# Ken Rockwell reviews canon 50mm f/1.0



## candc (Nov 21, 2013)

with all the buzz about the otus i thought this was interesting

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f1.htm


----------



## Menace (Nov 21, 2013)

Ken doesn't like my 50 1.2L as its "plasticy"


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 21, 2013)

Menace said:


> Ken doesn't like my 50 1.2L as its "plasticy"



Yes, but he still likes the 50L f/1.2 better than the other CaNikon 50mm AF offerings. ;D

Ken is a max aperture nut. f/1.0 is better than f/1.2 is better than f/1.4 is better than f/1.8 is better than f/2.8. For value (performance/price), he'll recommend the f/1.4s, but at this price range, uniqueness is worth a lot and f/1 is pretty rare.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 21, 2013)

Thanks for posting this. As is the norm with KR reviews, there is a WTF part 



> *At f/1.0, depth-of-field isn't paper-thin, it's vapor-thin. Don't expect every shot to have bang-on-perfect focus unless you're using the latest camera and have a lot of practice with it.*
> 
> When photographing people, always focus on the nearer eye.
> 
> I'm impressed that I get results as good with any of my 5D Mk III's AF points, not just those marketed as "high precision." *Likewise, I'm impressed that I can recompose after focusing and get swell results*.


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 21, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Thanks for posting this. As is the norm with KR reviews, there is a WTF part
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm guessing he's talking about different subject/camera distances in those two instances. Either that or he's evolved into a higher level photograhper that either automatically leans to compensate for focus/recompose or he chalks it up those OOF shots to "practicing." :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> Either that or he's evolved into a higher level photograhper that either automatically leans to compensate for focus/recompose or he chalks it up those OOF shots to "practicing." :



He's a legend in his own mind.


----------



## surapon (Nov 21, 2013)

Dear Teachers and Friends.
Sir/ Madam, I am a crazy Canon fan, and buy any Canon Lenses and Canon Cameras that I like with out Thinking, Until I am the member of CR. for 4 months---Yes, I Must ask my Teachers and my friends in This Great CR. before I buy some thing.
The Question :
I already have one of the good Sigma 50 mm. F/ 1.4, And I just use 2-3 times after I buy 8-10 month ago, Do I need This Awesome Used Canon EF 50 mm. F/ 1.0 L ( $ 3,750 to 4,100 US Dollars-From E-Bay)---For show-off to my friends as the fastest Lens( Ha, Ha, Ha), Or Buy the new Canon EF 50 mm. F/ 1.2 L USM ($ 1,620)--for use and beat Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 in Shallow DOF and better Bokeh.
Thanks you so much for answer my stupid question.
Surapon


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 21, 2013)

surapon said:


> Dear Teachers and Friends.
> Sir/ Madam, I am a crazy Canon fan, and buy any Canon Lenses and Canon Cameras that I like with out Thinking, Until I am the member of CR. for 4 months---Yes, I Must ask my Teachers and my friends in This Great CR. before I buy some thing.
> The Question :
> I already have one of the good Sigma 50 mm. F/ 1.4, And I just use 2-3 times after I buy 8-10 moth ago, Do I need This Awesome Used Canon EF 50 mm. F/ 1.0 L ( $ 3,750 to 4,100 US Dollars-Fron E-Bay)---For show-off to my friends as the fastest Lens( Ha, Ha, Ha), Or But the new Canon EF 50 mm. F/ 1.2 L USM ($ 1,620)--for use and beat Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 in Shallow DOF and better Bokeh.
> ...



I must admit that I too was interested playing with a f/1 lens in near darkness after reading that. The following link gives a good comparison between the various 50mm options. I had borrowed a Canon 50 f/1.4 before getting the 50L f/1.2, and the f/1.4 had inconsistent focus from f/1.4 to f/2. The colors were also less pleasing. The Sigma is said to fall between the two Canon offerings, but the link below shows that the resolution among the three lenses are similar and are clearly better than the f/1.0. If you're happy with the AF of the Sigma, then I don't see a reason to switch. If you're not, then the 50L f/1.2 is a good choice. You'll get better bokeh, a 1/3-1/2 stop in speed, but the price for that upgrade is pretty steep.

The 50L f/1.2 is not about resolution (not as sharp at 100% as other fast primes) and the 50 f/1.0 is even less about resolution. But the effects of the f/1 shot wide open are special. Definitely a lens that I would like to try, but not buy...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 21, 2013)

surapon said:


> Dear Teachers and Friends.
> Sir/ Madam, I am a crazy Canon fan, and buy any Canon Lenses and Canon Cameras that I like with out Thinking, Until I am the member of CR. for 4 months---Yes, I Must ask my Teachers and my friends in This Great CR. before I buy some thing.
> The Question :
> I already have one of the good Sigma 50 mm. F/ 1.4, And I just use 2-3 times after I buy 8-10 month ago, Do I need This Awesome Used Canon EF 50 mm. F/ 1.0 L ( $ 3,750 to 4,100 US Dollars-From E-Bay)---For show-off to my friends as the fastest Lens( Ha, Ha, Ha), Or Buy the new Canon EF 50 mm. F/ 1.2 L USM ($ 1,620)--for use and beat Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 in Shallow DOF and better Bokeh.
> ...


I suppose you want to use aperture F1.0 because of the very thin DOF. If your goal is to achieve a "special effect" Canon 50mm F1.0 lens would be irreplaceable. However, the percentage of photos with accurate AF (when viewing at 100%) must be disappointing. Nor do I think always nice picture with one eye in focus and one blurred. In my opinion, you can have more benefits with the new Zeiss 55mm Otus, since the manual focus is not a problem.


----------



## surapon (Nov 21, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Teachers and Friends.
> ...




Thanks you so much, Dear Mr. Random Orbits.
Yes, I love the AF of Sigma 50 mm F/ 1.4 too, I learn from my dear Friends that, The Best method to use the Sigma Lens, are set only 1 Spot AF at the Middle of View Finder, and that will make the Most Accurate/ And The Faster AF for Sigma at All F. Stop.

Yes, I love my Honda, Acura MDX, Mitsubhishi and Volvo turbo cars too---Great Cars, BUT, When I start to buy M-Benz cars, E class and S class----, That start to change my Habit of my driving when I go to the Big Party----Ha, Ha, Ha, All the Beautiful ladies look at me, Like the Movie star------Ha, Ha, Ha.
Yes, Sir. I have 85 MM F/ 1.2 L MK II, at Wide open, She not Sharp as my Cheap 85 mm F/ 1.8, But, When I put this 1.2 L on my Camera, When I shoot in Public area, All the Photographers in my small town, Apex, North Carolina come to see this Monster Lens, and want to try on their Canon Rebel model .
THAT why, I very interest in This EF 50 mm. F/ 1.0= Just for my Ego-------Ha, Ha, Ha.
BUT, Dear Mr. Random Orbits, I just rent this Super fast Lens, Just for Try.
Nice to talk to you, Sir
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Nov 21, 2013)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Teachers and Friends.
> ...



