# Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L II Mention [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 10, 2015)

```
<p>A redesign of the EF 50mm f/1.2L is under way we’re told. The new design will include a floating element like the EF 85 f/1.2L II and get rid of the focus shift problem that many experience with the current version of the lens. The aim is also to make the lens lighter and speed up autofocus performance as well. You could also expect the latest and greatest lens coatings.</p>
<p>We’re told this lens will come after Canon’s next prime L, which is looking like a 35mm f/1.4 replacement. So we may not see this until very late in 2015 or next year.</p>
<p><em>image credit //  the-digital-picture</em></p>
```


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 10, 2015)

I'd buy a 50LII if they can make it decently sharp and fix the focus shift.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 10, 2015)

Oh my! This is fantastic news! Any word on the design itself? Fingers crossed for a retro focal with 50 Art image quality !


----------



## Memdroid (Mar 10, 2015)

I just pooped my pants! The 50L is my favorite lens, and if this new version can improve the wide open sharpness and retains its predecessors color, contrast and bokeh Canon will have a clear winner!


----------



## jebrady03 (Mar 10, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> I'd buy a 50LII if they can make it decently sharp and fix the focus shift.



I'll second that!



Memdroid said:


> I just pooped my pants! The 50L is my favorite lens, and if this new version can improve the wide open sharpness and retains its predecessors color, contrast and bokeh Canon will have a clear winner!



And that!

If the size/weight stays similar to it's predecessor, and the above is tackled, it'll be a hell of a lens! I'd probably drop the extra $1000+ on it vs a stabilized 50.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2015)

A 50 f/1.2L II would be nice, but a smaller/lighter non-L 50 f/1.4 IS USM for half the price would be soooooo much better. Half this forum would give their liver for such a lens. 

- A


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 10, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Oh my! This is fantastic news! Any word on the design itself? Fingers crossed for a retro focal with 50 Art image quality !



I thought the same: Hopefully some improved design with a retrofocus construction but at a more compact size compared to OTUS and Sigma Art. Perhaps there is a chance to make it a little bit retrofocus but use refined glass to get great IQ -- IQ should be a GOOD compromise between bokeh/image look and the more technical parameters like resolution, contrast, color aberrations, distortion, vignetting, flare resistance, etc. pp.

After using a 2nd hand 5D classic with 2.0 100 and 2.8 100 I fell in love with FF and I need a 50 mm (for ME a sort of wide angle lens!).


----------



## Pixel (Mar 10, 2015)

I sure would love to hear their reasoning for the lenses they pick for updating when they've got subpar primes that have been allowed to languish for far too long without updates i.e. 20 2.8 (1992), 85 1.8 (1992) and 100 2 (1991). Two of these three lenses I need critically right now but since having used them in the past they're not worth the money spent for their performance issues.


----------



## JRPhotos (Mar 10, 2015)

Very interesting. I wonder how much it'll cost and how much better the focusing/sharpness will be.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Mar 10, 2015)

YES! I really hope this is true. I would ABSOLUTELY buy this. Get rid of the issues with the current 50mm f/1.2L and I'm in!


----------



## Act444 (Mar 10, 2015)

The 85 1.8 and 100 2.0 sub-par? I beg to differ...

They may not be as stunning as the newer lenses like the 70-200 or 100 Macro IS, but they are still very good in their own right. In fact, I'm fairly confident they'll hold up even on the 50 MP 5DS (if the crop performance is any indication). 

Not to say an upgrade would be entirely unwelcomed - but I'm getting by with the current version of the 100 f2 just fine - and I'm quite picky about high performance too. Although admittedly its small size is its biggest asset (i.e., it gets used whenever the 70-200 or 135 is impractical)


----------



## Act444 (Mar 10, 2015)

As for the new 50, that'll be great - I gave up on waiting and just got the existing version, since vaporware is useless - and the copy I picked up thankfully doesn't seem to be quite as bad with the back focusing issue (it can be worked around for the most part)


----------



## Cory (Mar 10, 2015)

Just got this with the 85 1.8 and I'm in for the 50 II:


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2015)

Pixel said:


> I sure would love to hear their reasoning for the lenses they pick for updating when they've got subpar primes that have been allowed to languish for far too long without updates i.e. 20 2.8 (1992), 85 1.8 (1992) and 100 2 (1991). Two of these three lenses I need critically right now but since having used them in the past they're not worth the money spent for their performance issues.



Easy. The 85 and 100 have excellent L versions that will cover the need _if you pay Canon's ransom for them._ There's also the 100mm f/2.8 (non-L) macro that's pretty strong as well. 

I expect with the strong success of the 100L IS macro being used as a short tele (i.e. not just for macro) as well as Canon's push to sell 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for portrait work that I would not expect Canon to offer a 100 f/2 lens again -- that lens has to be a distant 3rd runner in 100mm sales behind the two macro lenses. I know the 100L Macro is a stop slower than the old 100mm f/2, but there are plenty of large aperture 100-ish options out there (85 1.8, Sigma 85 f/1.4, Zeiss 100 f/2, 135 f/2L, etc.) if that is what you are looking for.

As for the 20mm prime, you are dead-on. That FL needs to be refreshed, IMHO. Either grab an UWA zoom, grab a 17mm T/S (pricey), or make due with the recent 24mm F/2.8 IS. 

I still think we need a 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 non-L IS refresh the most, but I think the 20mm non-L should not be forgotten. The need is apparently not just with Canon -- Nikon just recently offered a decent mid-range 20mm f/1.8 themselves.

- A


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 10, 2015)

Pixel said:


> I sure would love to hear their reasoning for the lenses they pick for updating when they've got subpar primes that have been allowed to languish for far too long without updates i.e. 20 2.8 (1992), 85 1.8 (1992) and 100 2 (1991). Two of these three lenses I need critically right now but since having used them in the past they're not worth the money spent for their performance issues.


Canon 100mm F2 has performance issues, and not worth the money spent? 

I have one, and I know it is not perfect in F2. : But what F2 lens model has better performance wide open, costing less than $800. 8)

I'm sure this lens of 1991 can create wonderful images in the new 5DS / 5DSR, when used in F2.5.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 10, 2015)

I'm in, im getting it regardless of price, and i bet it will be a winner and will kick that sigmas ass a 4th time over again.


----------



## zim (Mar 10, 2015)

What was the intro price of the current 1.2L, was it around $1600 ?


----------



## RGF (Mar 10, 2015)

I have not had a 50mm lens in years, so I am interested the benefits of the very large aperture.

Why is ana F1.2 lens better than an F1.4 or F1.8/F2.0 lens.

Is the lens that much sharper? is the DOF difference noticeable? how often is the lens shoot wide open and a slower lens would not work? for what type of images? If you had better high ISO camera would you get a slower lens and up the ISO on the camera? 

Please no flames. I am genuinely interested in how this lens is used differently than slower 50mm lenses.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 10, 2015)

RGF said:


> I have not had a 50mm lens in years, so I am interested the benefits of the very large aperture.
> 
> Why is ana F1.2 lens better than an F1.4 or F1.8/F2.0 lens.
> 
> Is the lens that much sharper? is the DOF difference noticeable? how often is the lens shoot wide open and a slower lens would not work? for what type of images? If you had better high ISO camera would you get a slower lens and up the ISO on the camera?


It's all about shallow DOF, with weight and reasonable price. 8)
I do not think 50mm is a magical focal length, but with 85mm, is the only one who has aperture F1.2.

If there were any lens 135mm F1.2, some people would prefer that instead of ISO 51000 without noise.


----------



## steliosk (Mar 10, 2015)

i'm in for a 50L II too


----------



## NancyP (Mar 10, 2015)

Granted, I can only evaluate central performance on my 4.3 micron pixel APS-C (60D) camera. But a lot of lenses, including ancient film era legacy lenses, can perform like stars when stopped down. I suspect that the Canon 100s (f/2, f/2.8 nonL, f/2.8 L) can outperform my 40 year old AIS Nikkor 105 f/2.5 used on an adapter, but even that old film lens does quite well at f4 or 5.6. New lenses are nice. Older lenses are still worthwhile.

