don't need f1.0
- terrible lens

In summation: who wouldn't want one?


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.
> 
> Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.



A valid criticism, but, unfortunately January and February in Canada at not exactly the prime season for such things and in deference to the value of Craig's property I did not pack the lens along when traveling.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.
> 
> Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.


You don't need a fast lens to photograph a black cat in a coal mine..... no matter what your Fstop is on the lens, it is going to look like this.......


----------



## bchernicoff (Apr 18, 2016)

I don't know where he gets the idea that Canon is the only one making an autofocus 1.2 lens. Fuji and Panasonic make f/1.2 lenses with AF. I own the 56mm and it's great.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 18, 2016)

bchernicoff said:


> I don't know where he gets the idea that Canon is the only one making an autofocus 1.2 lens. Fuji and Panasonic make f/1.2 lenses with AF. I own the 56mm and it's great.



Those aren't full frame DSLR lenses.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 18, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.
> 
> Or to be more fair, people crow about fast lenses for low light shooting (parties, events, etc) yet none of the review samples included that.



Fast lenses aren't only for extreme low light situations.


----------



## d (Apr 18, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.
> ...



But the review *does* describe it as "the ultimate low-light lens". It'd be good to see how it performs on the 1DX II in near dark conditions.

Anyway, isn't a game of scrabble considered a party or event in Canada?


----------



## Jopa (Apr 18, 2016)

The rendering is quite magical. Thank you for the review Dustin.


----------



## geekpower (Apr 18, 2016)

thanks for the review.

even though almost none of us will ever own this lens, it is still an interesting history lesson, especially for those of us who do own the 1.2.

also, haters gonna hate. :


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 18, 2016)

I appreciated the review. A bit of a peak into something that, as has been said, "many of us will never own".

With the recent talk of the 50mm f/1.4 replacement. I am left wondering when and what Canon will replace the current 50mm f/1.2L with. Assuming the consumer based 50 f/1.4 is indeed replaced this year, I'd think we'd see a new "L" version in the next couple years.


----------



## gmon750 (Apr 18, 2016)

I just don't understand the hate here. Honestly, this forum is becoming just like the other ones where haters talk much, but say little. 

I own the 50mm f/1.2 lens and it is a fantastic lens. It took tons of practice to master it at f/1.2 due to the micro-DOF but gosh darn it, it take some of the most creamy, beautiful shots without need for a flash. That's a huge plus as I'm using my 600EX-RT flash less and less when out and about.

The f/1.0 is certainly an interesting lens. I wish I could try it out. Canon even said they basically wanted to "prove" back in the 80's that this lens could be made. So it's not up to your standards for whatever reason? Guess what, no one cares! Why comment so negatively on something you've never used?

I just don't get it. You either have gear-envy or have nothing better to contribute. Either just enjoy the review and the intent the author was trying to convey, or just go back to your basement and wait for mommy to bring you down supper. Haters just keep hating.


----------



## Andyx01 (Apr 18, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Pros:
> - f1.0
> - because
> 
> ...



Have you considered a career in journalism?


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 18, 2016)

Thank you Dustin and Craig for a review that brings history to life and a fresh perspective to our current production lens choices.

Fun and informative!


----------



## jrista (Apr 19, 2016)

Canon Rumors said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.
> ...



Indeed. The thin DOF on this thing, and the background blur, must be something incredible. This is one of the lenses that I like a lot. It may not be a stellar performer...but it is quite unique. Lenses like this, or the MP-E 65mm, etc. are some of the reasons I stick with Canon for my primary imaging gear.


----------



## Jopa (Apr 19, 2016)

gmon750 said:


> I just don't understand the hate here. Honestly, this forum is becoming just like the other ones where haters talk much, but say little.



Just too many people are coming here from SonyAlphaRumors


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 19, 2016)

jrista said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


+1

My fastest lens is an f1.4.... it really helps when trying to isolate the subject from the background.... An F1.0? ? ? must be incredible!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 19, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Yes, although the relatively pedestrian EF 135L will provide more subject isolation. Even at a very close 6 feet the DOF of 2/135mm is .87 inches, while the 1.0/50mm has a DOF of 3.16 inches. That advantage for the 135L only grows as the subject moves further away.