Thanks you, Sir, Dear Mr. ajfotofilmagem.
You are Right, Sir---I will go to my Local Camera Shop and try this " new Zeiss 55mm Otus ", When in the Store first, And See how my Old eyes can spot the Right Focus of Manual Focus. I hope that there are the Electronic connection of the Otus and my Canon 5 D MK II camera= Yes If this Otus work like my Canon TS-E 24 mm. F/ 3.5 L MK II manual focus, that I can set up 1 spot Focus at the center of View finder, And Rotate the Focus Ring of the Lens, And When the right Focus, The Camera will beep, and The Green Squire ring appear at the middle of View Finder = That will be great for me.
Thanks for your Recommend , Sir.
Have a great Day.
Surapon


----------



## Niki (Nov 21, 2013)

i like the review…will try this lens...


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 21, 2013)

Ken is Boss!

I love reading his reviews. There's nothing like them! He clearly puts a lot of thought into them, and his pictures are superb! 

Also, everytime someone posts Rockwell, the thread turns into a bloody flame war!!! I am trying to be positive here to prevent this.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 21, 2013)

You guys are all jealous of Ken's awesomeness  ... people like him are one in a billion ;D


----------



## zlatko (Nov 21, 2013)

I wonder whether this lens can still be repaired if it needs a repair.


----------



## ninjapeps (Nov 22, 2013)

I don't know, I saw those comments about perfect focus and figured the whole thing was a joke.


----------



## BL (Nov 22, 2013)

people, pls stop posting links and giving him this sort of publicity. all his misinformation creates a great buzz for his site to generate traffic and revenue 

it's why he can afford to not work, stay at home all day and take his kids to lego land every weekend


----------



## Menace (Nov 22, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> You guys are all jealous of Ken's awesomeness  ... people like him are one in a billion ;D



You mean there are another six people like him in the world?


----------



## candc (Nov 22, 2013)

he gets under my skin sometimes but he can write a good article, his piece on the "leica man" is a great read. the world would be a duller place without KR

http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/leica-man.htm


----------



## M.ST (Nov 22, 2013)

I like my 50 mm f/1.0 and my 50 mm f/1.2 lens.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 22, 2013)

Menace said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are all jealous of Ken's awesomeness  ... people like him are one in a billion ;D
> ...


To our good fortune, yes there are at least six more of them in the world ... a few of them frequent CR for DR ;D


----------



## Viggo (Nov 22, 2013)

KR aside, that lens looks EPIC and it is.. The ONLY thing stopping me from buying one is that it is too expensive to own and use when it can't be fixed if broken, and that is a shame. 

And if Canon made a new one, being the same size and even being heavier than the 85 L at 4500 usd , I would stop writing this sentence and place the order.


----------



## infared (Nov 22, 2013)

;D    I have to admit...those are some real "masterpiece" images KR uses to portray and review such a "masterpiece" lens. 8) ??? :  :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(

Didn't know that the lens existed...but I know less about it now. :-0


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 22, 2013)

Viggo said:


> And if Canon made a new one, being the same size and even being heavier than the 85 L at 4500 usd , I would stop writing this sentence and place the order.



From a marketing perspective I don't quite understand Canon not updating or releasing a f1.0 lens - given all the enthusiasts with deep pockets out there they'll sell tons of it no matter the price.

Most likely Canon feels that using digital sensors and esp. the upcoming high mp versions the light gain of f1.4+ is too little since today's cameras can only harvest a small part of it and the manufacturer has to cheat raising ISO. Last not least as argued and the usability of such a thin dof is extremely small, and again the larger the sensor resolution gets people looking @100% crop are bound to complain.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Nov 22, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > And if Canon made a new one, being the same size and even being heavier than the 85 L at 4500 usd , I would stop writing this sentence and place the order.
> ...


I think it not makes sense to resurrect a F1.0 lens that has few benefits for digital cameras. Poor sharpness in the maximum opening, and significant loss of light reaching the sensor, but it does not penetrate due to the very steep angle (ISO is pushed secretly to compensate). It makes more sense a new version of the F1.2 model with enhanced sharpness, and focus-shift corrected.


----------



## P_R (Nov 22, 2013)

Yes a unique lens. But there have been others too that have come and gone...500mm f/8 mirror lens anyone?

At least the 50mm f/1.0 was practical/usable. Have wondered why canon have not released a new version given leica has a faster version at f/0.95 and they must be still selling it. 

I have a soft spot for interesting lenses that might produce interesting images.

P.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 22, 2013)

Light gathering with f1.0 vs f1.2 isn't important to me, it's the dof and feel and look. And I wouldn't want the optical qualities of the old one, really, I would want a 2013 version of a 50 f1.0. If the made it the same size and weight as the 70-200 and have it with Otus quality, I would still buy it. Seeing images from the 200 f1.8 vs 200 f2 is also the same sort of different look a smaller change in aperture can have.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 22, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Light gathering with f1.0 vs f1.2 isn't important to me, it's the dof.



My suspicion is that some people might not be precise when choosing terms for what they want - personally, I want strong background blur (subject isolation, no background distraction) & nice bokeh (interesting look and highlights). What I usually do not want is thin dof because at larger print/view sizes most of the subject is out of focus unless it's 90 degrees angle to the lens.

Now thin dof and strong blur are interdependent, but you can also get a strong blur by changing the focal length and camera-subject-background relation w/o the negative side effects of thin dof, which is what I'm usually trying to do... it really depends if you're a fan of the "only one eye in focus" shot type.


----------



## noisejammer (Nov 22, 2013)

Ah - another insightful rant from Clueless Kenny, the uber math whiz.
I'm quite curious how f/1.0 can be 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster than f/1.2... what causes it to vary? Phase of the moon?

Comparing the entrance pupils, the ratio must be (1.2)^2 = 1.44. In terms of stops that's 0.52. Ok, so it's half a stop faster than f/1.2 ....

But it's only half a stop better if the camera detects the light. Other's have commented (and my tests have confirmed) that my 1D4 and 5D2 cannot actually see light from a cone that's faster than f/1.6. This does vary from lens to lens - some modern lenses are telecentric so that all the light gets to the photodiode. However, the 50/1.0 comes from the film era and is not telecentric. Ergo, NO fast aperture, NO narrow DoF and NO benefit. 

Well, I suppose your wallet would be lighter, even if your camera bag wasn't.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 22, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> I'm quite curious how f/1.0 can be 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster than f/1.2... what causes it to vary? Phase of the moon?



No , it's sensor resolution (pixel density) - digital sensors can harvest only part of the lens coming from lenses with very big open aperture, that's why manufacturers have to silently "cheat" to gain the expected light gain by silently raising iso... it's not really cheating because there are some papers about it, but they don't spread around the fact to willingly either


----------



## Pi (Nov 22, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> Other's have commented (and my tests have confirmed) that my 1D4 and 5D2 cannot actually see light from a cone that's faster than f/1.6.



This is incorrect. There is a loss of light due to the sensor but there is a definitively different blur with f/1.2 vs f/1.4 and f/1.6.