That being said, I would love to see the Canon 50 f/1.2L II - or an L 50 f/1.4. I have yet to break down and get a modern 50 for my 6D, I have been thinking seriously about the Sigma Art.


----------



## vscd (Mar 10, 2015)

> I have not had a 50mm lens in years, so I am interested the benefits of the very large aperture.
> 
> Why is ana F1.2 lens better than an F1.4 or F1.8/F2.0 lens.
> 
> Is the lens that much sharper? is the DOF difference noticeable?



It affects the DOF of course. The sharpness sometimes get's also a bit higher if you stop down a bit and compare it to slower lenses, but that's not the point. The faster aperture has some advantages who can be nice on the second view on it. For example, on DSLRs and therefor with mirror you have a far *brighter *Display than on slower lenses. A Viewfinder (with f1.2 lens attached to it) is 5-6 times brighter than with a "normal" fast f2.8 lens. This helps you to focus in low light a lot. You can even attach Teleconverters to it without loosing doublecross-availabilty on the Autofocus-Modul (possible up to f2.8 in sum).

You can compensate the shorter times with higher ISO, that's right... but rumours say there are still people out there, taking photos in film


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 10, 2015)

As I read the CR2 post I just kept thinking, "Pinch me!"


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 10, 2015)

Pixel said:


> I sure would love to hear their reasoning for the lenses they pick for updating when they've got subpar primes that have been allowed to languish for far too long without updates i.e. 20 2.8 (1992), 85 1.8 (1992) and 100 2 (1991). Two of these three lenses I need critically right now but since having used them in the past they're not worth the money spent for their performance issues.


I tend to agree about the Ef 20mm f2.8 and the EF 85 f1.8 but if the EF 100 f2 doesnt rock your boat then I would take a look at the EF 100 f2.8L Macro I use this mainly as a standard 100mm and its a brilliant lens.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 10, 2015)

vscd said:


> > I have not had a 50mm lens in years, so I am interested the benefits of the very large aperture.
> >
> > Why is ana F1.2 lens better than an F1.4 or F1.8/F2.0 lens.
> >
> ...




Yes, a brighter viewfinder, and in theory shallower dof so more precise focus, but in practice if the lens is very soft wide open, which is how we focus, precise focus is less obvious. 





RGF said:


> I have not had a 50mm lens in years, so I am interested the benefits of the very large aperture.
> 
> Why is ana F1.2 lens better than an F1.4 or F1.8/F2.0 lens.
> 
> ...



Because the 1.2 version should be better at 1.4, or 1.8 etc, than those lenses wide open. Or maybe because Canon chose to use 1.2 on an eight element double gauss design with radiused bonded surfaces in the rear elements - like lens manufacturers did 50 years ago, but are now too cheap to bother. Of course they could have done this with a slower lens, but this expensive element construction seems to require added speed for marketing purposes. If Canon produced a lens that equalled the Super Takumar f/1.4 from 1964 I'm sure everyone ( who doesn't either shoot or monitor test charts and MTF) would be more than happy. Of course they wouldn't want it to be radioactive like the '64 Takumar. Maybe that's why images from those lenses glow. 

I'm guessing that these old stellar lenses, including the superb Pentax SMC 50mm f/1.2 and Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 Ai-s probably suffered from the same field curvature and focus shift as the modern Canon lens, but of course people were less into MTF, DXO, TDP _et al/i] in those days._


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 10, 2015)

Truly, best photography gear news I've heard in years. Go, Canon, GO!


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > > I have not had a 50mm lens in years, so I am interested the benefits of the very large aperture.
> ...



But you need a special focusing screen to see either. Standard focusing screens are around f2.8, so anything brighter or shallower is not apparent, you are still looking at your f1.2 lens through an f2.8 window.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 10, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Pixel said:
> 
> 
> > I sure would love to hear their reasoning for the lenses they pick for updating when they've got subpar primes that have been allowed to languish for far too long without updates i.e. 20 2.8 (1992), 85 1.8 (1992) and 100 2 (1991). Two of these three lenses I need critically right now but since having used them in the past they're not worth the money spent for their performance issues.
> ...



+1 on the 100L. That's a rockstar short tele for me that _also happens to be able to take 1:1 macro shots_. It's small size and weight often makes it into a small bag as my second lens when I'm shooting walkaround. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II often stays at home just for size and weight reasons. (When I need it, it's ridiculous, but when I don't, it's ridiculously heavy. )

If you are a bokeh fanatic and want a 100 f/2, look on either side of the focal length and go for the 85 f/1.8 (if budget constrained) or 135 f/2L. It's not like Canon crippled us for options with portraiture.

- A


----------



## KAS (Mar 10, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> But you need a special focusing screen to see either. Standard focusing screens are around f2.8, so anything brighter or shallower is not apparent, you are still looking at your f1.2 lens through an f2.8 window.



Hence my disappointment that the new 5Ds does not have an interchangeable focus screen. Why did the 5D classic, but then no subsequent 5D? One of the reasons I'm stilling hanging onto the 1Ds3.

No doubt, I'd love to get my hands on a 50L II.


----------



## The Bad Duck (Mar 11, 2015)

I....must....resist!!!!
Must....not.....open.....wallet!!!!

Bah who am I kidding?

(would still prefer 50 /1.4 IS USM or even 50 /2 IS USM)


----------



## candc (Mar 11, 2015)

The 50l gets 50/50 love/hate it seems. Nobody seems to say its ok or pretty good. I reckon the new lens will sell to the hate group but the love group won't want to part with the present lens. I don't care if the new one sets every internet test chart on fire with its sharpness.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 11, 2015)

Wow....NEW 35mm f1.4 & 50mm f1.2


----------



## switters (Mar 11, 2015)

If this is true, it seems even less likely that we'll see an updated 50/1.4 anytime soon. That's a shame, because I'd prefer a light, compact, sharp, fast-focusing 50/1.4 to a new 50L. I shoot primarily with two big zooms (24-70 II and 70-200 IS), so I would love a discreet, lightweight but excellent IQ 50mm prime. I tried the 50A but despite the fantastic quality it was just too big and heavy for what I want. 

I guess Canon must be thinking that if they released a fantastic 50/1.4, that would eat into their current 50L and future 50L II sales.


----------



## Ruined (Mar 11, 2015)

candc said:


> The 50l gets 50/50 love/hate it seems. Nobody seems to say its ok or pretty good. I reckon the new lens will sell to the hate group but the love group won't want to part with the present lens. I don't care if the new one sets every internet test chart on fire with its sharpness.



If a 50L II comes out that retains the look of the 50L f/1.2 while improving some aspects, I'd be willing to upgrade. But if the 50L II is just a clinical sharpness-fest, that would make it a tough sell/non-starter for me.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 11, 2015)

AshtonNekolah said:


> I'm in, im getting it regardless of price, and i bet it will be a winner and will kick that sigmas ass a 4th time over again.



I dunno, the fact that people are favorably comparing a $ 800, f/1.4 Sigma to a $ 1500 f/1.2 Canon (yes, there are some reports on AF problems but look at the overwhelming majority) tells me otherwise. You know?



KAS said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > But you need a special focusing screen to see either. Standard focusing screens are around f2.8, so anything brighter or shallower is not apparent, you are still looking at your f1.2 lens through an f2.8 window.
> ...




Both the 5DII and the 6D have interchangeable screens. 



Personally, I'd like a 50L II. I don't plan to buy a 50mm anytime soon, so when I do there will be enough copies on the 2nd hand/refurb market as this isn't a really prime (excuse the pun) lens for me to buy.


----------



## candc (Mar 11, 2015)

Ruined said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > The 50l gets 50/50 love/hate it seems. Nobody seems to say its ok or pretty good. I reckon the new lens will sell to the hate group but the love group won't want to part with the present lens. I don't care if the new one sets every internet test chart on fire with its sharpness.
> ...



I haven't had the focus problems that I read about all the time. Mine is a recent one so maybe that makes a difference? I mostly use it on a 6d and the af is dead nuts on with no afma, maybe that's just luck and I love the look it gives. I honestly would not trade it for the Otus or any other 50 out there now. That look I love comes from designed in spherical aberration. If they design it to be technically perfect then I don't see how it can have the same look but we'll see.


