# 50mm f1.0L - At what price would you buy?



## Eldar (Apr 23, 2015)

There´s one of these rather rare lenses on sale here, for about $3.000. It is clearly not a lens I need, but since that is the case with most of my lenses, I was wondering at what price I should be tempted.

At what price would you be tempted?


----------



## dolina (Apr 23, 2015)

null dev


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 23, 2015)

Depends on how much I could sell it for. If it's at or above that price, then it'd be more attractive.

Unfortunately, there are several other pieces that I'd be more likely to get first: 100-400L II, 11-24 f/4 and another 600ex-rt. I have the 50 f/1.2, so this will be more about novelty than filling an unfilled niche.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 23, 2015)

I have the 50mm f/0.7 IS and it was free, but needed 10,000 posts  

Seriously, there was a mint lens, still in its box being sold by the original owner for $5K a few years back. The market is much softer now, so it all depends on condition, and that box can add $1K to the value.

I looked on ebay at completed auctions. They started at $2600, $3200, $3500 ... all the way up to $4500. It all depends on the condition and the seller's reputation.

Its unlikely that you could flip it for a big profit, since the cost of selling it is high, but its a reasonable price if you plan to keep it.


----------



## EOBeav (Apr 23, 2015)

And even if you didn't make a profit at all, if you bought it, used it for a year, and then sold it for market value, your cost of 'renting' that lens during that time would be nil.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 23, 2015)

EOBeav said:


> And even if you didn't make a profit at all, if you bought it, used it for a year, and then sold it for market value, your cost of 'renting' that lens during that time would be nil.



Unless it needed parts, in which case you might have a door stop. The risk of needing repairs is part of the acquisition cost, I don't know how to factor it in, but for a lens like this, it might be $1500 over 5 years.


----------



## Machaon (Apr 23, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The risk of needing repairs is part of the acquisition cost, I don't know how to factor it in, but for a lens like this, it might be $1500 over 5 years.



I agree with the premise of including maintenance in whole-of-life costing. But do you really think an old Canon L lens in good condition would have a 30-50% probability of hardware failure over 5 years?

My experience with L glass is that it just keeps working, unless you drive a car over it... and sometimes even then.

It comes back to ensuring the good condition of the item you're buying so you don't buy up a lemon. That's impossible to do on eBay, where I've be bitten before with apparently perfect Zeiss gear. That's where used gear retailers like Keh add value.

Sometimes picking something up cheap is not really cheap at all...


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 23, 2015)

Eldar said:


> There´s one of these rather rare lenses on sale here, for about $3.000. It is clearly not a lens I need, but since that is the case with most of my lenses, I was wondering at what price I should be tempted.
> 
> At what price would you be tempted?



I would be tempted at that price, but I really can't justify it. That focal length just doesn't do it for me.

If it was complete excluding the box, I may think about it to try it out for a year or so... but the risk of breakage and not being repairable is always there.

I think I would like the new 11-24 better for that price point.


----------



## meywd (Apr 23, 2015)

I would save more to get the Otus, but since you have the Otus, maybe wait for more Otus to come? ;D


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 24, 2015)

To have as my own lens... not for resale... and with a reasonable market value considering how rare it is... I'd say maybe $1800... only because I know the price should be more than the current 50L... and I'd have to sell my 85L mkii... so I would say that... but what is going to happen is that I won't like it and then I'd have to go back to my 85L... So... it was be a net sum of zero. 

So to put it simply... I wouldn't. @ $500... just to have another option... sure... at $850... I have the cash... so sure... but at higher than that, I start getting into the area where I can have a different lens that I want... like an 8-15 fisheye... or a 100-400 mkii (maybe)... so I'd have to say my max that I would be willing to pay (without the consideration of resale) is probably $850... so I'm not a good person to ask...


----------



## candc (Apr 24, 2015)

seems like a good price. it wont be as sharp as your otus but its a whole stop faster! you have to admit that's pretty cool?


----------



## Perio (Apr 24, 2015)

I wouldn't pay anything more than $1500


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 24, 2015)

I own the lens and use it on occasion. $3000 is a great price and the lens is worth more than that from a collectors point of view. If you plan to give the lens heavy use, buy a few 50 f/1.2L's instead.