----------



## dstppy (Nov 22, 2013)

Seriously . . . what EVERYONE else said.

Roger can sum it up in two short paragraphs:
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/canon-50mm-f1.0l


----------



## sanj (Nov 22, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> But it's only half a stop better if the camera detects the light. Other's have commented (and my tests have confirmed) that my 1D4 and 5D2 cannot actually see light from a cone that's faster than f/1.6. This does vary from lens to lens - some modern lenses are telecentric so that all the light gets to the photodiode. However, the 50/1.0 comes from the film era and is not telecentric. Ergo, NO fast aperture, NO narrow DoF and NO benefit.



vot?


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 22, 2013)

I don't know... seemed like there were some bits of usefulness in the write-up.

That said, I've only seen this lens in pictures and auction listings. I've never used one or even touched one. I haven't looked into renting one, but that could be neat.

I took the sample images as examples of everyday uses for this lens, for those with the means to afford it. I wasn't expecting art-quality images with weeks, months or years of composition time or thought.

And for what they were, the images looked good here on my end. I'm not downloading the full res samples, though.


----------



## xvnm (Nov 22, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> Ah - another insightful rant from Clueless Kenny, the uber math whiz.
> I'm quite curious how f/1.0 can be 1/2 to 2/3 stop faster than f/1.2... what causes it to vary? Phase of the moon?



The problem is rounding. "f/1.2" doesn't mean 1.200000... It may be anywhere from 1.15 to 1.25 (or even 1.29 if the manufacturer is lax) "rounded to the nearest decimal place".

f/1.0 plus 1/2 stop is f/1.18920711500272... f/1.0 plus 2/3 stop is f/1.25992104989487... Both would be displayed as f/1.2 by your camera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number#Typical_one-half-stop_f-number_scale


----------



## Jim O (Nov 22, 2013)

ninjapeps said:


> I don't know, I saw those comments about perfect focus and figured the whole thing was a joke.



From his site:



> I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, *this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun*, as does The Onion, *and I publish them here* — even on this page.



BTW, for any of you who criticize him (and I often find myself in that group), his site has an Alexa ranking in the top 5000 for US and top 8000 globally. He _could_ choose to monetize that with Google ads (and make A LOT of money), but he doesn't. Yes, he posts affiliate links and solicits contributions, but no one is forced to give a donation or click on a link. Just saying...


----------



## Pi (Nov 22, 2013)

Jim O said:


> BTW, for any of you who criticize him (and I often find myself in that group), his site has an Alexa ranking in the top 5000 for US and top 8000 globally.



Nobody ever criticized him for not being able to attract traffic to his site.


----------



## Jim O (Nov 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, for any of you who criticize him (and I often find myself in that group), his site has an Alexa ranking in the top 5000 for US and top 8000 globally.
> ...



You (conveniently) took part of my post out of context. If you care to comment, please do so about the point I made (I'll make it easy for you - they're the two sentences that follow the *one* you decided to quote, especially the first one), not the supporting data. 

Then consider how other photo sites, like this one, are totally monetized and use affiliate links as well.


----------



## Pi (Nov 22, 2013)

Jim O said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > Jim O said:
> ...



And you took my comment out of context. How much traffic he attracts and in what way he profits from it or not (your next 2 sentences) is rarely the reason he is criticized even though he is often ridiculed for mentioning his "ever growing family". The criticism is for his trollish behavior, his "reviews" of equipment he never touched, his incorrect statements (not opinions), his hypocrisy (sharpness and cameras do no matter, BTW, have you seen how crazy sharp my Leica is? Look at my 6"x7" shots form Italy). 

BTW, this particular review is very good but he still does not miss the opportunity to be dishonest. He calls well downsized images "full resolution". He just cannot help it.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Nov 22, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> You guys are all jealous of Ken's awesomeness  ... people like him are one in a billion ;D



...fortunately ;D


----------



## blanddragon (Nov 22, 2013)

Ken Rockwell = Tool 
YMMV


----------



## zlatko (Nov 22, 2013)

Jessica Claire has a blog post with some good photos made with this lens:
http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263/Wedding-with-DJ-Brittany-Rod


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 22, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > You guys are all jealous of Ken's awesomeness  ... people like him are one in a billion ;D
> ...


Indeed ... if they were too many than it'd be too much awesomeness for us to take. ;D


----------



## Eldar (Nov 22, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Jessica Claire has a blog post with some good photos made with this lens:
> http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263/Wedding-with-DJ-Brittany-Rod


It kinda makes you want that lens, doesn´t it ... Maybe I should have spent $4k on this one instead of the Otus (which I haven´t received yet) ... Maybe one of the expected 2014 lenses from Canon is a version II ...


----------



## AJ (Nov 22, 2013)

"the" other $4000 50mm lens makes it sound like it's the only one on the block. Leica noctilux 50/1 sells for roughly the same amount of money, used. The new Leica noctilux 50/0.95 costs substantially more.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 22, 2013)

candc said:


> he gets under my skin sometimes but he can write a good article, his piece on the "leica man" is a great read. the world would be a duller place without KR
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/leica-man.htm



Duller, perhaps, and yes, he sometimes makes good points; and he sometimes provides useful information (e.g. yesterday he linked to a remarkable deal on the 28mm IS at Adorama that was not mentioned here as far as I can tell) but his presentation of those points is terrible - unless you like badly written, unedited stream-of-consciousness stuff that constantly repeats itself and contradicts itself from one article to the next (FF is better, no it's not; don't shoot raw, shoot raw; I never use a tripod, these were shot with a tripod; etc., etc.). Leaving content aside, he badly needs an editor. That said, given how popular his site is he doesn't have much incentive to do anything about it....


----------



## sdsr (Nov 22, 2013)

te1973 said:


> KEN ROCKWELL - I have never seen any at least acceptable photo from this guy.
> Who is giving anything for his advice?



If that were the criterion we would ignore Roger Cicala too - I don't recall seeing any appealing images on his blog either.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

sdsr said:


> If that were the criterion we would ignore Roger Cicala too - I don't recall seeing any appealing images on his blog either.



What photographer wouldn't find *this* appealing?!?


----------



## MLfan3 (Nov 22, 2013)

is this lens smaller than the Zeiss Otus?
if so I may consider it but if the size is about identical , then I'd get the Otus.
there is no lens even comes close to the Zeiss.


----------



## surapon (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > If that were the criterion we would ignore Roger Cicala too - I don't recall seeing any appealing images on his blog either.
> ...



+ 100 for me too, Dear Teacher, Mr. neuroanatomist .
I must play this games with my Brother in-law, Dr. Govit, He is the Biggest Nikon Fan too.
Have a great weekend, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## facedodge (Nov 22, 2013)

May we never speak of Ken Rockwell at Canon Rumors again.


----------



## noisejammer (Nov 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> noisejammer said:
> 
> 
> > Other's have commented (and my tests have confirmed) that my 1D4 and 5D2 cannot actually see light from a cone that's faster than f/1.6.
> ...




Pi - Ok I'll bite. 