----------



## RGF (Mar 11, 2015)

Thanks for the explanations about why a F1.2 is better than an F1.4 or F1.8

I guess I am glad that they don't make a 600 F1.2 (or F2) - better and low light focusing would be great but not at the cost and weight of that beast.

Rich


----------



## P_R (Mar 11, 2015)

I have been looking for a 50mm lens of late. The only reason I've delayed going for the 50L is that I read as many positives as negatives about this lens. And while the Zeiss seems to have universally great reviews, it is manual focus, so that adds its own requirements (technique, maybe different focus screens) and of course the price.

If the new 50L improves on the existing ones' characteristics, Canon should have a winner. It will be then interesting to see it in a comparison with other lenses, and not just via charts but real world issues such as handling and the like.


----------



## Perio (Mar 11, 2015)

This is a great news, and although I don't have any lens wider than 70mm, I will buy this one once it's released. I think updated 1.2ii version will attract more customers than the release of updated 1.0ii version that some people were talking about just recently. 

I really like how Canon approaches needs of many photographers lately by releasing new telephoto, UW and portrait lenses. Considering quality of the 100-400 and 11-24 lenses, 50 1.2ii should be amazing in terms of IQ and build.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 11, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Wow....NEW 35mm f1.4 & 50mm f1.2



Admit it... you staged the theft so you could get new gear.  I'm kidding... but I'm a little excited too... provided it is significantly better than the sigma counterparts... I can't imagine giving up my 85 f/1.2 for a 50... but who knows...


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2015)

The Bad Duck said:


> I....must....resist!!!!
> Must....not.....open.....wallet!!!!
> 
> Bah who am I kidding?
> ...



You're not the only one. I'd wager this forum is 75% tilted towards the mid-level IS refresh over either the L or the nifty fifty. All three have their place, but the non-L IS 50 is the one that will sell like hotcakes.

- A


----------



## florianbieler.de (Mar 11, 2015)

And who exactly needs a new 50L after Sigma's 50 Art? They won't beat it price/performance-wise anyway, if they even can outmatch the Arts picture quality. I also waited for years for a new, tack-sharp 1.4 but as it just isn't coming I went with the Art and it's amazing.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 11, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> I'd buy a 50LII if they can make it decently sharp and fix the focus shift.


I sold it because of these problems. Not sharp except stopping down to f/2-2.8 and frequent focus shift


----------



## sanj (Mar 11, 2015)

Nice to see so much enthusiasm for this lens. There are many who think 50mm is a boring lens but I believe it is an awesome and 'must have' focal length in most photographers bags... 

I will pre order this lens.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 11, 2015)

florianbieler.de said:


> And who exactly needs a new 50L after Sigma's 50 Art? They won't beat it price/performance-wise anyway, if they even can outmatch the Arts picture quality. I also waited for years for a new, tack-sharp 1.4 but as it just isn't coming I went with the Art and it's amazing.



Because of AF and weather sealing. And having had 4 Art lenses, I can say that unless AF is working, shooting at 1.4 is like manual focusing with a blindfold.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 11, 2015)

If this [CR2] becomes true, there finally is a chance - together with the rumored 50/1.8 STM comming - that there will be a a new 50/1.4 USM (with or without IS) within 2 years. Hopefully much sooner. 
But it was clear that Canon had to update the L-50 first and then bring a midprice 50 mm afterwards. 

Maaan... how I hate waiting. (and no, the 50 Art is too big and heavy for me)


----------



## cayenne (Mar 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> A 50 f/1.2L II would be nice, but a smaller/lighter non-L 50 f/1.4 IS USM for half the price would be soooooo much better. Half this forum would give their liver for such a lens.
> 
> - A



Not me, I want that extra wideness. I've shot dark, dark bars with video with this 50L (rented)..and it turned nighttime into daylight....amazing.

That thing is not that heavy...not sure why so many here complain about weight all the time. For that matter, I love my 70-200 f/2.8....it is a bit heavy, but not THAT bad. 

I figure do a little time in the gym and eat your Wheaties...and use really really good glass.


----------



## Sarpedon (Mar 11, 2015)

florianbieler.de said:


> And who exactly needs a new 50L after Sigma's 50 Art? They won't beat it price/performance-wise anyway, if they even can outmatch the Arts picture quality. I also waited for years for a new, tack-sharp 1.4 but as it just isn't coming I went with the Art and it's amazing.




I'm probably a minority, but I prefer the 50L, which I bought _after_ using the 50 Art. The Art was way too big for my taste (it's the size of a 24-70), and the copy I tried had auto-focus problems. Despite the focus-shift issue, I found the 50L to give more consistent focus results once I got the hang of it--and I actually liked the feeling of accommodating myself to the lens, of learning its foibles and figuring out how to use it properly (though I understand why most wouldn't want to deal with that). I appreciated the weather-sealing, too, and for street and portraits, it's plenty sharp enough for me. I also preferred its rendering over the Sigma, though I realize that's down to personal taste. 

I doubt I'd part with my 50L when its successor comes out, but if the 50L II is about the same size, renders about as nicely, and improves sharpness (no mean feat, combining those three), I might upgrade somewhere down the line. The Sigma, though, doesn't meet my personal needs, so I'd never consider it.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 11, 2015)

florianbieler.de said:


> And who exactly needs a new 50L after Sigma's 50 Art? They won't beat it price/performance-wise anyway, if they even can outmatch the Arts picture quality. I also waited for years for a new, tack-sharp 1.4 but as it just isn't coming I went with the Art and it's amazing.



I would.
I need that extra speed for dark environment videos, like I often shoot in dimly lit bars.

The Sigma ART lens says 1.4, but seems to be significantly slower than that, especially compared to the 50L 1.2. I read it has to do with the coatings on the Sigma Art that make it closer to 1.x stops slower than the 50L.

I have a need....a need for speed as they say.


If I was just shooting stills, I'd likely get the Sigma Art, I had them both side by side rented awhile back, the Sigma felt great and solid and was fun to shoot with...but for my needs for low light video, I would go the 1.2 any day of the week.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 11, 2015)

cayenne said:


> I figure do a little time in the gym and eat your Wheaties...and use really really good glass.


To those wanting a smaller, lighter lens it's very often not about how to handle the big weight and having not done the workout but about beeing more descrete, stealthy, convenient and so on.


----------



## chukronos (Mar 11, 2015)

Yes, please!!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > I figure do a little time in the gym and eat your Wheaties...and use really really good glass.
> ...



This. +500. I'll use something 90-95% as good as the best in class if it's half as big, half as heavy and half the cost. I'll take the non-L 50 f/nooneknows IS USM for the win.

- A


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 11, 2015)

cayenne said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > A 50 f/1.2L II would be nice, but a smaller/lighter non-L 50 f/1.4 IS USM for half the price would be soooooo much better. Half this forum would give their liver for such a lens.
> ...



I absolutely agree with you about the weight issue... until you have a toddler in one arm, carrying a body/lens with the other, climbing up 500 some uneven, slippery steps.

Then... it isn't a matter of weight as much as what the fudge was I thinking.


----------



## Memdroid (Mar 11, 2015)

Apparently the new 50L is going to be lighter. Which is a HUGE bonus in itself, not that the current version was heavy but just build very solid with a balanced weight.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 11, 2015)

Memdroid said:


> Apparently the new 50L is going to be lighter. Which is a HUGE bonus in itself, not that the current version was heavy but just build very solid with a balanced weight.



As long as it delivers top notch performance corner to corner.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently the new 50L is going to be lighter. Which is a HUGE bonus in itself, not that the current version was heavy but just build very solid with a balanced weight.
> ...



Get the Sigma, then. Don't even wait for the next L.

Consider: Canon doesn't do corner to corner _anything_ with it's large aperture primes: of the 24 1.4L II, 35 1.4L, 50 1.2L, as 85 1.2L II, all deliver corners as soft as pillows. I keep getting told: _"That's not what these lenses are for."_ These lenses are about center sharpness / bokeh / draw / color / 'that magical certain something'.

Hence, I'd recommend you go for the Sigma or wait for the non-L IS refresh like I am. Those two lenses will give you corners.

