# Sigma vs Zeiss vs Canon



## sanj (Apr 15, 2014)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=917&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

What with this Canon??


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 15, 2014)

Let's see…you're comparing the Canon 50/1.4 to a Sigma 50/1.4 that is >20 years newer and costs over twice as much. How would a 1993 Honda Accord stack up against a 2014 Acura TL in terms of features and performance? Hint: the former would pretty much suck by comparison.

Much more surprising is when that Acura TL performs almost as well as a BMW 760Li. What with this Zeiss?


----------



## sanj (Apr 15, 2014)

Also comparing it with the Zeiss… I think from f2 onwards the Sigma corners look better!! And here is the comparison with the most expensive Canon 50mm…. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

Looks WORSE… 
One other point: Why should Canon not update its lenses for >20 years while others are doing so without having the might of Canon? Does Canon not want its customers to have better? Am thinking…


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 15, 2014)

sanj said:


> Does Canon not want its customers to have better?



Canon wants its customers to *buy lenses*. The Canon 50/1.8 is among their most popular lenses, primarily because it's cheap. The 50/1.4 is also quite popular. A lot more people are going to buy a $400 lens than a $950 or $4000 lens.


----------



## sanj (Apr 15, 2014)

But but what about the people who want a good quality 50mm and are willing to pay appropriate money? 

And don't you think lots of people will buy the Sigma?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 15, 2014)

sanj said:


> But but what about the people who want a good quality 50mm and are willing to pay appropriate money?
> 
> And don't you think lots of people will buy the Sigma?



I think the Sigma 50/1.4 will be pretty popular. 

We've seen Canon recently bring out several new EF non-L primes with IS (24/28/35), and I expect we'll see an updated 50mm with IS soon. The IQ of those new lenses is quite good (compare the 35/2 IS to the Sigma 35/1.4 Art, for example).


----------



## distant.star (Apr 15, 2014)

sanj said:


> But but what about the people who want a good quality 50mm and are willing to pay appropriate money?
> 
> And don't you think lots of people will buy the Sigma?



"Appropriate money"?

I'd suggest, like beauty, appropriate money is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## sanj (Apr 15, 2014)

When I used the word appropriate, I was thinking Zeiss.


----------



## sanj (Apr 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > But but what about the people who want a good quality 50mm and are willing to pay appropriate money?
> ...



That would be super. And with Sigma setting new standards, Canon will have to beat it. Then we will all get a super duper lens.


----------



## BL (Apr 15, 2014)

sanj said:


> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=917&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> What with this Canon??



I wouldn't get too upset about this. Competition is a really good thing for consumers in the long run 

Just have to be patient...


----------



## jrista (Apr 15, 2014)

sanj said:


> But but what about the people who want a good quality 50mm and are willing to pay appropriate money?
> 
> And don't you think lots of people will buy the Sigma?



Canon DOES have the 50/1.2 lens. You can't deny the quality of that lens, despite it's spherical aberration, which as it so happens to be, is a DESIRABLE trait in a portrait lens for many photographers. Not everyone screams for perfect corner to corner sharpness. Sometimes, having soft corners is beneficial to guiding your viewers eyes to the subject...which tends to be near the center of the frame.

I've always admired photos taken with the Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses. They have a specific aesthetic appeal that is just WONDERFUL for portraiture specifically, and for a variety of other types of photography as well (such as street.) I find it ironic how so many people write off the Canon 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 lenses as if they don't even qualify to be included in the lineup for comparison.

So, what about the people who want quality? Canon offers a VERY high quality 50/1.2 lens that offers STUNNING and very aesthetically appealing results. You should give it a try sometime. Oh, and you'll spend about half as much on that as you would on an Otus...you won't get razor sharp corners, but it's HALF as much as an Otus.


----------



## drjlo (Apr 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> We've seen Canon recently bring out several new EF non-L primes with IS (24/28/35), and I expect we'll see an updated 50mm with IS soon. The IQ of those new lenses is quite good (compare the 35/2 IS to the Sigma 35/1.4 Art, for example).



I also think the next Canon 50 mm, be it 50 f/2 IS or 50 f/1.4 Mk II will have quite improved optics competitive with the new offerings from other companies. I realize "real" photographers enjoy the size and weight punishment dished out by the likes of Sigma 50 ART and Otus, but I for one love the lighter and smaller primes Canon has been putting out. 