We seem to agree that many digital cameras are insensitive to light arriving from large apertures. I know this to be a fact with my 5D2 and 1D4 and all the f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses I've tested. I invite you to test this if you disagree. 

Nevertheless, you have a persistent belief that apertures wider than about f/1.4 decrease the depth of field even though very little additional light reaches the photodiode.

I would like to understand how a camera's photodiode can simultaneously detect and not detect light. It is a very clever trick.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 22, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> Nevertheless, you have a persistent belief that apertures wider than about f/1.4 decrease the depth of field even though very little additional light reaches the photodiode.


Of course they do. You can see it. Compare a photo taken at f/1 with a photo taken at f/1.4. The one at f/1 has less depth of field.


----------



## Pi (Nov 22, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> Pi - Ok I'll bite.
> 
> We seem to agree that many digital cameras are insensitive to light arriving from large apertures. I know this to be a fact with my 5D2 and 1D4 and all the f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses I've tested. I invite you to test this if you disagree.
> 
> ...



Yes, it is. It detects a part of it.

I do not have a belief, I have evidence because I have tested it.

KR has tested it, too; You can even see clear difference between f/1.0 and f/1.2:











One can speculate a lot about how exactly light gets lost, and why you lose only a fraction of the light coming from the most oblique rays. There are certain physics principles which could explain this.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 22, 2013)

MLfan3 said:


> is this lens smaller than the Zeiss Otus?
> if so I may consider it but if the size is about identical , then I'd get the Otus.
> there is no lens even comes close to the Zeiss.


They are about the same weight, but the Zeiss Otus is about 2 inches longer. Despite the price similarity, these lenses are rather different overall. The Canon lens is long discontinued, while the Zeiss is just coming on the market. This means that repair of the Canon lens may not be easily available. The Zeiss will have class-leading superlative sharpness, while the Canon was not known as a very sharp lens (known more for its dreamy quality). The Canon has autofocus (albeit slow), while the Zeiss is manual focus. The Zeiss is 55mm and f/1.4, while the Canon is 50mm and f/1.0. The Canon lens was $2,500 for many years when new and has gone up in price because of rarity, while the Zeiss is coming on the market at $4,000.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

noisejammer said:


> ...many digital cameras are insensitive to light arriving from large apertures.



I think you're confusing 'less sensitive' with 'insensitive'.


----------



## jason_wen (Nov 22, 2013)

I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND ANYONE BUY THIS LENS FOR ANY PRICE, NO MATTER HOW TEMPTING.

In my opinion, this lens's price is way over inflated, due to it's fragile internal electronics.

I have this lens. I bought it used some years ago, still in great shape. Now, it's nothing more than a really expensive curiosity stuffed at the back of my drawer. As it's been said, it focuses electronically at a glacial speed, even in manual mode. The USM gave up without warning on me after 2 years owning it and an authorized canon repair center could do nothing for me, even after contacting Canon Europe, as spare parts are unavailable. They also said Japan wouldn't have parts for the lens. I even contacted Canon US to no avail. The motor is not compatible with any other lens like the 1.2 50 or 85. So, now I have a useless, non-working lens. If I could at least manually focus the lens, I wouldn't have minded nearly so much. I've since bought a 1.2 50 which is far better.


----------



## cayenne (Nov 22, 2013)

BL said:


> .... creates a great buzz for his site to generate traffic and revenue
> 
> it's why he can afford to not work, stay at home all day and take his kids to lego land every weekend



Err....sounds like he's doing something *RIGHT*.

Hell, I'd do it if I could stay at home all day, hit lego land, etc...


----------



## zlatko (Nov 22, 2013)

jason_wen said:


> I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND ANYONE BUY THIS LENS FOR ANY PRICE, NO MATTER HOW TEMPTING.
> 
> In my opinion, this lens's price is way over inflated, due to it's fragile internal electronics.
> 
> I have this lens. I bought it used some years ago, still in great shape. Now, it's nothing more than a really expensive curiosity stuffed at the back of my drawer. As it's been said, it focuses electronically at a glacial speed, even in manual mode. The USM gave up without warning on me after 2 years owning it and an authorized canon repair center could do nothing for me, even after contacting Canon Europe, as spare parts are unavailable. They also said Japan wouldn't have parts for the lens. I even contacted Canon US to no avail. The motor is not compatible with any other lens like the 1.2 50 or 85. So, now I have a useless, non-working lens. If I could at least manually focus the lens, I wouldn't have minded nearly so much. I've since bought a 1.2 50 which is far better.



That is useful info that readers don't get from KR. He is predicting a big price rise for this lens (which is possible), but it may nevertheless be very impractical to use this lens long term. Canon's 50/1.2 is effectively the replacement for the 50/1.0 and, despite the smaller aperture, is a more practical alternative — faster AF and currently repairable.


----------



## Fleetie (Nov 22, 2013)

> Jessica Claire has a blog post with some good photos made with this lens:http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263/Wedding-with-DJ-Brittany-Rod





What BEAST of a camera is she using to get a* shutter time of 1/12000 s* ?!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

zlatko said:


> Jessica Claire has a blog post with some good photos made with this lens:
> http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263/Wedding-with-DJ-Brittany-Rod



For a lens known for its wonderful and creamy bokeh, IMO it left something to be desired with the OOF highlights here:


----------



## RomainF (Nov 22, 2013)

Fleetie said:


> What BEAST of a camera is she using to get a* shutter time of 1/12000 s* ?!



Canon 1D mk.1 reaches the 1/16000. Is it the only digital Canon that can ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

RomainF said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > What BEAST of a camera is she using to get a* shutter time of 1/12000 s* ?!
> ...



Or just a typo...


----------



## Eldar (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> For a lens known for its wonderful and creamy bokeh, IMO it left something to be desired with the OOF highlights here:


I would expect this to be partly wrecked in pp.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> For a lens known for its wonderful and creamy bokeh, IMO it left something to be desired with the OOF highlights here:


I'm pretty sure that out of focus tree leaves against a bright sky will make any wide to standard fast lens look bad at that distance. A telephoto could do much better, but then it would be a different photo.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 22, 2013)

I've never used it but pretty much every report has it less sharp than all of the other 50mm lenses and that means miles less sharp than the new Otus. I'd bet it has way more longitudinal CA too.

OTOH it also has AF, which the Otus lacks and for some stuff that can make it a lot more usable.

Also it's not as much super faster than other 50mm lenses as he claims either, at least not on most digital bodies. Most DSLR sensors simply can't capture the extreme pathways of light that such fast lenses let through so the shutter speed gains and lessening of DOF are not nearly as much compared to an f/1.4 or 1.2 lens as you'd expect.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 22, 2013)

Viggo said:


> Light gathering with f1.0 vs f1.2 isn't important to me, it's the dof and feel and look.