- A


----------



## lintoni (Mar 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Memdroid said:
> ...


They may not have been known for having the sharpest primes in the box, but consider that they have been upgrading their L zooms for the arrival of the mega mp cameras, which land soon, so you can expect that new L primes will be designed to complement said high mp bodies.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2015)

Dutch_Snapper said:


> So want to have rent one as I guess it will be the rumoured 50/1.x IS USM non-L that I will end up owning at some point. But I do want to experience what this supposed lens can do.



I've shot the 50 f/1.2L and honestly prefer the ancient 50 f/1.4 USM to it for what I shoot. I rarely shoot wider than f/2, and sharpness is more important to me than dreamy color. Sure, the focus hunts in lower light but it's generally reliable. I must have a decent copy as many have had a poor AF experience with it.

I recognize that preferring the f/1.4 to the f/1.2 puts me in the minority. The 50L is a lovely piece of kit, but no lens is perfect. That lens simply prioritizes performance considerations I don't value and underdelivers on things that I do value. So my money has always stayed in my pocket and I've snapped away with my 50 f/1.4. 

But YMMV. I recommend renting the 50L and trying it out if you get the chance.

- A


----------



## Sarpedon (Mar 11, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Ugh, enough of this. Some people just prefer a smaller kit. That's why mirrorless is so popular, and that's why a lot of pros have switched to Sony's FE mount. If Sony got their act together and fixed the A7R's useability problems, I'd consider switching over myself. 

This not-too-heavy-for-_me_ bravado really gets on my nerves. You people aren't impressing anyone. Some folks don't care about weight. Good for you. Some people do, and there's no reason to puff yourself up by disparaging them. I'm tall and I lift weights; I could (and do) carry heavy camera equipment. But I prefer a lighter kit, and so do a lot of people. There's no need to flash your tough-guy card about it, and there's no reason we can't respect each other's preferences.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 11, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I'll go along with the idea that weight and balance are important, especially when doing a lot of walking about, but the idea that even a pancake lens on a DSLR could be considered STEALTHY is pretty silly. In a world of camera phones, anybody putting a DSLR up to their face is immediately spotted. It isn't the profile of the camera with extending lens that draws attention, it's the body, the strap, the gesture, and then the diameter of the lens.

(And don't forget the vest and tripod and backpack!!!)

Some photographers are either always or from time to time excruciatingly self-conscious, so we get the idea that everybody is looking at our lens, that the red ring stands out, that we look geeky...Only the last part is true. We do look geeky! Which, apart from brainless convenience, is the reason people who never took photos in the past are obsessive with their camera phones.

But back to the 50L, I admit, if it balances nicely on a 5DIII, I'd rather be walking around with it than with the Sigma 50mm A (which I sent back due to erratic AF).

I love the feel of my 85mm 1.2 II, gooney bird that it is, and a slightly smaller 50mm 1.2 should be even better.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 11, 2015)

While I understand the want for light gear, I have been waiting for a superb fast fifty since forever that I don't care what it weighs. That's not macho show off whatever, I just know that it takes weight to make a great fast lens. I'm more excited about this than when my 200 was on its way in the mail


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Memdroid said:
> ...



When were the 24 L II, 35L, 50L and 85L II released? 2008, 1998, 2006 and 2006. When did Canon say it started designing lenses for higher resolution sensors? Starting with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, which was released in 2010, after all the primes you mentioned. The L lenses are designed to give the highest performance, which *includes* sharpness and corner performance. Compare to those primes to the zooms of their time (24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS) and the primes definitely performed better.

I see the 50 f/1.8 and f/1.4 replacements being the smaller than the L. The Gaussian design is more compact but gets soft with larger apertures, which is why I think it makes more sense for the non-Ls. The L is already much heavier, so going to a retrofocal design like the Zeiss or Sigma makes more sense.

I've had the 50L for a few years after trying the 50 f/1.4 (inconsistent focus at f/2.8 and larger), and one learns to deal with its quirks (focus shift near MFD [I avoid shooting near MFD], needing a better AF system like a 5DIII for off center AF, etc.). I use it primarily in lowlight indoor situations or going for a shallow DOF outdoors. Otherwise, the new zooms are much more convenient. I thought about the Sigma, but I'd hate to alter the way I shoot because of its AF inconsistencies. I'll decide after seeing how the 50L II stacks up.


----------



## Sarpedon (Mar 11, 2015)

Viggo said:


> While I understand the want for light gear, I have been waiting for a superb fast fifty since forever that I don't care what it weighs. That's not macho show off whatever, I just know that it takes weight to make a great fast lens. I'm more excited about this than when my 200 was on its way in the mail



And that's great! There's nothing wrong with that, and I wasn't saying otherwise. My problem is with the posturing, "eat your Wheaties" crowd.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2015)

Viggo said:


> While I understand the want for light gear, I have been waiting for a superb fast fifty since forever that I don't care what it weighs. That's not macho show off whatever, I just know that it takes weight to make a great fast lens. I'm more excited about this than when my 200 was on its way in the mail



This is case in point for why we need *two* great 50 primes -- one that that is the no-holds-barred performance object that will be heavy & huge and another that's 90% as good in half the package.

The first one is the L and the second one is the one I want. We will eventually get both, but I'd really like the smaller non-L IS first.

And to dovetail on discreet rigs, "that's why mirrorless is small", etc. - those points are valid, but I have no delusions that I am being stealthy with a 5D3 -- I stick out like a sore thumb and I'm fine with that. But as far as I'm concerned, _your rig isn't discreet if it needs it's own bag_, and most SLRs do. I actually like smaller/lighter gear as it's easier to handle and more likely to come with me when I leave the house, that's all.

- A


----------



## Viggo (Mar 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > While I understand the want for light gear, I have been waiting for a superb fast fifty since forever that I don't care what it weighs. That's not macho show off whatever, I just know that it takes weight to make a great fast lens. I'm more excited about this than when my 200 was on its way in the mail
> ...



Absolutely agree. It's the same reason people love the 1740 and the 135 and 85 f1.8, superb performance in a lightweight package and also more affordable.

I kid myself when I want to avoid attention when shooting, I take off the lens hood of the 200 ;D


----------



## Viggo (Mar 11, 2015)

Sarpedon said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > While I understand the want for light gear, I have been waiting for a superb fast fifty since forever that I don't care what it weighs. That's not macho show off whatever, I just know that it takes weight to make a great fast lens. I'm more excited about this than when my 200 was on its way in the mail
> ...



Absolutely agreed. People are different, that's why there is Powershots and 1d's in the world


----------



## chromophore (Mar 11, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> When were the 24 L II, 35L, 50L and 85L II released? 2008, 1998, 2006 and 2006. When did Canon say it started designing lenses for higher resolution sensors? Starting with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, which was released in 2010, after all the primes you mentioned. The L lenses are designed to give the highest performance, which *includes* sharpness and corner performance. Compare to those primes to the zooms of their time (24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS) and the primes definitely performed better.
> 
> I see the 50 f/1.8 and f/1.4 replacements being the smaller than the L. The Gaussian design is more compact but gets soft with larger apertures, which is why I think it makes more sense for the non-Ls. The L is already much heavier, so going to a retrofocal design like the Zeiss or Sigma makes more sense.
> 
> I've had the 50L for a few years after trying the 50 f/1.4 (inconsistent focus at f/2.8 and larger), and one learns to deal with its quirks (focus shift near MFD [I avoid shooting near MFD], needing a better AF system like a 5DIII for off center AF, etc.). I use it primarily in lowlight indoor situations or going for a shallow DOF outdoors. Otherwise, the new zooms are much more convenient. I thought about the Sigma, but I'd hate to alter the way I shoot because of its AF inconsistencies. I'll decide after seeing how the 50L II stacks up.



Designing for higher resolution sensors doesn't necessarily mean that previously designed lenses can't meet the demands of new sensors. I think users of the EF 800/5.6L IS, EF 200/2L IS, 135/2L, 100/2.8L macro IS, TS-E 90/4.5, and MP-E 65/2.8 would agree with me, for instance. These are some of the sharpest lenses Canon produces and they all precede the EF 70-200/2.8L IS II design.