----------



## chromophore (Apr 24, 2015)

It bears reminding that this lens, like the EF 85/1.2L design, is focus-by-wire. There is no mechanical coupling between the focusing ring and the focusing helicoid, and the only way to focus the lens is if it receives power from the camera body.

If the circuit board or some other electronic component that affects focusing operations fails in this lens, it becomes completely inoperable. Replacement parts are not available from Canon and they are unable to service this lens. Used parts are obviously scarce as this was never a high-volume production design.

The glass itself is robust. It's the electronics that I worry about, and that's one of the reasons (the other being the sheer price) why I never seriously considered purchasing one.

I really, really wish Canon would update this design. If they could produce an EF 11-24/4L to the tune of $3000 while employing the single largest diameter aspherical element used in 35mm photography, they could update the 50/1.0L. The availability of technological options has only improved with time; choice in various glasses has also become better, although for environmental concerns, lead was phased out. Nevertheless, there do exist alternative glass compositions that facilitate high refractive index.


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 24, 2015)

Don't they not fix the 50mm f/1? I thought I heard somewhere that canon no longer services them... which may also mean that they dont' have new parts being made... or am I just making that up?


----------



## jdramirez (Apr 24, 2015)

chromophore said:


> If the circuit board or some other electronic component that affects focusing operations fails in this lens, it becomes completely inoperable. Replacement parts are not available from Canon and they are unable to service this lens. Used parts are obviously scarce as this was never a high-volume production design.



or I could have just read the next post...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 24, 2015)

Machaon said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > The risk of needing repairs is part of the acquisition cost, I don't know how to factor it in, but for a lens like this, it might be $1500 over 5 years.
> ...



Things happen, dropping the lens and breaking a internal part, or a AF motor fails. Its a risk, and some value has to be added, my figure was just a number off the top of my head, but one I'd go with.

I'd have to see the lens, try it, and talk to the owner to get a better feel.


----------



## Zeidora (Apr 24, 2015)

meywd said:


> I would save more to get the Otus, but since you have the Otus, maybe wait for more Otus to come? ;D



+1 -- I bet the Otus wide open has better image quality than the f/1 at f/1.4, and wide open the f/1 is certainly worse. So what's the point? Also wondering about the next Otus.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 24, 2015)

meywd said:


> I would save more to get the Otus, but since you have the Otus, maybe wait for more Otus to come? ;D



I didn't realize the Otus was an F1.0 design....oh...it's not....so it's in a different classification of lenses then.
This is one of the few lenses ever to enter the f1.0 club.
Just thought of a great gag to use with this lens: 
This lens is brighter than the human eye...unfortunately it's also brighter than some human's brains...


----------



## Eldar (Apr 24, 2015)

I believe anyone buying this lens will have an element of Collectors item in their arguments, given how rare and unique this lens is. From a performance perspective, it can be compared to anything vintage. A mint condition Jaguar E-type is a beautiful car and some people pay small fortunes for them. But compared to even the most modest of modern sport cars it's a horrible driving experience (but a fun driving experience).

I may just have to go for this one ... :


----------



## meywd (Apr 24, 2015)

GMCPhotographics said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > I would save more to get the Otus, but since you have the Otus, maybe wait for more Otus to come? ;D
> ...



Thanks for clarifying that, I knew its not an f/1.0 design, though I was not sure about the last part 

what I meant in my previous post was that although this lens is unique, its not worth the price, yes it provides what no other lens can, which is really tempting, but as mentioned by others, if its broken it can't be fixed, and for $1k more you enter the Otus range which contains the best lenses short of super telephotos, and I know Eldar loves his Otus, so is the f stop difference enough to overcome the $1k price, while sharpness, build quality, repair-ability are much less than the Otus? based on value no, and that's what i meant with my answer, though I guess it's too short for some.


----------



## sdsr (Apr 24, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I believe anyone buying this lens will have an element of Collectors item in their arguments, given how rare and unique this lens is. From a performance perspective, it can be compared to anything vintage. A mint condition Jaguar E-type is a beautiful car and some people pay small fortunes for them. But compared to even the most modest of modern sport cars it's a horrible driving experience (but a fun driving experience).
> 
> I may just have to go for this one ... :



It's pretty clear you want it, so if you can afford it, why not? If you came in search of an enabler, consider me one!