If it doesn't gather the extra light than it's doesn't deliver the lesser DOF. (now it does gather some of it, just not as much as you'd think and once you go below f/1.8 it gathers ever less so than you'd have expected the faster you get).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 22, 2013)

Jim O said:


> BTW, for any of you who criticize him (and I often find myself in that group), his site has an Alexa ranking in the top 5000 for US and top 8000 globally. He _could_ choose to monetize that with Google ads (and make A LOT of money), but he doesn't. Yes, he posts affiliate links and solicits contributions, but no one is forced to give a donation or click on a link. Just saying...



Probably because he already lives so well off it as is, why toss in ads and risk killing the golden goose. I don't know if it is true, but he claims to not need to work because of his website and yet he lives in a big house in one of the fanciest and most expensive towns in the entire nation and has many kids so his website must be doing more than fine just with the links and donations (assuming he is not just joking around with his claims about not needing to work because of the website).

So I guess he is a genius in a way.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 22, 2013)

sdsr said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > he gets under my skin sometimes but he can write a good article, his piece on the "leica man" is a great read. the world would be a duller place without KR
> ...



He actually did have some useful things to say about the new canon 24-70 lenses. And for all the weird nonsense on his site, and much of his site is weird nonsense, there can be useful tidbits in that he sometimes tests for edge bokeh, coma, and so on, lots of things that can affect image quality that the MTF chart only tests sites never bother to get into, some of that stuff is actually very hard to find elsewhere.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 22, 2013)

zlatko said:


> noisejammer said:
> 
> 
> > Nevertheless, you have a persistent belief that apertures wider than about f/1.4 decrease the depth of field even though very little additional light reaches the photodiode.
> ...



On most digital sensors the one at f/1 won't have nearly as much less DOF as expected, less but not as much less and the faster you get the ever more less than expected. Some DSLR sensros are much better than others at getting closer to full advantage.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > If that were the criterion we would ignore Roger Cicala too - I don't recall seeing any appealing images on his blog either.
> ...



That's a very appropriate picture for Today, Neuro. We are proud Norwegians today as Magnus Carlsen became the Chess World Champion by destroying Anand 7-3!


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Nov 22, 2013)

I finally have to ask since I've seen a lot of hate here for Ken Rockwell - can somebody please explain why this is?


----------



## kennephoto (Nov 22, 2013)

Fleetie said:


> > Jessica Claire has a blog post with some good photos made with this lens:http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263/Wedding-with-DJ-Brittany-Rod
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My canon 1D classic does this!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 22, 2013)

Mitch.Conner said:


> I finally have to ask since I've seen a lot of hate here for Ken Rockwell - can somebody please explain why this is?



Because he had been trolling around for years tossing out bizarre mini-blogs to make controversy and grab traffic and then got tons of traffic and then became labelled the go to camera expert on the net despite having so much nonsense mixed in all over his site and many of the more beginning photographers he was trying to attract wouldn't have a clue as what parts of his website were good and what parts were nonsense passed off as wisdom or the truth.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Nov 22, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > I finally have to ask since I've seen a lot of hate here for Ken Rockwell - can somebody please explain why this is?
> ...



I bolded the part that describes the majority of the internet. ;D

... but I appreciate you explaining that there is a back-story to this that I didn't know about.


----------



## deleteme (Nov 22, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Mitch.Conner said:
> 
> 
> > I finally have to ask since I've seen a lot of hate here for Ken Rockwell - can somebody please explain why this is?
> ...



SO…. why are people still reading his blog? If he keeps getting brought up as a voice then we are to blame for perpetuating the problem.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 22, 2013)

Normalnorm said:


> SO…. why are people still reading his blog?


CR members LOVE to hate KR ;D


----------



## zlatko (Nov 22, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > noisejammer said:
> ...



I don't know how much less DOF is "expected" for f/1, but the difference is obvious to the eye. One just has to look at Jessica Claire's blog post to see that a 50mm f/1.4 lens won't deliver the shallow DOF of this 50 f/1.0 lens. It is about what I would expect for f/1.0.


----------



## Jim O (Nov 22, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Jim O said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, for any of you who criticize him (and I often find myself in that group), his site has an Alexa ranking in the top 5000 for US and top 8000 globally. He _could_ choose to monetize that with Google ads (and make A LOT of money), but he doesn't. Yes, he posts affiliate links and solicits contributions, but no one is forced to give a donation or click on a link. Just saying...
> ...



I think he says his wife works, and while I haven't seen all of his family photos, I've only ever seen two children.

He also does, or assists at, workshops. He is an inventor who holds at least one patent, probably more.

He sold a condo in San Diego which he bought for nothing. If you know anything about California real estate, even after the bubble burst it was worth a lot. So moving to a nice area on Long Island may not have been as huge a stretch as one might think. I have a pharmacist and a school teacher across the street from me in a 5500 square foot house plus a detached garage with living space above. They did it in a similar fashion. They certainly could not afford a seven figure home on what pharmacists and school teachers make here (combined under $150K).

I don't think "tossing in ads" will reduce traffic, especially only one or two per page. Look at this site's Alexa ranking and it's mostly just a bunch of people throwing out uninformed/nonsensical opinions, whines, and complaints, with the occasional review and excellent observation tossed in, and lots of ads inserted into every discussion. It's also relatively young compared to other sites, the domain name was registered on February 1, 2007. Look at photo.net's Alexa ranking and it's loaded with ads, perhaps including an occasional super-annoying pop up. And the pièce de résistance is drpreview.com's Alexa rank, and it is also ad heavy. I'm fairly certain KR's site would make a ton more money with just Google ads, unless he's making a super commission on his affiliate links and believes that content relevant ads would siphon that away (though he could always block Google ads from places where he is an affiliate - content publishers have that right).

Of course if you believe Alexa, there are a lot of school kids on this site at least as compared to others. Somehow I am not surprised...

Like KR or not, any webmaster would be happy to have created a personal site that's in the top 10K worldwide, and, I would wager, most are drawing more revenue than kenrockwell.com.


----------



## Fleetie (Nov 22, 2013)

kennephoto said:


> Fleetie said:
> 
> 
> > > Jessica Claire has a blog post with some good photos made with this lens:http://www.jessicaclaire.net/index.cfm/postID/263/Wedding-with-DJ-Brittany-Rod
> ...




Well I've learnt something there, so thanks!


----------



## Fleetie (Nov 22, 2013)

Well, I have to admit, I'd like one. (50/1.0 L). I don't think I'd mind the lens' optical issues; I think it's good enough to make a lot of possible photos look really good. Those wedding pictures: Some of them looked great at f/1.0.


I think I'd enjoy exploring its possibilities and working round (or exploiting) its foibles.

In fact I'd like one more than I fancy the new Zeiss 50/1.4.

$4000 wouldn't be a problem for me, but at the moment I'm concentrating on the hi-fi. Valve monoblocs need to be bought! Well I could go and buy them now, but I'd rather not raid my savings, so I'm gonna save up for them until January. Patience can be hard! But I've wanted valve monoblocs for years; a few more months shouldn't matter too much!


----------



## AlanF (Nov 22, 2013)

Viggo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...


Appealing to a photographer, maybe. But, from a chessplayer's view, the major lenses are in the wrong position. The largest piece on the board is the king, so the biguns in the middle are the wrong way round. Also the rooks should be larger. 