Focal length plays the biggest factor.


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 19, 2016)

Haters gonna hate
This is a lens that has always made me drool.. I know it's a pipe dream, but I always wished canon would update it to current standards using the top of the line optics we have today. I could never afford it anyway, but one can dream.

Some folks are saying that f/1.0 gives too little dof to be useful, and others are saying that f1.0 at 50mm gives less thin a dof than the 135mm f/2.0. Wait. The 135mm is useful ain't it?

Yes there are lenses that give less dof where that is required, but none give a thinner dof at 50mm
. 
Yes there are better alternatives to low light than f/1.0, because of the dof but then again..., the 135f/2.0 is "worse".

It may just be a "this one goes to 11" argument, but it's just a cool lens. Hey, f/1.0 is so much cuter than f/1.4. And besides: bragging rights.

Thanks Dustin for the excellent review. This is a lens I can't read enough reviews of XD

EDIT, just ran some numbers and realized the 135 does not necessarily have less dof, at least when framing is accounted for.


----------



## Luds34 (Apr 19, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> EDIT, just ran some numbers and realized the 135 does not necessarily have less dof, at least when framing is accounted for.



Exactly! Generally speaking, taking framing into account the DOF will be roughly the same at the same aperture. However, the look, and style/quality of bokeh will vary greatly with focal length. A lens like the 135mm has so much compression, bringing far off distance background objects "closer", creating much larger bokeh balls, etc. Contrast that with say a 35mm lens even at f/1.4, which again, will have a very thin DOF, yet will look completely different look with it's wide field of view showing much more of the background in a almost more subdued blur with tiny bokeh balls, etc.


----------



## paulrossjones (Apr 19, 2016)

j-nord said:


> Pros:
> - f1.0
> - because
> 
> ...




I have owned two of these lenses, and I shoot about a third of my shots with one when I shoot my advertising shots.
I shoot exclusively at f1.0, and the look it produces is absolutely lovely. Second only to the ef 85mm f1.2, which renders an even more beautiful shot.

This lens isn't about sharpness or how low light it can shoot, it is about the look it can produce. This lens really is only about the look, the flare, the blur of the BG. Its really a one trick pony, but the trick is very unique.

Here is a shot I took with one for MGM grand in Los Vegas, its the lens I use when the 85mm is too long. 








Saying that the lens is of no use is really missing its best attributes. 

paul


----------



## Mancubus (Apr 19, 2016)

gmon750 said:


> I own the 50mm f/1.2 lens and it is a fantastic lens. It took tons of practice to master it at f/1.2 due to the micro-DOF but gosh darn it, it take some of the most creamy, beautiful shots without need for a flash.



Could you please elaborate more on "tons of practice"?

Is the autofocus reliable at this aperture? Were you using manual?


----------



## grainier (Apr 19, 2016)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.
> ...



I would think that January and February in Canada provide some prime opportunities for low-light shooting.


----------



## Fleetie (Apr 19, 2016)

paulrossjones said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Pros:
> ...


That is a FANTASTIC photo, and exactly the kind of scene that this lens (50/1.0) would excel at.

Brilliant! I love it!


----------



## BBW (Apr 19, 2016)

paulrossjones said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Pros:
> ...



Well put. The 50mm f1.0 is our most used lens and has the best value 'per click' of all my lenses. It's not always about low light situations; since ISO values and noise have increased/improved enormously since the original 5D. But it's about the 'magic' that gives images a different look. 

I own two. One for daily use, one as a spare. The f1.2 is for bad weather and the beach.


----------



## Zv (Apr 19, 2016)

Nice review I enjoyed reading it! Makes me wish I was actually skilled enough to be able to make use of such a lens! 