I'm all in favor of the vintage thing, too, though I prefer to play it safe and stick with MF lenses where there's less to go wrong. I recently bought the FD versions of the 50mmL and 85mmL - smaller and lighter than their AF equivalents, nicer to handle, the images are great regardless of how they compare to the AF versions, they cost a third as much as their AF equivalents and, when attached to a camera with an EVF & 10-15 x magnification & focus peaking, easy to use. As for f/1.0, rather than pay the price of the Canon f/1.0 I recently bought the far less prestigious, but still rather impressive and even faster Mikakon 50mm f/0.95 (it's MF too). For the price of all these and the other MF lenses I've been buying I could probably have bought an Otus or two, but I think this is more fun.


----------



## dolina (Apr 24, 2015)

I wonder how this lens would perform attached to a 5DS or 5DSR


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 24, 2015)

dolina said:


> I wonder how this lens would perform attached to a 5DS or 5DSR


I believe it is a combination of camera and lens very weird.

Why use a camera capable of high sharpness, combined with a lens capable of mediocre sharpness?

I believe it makes more sense to use a Zeiss lens Otus (or Sigma Art) on the Canon 5DSr.


----------



## dolina (Apr 24, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how this lens would perform attached to a 5DS or 5DSR
> ...


Why pay $3,000 for mediocre sharpness? ;D


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Apr 24, 2015)

dolina said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...


If you can just spend $ 600 on a Lensbaby Velvet ...


----------



## dolina (Apr 24, 2015)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Why use a camera capable of high sharpness, combined with a lens capable of mediocre sharpness?
> ...


If you can just spend $ 600 on a Lensbaby Velvet ...
[/quote]
If I owned a 50/1.0 I would have put it up for sale it as soon as rumors of the 5DS outresolving lenses marketed earlier than 2010 started making the rounds.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 24, 2015)

dolina said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...


If I owned a 50/1.0 I would have put it up for sale it as soon as rumors of the 5DS outresolving lenses marketed earlier than 2010 started making the rounds.
[/quote]
Why do people pay loads of money for an abstract painting, when you can get a razor sharp photography for a fraction of the price?
Why do people pay loads of money for a vintage car, when you can get better performance from a brand new one, for a fraction of the price?
Why do people pay loads of money for old stamps, when they can get new ones they can actually use, for a fraction of the price?
... and so on and so forth ...

This lens is a collectors item. It´s the Ferrari California Spider of the 50mm primes ...

If that has no meaning to you, then there is no point in buying such a lens ...


----------



## sdsr (Apr 24, 2015)

dolina said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



Do you really think that's what he would be paying for?


----------



## Pookie (Apr 24, 2015)

Eldar said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > ajfotofilmagem said:
> ...


Why do people pay loads of money for an abstract painting, when you can get a razor sharp photography for a fraction of the price?
Why do people pay loads of money for a vintage car, when you can get better performance from a brand new one, for a fraction of the price?
Why do people pay loads of money for old stamps, when they can get new ones they can actually use, for a fraction of the price?
... and so on and so forth ...

This lens is a collectors item. It´s the Ferrari California Spider of the 50mm primes ...

If that has no meaning to you, then there is no point in buying such a lens ...
[/quote]

So, this question here posted in this forum has nothing to do with "photography" and everything to do with owning a collectors item. Why ask this question here then... if you "want" it... buy it and don't waste peoples time with questions about your "wants".


----------



## Eldar (Apr 24, 2015)

Pookie said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



So, this question here posted in this forum has nothing to do with "photography" and everything to do with owning a collectors item. Why ask this question here then... if you "want" it... buy it and don't waste peoples time with questions about your "wants".
[/quote]
The question was what people here would be willing to pay for it and what their thoughts about what it was worth were. I am still not sure what I believe it is worth and what I would be willing to pay or if I am really interested at all ...

And, since you made a point out of it; If we remove all "wants" posts from this forum, it would be a rather boring one.

And, if you feel your time is being wasted, do something else ...


----------



## dolina (Apr 24, 2015)

Now now guys be nice.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 24, 2015)

dolina said:


> Now now guys be nice.