The real problem is WHEN is Canon going to bless us with their new 50 mm :'(


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 15, 2014)

sanj said:


> Also comparing it with the Zeiss… I think from f2 onwards the Sigma corners look better!! And here is the comparison with the most expensive Canon 50mm…. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1[/url
> Looks WORSE…
> One other point: Why should Canon not update its lenses for >20 years while others are doing so without having the might of Canon? Does Canon not want its customers to have better? Am thinking…




During the 'twenty years or so' Canon has been developing it's zoom tech, cumulating with such remarkable lenses as the 24-70II & 70-200II and so on. Primes have taken a back seat but this may result in Canon producing a 50mm with the same optic configuration if they think the market's large enough at the price.


----------



## sanj (Apr 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > But but what about the people who want a good quality 50mm and are willing to pay appropriate money?
> ...



So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 16, 2014)

I see the discontent on this forum about Canon not yet having a perfect fast 50mm, a tack-sharp UWA zoom, etc., and I learnt a few days ago that Nikon brought out their f/1.4 autofocus primes, 24mm and 35mm, only in 2010. That must have made for a lot of irritated professionals!


----------



## jrista (Apr 16, 2014)

sanj said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I'm sure a lot of people would. I'm also sure that a lot of the people who currently love the soft-focus traits of the current 50/1.2 would be bummed if Canon copied the Otus design with razor sharp focus corner to corner. It's better to have a DIVERSITY of lenses with different traits, than for all manufacturers to make exactly the same things that behave exactly the same way. 

I think the center performance of the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 needs to be improved...in the grand scheme of things, it's a bit soft, and doesn't need to be. I do, however, hope Canon keeps the soft focus traits in place if they release a 50/1.2 II and 85/1.2 II. If I want a lens with perfect sharpness, I can always get the Otus...if Canon copies the Otus, then I'm suddenly left WITHOUT the option of buying a lens that purposely leaves in a certain amount of spherical aberration for artistic flare.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 16, 2014)

To some extent it is good to see that the $3k extra for the Otus is giving something. But from a sharpness perspective, the Sigma looks good and I am really looking forward to get my hands on it to verify how it performs. But sharpness is only one aspect though.

My 35 Art´s AF is drifting again (a third AFMA with Focal showed a further 4 step adjustment, on top of the 7 steps I got between the one I did when I got it and Christmas), so I must admit I am a bit skeptical to that part of sigma. But since so many are happy with it, I hope my AF problem is a one-off.

I do however agree with jrista regarding the 50L. The 35L and 85L are pretty much in the same boat. Chart porn reviews will rule them out, but looking at the quality images they produce in the right hands makes it very difficult to discard them as inferior lenses. I would hope Canon could update them optically and throw in IS. If they could keep the size and weight on the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2L about where it is, they would be very interesting alternatives. The Otus is a big chunk to carry and a manual one on top of that, so you think twice before you throw it in the bag for a trip.


----------



## sanj (Apr 16, 2014)

I totally doubt that Canon makes lenses with soft edges on purpose. I think the soft edges are a result of technology limitations and cost saving.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 16, 2014)

Eldar said:


> My 35 Art´s AF is drifting again (a third AFMA with Focal showed a further 4 step adjustment, on top of the 7 steps I got between the one I did when I got it and Christmas), so I must admit I am a bit skeptical to that part of sigma. But since so many are happy with it, I hope my AF problem is a one-off.




I have a technical query here:

As far as I understand, the purpose of AFMA is not to 'fix' defective lenses, but calibrate a specified lens to a given camera to account for manufacturing tolerances.
Once the AFMA is done, the camera knows how much to compensate for this lens, and everything is hunky-dory.

But in what condition can AFMA drift as is happening in Eldar's case? Is it because something is moving within the lens and a gap is getting bigger or a cog is becoming more loose? 

I am particularly interested since I just acquired a 35A (so far it looks like it is focusing right on target as shown below- spot focused on "6" using a peripheral point and center point respectively), I haven't run it through FoCal yet.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 16, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > My 35 Art´s AF is drifting again (a third AFMA with Focal showed a further 4 step adjustment, on top of the 7 steps I got between the one I did when I got it and Christmas), so I must admit I am a bit skeptical to that part of sigma. But since so many are happy with it, I hope my AF problem is a one-off.
> ...


To be fair with Sigma, I will return it to service and see what they come up with. It might be an issue with this specific copy.


----------



## sanj (Apr 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



Absolutely Dilbert. Perfectly said. Every word.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2014)

sanj said:


> I totally doubt that Canon makes lenses with soft edges on purpose. I think the soft edges are a result of technology limitations and cost saving.



In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon. 




dilbert said:


> I'm pretty sure that you can introduce spherical aberration through plugins or other software components if you really so desire. What you can't do is correct for poor image quality at capture time.