Resolving power at high spatial frequencies is the primary component of "sharpness" in the context of sensors with high pixel density. But I suggest that this should not be the metric by which new lens designs should be measured, because high MTF at high lp/mm is only one aspect of a lens' overall performance, one that is generally only apparent in the image center and in the plane of focus. How a lens produces overall contrast, its field curvature, and the prevalence of chromatic aberrations outside of the plane of focus, are in my opinion very important issues pertaining to the design of fast-aperture lenses.

To see what I mean by this, take the EF 85/1.2L II. It's a great lens, and it actually performs fairly well in terms of center sharpness at high spatial frequencies in the plane of focus when shot wide open. Not as well as an EF 300/2.8L IS II by any means, but for f/1.2, it can resolve a remarkable amount of fine detail. But the chromatic aberration in high-contrast conditions is a killer and the performance outside the plane of focus is problematic. There is always room for improvement. The lens doesn't need to be "sharper"--it needs to be more *well-corrected*. The two are not quite synonymous.

Regarding the double-Gauss optical design, it's not the question of double-Gauss versus retrofocus that affects sharpness directly. Rather, it is the space considerations of adding corrective elements that drives the design as well as the extent of correction. Another way of thinking about this is that retrofocus designs don't automatically correspond to superior correction. They facilitate the inclusion of more lens elements, which can be used to correct aberrations and/or shorten the effective focal length of the system.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 11, 2015)

chromophore said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > When were the 24 L II, 35L, 50L and 85L II released? 2008, 1998, 2006 and 2006. When did Canon say it started designing lenses for higher resolution sensors? Starting with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, which was released in 2010, after all the primes you mentioned. The L lenses are designed to give the highest performance, which *includes* sharpness and corner performance. Compare to those primes to the zooms of their time (24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS) and the primes definitely performed better.
> ...



The 800, 135, TS-E 45 and MP-E 65 can be much better. Many people now use the 600L II + 1.4x III in favor over the 800L, the Zeiss 135 outclasses the 135L significantly, the TS-E 45 is soft wide open, and the MP-E requires a lot more sharpening and contrast boost than the 100L at 1:1.

My post was responding to Ahsanford's point that Canon's primes are expected to have soft corners. I responded that Canon's newer lenses are designed for better performance including edge/corner sharpness. Ahsanford is expecting the sharpest Canon 50mm prime to be the non L, while I think it makes more sense that the 50L become more similar to the Otus and Sigma due to its larger weight and size already.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 11, 2015)

At 1.4 it's difficult to nail focus every time with any glass. The DOF is about an inch. If you merely rock your head just slightly as you press the shutter release, you'll move the target. I really haven't had any focus issues with either of mine, and I hand held shoot quite a bit at 1.4. It's not as easy as f2.8 or f4, especially up close to your subject, but if you develop a good technique, it works fine. That said, I'd love to see what Canon does for a gen 2 on the 50.


----------



## chromophore (Mar 11, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> The 800, 135, TS-E 45 and MP-E 65 can be much better. Many people now use the 600L II + 1.4x III in favor over the 800L, the Zeiss 135 outclasses the 135L significantly, the TS-E 45 is soft wide open, and the MP-E requires a lot more sharpening and contrast boost than the 100L at 1:1.
> 
> My post was responding to Ahsanford's point that Canon's primes are expected to have soft corners. I responded that Canon's newer lenses are designed for better performance including edge/corner sharpness. Ahsanford is expecting the sharpest Canon 50mm prime to be the non L, while I think it makes more sense that the 50L become more similar to the Otus and Sigma due to its larger weight and size already.



I didn't mention the TS-E 45mm, but the 90mm instead. I mistakenly wrote f/4.5 when it is a f/2.8 lens, IIRC, so maybe that's the source of the confusion. The TS-E 90mm is exceptionally sharp.

The broader point still stands: just because older lenses weren't designed with 50+ MP full-frame sensors in mind doesn't mean they can't perform exceptionally well. It's not like they all go to **** once a high-resolution sensor is put behind them.

But I do absolutely agree that many Canon *fast-aperture* primes are "expected" to be soft in the corners. That's not so much because it's Canon, but because many prime lenses in general just don't have corner-to-corner performance unless we're talking about something large, unwieldy, and expensive. I don't know if Canon sees a market for $3-5k fast-aperture primes. People rave about the Otus 55 and 85, but that doesn't mean everyone is actually *buying* one. The economics and consumer perception for Zeiss (or Sigma for that matter) are different than for Canon. That's not an attempt to make excuses for Canon, who I do think have rested on their laurels with respect to innovation in optical design especially at fast apertures, but it's just economic reality.

In a way, Canon is the 800-pound gorilla that, no matter what it does, can't satisfy everybody. If they make a 50/1.0L II that at f/1.0 outperforms the Otus 55/1.4 at f/2.8, I'd sell a kidney to buy one. But no doubt it would cost something in the range of a luxury sports car and I kinda need that other kidney. All joking aside, the feeling I get is that if Canon makes a 50/1.2L II, someone's going to say "but where's my Otus for $1500?" There's no way to win except by making something for every conceivable demand, but that's just not possible, sadly.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 11, 2015)

I've read in the past where it seems there is some trade-off between ultimate sharpness and "most pleasing" bokeh. I realize bokeh is a rather subjective issue, but it's been sensed by some that the ART line which is razor sharp, lacks the beauty of the bokeh seen in "lesser" performing (sharpness) glass like the Canon and Nikon. That said, if anyone can produce a corner to corner sharp lens with great blur at large aperture it's Canon. But perhaps the loss of the corners is the sacrifice made for a smaller lens body. Sigma and Otus are both beasts and both have great corners.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 11, 2015)

chromophore said:


> The broader point still stands: just because older lenses weren't designed with 50+ MP full-frame sensors in mind doesn't mean they can't perform exceptionally well. It's not like they all go to **** once a high-resolution sensor is put behind them.



OK, but where did I say that older lenses "go to **** once a high-resolution sensor is put behind them."


----------



## Conquistador (Mar 11, 2015)

I don't currently have a 50 in my kit. I was looking into buying one, but I was torn between the Sigma and the Canon L. Seeing this news, I think I will march on without a 50 and grab the 100-400 II when it becomes available.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 11, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > I figure do a little time in the gym and eat your Wheaties...and use really really good glass.
> ...



Ok..why is anyone needing to be discrete and stealthy??
WFT are you taking pictures of?!? :O


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> My post was responding to Ahsanford's point that Canon's primes are expected to have soft corners. I responded that Canon's newer lenses are designed for better performance including edge/corner sharpness. Ahsanford is expecting the sharpest Canon 50mm prime to be the non L, while I think it makes more sense that the 50L become more similar to the Otus and Sigma due to its larger weight and size already.



RO -- that's a fair point. I have presumed that the 24L/35L/50L/85L designs were not mad in their quest for sharpness _and they will always be that way. _ That could be a terrible assumption on my part. A new 50L could be Otus sharp for all we know. Fair.

_Buuuuuuut,_ on the other hand, the 50 f/1.2L came out _13 years after_ the 50 f/1.4 and the cheaper lens still outresolved it in many commonly used apertures. This implies that Canon may have deliberately made some compromises with resolution to make something else work well on that 50L design. I can't speculate what was so important or difficult to implement on the 50L, but the 50L is not categorically their sharpest 50, _and they knew that when they took it to market._

I'm not saying L standard primes will always have soft corners, but perhaps Canon doesn't feel pros need corner sharpness in a wide aperture prime nearly as much as great color, bokeh, flare control, AF, chromatic aberration control, etc. Sharpness is but one measure of a lens, after all.

- A


----------



## candc (Mar 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > My post was responding to Ahsanford's point that Canon's primes are expected to have soft corners. I responded that Canon's newer lenses are designed for better performance including edge/corner sharpness. Ahsanford is expecting the sharpest Canon 50mm prime to be the non L, while I think it makes more sense that the 50L become more similar to the Otus and Sigma due to its larger weight and size already.
> ...



the 50L was specifically designed with spherical aberration. it is considered a benefit for the out of focus/bokeh quality.