Indeed we should


----------



## meywd (Apr 24, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



I guess what Eldar want is to know the value at which this collector item is worth buying, some would pay $4k and some - as seen in this thread - would only pay under $1500, so what i think is, it all depends on how much you want it, are you able to fight your GAS enough for it to reach a lower price or not? and it seem 3k is a good price if its in a good condition as others have bought it for much more before


----------



## chromophore (Apr 24, 2015)

While I am sure there there is an element of collectible or rare status to this lens, I am not so convinced that the demand for this lens is due to its rarity.

The closest example of lens with similar circumstances I can think of is the EF 200/1.8L. Like the 50/1.0L, this lens is
[list type=decimal]
[*]rare: few copies were produced and even fewer are extant
[*]focus-by-wire: manual focusing is driven by the AF motor electronically
[*]superseded by a slower-aperture design: in this case, the EF 200/2L IS.[/list]

However, this lens doesn't seem to share the same degree of uniquely coveted status of the 50/1.0L. Yes, there are photographers who would love to own one, but if we operate under the supposition that the desire for either lens is not driven by its collector's value, but by its utility, the excellent performance of the EF 200/2L IS (and having IS over its predecessor) explains in part why relatively fewer photographers covet the 200/1.8L compared to the 50/1.0L over the 50/1.2L.

In other words, the 50/1.2L isn't quite as good a replacement for the 50/1.0L as the 200/2L IS is for the 200/1.8L; so even though the 50/1.0L and 200/1.8L are rare lenses, the former is relatively more coveted than the latter over their newer counterparts, and this is due to the fact that people want to USE the lens, not just put it in a display case.

And although this is pure speculation, if Canon did update the 50/1.0L and make something along the lines of an EF 50/1.0L II--even if it sold for $4000--as long as the performance is there, it would sell; moreover, it would sell at the expense of the 50/1.0L's used price. Like I mentioned before, Canon is selling an 11-24/4 zoom for $3000 and people are absolutely salivating over it despite it being slow-aperture, heavy, unable to take front filters, and so wide as to present challenges in photographic composition. That's because it's wider than any other 35mm format rectilinear lens, prime or zoom, and it is sharp for what it can do. If Canon did update the 50/1.0L, I think it is very likely that would immediately cause a crash in its price on the used market, which suggests again that the current price is driven by the desire to use the lens, not just collect it.


----------



## Ruined (Apr 25, 2015)

I am not sure what the draw of is of the 50mm f/1.0L. The only reason I would buy an f/1.0L would be if I could sell for a profit, because I'd rather use the 50 f/1.2. The 50mm f/1.2L does everything better except having f/1.0 available. If f/1.0 vs f/1.2 were the only difference, I could see people in certain cases wanting to use the f/1.0... But the f/1.0 comes with so many disadvantages even including optical disadvantages such as massively worse lens flare and other artifacts, plus reduced sharpness. Then there are functional deficits to the f/1.0 such as AF speed and focus by wire, size, weight, fragility.

IMO, the f/1.0 is more of a collector's item than something that people are seeking out for its output. In 99.9% of cases the f/1.2 will be the better lens to use, with the 0.1% case being when f/1.0 will yield a usable picture while f/1.2 will result in an unusable picture.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 25, 2015)

Had an introvert reality check and landed on being a user, not a collector. So, regardless of worth or price, I´ll pass.


----------



## Perio (Apr 25, 2015)

Ruined said:


> I am not sure what the draw of is of the 50mm f/1.0L. The only reason I would buy an f/1.0L would be if I could sell for a profit, because I'd rather use the 50 f/1.2. The 50mm f/1.2L does everything better except having f/1.0 available. If f/1.0 vs f/1.2 were the only difference, I could see people in certain cases wanting to use the f/1.0... But the f/1.0 comes with so many disadvantages even including optical disadvantages such as massively worse lens flare and other artifacts, plus reduced sharpness. Then there are functional deficits to the f/1.0 such as AF speed and focus by wire, size, weight, fragility.
> 
> IMO, the f/1.0 is more of a collector's item than something that people are seeking out for its output. In 99.9% of cases the f/1.2 will be the better lens to use, with the 0.1% case being when f/1.0 will yield a usable picture while f/1.2 will result in an unusable picture.