There are polarization effect filters for post-processing, but they cannot properly replicate the effects of having a CPL on your lens at capture. Similarly, adding spherical aberration in post will not correct for poor bokeh in the captured image. 




dilbert said:


> Anyway, in the main the comments above about justifying Canon's current design and product are more about trying to ensure that people who worship Canon find a way to present Canon's offering as good and justified so that they feel good about owning Canon products. That's it. I'm sure someone will argue here that this comment is wrong...



Comments like the above are mainly about bashing Canon, made by people who have an inadequate grasp of the concepts behind lens design (and in one case, the inability to distinguish a lens from a camera). 




dilbert said:


> ...but you don't see anyone saying that they wish the 70-200/2.8 II had soft focus like the 50/1.2L and so on.



Not in those words, no. But plenty of people have said that they prefer the bokeh of the MkI versions of the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 IS, or at least acknowledged the less-that-stellar bokeh of the MkII versions. When push comes to shove, they may not want to trade sharpness for better bokeh, but I suspect many people aren't even aware of the trade-off.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Confirmation bias:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
> ".. is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses."
> 
> ...



Yes, but seeing schadenfreude in action can be just as ugly.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Hmmm.......hardly fair. The 50 L is a niche lens designed for a very specific purpose. It was never intended to be a GP standard lens. The comments made against it are very much in the 'test chart specialists vs specialist practical users'. However because of the extremes in construction and pricing between the 50L and the 50 f1.4, the former is often misinterpreted as the 'high - end option', and to correct this Canon should introduce a better constructed, higher end 50mm than the 50 f1.4 to fill the gap. ( 50/1.8 IS perhaps). 

The new Sigma and Otus should be seen as a different to the 50L.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


Wrong again (or perhaps that should be, wrong as usual). Obviously, you don't comprehend the relationship between spherical aberration and bokeh, and the analogy of polarization failed to enlighten you. You're no more correct in this case then when you thought a lens was a camera, although I must say that was a particularly egregious example of your ability to totally miss the point. Frankly, you have made dozens of similar, if less colossal, factual mistakes in this forum, and your credibility is basically nil.




dilbert said:


> No. The problem that we're seeing here is something called "confirmation bias", where people find any reason at all to support the idea that the Canon 50/1.2L is better.


Again you miss the point. Is anyone saying the 50/1.2L is _sharper_? Not that I've seen. If you want to define "better" as sharpest, that's a judgement by you. 

The problem that we're seeing here is something called "false-consensus effect," where people believe that everyone's definition of 'better' or 'best' is the same as their own, personal definition. 

False-consensus effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect
"...a cognitive bias whereby a person tends to overestimate the extent to which their beliefs or opinions are typical of those of others."




dilbert said:


> I can't wait for the Sigma 50/1.4 Art to be tested by DxO and for it to wipe the floor with the 50/1.2L. I can already see the posts from those with Red Ring Fever putting down DxO, etc. What a laugh that will be to see.


DxO already generates plenty of laughs with their Lens Scores. Is the EF 100mm f/2 really Canon's best lens? Is the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II really worse than the MkI version it replaced?


----------



## sanj (Apr 16, 2014)

"In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."

Neuro could you please guide me where I could read more about this? Find this so difficult to believe. Thx.


----------



## sanj (Apr 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > "In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."
> ...



Hmmmm. Ok. 
But they do not provide a sharp lens to people who want to shoot sharp portraits and sharp landscapes and sharp street and sharp journalism photos at wide apertures? 

Are there not many uses to a sharp 50mm lens at wide f stop?

This is just not going down well with me. Am not being obstinate but find this logic incomprehensible.


----------



## jrista (Apr 16, 2014)

sanj said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



I'm curious why Canon HAS to make such a lens. Do you think Canon could do it cheaper than Zeiss, and that's why you want Canon to make one? There are SIGNIFICANT difficulties in making a lens sharp, corner to corner, at f/1.2. It would be EXTREMELY difficult to do so. It is even difficult to do it at f/1.4, which is clearly evident by the $4000 price tag the Otus has. 

Why is it that you can't simply be satisfied with the fact that Zeiss has offered the exact kind of lens you want? Too expensive? If Canon made something similar, it wouldn't be any cheaper. If they made and f/1.2 version of the Otus, it would likely be significantly more expensive. 