It must be difficult finding a good background and foreground to blur. With my 135L I mainly only have to think of background blur and for the most part with the distances involved the background is a nice creamy smudge! And the narrower FoV means less chance of distractions. 

How people get good wide and shallow dof shots that look really good is a mystery to me! One I hope to crack someday!


----------



## YuengLinger (Apr 19, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> gmon750 said:
> 
> 
> > I own the 50mm f/1.2 lens and it is a fantastic lens. It took tons of practice to master it at f/1.2 due to the micro-DOF but gosh darn it, it take some of the most creamy, beautiful shots without need for a flash.
> ...



The challenges go beyond nailing focus, which is relatively easy with Canon's current AF systems (at least on the 5DIII and lowly 60D). As Zv said, foreground blur is not automatically pleasing, sometimes it's just distracting, can even be ugly.

And with portraits, an arm or hand can become a misshapen glob rater than an asset just because it is creamy. Ears can look silly. Choose the wrong eye to focus on in a shot where the subject is looking slightly to one side or the other, an otherwise nice shot just doesn't work.

And then there are shots where the subject becomes secondary to showing off the shallow DoF, and the shot just kind of falls apart. A prime example of this is a portrait where a subject, often an attractive young woman, puts a cheek against a brick wall, and suddenly we see more blurred brick than pretty face.

That's just scratching the surface. My challenge is making soft focused and fully blurred-out elements of the composition complement the actual subject. Nailing focus is the easiest part...

In my experience, the 135 is easier because of the tighter framing, exactly as Zv says. My 85mm 1.2 opens up the frame and the challenges. It focuses slowly but faithfully.

As I've hoped over and over, Canon, please release a 1.2 that optically and AF wise, and with no focus shift, performs slightly better than the 85 1.2 II L and I'll fall in love all over again!


----------



## IglooEater (Apr 19, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> As I've hoped over and over, Canon, please release a 1.0 that optically and AF wise, and with no focus shift, performs slightly better than the 85 1.2 II L and I'll fall in love all over again!



There. Fixed it for you


----------



## d (Apr 19, 2016)

paulrossjones said:


> I have owned two of these lenses, and I shoot about a third of my shots with one when I shoot my advertising shots.
> I shoot exclusively at f1.0, and the look it produces is absolutely lovely. Second only to the ef 85mm f1.2, which renders an even more beautiful shot.
> 
> This lens isn't about sharpness or how low light it can shoot, it is about the look it can produce. This lens really is only about the look, the flare, the blur of the BG. Its really a one trick pony, but the trick is very unique.
> ...


Hi Paul,

Thanks for posting the image, and sharing your experiences with this lens. As you're no doubt aware it has a bit of a cult following on the web - I've read quite a few reviews on it over the years, but this is the first time I've read of someone using it for commercial purposes. It's good to see it being used for practical applications - so many of the shots posted using it seem to just want to show off the OOF foreground/background, and not much else. You've proven that despite its exotic nature and idiosyncrasies, it's also a useful tool.

Cheers,
d.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Apr 19, 2016)

paulrossjones said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Pros:
> ...



What a perfect application of the lens, and this is a shot I wish I'd taken  Great color work here, too. You've minimized the shortcomings of the lens and nailed its best qualities. Bravo!


----------



## pierlux (Apr 19, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.
> ...



Wow, viewed 29 times as of now... LOL!

Half minded to click on it myself, too, just to see...

_edit_ OK, done, clicked 10 times.


----------



## j-nord (Apr 19, 2016)

pierlux said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I think it's the terrible DR of Canon sensors. With a sony mirrorless body you could recover those shadows!


----------



## LAProducer (Apr 19, 2016)

I purchased a flawless Canon EF 50mm F/1.0L Lens from an Estate Sale for $300 (among a group of lenses purchased). Perhaps the best deal ever for this model.

Anyways, I have purchased many F/1.2 fast lenses over the years, some modified for Canon by Jim Buchanan such as a few Minolta Rokkor 58mm F/1.2 Lenses and a few Canon FL 55mm F/1.2 Lenses.