----------



## LOALTD (Mar 11, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...




+1000


I do a lot of mountaineering/alpine climbing photography, weight is everything! And I ain't got no time for tripods, give me IS AND a fast aperture!


----------



## Sarpedon (Mar 12, 2015)

cayenne said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...



It's probably asking too much on an internet forum, but can you not act like a gawking middle-schooler, pointing and laughing at someone, making a big "L" sign with your thumb and forefinger? "Eeewww, what a perv!" Seriously, man, grow the hell up. 

Why would anyone need to be discrete and stealthy? Ask a street photographer, literally almost any street photographer in the entire world, and they'll tell you it helps. It also helps if you're traveling, or roaming through a not-so-safe neighborhood. It's nice not to be immediately marked as a target for theft, and it's nice when people don't notice you, so you can get candid shots and wait, unobserved, for the right moment.

Try walking around San Juan with a big white telephoto. Try Brixton or Gutte d'Or at night, if you're so sure of yourself.


----------



## hang your cross (Mar 12, 2015)

I'm all giddy right now. I can't wait to pick this up. The 50L was my favorite lens. I want it right now.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 12, 2015)

Yeah, all this talk about the 50 L made me think about getting a, hmm, is fifth or sixth copy now? ;D


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 12, 2015)

cayenne said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...


Okay, maybe the word "stealthy" was a little bit too much. And I now underline "_convenient_" much more.
But man... I don't know what dirty mind you have but if you are sitting together with some friends (party, wedding, etc.) have a good low light performing FF body and want to have some (available light) memories about it, I don't like to swank around with a big, chunky L-lens. I want to get focus fast (!!! So no STM), f1.4 is enough light, maybe even f2.0 and then get the pose/pic/situation and continue talking, having fun. 
Same for street photography.

If this is what you think when you say "_WFT are you taking pictures of?!?_" then okay : : :



Edit: and not everybody has the will/money/enthusiasm to spend so much money for an 50/1.2 L II.
But a 50/1.8 STM is below their needs.


----------



## Memdroid (Mar 12, 2015)

The 50L is hardly a big chunky lens.
And since the version II is going to be lighter and probably a tad smaller, I don't understand the fuss about its size and weight. Are we talking the 50 Art here?


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 12, 2015)

Memdroid said:


> The 50L is hardly a big chunky lens.
> And since the version II is going to be lighter and probably a tad smaller, I don't understand the fuss about its size and weight. Are we talking the 50 Art here?


Comparison 50L vs. 50/1.4:
Weight: app. 100% heavier
Size: app. 50% bigger
Price: not to mention.

Of course not compareble to any white lens. But it's indeed bigger.

And until it's released anyting about the 50L II is rumor. Also size and weight.


----------



## Memdroid (Mar 12, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > The 50L is hardly a big chunky lens.
> ...



Based on my experiences having owned both of these lenses, the size and weight is barely noticeable in practical use on a FF body.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 12, 2015)

Memdroid said:


> Based on my experiences having owned both of these lenses, the size and weight is barely noticeable in practical use on a FF body.


Of course it's all about taste. 
I've tried a 50L once and my experience was that it was noticeably bigger esp. combined with a 5D/6D shaped body. Nothing one couldn't handle or get used to, but noticeably. 

And of course if someone would present me a 50L (or II) I wouldn't care about buying a 50/1.4 as second lens this focal lengh. But if I had to choose between a 50L II and a 50/1.4 II, with expected IQ and features, say both similar size as the predecessors, without IS, so no advantage there, I'd surely go for the 1.4. 
But I really hope this 50L II will be stellar and surpass the Sigma Art so the (yet to come) 50/1.4 II therefore will be at a level (IQ, mechanicaly, AF performance) as I hope for. That's why I am interested in this rumor.


----------



## dadgummit (Mar 12, 2015)

LOALTD said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



Yup completely agree. The 70-200 2.8 IS II is the sharpest AF lens I have and I almost never have that heavy beast in the bag. Please give us the 50mm F?.? IS USM!!!!!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 12, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Okay, maybe the word "stealthy" was a little bit too much. And I now underline "_convenient_" much more.
> But man... I don't know what dirty mind you have but if you are sitting together with some friends (party, wedding, etc.) have a good low light performing FF body and want to have some (available light) memories about it, I don't like to swank around with a big, chunky L-lens. I want to get focus fast (!!! So no STM), f1.4 is enough light, maybe even f2.0 and then get the pose/pic/situation and continue talking, having fun.
> Same for street photography.



There are probably 3 major camps of people who want smaller and lighter lenses -- at any FL.

1) Street shooters. Uniquely for them, small _+ discreet_ is key. I think that means you are in Fuji/Olympus/Leica territory as chunky gripped bodies with big red-ringed lenses stick out way too much, but some folks love shooting street with SLRs. Weight is less of a big deal for these folks -- which is good, b/c they often choose large aperture glass.

2) Walkaround shooters. Guys like me who aren't pro photogs who just like to bring their rig everywhere. People who are more likely to bring their camera somewhere if it fits in a small bag. For these folks, it's about size _and weight_ (esp. if it's a long walkabout, a fairground, a civic event, etc.). Being discreet isn't a big deal for these folks.

3) Hikers/backpackers. Size & weight are a big deal for them.

- A


----------



## martti (Mar 12, 2015)

I took some shots of the most beautiful girl I've ever seen and the size of the room demanded 50mm, could not help it. I felt that my EF 50mm f/1.4 just was not good enough for HER! That for HER it should have been something extraordinary...the truth remains that optically the EF 50mm f/1.4 is quite good enough for A3 prints.
But I felt the URGE of getting the EF 50mm *L*. I have to get it. The price will come down when they introduce the version 2.0.
Except it will not. People will want the magic of the old EF 50mm *L*.
I have to have it..gotta gotta gotta.....


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 12, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> there are probably 3 major camps of people who want smaller and lighter lenses -- at any FL.
> 
> 1) Street shooters. Uniquely for them, small _+ discreet_ is key. I think that means you are in Fuji/Olympus/Leica territory as chunky gripped bodies with big red-ringed lenses stick out way too much, but some folks love shooting street with SLRs. Weight is less of a big deal for these folks -- which is good, b/c they often choose large aperture glass.
> 
> ...



I'm not in that group. I want unadulterated quality... Except for my 24-105... Where I really just don't care. I wonder why that is.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 12, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > there are probably 3 major camps of people who want smaller and lighter lenses -- at any FL.
> ...



And that's exactly why Canon needs three 50s. 

- A


----------



## cayenne (Mar 12, 2015)

Sarpedon said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Maximilian said:
> ...



I dunno about the laughing and pointing part..not sure where you're coming from on that (never mentioned anything like that?)....

But I try to NOT be in dangerous neighborhoods with myself at all, much less with $$ equipment, car or jewelry.

That's just common sense....

And really do thieves in general really know the difference between a $100 lens and a $2K one just because one has a red ring around it??

Doubtful IMHO...


----------



## cayenne (Mar 12, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, maybe the word "stealthy" was a little bit too much. And I now underline "_convenient_" much more.
> ...



I'm curious...where do ya'll live where people actually pay attention to you with a camera this much???

Hell, I live in New Orleans....you could be dressed in a Bozo the clown outfit with 3 5D3's, L lenses and maybe a Red Scarlett under your arm...and no one is going to give you more than a cursory glance due to the colorful outfit you're wearing as it catches the sunlight.

I mean, I carry my camera around, in the street, to fests, etc...honking big white 70-200m 2.8...and only rarely get someone that notices and talks to me, and it is always another photographer wanting to talk photograph/equipment...

No one else gives the time of day when I'm out with camera...so, wondering where ya'll live where everyone is so nosy?

:-\


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 12, 2015)

cayenne said:


> I'm curious...where do ya'll live where people actually pay attention to you with a camera this much???
> 
> Hell, I live in New Orleans....you could be dressed in a Bozo the clown outfit with 3 5D3's, L lenses and maybe a Red Scarlett under your arm...and no one is going to give you more than a cursory glance due to the colorful outfit you're wearing as it catches the sunlight.
> 
> ...



I'd ask the street shooters (I'm not one). But people tend to notice you _when you take pictures of them and they don't know who you are_. 

You know. That.