As for the rest of Canon's 50mm lenses, the 1.8 and 1.4 are VERY old lens designs, and the 50/1.2 is even getting a little dated. They were designed and built in an era where sensor resolution was lower than it is today. Canon surely has updates in the pipeline, and I'm sure when those new lenses hit the street, they will be competitive. Whether Canon chooses to compete with the Otus, or with the Sigmas of the world, is yet to be seen...but I would bet money that Canon ignores the Otus and sticks with what will sell in massive amounts: Something cost effective and affordable.


----------



## jrista (Apr 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> I'm pretty sure that you can introduce spherical aberration through plugins or other software components if you really so desire. What you can't do is correct for poor image quality at capture time.



Actually, spherical aberration is an effect in three dimensional space. You can simulate some aspects of soft focus in post, however those effects never fully replicate a TRUE soft focus. Neither can you change the nature of boke blur circles in post. Blur circles created by a lens with spherical aberration have a very specific aesthetic (brighter outer ring, with a clear spherical gradient to the center...it's a highly desirable trait for many photographers and cinematographers.) 

The aesthetic effect caused by a lens with spherical aberration is not one that can be fully or easily replicated artificially in post. You can approximate some aspects of it, but for someone who likes the effect, those approximations NEVER measure up, and it is always obvious when it is a post-processed effect vs. a real optical effect.



dilbert said:


> Anyway, in the main the comments above about justifying Canon's current design and product are more about trying to ensure that people who worship Canon find a way to present Canon's offering as good and justified so that they feel good about owning Canon products. That's it. I'm sure someone will argue here that this comment is wrong, but you don't see anyone saying that they wish the 70-200/2.8 II had soft focus like the 50/1.2L and so on.



It has nothing to do with justifying or worshiping Canon. Your assuming something, then using your assumption to put words in peoples mouths as an attempt to win an argument. That's kind of you staple there, Dilbert.  Why not try to put up a legitimate argument sometime, eh?

It simply has to do with exposing people to opinions other than their own. There is more than one way to design a lens, and there are reasons for designing lenses differently. I honestly do not think it would be good for every 50mm lens on the market to have exactly the same specs, offer the same exact IQ, produce the same aesthetic. It's better to have a diversity of options, because not everyone photographs the same things in the same ways that you do.


----------



## jrista (Apr 16, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > My 35 Art´s AF is drifting again (a third AFMA with Focal showed a further 4 step adjustment, on top of the 7 steps I got between the one I did when I got it and Christmas), so I must admit I am a bit skeptical to that part of sigma. But since so many are happy with it, I hope my AF problem is a one-off.
> ...



AFMA is purely a camera body firmware thing. It only reconfigures the body, it does nothing with the lens. Drift is a pretty odd thing, but I'd like to know more. Spherical aberration can result in the focal plane shifting when you stop down or open up. Since lenses usually focus wide open, then stop down for the shot, spherical aberration can result in your focal plane ending up in an unexpected place. 

The Canon 50mm f/1.2 and Canon DSLR bodies include firmware that compensates for this. There is a known component of spherical aberration in that lens (by explicit design), so the focus shift caused by it can be mathematically compensated for. When you have your aperture setting tighter than f/1.2, the firmware will focus the lens with a compensation shift to ensure that once stopped down, the focal plane is where you want it to be.

If the Art 35 has some spherical aberration, it is highly unlikely that such a focus shift is compensated for. That would require paired firmware between the lens and body. Assuming that is actually the problem. If the focal plane is shifting at the same aperture, then that is a different problem, and likely due to the lens, rather than the body.


----------



## NancyP (Apr 16, 2014)

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Perfect. Lens. 

There. We have that settled. 

Even the almighty Otus may not be perfect for some esthetics. I am starting to shoot LF (4 x 5 B&W film) and I am amazed at some of the interesting effects that people get by using the crude 19th century lens formulas ("Petzval lens" and the like). I am starting out with a modern era (1960s multicoated) lens, but there seems to be a large group of experimenters in LF.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 16, 2014)

NancyP said:


> There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Perfect. Lens.
> 
> There. We have that settled.


Well said


----------



## jrista (Apr 16, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. A. Perfect. Lens.
> ...



Oh, if one could wish... These debates are never settled...closed minds cannot handle alternative points of view.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 16, 2014)

jrista said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...


True. The closest lens to perfection I've found is the 300 2.8 IS II, but it still has some vignetting wide open and it's not exactly small or light. And it doesn't do macro. And it's expensive. Maybe the 50 1.8 is actually the perfect lens. Sharp, fast, not many flaws _considering the price_, and cheap enough to replace a whole lot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Would you like to address the comment I made about spherical aberration without referring to bokeh or polarisation?