In a head to head comparison - Canon FL 55mm F/1.2 vs the Canon EF 50mm F/1.0L (both set to F/1.2) on a 6D, (later both tested on a Canon C100MK II) the FL 55mm F/1.2 was far superior. Much less chromatic aberration and far sharper. Personally, I did not like the F/1.0 image quality at all.

I sold the Canon EF 50mm F/1.0 Lens to a broker (for a 900% profit which was still dirt cheap for this lens)


----------



## slclick (Apr 19, 2016)

The right lens in the right hands....


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 20, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Well without any tests of black cats in coal mines, I fail to see how the point of a lens like this has been made.



I figured it out! 
Infrared photography! 7D2 at ISO51200, 50mmF1.4 lens, infrared 770nm filter, and the obligatory black cat.....


----------



## Berowne (Apr 20, 2016)

paulrossjones said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > Pros:
> ...



Very nice. Thank you for posting.


----------



## Respinder (Apr 21, 2016)

I really REALLY hope Canon does the right thing and release a new version of this lens, as opposed to releasing an upgraded f1.2 or f1.4 lens. I think Canon really needs another engineering marvel - they released the fantastic 11-24, and it just makes sense to release a new modern equivalent of the 1.0.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 21, 2016)

Respinder said:


> I really REALLY hope Canon does the right thing and release a new version of this lens, as opposed to releasing an upgraded f1.2 or f1.4 lens. I think Canon really needs another engineering marvel - they released the fantastic 11-24, and it just makes sense to release a new modern equivalent of the 1.0.



They won't, they have already proven they can do it, along with various other lenses that have no equal. Like the 85 f1.2 (which is very closely related to the 50 f1.0 but which has considerably more practical value), 200mm f1.8, MP-E65, TS-E17, 8-15 fisheye zoom, 11-24 zoom etc.

How many 'engineering marvels' do you demand? How many do other companies release to demonstrate such lens system domination? Besides I think the newer lenses are far more worthwhile from the perspective of more photographers needs and desires and the 50 f1.0 can retire into folklore, without a MkII messing with its mythical reputation.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 21, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Respinder said:
> 
> 
> > I really REALLY hope Canon does the right thing and release a new version of this lens, as opposed to releasing an upgraded f1.2 or f1.4 lens. I think Canon really needs another engineering marvel - they released the fantastic 11-24, and it just makes sense to release a new modern equivalent of the 1.0.
> ...


Agreed!
They have already proven that they can do it, but was it worthwhile? Did they sell enough? If the answer was a resounding no, then the odds of it being re-introduced is quite low.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Apr 22, 2016)

BBW said:


> paulrossjones said:
> 
> 
> > j-nord said:
> ...



Haha for bad weather and the beach. very cool, one day ill invest in one of these being my 1.2 is my most used.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 22, 2016)

LAProducer said:


> I purchased a flawless Canon EF 50mm F/1.0L Lens from an Estate Sale for $300 ...



I was about to offer you $500 for it, then I read that you've already sold it. ;D


----------



## Christopher Wadsworth (Apr 23, 2016)

paulrossjones said:


> j-nord said:
> 
> 
> > I have owned two of these lenses, and I shoot about a third of my shots with one when I shoot my advertising shots.
> ...


----------



## Respinder (Apr 23, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Respinder said:
> 
> 
> > I really REALLY hope Canon does the right thing and release a new version of this lens, as opposed to releasing an upgraded f1.2 or f1.4 lens. I think Canon really needs another engineering marvel - they released the fantastic 11-24, and it just makes sense to release a new modern equivalent of the 1.0.
> ...



I'm not sure you understand what I was trying to say. Yes they proved they could release a f1.0 lens decades ago, but it obviously had its flaws and limitations based upon the technology at that time. Using today's modern techniques, I am certain that Canon can release a flawless f1.0 lens that can be both practical and dominant - their track record on practically every other lens over the last 5 years has been very good.