Carlson won by 6.5/3.5, not 7/3.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 22, 2013)

I like reading his site....interesting at times, silly at times....take it with a grain of salt.

Anyway, I noticed his monthly subscription rates...$99/month is his highest rate, I wonder how many people pay him $99 a month.....better yet, I'd like to talk to those people and ask them why?

Quite frankly, I doubt he has even one person paying $99/month....anybody think he has one or more doing that?? 

I'm tempted to start a thread, does anybody subscribe to KR monthly? Why?

Again, I like his site for his info and quirkiness....we are all cast from a different mold in this life.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 23, 2013)

AlanF said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yes, of course you're right 6.5/3.5, still, not even slightly close.


----------



## RomainF (Nov 23, 2013)

Cause despite all the hate he gets from all of you, some of his reviews and texts are actually worth it. Some of them are even funny though (as said before, the Leica ones).

I know, i ever read his reviews, maybe i've read all of them. You can easily notice when some are crappy-solicitating reviews, only here to get traffic or when he never even tried the object. 
He often compares concisely all the versions of the same lens (cf.Canon 17-35 ; 16-35 ; 16-35II) and i find it quite useful to get a fast *overview* of the subject.
Ken Rockwell's reviews are often the first ones I refer to when I consider buying new gear. Once i've read it, I'll check forums, pixel-peeper, flickr and then friends and shops.

I will never consider giving money to a single man. He doesn't make the whole job. He's giving his personal opinion. I have to check a lot of other websites and spend a lot of time doing it. He's only a small part of the process. 
If some comes with a website that centralize all the informations you can get about gear on a unique website, by selecting all and only the interesting parts, maybe i'll consider that it's worth money. But for me, KR's work isn't. Even, as said a lot of time before, his reviews may even not be worth the time you spend reading them...
Sometime i fully agree with him, some other I totally don't. That's life.

Otherwise, we all accord to say that despite his amazing gear, he only shares most of the time the worst pictures i've ever seen. But it's the same on forums, even on this one, you know what i'm talkin about....
It's good to know that the gear doesn't offer you the skills. And he's here to remind it to you ! Thanks KR !


About this 50 f/1, that's kinda weird. I've been looking after this lens a few years ago. Here, in Europe, everyone used to agree about the piece of crap that lens "was". I've seen a couple sold for about 500$ in shops ! No one would spend more for this lens which was even describe as a "show-off" item, only made by Canon to prove Nikon they were the best in R&D.


----------



## RomainF (Nov 23, 2013)

kennephoto said:


> My canon 1D classic does this!



Ya but you only get 4mpx out of it ;D . 
Just kidding. I own it too and that CCD sensor if by far my favorite ever. Too bad i can't work with that camera as the stupid people who buy the pictures assume that "you can't get good pictures with that low res" "and even if the pic is good, i can't do anything with a so small file". Stupids....


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 23, 2013)

Should I buy the 50mm F1.0L now or wait?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > noisejammer said:
> ...



DoF and exposure at those ultrawide apertures aren't linked in the way you think they are. When you open up from f/2 to f/1.2, for example, the extra light isn't all hitting the sensor at progressively more oblique angles. If that we're the case, only the OOF regions of the image would be darker, and the clandestine ISO boost the camera applies would have to be selectively applied only to those regions. 

I just took a series of shots of an angled page of text, from f/1.2 to f/2 with the 85L II - it's clear that DoF gets deeper with each aperture step, starting with the first step from f/1.2 to f/1.4. The steps did not appear qualitatively different.


----------



## Pi (Nov 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> DoF and exposure at those ultrawide apertures aren't linked in the way you think they are. When you open up from f/2 to f/1.2, for example, the extra light isn't all hitting the sensor at progressively more oblique angles. If that we're the case, only the OOF regions of the image would be darker, and the clandestine ISO boost the camera applies would have to be selectively applied only to those regions.



Actually, this is what happens, in the center at least, ignoring some secondary effects like diffraction and flare/scattering. The most oblique rays contribute to the in-focus part as well, which is why the focused part gets softer, and the focus shifts, when it does.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 23, 2013)

I don't know about anybody here but I'd surely love to have a 50mm F1.0. Having tried the 1.2, I'm not thrilled with its weight but I really love its IQ. Besides, all you really need is to focus correctly. Sharpness doesn't matter much to the overall beauty of a picture. I think if given one, it will last for me a long, long, long time. I've been using so much my F1.8 and it's still as pristine and as sturdy (  ) as when I bought it 4 years ago and I'd say it's my most used lens.


----------



## HankMD (Nov 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> What photographer wouldn't find *this* appealing?!?



EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!


----------



## Nishi Drew (Nov 23, 2013)

I've shot with this lens, and yes it is quite the monster, extremely shallow photos and a unique look... but the bokeh is rather horrendous sometimes, square highlights?? And I thought the hexagonal highlights from the non-rounded aperture blades of the 50L weren't that appealing, and it can get quite nasty with all the CA, and I remember double lining as well.

It's a crazy fast aperture lens and that's it, not a beauty, just rare and expensive. If shallow is all that matters, which I love going fast, then sure, but for the price this lens should have been a lot better


----------



## Pi (Nov 23, 2013)

Nishi Drew said:


> I've shot with this lens, and yes it is quite the monster, extremely shallow photos and a unique look... but the bokeh is rather horrendous sometimes, square highlights?? And I thought the hexagonal highlights from the non-rounded aperture blades of the 50L weren't that appealing, and it can get quite nasty with all the CA, and I remember double lining as well.



This is vignetting from the mirror box. BTW, the blades on the 50/1.2 do not affect the bokeh wide open but the cut off blur circles are still there, away from the center.


----------



## sanj (Nov 23, 2013)

wockawocka said:


> Should I buy the 50mm F1.0L now or wait?



LOL


----------



## chromophore (Nov 23, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Ever since DxO published their findings about signal gain to compensate for oblique angle light loss at fast f-numbers, people have been taking that report as gospel and making all sorts of inaccurate inferences about what that means. One popular misconception is that it means f/1.0 isn't really f/1.0, and as you pointed out, that is not correct.

Indeed, one cannot make that conclusion and at the same time say that the DOF or background blur is different, because if the oblique angles of light were not being captured to some extent, the result would not show the peripheral rays that contribute to the shallower DOF and the greater background blur in the first place. And the whole situation becomes clear once we think about the geometry of the incoming light. Yes, very oblique rays do not contribute as much to the image as perpendicular rays, but the consequence of this is vignetting, not a uniform loss of light across the image plane. If the loss was that strong, you would see it in the blur disks of out-of-focus highlights. There would be a falloff in intensity from center to edge. But we don't see that, and the camera's image processor is not sophisticated enough to compensate for it in such a specific way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2013)

chromophore said:


> One popular misconception is that it means f/1.0 isn't really f/1.0, and as you pointed out, that is not correct.