Polarization was merely an analogy as an effect, like bokeh, that cannot be fully replicated in post-processing. As for addressing your comment about spherical aberration without referring to bokeh, the point is that the residual spherical aberration designed into the 50L is there *because* the lens designers chose to emphasize bokeh quality over sharpness for the designof the lens. If you're going to slam the 50L for not being as sharp as other 50mm lenses, the reasons behind that somewhat reduced sharpness are an integral part of that discussion. 

Next up, let's discuss the interactions between planets…but we must avoid referring to gravity in that discussion. :




dilbert said:


> If spherical aberration is so important and necessary to photographers then why do lens manufacturers go to such great lengths to eliminate it?



As has been established and accepted by many people (other than you), Canon intentionally chose to *not* eliminate spherical aberration from the 50L design.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2014)

dilbert said:


> btw, let me refer you to the wikipedia page here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_aberration
> what does it say about the top lens?
> Is that the word perfect used to describe a lens without spherical aberration?


Gee, dilbert, yes it sure is. So, you're saying that you think a 'perfect' lens has only one optical element that focuses only red light? Do you have many lenses like that? : :

It's a _diagram_ - a pictorial representation to illustrate a concept. The use of the word "perfect" is in contrast to the use of the word "real" to describe the bottom lens. A perfect lens is, "...an ideally corrected glass element that is free of aberration and focuses light onto a single point." Similar to the thin lens approximation, it's a way to simplify the relevant concepts so that _most_ people can understand them…clearly, it's not a universally effective method.




sanj said:


> "In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."
> Neuro could you please guide me where I could read more about this? Find this so difficult to believe. Thx.


The relationship between spherical aberration and bokeh has been frequently discussed (for example, see this).

As for deliberately designing a lens with undercorrected spherical aberration, Nikon states, "_When spherical aberration is left a bit undercorrected, flares surround the out-of-focus background, thereby resulting in a close-to-ideal out-of-focus background._" 

If you'd prefer to hear it from Canon themselves, in a white paper on Cinema EOS lenses, Canon states, "_By a tightly controlled design, a * small and precise amount of spherical aberration is introduced* into these 4K lenses that has precisely the *softening effect* shown in Figure 7._" 

Yes, Canon designs and produces lenses that aren't as sharp as they could be, on purpose, by intentionally undercorrecting spherical aberration, and does so even with lenses costing $5,000 - $46,000.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 16, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > "In the case of the 50L (both of them), it was an intentional design decision by Canon."
> ...


You reference _Nikon _and say that Canon would _intentionally _make a lens less than perfect??? That's heresy, I say, heresy   ;D   ;D


----------



## jrista (Apr 16, 2014)

@Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances. 

As for your assuming, you *assume *that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply _explaining _what Canon does. You _assume _that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are _simply fans_, others are _simply customers_ and might otherwise not care about the brand. *You *_assume _a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions. 

All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 16, 2014)

Up to a certain point it does have its entertainment value, but then ...


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 16, 2014)

I guess it's the same reason why Canon have kept both the old 100 f2 and 85 f1.8 in the catalogue. You'll hear many people stating that the 100 is the better of the two because it's slightly sharper and has less purple fringing wide open. But the out of focus transition isn't quite as smooth and dreamy as the 85 - because the 100 is better corrected for chromatic aberration.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 16, 2014)

sanj said:


> So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?



Only as a compliment to, not as a replacement for, the Canon 50mm f/1.2L. I have an entire bag of sharp lenses (many sharper than both the Sigma and the Zeiss), but the only lens that has a similar special look when shooting people with the Canon 50mm f/1.2L is the Canon 85mm f/1.2L II. That special look is unique, and elevates my work greatly. The 50 can be used in a lot of situations that the 85 cannot, thus it is good to have both if you shoot people!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 16, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> However because of the extremes in construction and pricing between the 50L and the 50 f1.4, the former is often misinterpreted as the 'high - end option', and to correct this Canon should introduce a better constructed, higher end 50mm than the 50 f1.4 to fill the gap. ( 50/1.8 IS perhaps).



This makes sense, except Canon has really handicapped the 50 1.4 for some reason. The sharpness isn't great and nor is the bokeh (and I am not even talking of 50L levels here), and clearly no adjustment was done there intentionally. It doesn't even have a ring USM. 
Indeed a allrounder standard lens has its place, and I am sure an updated 50mm 1.4 or a 50mm 1.8 IS is a matter of time (although I know I'd prefer a 1.4, the majority of people might not, and that is what matters).