Canon, like any other DSLR manufacturer, needs to keep pushing the envelope here - this is not about Canon vs Nikon vs Sony anymore. This is about the future of photography - which today, for better or worse, is dominated by cell phones. Let's face it: modern photography by the average user these days is Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook - social photography as we would call it. Traditional camera companies need to continue to push the boundaries - just like everyone else I might add - in order to keep traditional cameras relevant at a time when most folks don't care about resolution, megapixels, etc - that is the reality we are in.

When it comes to fast lenses, this is still an area that cell phones cant come close to. Most of my colleagues simply don't understand why I haul around a DSLR until they've seen a picture with shallow depth of field. In terms of "engineering marvels" - hate to say it but pretty much every market is driven by innovation - its about releasing the most unique products that will attract the greatest attention - a new f1.0 lens will certainly do this, just as the recent 11-24 release did.


----------



## JonAustin (Apr 23, 2016)

*@Christopher Wadsworth*

Interesting read. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## d (Apr 23, 2016)

Respinder said:


> ...I am certain that Canon can release a flawless f1.0 lens that can be both practical and dominant - their track record on practically every other lens over the last 5 years has been very good.



But at what cost? A "flawless" 50 1.0 will likely be prohibitively expensive.



Respinder said:


> ...hate to say it but pretty much every market is driven by innovation...



Markets are driven by profits from sales. See my point above.


----------



## Zv (Apr 23, 2016)

Respinder said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Respinder said:
> ...



People who only take pictures on smartphones and photographers who even know what f/1.0 even is are two completely different ends of the consumer spectrum. I highly doubt either one has any correlation with the other. Making a new f/1.0 lens will make absolutely no difference to that market. 

Lamborghini could make a flying car but I'd still ride my bike to work.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Nov 18, 2016)

Sorry to bring this back from the dead, but I just got one of these lenses. It's interesting to use so far, but admittedly I'm a little scared of damaging such a rare and valuable lens.  I live near Midwest Camera repair though, and they did tell me that their system shows that they can still repair this lens, and there was nothing in the system that showed limited parts availability or anything like that.

I'm interested to see what it will do with respect to taking practical photos, not just doing super closeups to show off the bokeh.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 18, 2016)

The question is, would they get the part if they actually ordered? It's no longer serviced and kept parts by Canon, so expect this information to be a glitch in the Matrix.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Nov 18, 2016)

Yeah, I am still a little suspect of any place that claims they can repair it. I'm on the fence between just using it, enjoying it, and assuming that risk, and just re-selling it to someone else. It's cool to have a piece of Canon history though.

What has the value of these been doing recently?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 18, 2016)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Yeah, I am still a little suspect of any place that claims they can repair it. I'm on the fence between just using it, enjoying it, and assuming that risk, and just re-selling it to someone else. It's cool to have a piece of Canon history though.
> 
> What has the value of these been doing recently?



I actually have a backup focus motor for the EF 50 f/1.0L, which I obviously hope is in working order if I ever need to repair my EF 50 f/1.0L. I purchased it from a repair centre in Hong Kong for a pretty penny.

I'm likely SOL if I drop the lens and damage the barrel or front element. I've been trying for a while to get a front element. I believe it's like the 85 f/1.2L II, in that there are various front elements depending on the copy.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 18, 2016)

Since all the others are releasing 50mm and 85mm primes, with stunning performance, Canon must do something to maintain their position. One thing they could do, to stand out, is to release a new 50mm f1.0L. The only alternative would be a 10k$ manual focus Leica. I would line up for it (as you may know, I have a very weak character). 

I suppose a 50mm will sell better than an 85mm and I would certainly get one, but I would be more happy for a new Otus class 85, preferably F/1.2 with IS and weather sealing.


----------



## Jopa (Nov 19, 2016)

Eldar said:


> I would be more happy for a new Otus class 85, preferably F/1.2 with IS and weather sealing.


+1. Something like 35/f1.4 II quality with BR glass. I highly doubt it will have IS though, but it would be so awesome. That's what the Sigma 85 Art is missing IMHO.


----------