But I personally don't care about sticking out as a photographer. I don't shoot street. That's a different animal entirely to me.

- A


----------



## Sarpedon (Mar 12, 2015)

cayenne said:


> Sarpedon said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...



"...but can you not act like a gawking middle-schooler..."

You see that underlined word there? It means you're reading a simile. 

As to the rest, again: street photography. And you'd be surprised about thieves, especially in Europe.


----------



## Memdroid (Mar 13, 2015)

What kind of street photography are you guys doing? 
I do a lot of street photography, and the "big" old 50L is my primary lens I do that with and I never ever take pictures without talking to people before, during or after the shot and I always show the picture I took of them.
Street photography is about socializing and absolutely not about taking sneaky pictures. You are no paparazzi. You have to interact with the subjects, joke around, hear their stories, get to know them a little and be a part of it. I never had a problem scaring off, angering or making people uneasy with anybody lugging around my $4k+ gear in the lesser safe neighborhoods of major cities, in Europe, South America and recently in Johannesburg for that matter. I think it depends on how you carry yourself.


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

Memroid, where could I see some samples of your pictures?
I fully agree with your credo. People are people, not animals in the wild.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 13, 2015)

Memdroid said:


> Street photography is about socializing and absolutely not about taking sneaky pictures. You are no paparazzi. You have to interact with the subjects, joke around, hear their stories, get to know them a little and be a part of it.



No, for you street photography is about socializing, for many others it isn't. For many the thought of interacting with the subject completely destroys any authenticity to their work, and to others being in peoples faces is what the genre is about. 'Street photography' can be pretty much anything to anybody and covers the broadest range of self imposed criteria and techniques.


----------



## Sarpedon (Mar 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > Street photography is about socializing and absolutely not about taking sneaky pictures. You are no paparazzi. You have to interact with the subjects, joke around, hear their stories, get to know them a little and be a part of it.
> ...



Agreed. I think, as with lens size, that this is a "different strokes" argument. I've seen lots of great street photography by folks who take Memdroid's approach - to my eye, it tends to yield a more jovial and celebratory kind of image, which I like very much - but it's not the only approach. Henri Cartier-Bresson, for instance, went to great lengths to be discreet, taping up or even hiding his camera because he had the philosophy that privatebydesign describes. They're both valid approaches.

And FWIW, I prefer the 40 pancake on a 6D for my street photography (I lean toward the HCB method), but I use the 50L, too, especially at night. The 1.2 is a large lens but it's not huge--to me. I think the original argument about size came about because some folks were saying there was no reason for someone looking for a 50 to get anything besides the 50 Art, which is huge--again, to me, and I'm not fond of that lens for other reasons as well.


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

In France you can get in serious legal trouble taking pictures of people in the streets without their consent.
You take a picture in a public place, you might have to have twenty or more _attestations_ signed.
That's why the French photographers nowadays go abroad to do 'street'.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > Street photography is about socializing and absolutely not about taking sneaky pictures. You are no paparazzi. You have to interact with the subjects, joke around, hear their stories, get to know them a little and be a part of it.
> ...



+1

I am not saying I _do_ this (because it terrifies me), but many folks do align to that sensibility. Some folks want to drift through another place/culture and play the 'prime directive' card -- simply buzz through, observe, capture moments, and disappear without a trace. They are not creepers, paparazzi or ill-intentioned -- they just wish to capture life in another way.

Again, I'm not arguing one way or the other for the soul of street photography, but for those who espouse that manner of shooting, it's easy to understand why one would go mirrorless/rangefinder/discreet with their kit.

Curious: did Cartier-Bresson, Vivian Maier and others chat up their subjects or did they just drift through like a spy? (Not trying to wind anyone up with that question -- I'm honestly curious.)

- A


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 13, 2015)

Great discussion about street ethics, goals, etc. Seriously.

Now, does anybody doubt a 50mm 1.2 with beautiful bokeh, fast, ACCURATE AF, and weather resistance would be fantastic for street photography???


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

As I remember, Cartier-Bresson very rarely presented 'street' pictures from France where casual people could be recognized. His best known street shots are the boy with the bottles and the girl with _baguettes_. Other than that, he photographed Albert Camus, Henri Mathisse, Truman Capote and other celebrities on town and at home casually, but with the subject totally aware that he/she was being photographed. 
His famous 'street' photos are from Latin America, China and Soviet Russia. 
Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

In case you think I am making this all up: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/paris-city-of-rights/?_r=0


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 13, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Great discussion about street ethics, goals, etc. Seriously.
> 
> Now, does anybody doubt a 50mm 1.2 with beautiful bokeh, fast, ACCURATE AF, and weather resistance would be fantastic for street photography???



Depends. Again, see prior comments. If you are talking to your subject and being social, bring a howitzer -- you're fine. 

But if you are shooting discreetly, I think size matters. Compare a FF 50 prime against a crop mirrorless 50 equivalent. I recognize the DOF will be different with the smaller sensor, but I think I'd rather shoot that kind of street work with the smaller rig.

- A


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

8) The one on the right is for pussies!
The one on the left would go nicely with my HumVee...why don't they make the 5DIII/24-70 combo in camouflage?

(actually I drive a SubaruXV and my other camera is a Sony a6000 and I think a good point is being made)


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 13, 2015)

martti said:


> 8) The one on the right is for pussies!
> The one on the left would go nicely with my HumVee...why don't they make the 5DIII/24-70 combo in camouflage?
> 
> (actually I drive a SubaruXV and my other camera is a Sony a6000 and I think a good point is being made)



Martti's preferred street shooting rig is below. 

- A


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

Yeah, I got that lense and I got a _sharp_ shot of my own _gluteus maximus_ while taking a picture of the duck _(Anas platyrhynchos)_ in my back yard...this thing REALLY compresses the perspective. 

(There are some hilarious user reviews on the Amazon site!)


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 13, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> martti said:
> 
> 
> > 8) The one on the right is for pussies!
> ...



I know a guy in India who happily shoots 'street' with his 500 f4 IS. He has a specific style and it works for him.


----------



## martti (Mar 13, 2015)

I imagine his 'style' involves the use of trained pachyderms...sounds like a guy who does not poop under the stars as so many people from that subcontinent do, with the risk of getting raped...
From BBC: _"A 2011 census showed that nearly half of the Indian population had no access to a latrine, meaning more than 500 million people were defecating in the open. "_

Nearest I've been to India was in Sri Lanka, before the civil war...I have invitations, though.
Once I run out of polite excuses, I'll go...


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 13, 2015)

Ok, then, what is a great 50mm good for?


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 13, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Ok, then, what is a great 50mm good for?



Anything you want. A 50 prime's uses are myriad. 

I'm just saying that street shooting -- depending on how you do it -- might require some caution. Pull out something like this (see TDP pic) in the middle of a city somewhere and folks might get gunshy or outright confrontational.

That said, _shoot what you want with it_. No one's implying anyone is using their gear when/where they shouldn't. 

- A


----------



## cayenne (Mar 16, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Memdroid said:
> 
> 
> > Street photography is about socializing and absolutely not about taking sneaky pictures. You are no paparazzi. You have to interact with the subjects, joke around, hear their stories, get to know them a little and be a part of it.
> ...



But if you are shooting that way, and not getting any signed releases...what use is it anyway? I mean..you can't sell it. Ok, possibly for editorial use, but still....if you're shooting street for $$...you're gonna need to be getting releases too, in which case you will have to interact with the subject(s)....and hence, the no more "sneaky" part of the equation..


----------



## ReggieABrown (Mar 16, 2015)

cayenne said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Memdroid said:
> ...



I may be wrong, but I don't think you have to have a release when you're photographing someone on a "public" street. There have been photographers that's been sued for selling their street photography that included subjects/people that didn't want to be in the pic, but none of those suits stood up in court because the images were taking on a "public" street. 
I believe the reason street photographers (me included) like to be incognito is so they can catch people in their natural habitat being normal; being themselves in the raw. When people see someone with a camera pointing at them, they tend to tense up and act different.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 16, 2015)

I don't do much street... But I do have to agree that people are at their most human when they aren't playing for the camera. 