Thanks for the explanation, jrista! It did seem to me the issue might be focus shift but then I felt Eldar has probably seen all the AFMA drift at f/1.4.


----------



## sanj (Apr 17, 2014)

I guess I was wrong:

Canon should not make a 50mm which is sharp at wide aperture.

It is ok that Canon does not update its lenses for >20 years.

It is ok that other companies are making sharp 50mm lenses that are priced and not the company whose equipment I use.


----------



## sanj (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> @Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.
> 
> As for your assuming, you *assume *that people are trying to justify what Canon does, when in actuality people are simply _explaining _what Canon does. You _assume _that people here "worship" Canon, when in fact some people are _simply fans_, others are _simply customers_ and might otherwise not care about the brand. *You *_assume _a whole hell of a lot about people here man, and then you lash out at them with thinly veiled hostility and nasty words based on your INCORRECT assumptions.
> 
> All I'm saying is...might not want to assume, you would look like less of a donkey's rear end in the end.



Totally rude and unnecessary. How can a person use such words to make a point?


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

sanj said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > @Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.
> ...



You might want to go through and read a couple weeks history of Dilbert's posts. Then make a determination of who's rude. Dilbert LOVES to make assumptions about people, then create little fantasies about why people write the posts they do based on those assumptions. You know what they say about people who assume, right? "When you assume, you just make an A*s*s of you and me?" Hence the donkey comment. I thought it was rather appropriate, given the whole discussion of assumptions at the time.  I think everyone else got the joke.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > @Dilbert: I refer you to Neuro's answers for all the spherical aberration stuff. Canon DOES purposely leave in spherical aberration by design, as it is a desirable effect in many circumstances.
> ...



Again, I direct you to Neuro's answers.



dilbert said:


> And perhaps a better question to ask, if Sigma (and Zeiss?) can design sharp lenses that produce pleasing bokeh without spherical aberration then why can't Canon?



Neither Sigma nor Zeiss have a lens that produces the same image aesthetic that the 50L and 85L do. It's a pretty specific look, one you actively seek out in the lenses you buy if it's what you want, not something that is going to be a trait of every lens. Not all boke is equal, not everyone wants a Sigma or an Otus. 

If you don't know the difference, then you'r probably going to be quite happy with a Sigma or a Zeiss lens. If the day arises when you finally see what the difference is, maybe then you will understand why Canon designed the 50L and 85L the way they did. It's also the same reason why Nikon has the 135 f/2 w/ Defocus Control. Same deal, only it gives the photographer direct control over how much spherical aberration exists and in what direction (intrafocal or extrafocal).

If Canon releases new 50's, I suspect the 50/1.4 II will get a competitive boost to sharpness, making it directly competitive with Sigmas Art 50. I would sincerely hope that a 50/1.2 II will keep the spherical aberration component, because it's one of the best traits of the lens, and I'm pretty sure I am not the only one who holds that opinion. (Some of the largest groups on Flickr are dedicated to the 50L and 85L...just to name a few fans...and an excellent resource if you want to learn why spherical aberration can be an important and beneficial trait of a portrait and street photography lens. )


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Well I asked a collection of questions (to you) in this post:
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20498.msg387881#msg387881
> but you have not answered. Should I take from this that you do not wish to enlighten me with information and thus leave me in a place where I can only but make assumptions?



Well, I thought Neuro answered them well enough. But if you want me to answer, sure.



dilbert said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I think saying it's necessary "to photographers" is overly broad. I think the proper phrasing would be that spherical aberration is desirable to a certain class of photographers who understand what it is, how it affects their images, and love the aesthetic result. Again, check out the flickr groups for the 50L and 85L...they are packed with incredible photography that has a very specific look. Even the corner softness and CA is a part of the overall aesthetic that people WANT in those two lenses (and, actually, the 135/2.8 Soft Focus lens, which offered the same features as the Nikon 135 f/2 Defocus Control lens, albeit in a cheaper package.) 

There is sometimes more to a lens than technological perfection. I think you may be missing that, and along the way missing out on the beauty of a LOT of photography created by avid fans of Canon's short portrait primes. 



dilbert said:


> > It's better to have a diversity of options, because not everyone photographs the same things in the same ways that you do.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. Nobody else is interested in lens that produce sharp images, have excellent colour rendition and contrast. Especially not a standard length zoom at 50mm.