An analogy people might be more familiar with is shooting close to or greater than 1:1 macro. Most people know that at macro distances, the DoF gets very thin. Conceptually, that's like having an aperture wider than the actual f/number. Some people also know that exposure is affected at macro distances, but in the opposite direction - an aperture setting of f/8 at 1:1 is letting in light equivalent to f/16, and f/8 at 5x mag on the MP-E 65mm gives an effective aperture of f/48 (which is why I use the twin flash!). 

The underlying optical principles are different for the two scenarios, but the concept is similar - the effects of aperture on DoF and exposure can be decoupled in certain circumstances.


----------



## PanatomicTabby (Nov 23, 2013)

Northstar said:


> [...]
> Anyway, I noticed his monthly subscription rates...$99/month is his highest rate, I wonder how many people pay him $99 a month.....better yet, I'd like to talk to those people and ask them why?
> 
> Quite frankly, I doubt he has even one person paying $99/month....anybody think he has one or more doing that??



Yeah, kind of hard to imagine that potential subscribers would have that kind of money left over in their monthly budget after paying Snapchick!


----------



## Pi (Nov 23, 2013)

chromophore said:


> Ever since DxO published their findings about signal gain to compensate for oblique angle light loss at fast f-numbers, people have been taking that report as gospel and making all sorts of inaccurate inferences about what that means. One popular misconception is that it means f/1.0 isn't really f/1.0, and as you pointed out, that is not correct.
> 
> Indeed, one cannot make that conclusion and at the same time say that the DOF or background blur is different, because if the oblique angles of light were not being captured to some extent, the result would not show the peripheral rays that contribute to the shallower DOF and the greater background blur in the first place.



It will but they will be of lower intensity. 



> And the whole situation becomes clear once we think about the geometry of the incoming light. Yes, very oblique rays do not contribute as much to the image as perpendicular rays, but the consequence of this is vignetting, not a uniform loss of light across the image plane.



It is vignetting of the PSD (the blur of a point), a.k.a. the CoC, not vignetting in the classical sense. Classical vignetting exists, too.



> If the loss was that strong, you would see it in the blur disks of out-of-focus highlights. There would be a falloff in intensity from center to edge. But we don't see that, and the camera's image processor is not sophisticated enough to compensate for it in such a specific way.



I do see that:






It is stronger on the left, which makes sense - that disk was not in the center.


----------



## mememe (Nov 23, 2013)

How can he say, all photons are captured at 1.0? How can he know? 
I doubt that, cause canon applies some tweak at apertures faster than f2.8, and brightens up images a bit, cause the microlenses dont get all the light when it comes from extreme angles.

There was this site and he tested a lot about it. Even made a tool to find out if the twak has been used on a particular image.

EDIT: And even when you read his explaination: The image circle is NOT round at 1.0. It is cut top and bottom... But i guess it doesnt matter. The circle will change its size depending how far you are away or defocused. And the strange rectangular shapes only occur out of center...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 23, 2013)

Everybody Loves Rockwell


----------



## danski0224 (Nov 23, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Everybody Loves Rockwell



I'm sure he is having a good time watching all the chatter generated from a front page CR posting


----------



## infared (Nov 23, 2013)

facedodge said:


> May we never speak of Ken Rockwell at Canon Rumors again.




Please...no....NOOOOOOOOOO......We enjoy bashing him far too much!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 23, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Everybody Loves Rockwell
> ...


It is quite possible that a good chunk of his online traffic comes from CR members trying to find some "unique" comments by KR ;D


----------



## acafinecon (Nov 23, 2013)

Nikon fascist once again loves Canon. I wonder how much Canon has been paying. I admit that I visit his site once again, to laugh at his rants!


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Everybody Loves Rockwell
> ...



Ken Rockwell does not have time to bother reading posts on internet forums written by idiots who spend all their time talking about trivial technical details instead of taking real pictures!

i know, he says so all the time


----------



## candc (Nov 23, 2013)

i know that aperture size is a function of focal length/f number so a 50mm f/1 lens needs a 50mm aperture size right? is there a maximum that can be obtained at any given focal length? is a lens always labeled purely by its physical max aperture size?


----------



## RomainF (Nov 24, 2013)

Zeiss 40mm f/0,33, some kind of a joke :










The fastest usable lens may actually be an American Optical 81mm f/0.38. No pictures though...
Kubrick has used an f/0.7 lens with a speed-booster to get an f/0.38 one too to shoot some candles-lighted scenes in Barry Lyndon. The original f/0.7 was made by the Nasa to shoot the dark side of the moon. 

Well, that's what the legend says...


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 24, 2013)

Kubrik's .7 lenses were not made by NASA, they were made by Zeiss. NASA "commissioned" them for Apollo. In total there were only 10 lenses made. One was kept by Carl Zeiss, six were sold to NASA, and three were sold to Stanley Kubrick.

NASA used them to take photos of the dark side of the moon. But they got no precedes from the sale of the album.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Dsotm30.jpg


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

RomainF said:


> Zeiss 40mm f/0,33, some kind of a joke :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

candc said:


> : Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.



Allow me…


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > : Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
> ...



Perfecto!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 24, 2013)

Jim O said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Jim O said:
> ...



He moved out of his La Jolla, CA mansion to Long Island?

OK, maybe he should have put on more ads. ;D ;D ;D

(and he probably gave an exaggerated impression to begin with about everything)


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Nov 24, 2013)

RomainF said:


> Zeiss 40mm f/0,33, some kind of a joke :


That's a rather small front element ;D


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 24, 2013)

chromophore said:


> Ever since DxO published their findings about signal gain to compensate for oblique angle light loss at fast f-numbers, people have been taking that report as gospel and making all sorts of inaccurate inferences about what that means. One popular misconception is that it means f/1.0 isn't really f/1.0



Actually a couple of us on DPR discovered it long before DxO ever wrote about it. A couple of us accidentally made some black frames for measuring read noise with fast glass attached instead of just the body cap and got weird results, the read noise didn't seem to fit. And thus the secret ISO boosting for fast glass was discovered.



> Indeed, one cannot make that conclusion and at the same time say that the DOF or background blur is different, because if the oblique angles of light were not being captured to some extent, the result would not show the peripheral rays that contribute to the shallower DOF and the greater background blur in the first place.
> And the whole situation becomes clear once we think about the geometry of the incoming light. Yes, very oblique rays do not contribute as much to the image as perpendicular rays, but the consequence of this is vignetting, not a uniform loss of light across the image plane. If the loss was that strong, you would see it in the blur disks of out-of-focus highlights. There would be a falloff in intensity from center to edge. But we don't see that, and the camera's image processor is not sophisticated enough to compensate for it in such a specific way.



So you are trying to claim that you can both need to apply a boost and yet not have any affect to the expected DOF??


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> DoF and exposure at those ultrawide apertures aren't linked in the way you think they are. When you open up from f/2 to f/1.2, for example, the extra light isn't all hitting the sensor at progressively more oblique angles. If that we're the case, only the OOF regions of the image would be darker, and the clandestine ISO boost the camera applies would have to be selectively applied only to those regions.