Is there much of a market for street photography? I can't imagine saying,I want this photo of this stranger.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 16, 2015)

cayenne said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Memdroid said:
> ...



Of course you can sell street images without releases, 'art' prints and books are two popular ways, editorial is poorly paid but another avenue. Indeed pretty much the only thing you can't do with it is use it for commercial advertising. In all the time I have been shooting I have had one image that an advertiser wanted to use but couldn't because of the lack of a release.

For many years Steve McCurry said that he never got releases and he rarely does even today, 'The Afghan Girl' did not have a model release and has made him millions. Same with practically all of those familiar named environmental story telling photographers that often cross over into conflict and war in more troubling times, like James Nachtwey and so many others.

Then take a look at the likes of Bruce Gilden who relish the in your face conflict of 'traditional' street shooting and never get releases. Personally I hate the guys attitude and work but it is a style and he is prolific and popular and he never gets a release.


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Mar 16, 2015)

ReggieABrown said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I'm assuming that the court discussed whether there was an expectation of privacy or not in these cases? Do you have case citations so I can read these?

EDIT: Nevermind. I found some.


----------



## martti (Mar 18, 2015)

I got an offer of the 50mm L at 850 euros which today is nearly the same amount in dollars.
The guy selling it sent me a full resolution RAW to show me how excellent a _lense_ it is.

I compared his picture to the one I took with the ole f/1.4 and I did not see one single reason why I should spend my money on the L _lense._ I could justify (for that money) a 16-35 f/4 mm which is only 150 euros more expensive brand new shipped. Or put the money aside and wait a while and get one of the second generation beautiful zooms. 

But hell, no way I am going to pay 850 dollars for a 50mm prime! 
( It could also be that I do not understand...it happens)


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 18, 2015)

I don't understand either... But from many discussions on the matter, it isn't about How sharp the lens is, but how the bokeh is rendered. It is supposed to be adequately sharp in the center and the bokeh is magic... Which puts it on par with the 85I, 135I, and the 200I.

I don't see it... But I trust those that argue for it.

& by the way... I'm willing to pay for magic bokehs, but if I have my choice, I'll take the other the lenses over the fifty... 




martti said:


> I got an offer of the 50mm L at 850 euros which today is nearly the same amount in dollars.
> The guy selling it sent me a full resolution RAW to show me how excellent a _lense_ it is.
> 
> I compared his picture to the one I took with the ole f/1.4 and I did not see one single reason why I should spend my money on the L _lense._ I could justify (for that money) a 16-35 f/4 mm which is only 150 euros more expensive brand new shipped. Or put the money aside and wait a while and get one of the second generation beautiful zooms.
> ...


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 18, 2015)

I've had two copies of the 50L and the only way to view it is as a specialty lens, just like a T/S or something like that. It takes really unique portraits between f/1.2 and f/2 with much better color and contrast than the 50 f/1.4. If you use it for anything else or above f/2, it's a nice lens, but not as sharp as most of the other options in that range. It's built like a tank and is weather sealed as well.


----------



## jd7 (Mar 19, 2015)

Mitch.Conner said:


> ReggieABrown said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...



Privacy law is a potentially thorny (and often misunderstood) topic. 

The "reasonable expectation of privacy" stuff (which is only one element of what you need to show to establish a breach of privacy) comes up in the UK/Europe (see the Naomi Campbell case, the Max Mosely case, etc, etc), but is relatively new thing (at least in the UK, I'm less sure about Europe). It represents a particular development of the common law about misuse of confidential information (again, at least in the UK) prompted by obligations arising under a European Union treaty on human rights.

In many other places, eg the US (I'm all but certain) and Australia, there is no general law about breach of privacy. You have to find some other basis to try to make a claim. Misuse of confidential information is often the most likely candidate, but there will be little chance of success if the relevant conduct could be seen from a public place or probably even just from a private place. (OK, to be technical: in Australia there are a couple of cases which have found there is a general law about breach of privacy: see Gross v Purvis (in Queensland), Jane Doe v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (in Victoria). However no appellate level court has yet run with it, despite having an opportunity to do so: eg Giller v Procopets (in Victoria). In Procopets, a video was made of people in a bedroom, and that was held to be confidential information. That wasn't just because it occurred in a bedroom though, it was also due to the nature of the conduct and the relationship between the plaintiff and the person who took the video.)

As for the issue of model releases, the law isn't necessarily the same from country to country. In Australia - and as far as I know in the UK, Europe and the US - there is no general requirement for them, regardless of what use you make of the photo. Still, in some situations it may be sensible to get one to avoid potential trouble, eg to avoid a claim for misuse of confidential information or, in the UK/Europe, a claim for breach of privacy. 

Another type of claim which can come up, and which a model release might avoid, is a trade practices claim (eg passing off; in Australia, also misleading and deceptive conduct). The issue in these cases is usually whether the way the photo is used (eg in advertising a product) implies the person in the photo endorses the product. If it does, the person in the photo may have a claim (assuming no release was obtained) essentially on the basis their reputation is being misused by giving consumers the impression the person endorses the product or supports the manufacturer or whatever, when that isn't true. Generally speaking, it's more likely to be a problem if the person in the photo is famous, as consumers are more likely to assume that a famous person in a photo has agreed to be in it and agreed to the photo being used in the way it is being used.

That all assumes you were not trespassing when you took the photo. If you were trespassing when you took it, that could well cause you a problem (I'll leave it at that!).


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 19, 2015)

florianbieler.de said:


> And who exactly needs a new 50L after Sigma's 50 Art? They won't beat it price/performance-wise anyway, if they even can outmatch the Arts picture quality.



But they can deliver a slightly faster 50L lens with much less weight/size than the art-series, without a compromise in IQ and bokeh. I'd always prefer the lighter one, even if the price is higher than Sigma's. Things I don't like about Sigma are the very bad quality control and support, not to mention the unnecessary weight of their Art lenses. Btw. if you need the best IQ go for the Zeiss Otus (if you don't mind AF & weight/size).


----------



## cayenne (Mar 19, 2015)

Crosswind said:


> florianbieler.de said:
> 
> 
> > And who exactly needs a new 50L after Sigma's 50 Art? They won't beat it price/performance-wise anyway, if they even can outmatch the Arts picture quality.
> ...



That, and the Sigma ART is a quite a bit MORE slow than even the current 50L. Moreso that just the difference between the rated 1.2 and 1.4 would lead you to believe. The Sigma ARTs lens coatings really do make it a bit "darker" lens and I've seen tests that make it a bit slower in terms of letting light in than you'd think, especially compared to the 50L.

I used both for video in very dimly lit bars in New Orleans...and the while the Canon 50L could turn nighttime into daylight almost...the Sigma struggled a bit in comparison.

I figure if I right now, before a 50L update....I'd like the Sigma ART for shooting stills if that's all I was doing, but since I'm doing a lot of video too, I'd like that extra speed and the look for video, and right now I can't afford both lenses...so, will hold out to see what the new 50L is like and what the price point is.


----------



## Crosswind (Mar 20, 2015)

All the super-fast lenses are only that fast in the very center of the image. If you go just slightly to the corners wide open you *realize that a 1.4 rated lens for example is mostly a 2.8 lens or so*, except in the very center as I've said... All due to heavy vignetting. I'd give a thousand bucks more if the FF corners of modern super-fast lenses would be a bit brighter. 

I do landscape-astrophotography. When you brighten up *darker corners*, you also raise the image-noise in that area to a certain degree. Or you can stop down a super fast lens to f2 or f2.8 to even out the incoming light and reduce vignetting, but then f2 and beyond isn't really "fast" to me anymore. 

For portraits, this doesn't matter as some people like the effect of "framing" the subject and the fact that you are not shooting in the dark using high ISO. At daytime, vignetting is absolutely no problem because when you want to correct it, it doesn't affect the IQ at all and you won't notice it.

Other thing what's important to me is *coma*. That's also something you won't notice at daytime. But in the dark this can be very annoying esp. if you have city lights or stars in your frame. Still, most modern primes don't have appropriate coma correction like the EF 35 IS USM for example.

So, I wish, at least in the L-series, that Canon is giving me as good coma correction wide open as the Samyang lenses and a little less vignetting.


----------