I'm not saying every lens should have spherical aberration. I'm actually saying that not every lens should be a Zeiss Otus. The Otus also has a unique aesthetic, its beautiful, for sure. But it's different than the Canon 50L and 85L. A diverse set of options for lenses is a good thing. I think it's important that photographers have a choice...all those people who share their work on the Flickr 50L and 85L groups? What's going to happen to them if Canon just creates another Otus in the 50/1.2 L II? Or another Sigma Art 50? 




dilbert said:


> If I recall correctly you like long telephoto lenses for birds, etc. Would you prefer a long lens that had the characteristics of the 50L or the Sigma 50/1.4 Art?



Long telephoto lenses serve a different purpose than a 50. I honestly do not think making such a comparison is relevant. As for the 50's themselves, I'd actually prefer to own both a 50L and an Otus. I love the aesthetics from both, and I see the differences between them as well.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

Here are some sample photos taken with the Nikon 135/2 Defocus lens that shows the difference between normal boke and boke in a lens with spherical aberration:

*No Defocus*






Flat blur circles, sharp subject, clearly defined focal plane. Looks great, nothing wrong with it, but it is not the same kind of boke as you get from a lens with spherical aberration:

*With Defocus (spherical aberration)*





Spherical blur circles, highlighted outer ring, radial gradient to the center. Soft and dreamy highlights on subject at the focal plane. Focal plane itself is less defined, softer, smoother. 

This is what you get with a lens that has spherical aberration. The blur circles cannot be replicated in post if you start out with solid ones. The dreamy effect can be approximated with post-processing effects...but it's never quite the same. This is a fairly specific effect, one that must be done with optics to get the full effect in all it's aesthetic glory. If you want this...you gotta buy a lens that offers it. Either a soft focus control/defocus control lens...or something like the 50L/85L.

If you still can't tell the difference, well, then all I can say is those two lenses are definitely not for you.


----------



## philmoz (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> If you want this...you gotta buy a lens that offers it. Either a soft focus control/defocus control lens...or something like the 50L/85L.



Or smear a bit of vaseline on the lens 

(Just kidding.)

Phil.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

philmoz said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > If you want this...you gotta buy a lens that offers it. Either a soft focus control/defocus control lens...or something like the 50L/85L.
> ...



Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.



Isn't there a net-like filter or something for that?


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Hah! That is actually an old technique used in cinematography for the dreamy effect. It doesn't give you spherical blur circles, though, just the soft highlights.
> ...



You guys are thinking of soft focus. There are lots of ways of achieving soft focus. Vaseline was one of them (mostly for cinema stuff as far as I know, although I'm sure people did it for stills as well)...people don't usually do that anymore as it means putting oily gunk on your lens on purpose.  There are also plenty of various soft focus filters that use some kind of net design. Some use particle dispersion as well. The net or particles diffracts light, softening it much like diffraction from stopping down a lens (but at all apertures). One of the side effects of net-type soft focus filters is they mess with your boke...you can see it in a lot of tv shows and movies...look at the OOF backgrounds. You can often easily see the design of the net or the particle distribution in OOF highlight blur circles. 

A lot of high quality cinema lenses are purpose-built with spherical aberration these days though (soft focus as well as spherical OOF highlights are very desirable in TV/Movies...any time you see a real cinematic tv show or movie, look closely at the background highlights...you'll see very frequently that they are clearly spherical.) So the use of filters or, god forbid, Vaseline, is usually unnecessary.


----------



## sanj (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> philmoz said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



All the time! Hair nets work wonders but the look is bit dated now.


----------



## barracuda (Apr 18, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Up to a certain point it does have its entertainment value, but then ...



+1


----------



## sanj (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Oh!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> The dreamy effect can be approximated with post-processing effects...but it's never quite the same. This is a fairly specific effect, one that must be done with optics to get the full effect in all it's aesthetic glory.



Maybe an analogy to another set of effects – use of a polarizing filter – that can be partially but never fully replicated in post-processing, and that require optics to achieve, would help? 

No, probably not. :


----------



## candc (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> Here are some sample photos taken with the Nikon 135/2 Defocus lens that shows the difference between normal boke and boke in a lens with spherical aberration:
> 
> *No Defocus*
> 
> ...



i did not know that there were lenses that had an adjustment ring to control that effect, i don't really understand how it works but it is a very cool feature, are there any other lenses besides this nikon that have that adjustment? i really want one now.


----------



## ahab1372 (Apr 18, 2014)

@candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Apr 18, 2014)

Excellent examples from the Nikon lens. Does it's adjustable range take it further in regards to the affect than the 50 1.2?

I am disappointed that there wasn't a rebuttal to the $46,000 lens, it had the potential to be very entertaining.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 18, 2014)

ahab1372 said:


> @candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx



I owned the 135 softfocus and sadly this canon lens has ugly angular bokeh balls and primitive autofocus mechanism. 50L/85L II have far superior output if interested in the effect.