What are you are saying would mean that it would need to boost for a loss of light it can capture easily and not boost for what it can't grab easily and even just already there it's not working out.




> I just took a series of shots of an angled page of text, from f/1.2 to f/2 with the 85L II - it's clear that DoF gets deeper with each aperture step, starting with the first step from f/1.2 to f/1.4. The steps did not appear qualitatively different.



It can be a tricky thing to judge that and if you have a body where the effect is not on the larger size even moreso.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> What are you are saying would mean that it would need to boost for a loss of light it can capture easily and not boost for what it can't grab easily and even just already there it's not working out.
> 
> It can be a tricky thing to judge that and if you have a body where the effect is not on the larger size even moreso.



It can be a tricky thing to understand the optical principles involved. 

Apparently, it can also be a tricky thing to construct a coherent sentence.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > What are you are saying would mean that it would need to boost for a loss of light it can capture easily and not boost for what it can't grab easily and even just already there it's not working out.
> ...



that wasn't much of a response

also it can depend upon the internal construction of a lens too, so not all say 50 1.4s would react in quite the same way


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Wow, ummmm, ok. Your statement, "_ What are you are saying would mean that it would need to boost for a loss of light it can capture easily and not boost for what it can't grab easily and even just already there it's not working out,_" has defects in both syntax and semantics, making it nonsensical gibberish. Is that more of a response?

Internal construction of random 50/1.4 lenses? What does that have to do with empirical observations with an 85/1.2L II? 

Please try again when you can form coherent statements and string locigal arguments together.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 24, 2013)

You seem to be saying that as you open the lens up the light from the outer parts somehow only contributes to the OOF areas and does not contribute to all areas??

And you seem to imply that blur is not affected whatsoever even though overall brightness might be a little??

And then would they not be left compensating for light that does not increase blur but that can also be collected well and why they compensate for the light collected well? And why would they compensate at all? For what? If light that contributes to increased blur is all captured perfectly then they can't be compensating for any loss of that but if the other light is capture easily why does that need to compensated for?

I may not be getting what you were trying to get across though and perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.


----------



## crasher8 (Nov 24, 2013)

For the masses: He's the equivalent of pre-2012 Lance Armstrong to the camera world. 
For the informed: He's always been the after Oprah Interview Lance


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> You seem to be saying that as you open the lens up the light from the outer parts somehow only contributes to the OOF areas and does not contribute to all areas??
> 
> I may not be getting what you were trying to get across though and perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.



Evidently. 

I made that statement as the 'then' part of if an if-then clause. It's clearly false, and the point was that if the 'then' part is false, then the 'if' part is likewise false. 

Light falling at extremely oblique angles from a lens with a very wide aperture is detected at progressively reduced efficiency by smaller pixels. That doesn't make the out of focus light at those wide apertures less out of focus.


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> That doesn't make the out of focus light at those wide apertures less out of focus.



It does, a little. The image is convoluted not with a uniform disk (far from the transition region) but with a non-uniform one, with vignetting near the edge. For over-corrected lenses, close to the focus plane, this can actually help to smoothen the bright edge but I would take a sensor with less light loss any day. (Did I forgot to mention DR?  )


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > That doesn't make the out of focus light at those wide apertures less out of focus.
> ...



The effect of optical vignetting on OOF regions is a different phenomenon than the reduced sensitivity to obliquely angled light. The former applies to film and digital sensors, whereas the latter applies only to digital (and differentially affects sensors based on pixel size) and was the issue under discussion.


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The effect of optical vignetting on OOF regions is a different phenomenon than the reduced sensitivity to obliquely angled light. The former applies to film and digital sensors, whereas the latter applies only to digital (and differentially affects sensors based on pixel size).



It is the same, if we are talking about the same thing. The OOF highlights in the center do not suffer from vignetting before registered by the sensor. Close to the focus plane, it may have bright edges or darker one, depending on how the lens is corrected but that is something else. Digital sensors would render a uniform disk to one which is darker towards the edge. You can see that in KR's shots but part of this might be due to an under-corrected design. A good test would be to take a few shots with different defocus and compare. 

BTW, film is not as ideal as we may think in that regard. Partly reflective surfaces reflect more at oblique angles and even if they do not reflect much, they transmit less unless they are coated. How visible this is on film - I do not know. 

Now, if you are talking about the effect of vignetting away from the center - then this is lens and mirror box induced, creates cut highlights, etc.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The effect of optical vignetting on OOF regions is a different phenomenon than the reduced sensitivity to obliquely angled light. The former applies to film and digital sensors, whereas the latter applies only to digital (and differentially affects sensors based on pixel size).
> ...



We aren't. The effects on intensity and DoF are distinct.


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



The bottom line is that the microlens vignetting affects both.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

Pi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



The bottom line is we disagree. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to be saying that as you open the lens up the light from the outer parts somehow only contributes to the OOF areas and does not contribute to all areas??
> ...



Why would it make out of focus light less out of focus?? But if it didn't capture some of that then you do lose just a little blur along with overall brightness across all parts the image in focus or not since the outer stuff arrives everywhere in focus and out of focus.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 24, 2013)

I'm not sure what coming down Canon product pipelines, but recent released primes seem to aim at f1.8ish with IS.

I might keep my 50L f1.2 and 85L f1.2 II around until I see f1.2 replacements. IS is helpful, but I still want that bulky red-ring large prime - that shallow DOF 

Otherwise - f2 prime on ff mirrorless seems very attractive to me


----------



## Pi (Nov 24, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm not sure what coming down Canon product pipelines, but recent released primes seem to aim at f1.8ish with IS.
> 
> I might keep my 50L f1.2 and 85L f1.2 II around until I see f1.2 replacements. IS is helpful, but I still want that bulky red-ring large prime - that shallow DOF



I do not think that Canon will kill its 50/1.2 with a 50/1.4 IS. They want to keep f/1.2 primes in heir lineup at least for bragging rights. On the other hand, we will see 50LII at some point, I believe.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Nov 25, 2013)

I've seen pics taken with the 50mm f1. It's 'interesting' but a total niche lens. A nice toy but I don't see any real practical applications for it. Shoot in the dark? Um, why? I can see a landscape photographer that would want a 15mm f1 or a researcher needing a 400mm f1 for researching the nocturnal patterns of some endangered species... But for everyone else?

In real world usage, the Canon 50mm f1 and Zeis Otus 55mm f1.4 are completely different beasts.


----------



## candc (Nov 25, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> I've seen pics taken with the 50mm f1. It's 'interesting' but a total niche lens. A nice toy but I don't see any real practical applications for it. Shoot in the dark? Um, why? I can see a landscape photographer that would want a 15mm f1 or a researcher needing a 400mm f1 for researching the nocturnal patterns of some endangered species... But for everyone else?
> 
> In real world usage, the Canon 50mm f1 and Zeis Otus 55mm f1.4 are completely different beasts.



yes they are, the otus is all about sharpness, the canon is all about speed and it has autofocus. both are excellent examples of what can be achieved and i like to see that


----------