----------



## infared (Apr 18, 2014)

What I would love to see:
A real "photographer" shoot with all three lenses for the purpose of showing us the difference in bokeh.
Reviewers are not photographers and many times they shoot inane images that do not show off the specific qualities off a lens so that an experienced photographer can actually get a handle on what is going on.
We need to leave DxO out of this, too (don't get me started on that outfit!!!! LOL~).


----------



## sdsr (Apr 18, 2014)

sanj said:


> So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?



It depends entirely on who "you" is and what s/he wants to do with it. If you like that dreamy look, and if you use the lens to take portraits (in which case the chances that anything in a corner would be in focus anyway seem slight, rendering - pun half intended - corner sharpness moot), you may not want such an improved lens at all. 

And if you do want better sharpness, including sharp corners, why not get the new Sigma - or do something different altogether and buy, say, a Sony A7r + FE 55 1.8? Do your lenses all have to have "Canon" written on them?" Your complaint looks rather like another manifestation of the fanboy-ism that keeps getting brought up: Does Canon have to make the best of everything according to some notion of "best" that may or may not be widely shared?

(And leaving all that aside, for now if you want a 50 1.2 (or 85 1.2) lens for a ff camera, regardless of brand, are there better alternatives which are also 1.2? There are new similar lenses from Fuji and Panasonic/Leica, both supposedly marvelous, but they're APS-C and M43 respectively, but that's not quite the same thing....)


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

Ruined said:


> ahab1372 said:
> 
> 
> > @candc Canon used to make a 135mm soft focus which I believe us discontinued:
> ...



I think that's because the lens uses a diaphragm with strait blades, rather than curved. It was cheaply built overall as well, hence the reason I think it was discontinued (it just couldn't measure up in today's market.)

I really wish Canon would create another one, though, with a modern design and modern quality. I'd particularly like to see a 135 f/2 Macro Defocus lens...I think that would just be awesome to have spherical aberration in a long macro lens. Oh, the macro photos I could make with THAT!


----------



## sdsr (Apr 18, 2014)

candc said:


> i did not know that there were lenses that had an adjustment ring to control that effect, i don't really understand how it works but it is a very cool feature, are there any other lenses besides this nikon that have that adjustment? i really want one now.



Minolta used to make at least one:

http://www.cameraquest.com/minsoft.htm

Not exactly a current lens, though....


----------



## Ruined (Apr 18, 2014)

jrista said:


> Ruined said:
> 
> 
> > ahab1372 said:
> ...



Yeah, it has nothing to do with the SA adjustment, it was just a dated design in general. It would be nice to see an updated version, although I'd first rather see an Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS update with curved blades/IS. The other thing was, I though the 50L gave a better balance of dreaminess and sharpness than I could find with the 135 softfocus (even at variable midpoints settings etc).

If you are a fan of the dreamy look of softfocus, the 50mm f/1.2L is a great combination of sharpness and dreamy effect. It makes more of a tradeoff in sharpness than the 85L II does, but if you like that effect you might actually like the 50L better than the 85L.


----------



## jrista (Apr 18, 2014)

Ruined said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Ruined said:
> ...



I'm a big fan of both the 50L and 85L. I am not good at portraiture myself, but I really love the quality and aesthetic of the portraits I have seen taken with those lenses. Both of them are excellent. The 50 definitely has a softer, dreamier look, but the perspective with the 85L is just to die for.


----------



## sanj (Apr 19, 2014)

sdsr said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > So. Am I to infer that if Canon comes out with 50/1.2 II that is sharper and has better corner to corner sharpness then you would not DESIRE to use it?
> ...



I realize that is where my problem lies.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 19, 2014)

sanj said:


> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=917&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=115&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
> 
> What with this Canon??



As I see it in this comparison, the Otus puts the new Sigma to shame until f/5.6, where the borders are about even (Sigma may even have a slight edge on the Otus in the corner here at f/5.6)...however even at f/5.6 the Otus is still barely ahead in the more critical center. Clearly the Otus is superior optically, regarding resolution, contrast, color, etc. Not surprising. I guess all the Otus owners can sleep better now, lol.


----------



## sanj (Apr 20, 2014)

Thank you all for your thoughts on this topic. It opened up my eyes to the fact that lenses are not only made for sharpness but other qualities as well.

I still feel that if Canon has the 1.2 for 'dreamy' look, then it should also provide another lens for the people seeking the 'sharp' look.


----------