I agree, that's why I've said I'd pay $1500 for 50 1.0. I think at apertures wider than 1.2, the background blur becomes much less attractive and is overwhelming. But if OP wants to buy it for collectible purposes, then yeah, I guess it may be a good investment (if one can call a lens an investment).


----------



## sanj (Apr 25, 2015)

I would love to own this lens and walk around streets at night. Would be awesome.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 7, 2015)

At the end of the day, it's the OP's money and if he want's it...then go and get it.
For me, I sold my 50mm f1.2 L. It was an expensive paper weight because I just wasn't using it. When I did I get very frustrated with it's slow and inconsistent focusing. I enjoy using the 24IIL, 35L, 85IIL and 135L but not the 50 f1.2L. 
I wouldn't stump up any serious money for a lens that couldn't be repaired if the AF motor burns out...especially considering that this lens in particular has AF by wire...no motor...then no AF or MF. 
Sure the f1.0 sounds like it'll be fun for a specific effect....but....I've also read that it's softer than a liberal's toilet paper.


----------



## Eldar (May 7, 2015)

GMC, I realised that I am not a collector, but a user. But when I saw the add I thought it might be fun to have it. Having had a reality check on myself I decided that, apart from art I hang on my walls and wine bottles in my cellar, I am not very interested in anything vintage. I prefer to have whatever is best at doing a job. So I did not buy it.

If anyone should be interested, I can provide contact info to the seller.


----------



## aceflibble (May 11, 2015)

The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.0 is virtually nothing in practice. Between the actual light transmission, the diminishing returns on apertures larger than f/1.4 and the vignetting which takes over more and more of the image, you're only actually gaining about a quarter of a stop in the center and losing a quarter of a stop from the mid-frame outwards compared to the f/1.2. If you stop it down to f/1.2 then you do actually gain about a quarter of a stop at the corners compared to the f/1.2 lens wide open, but then by f/1.4 everything is equal again. This is precisely why the lens was moved from f/1.0 to f/1.2 in the first place. Make no mistake about it, the 50mm f/1.0L was a fantastic lens at the time, but it has been bettered and by modern standards it is positively _not_ a Noctilux. (Which actually _does_ justify its price, optically.)

Given its not giving you any kind of optical advantage over the f1.2—and many would argue even that lens doesn't actually give you any kind of optical advantage over many higher-end but still cheaper 50mm f/1.4 lenses—and the focus is slower, plus wear over time, there's really no point buying a 50mm f/1.0L unless you're a serious collector and you've got enough cash to spare that you'll not notice the hit to your bank balance. As a photographer, it's a worthless relic. It might be fun to use once and show off a little, but in practical terms it is inferior to other fast 50mms that you can buy for a lot less. Myself, I used one a while back and I can't say I would pay anything for one. I'm not a collector; whatever I buy has to actually make sense as a working lens. To that end, the 50mm f/1.0L is only about as valuable as the current 50mm f/1.4 USM is. I'd gladly pony up the money for a Noctilux 50mm f/0.95, if the Leica bodies didn't cost so much, too. For anything less than that, I'd either just buy a new 50mm f/1.2L or, knowing I mostly shoot at f/2-f/4, I'd just buy a f/1.4 lens and pocket the rest of the money for things which will actually make a difference. Three grand for a 50mm f/1.0L is pretty absurd for anybody who isn't a collector with a high income.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 11, 2015)

aceflibble said:


> The difference between f/1.2 and f/1.0 is virtually nothing in practice. Between the actual light transmission, the diminishing returns on apertures larger than f/1.4 and the vignetting which takes over more and more of the image, you're only actually gaining about a quarter of a stop in the center and losing a quarter of a stop from the mid-frame outwards compared to the f/1.2. If you stop it down to f/1.2 then you do actually gain about a quarter of a stop at the corners compared to the f/1.2 lens wide open, but then by f/1.4 everything is equal again. This is precisely why the lens was moved from f/1.0 to f/1.2 in the first place. Make no mistake about it, the 50mm f/1.0L was a fantastic lens at the time, but it has been bettered and by modern standards it is positively _not_ a Noctilux. (Which actually _does_ justify its price, optically.)
> 
> Given its not giving you any kind of optical advantage over the f1.2—and many would argue even that lens doesn't actually give you any kind of optical advantage over many higher-end but still cheaper 50mm f/1.4 lenses—and the focus is slower, plus wear over time, there's really no point buying a 50mm f/1.0L unless you're a serious collector and you've got enough cash to spare that you'll not notice the hit to your bank balance. As a photographer, it's a worthless relic. It might be fun to use once and show off a little, but in practical terms it is inferior to other fast 50mms that you can buy for a lot less. Myself, I used one a while back and I can't say I would pay anything for one. I'm not a collector; whatever I buy has to actually make sense as a working lens. To that end, the 50mm f/1.0L is only about as valuable as the current 50mm f/1.4 USM is. I'd gladly pony up the money for a Noctilux 50mm f/0.95, if the Leica bodies didn't cost so much, too. For anything less than that, I'd either just buy a new 50mm f/1.2L or, knowing I mostly shoot at f/2-f/4, I'd just buy a f/1.4 lens and pocket the rest of the money for things which will actually make a difference. Three grand for a 50mm f/1.0L is pretty absurd for anybody who isn't a collector with a high income.



f1.0 to f1.4 is quite a large step in brightness and yes at MFD there is a huge difference in the quantity of out of focus background for a whole stop. There's a difference between f1.2 and f1.0 too. The roll off between in focus and out of focus goes up considerably too.


----------



## Pookie (May 11, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Had an introvert reality check and landed on being a user, not a collector. So, regardless of worth or price, I´ll pass.



Indeed... total waste of time...


----------



## Corneria (May 12, 2015)

Well, I'm a lifetime Nikon user, but bought the Canon 50/1.0L simply because I love fast glass. Yes, the difference between f/1.0 and f/1.2 is not huge, especially if you consider the extra vignetting or decrease in transmission at f/1.0. But still, the lens gives you possibilities that are impossible elsewhere!

Sharpness in the centre is surprisingly good actually. And I noticed people in this thread complaining about the bokeh and flare - well, that's exactly what I like! It's truly unique and gives you many creative possibilities! I've used the 50/1.2L on several occasions, and that didn't impress me. Yes, it's probably sharper at f/1.2 (still not that sharp if I compare to many f/1.4 lenses), but I found it a boring lens.

When I want a more "clinical" and "perfect" lens, I use my Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G, which is a fantastic lens. But the Canon 50/10L - boy, that's something else!


----------



## Viggo (Aug 11, 2015)

Eldar, if you've changed your mind, the lens in question is back on the market at foto.no and finn.no ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2015)

I'd happily pay $3,000 for one, if it had the hood, case and box. I'd keep it as long as I wanted, which knowing me would be a long time, and sell it when I didn't want it any longer. As a professional photographer I am a pragmatic purchaser in general, but as an enthusiast who has taken pictures since my teens and developed film in my bedroom in the '70's the 50 f1.0 is one of those few pieces of equipment I'd resort to 'enthusiast' mode for.

I was recently talking to a guy who had one on CL, but he was in a similar situation to me, he would take $4,000 for it but wasn't interested in selling it if he couldn't get his asking price.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 11, 2015)

Eldar said:


> GMC, I realised that I am not a collector, but a user. But when I saw the add I thought it might be fun to have it. Having had a reality check on myself I decided that, apart from art I hang on my walls and wine bottles in my cellar, I am not very interested in anything vintage. I prefer to have whatever is best at doing a job. So I did not buy it.
> 
> If anyone should be interested, I can provide contact info to the seller.



Eldar, I think you've made a wise choice.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2015)

dolina said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...



Anybody that thinks like that is clearly lost when it comes to feel and look. Nothing wrong with being a slave to absolute sharpness just that it is not really relevant to this conversation, besides, anybody that thinks any lens or any sensor _"out resolves"_ it's companion obviously doesn't understand the first notion of system resolution.


----------



## Eldar (Aug 11, 2015)

As Private says, this is about more than pure sharpness and state-of-the-art performance. With the 55 Otus I have all the sharpness I need and with a Sigma 50 Art, which seems to work this time, I have working AF. But this 50/1.0 lens is iconic and a collectors item. 

I´ll make him an offer he probably wont accept, but is acceptable to me if I get it ... (to be continued ...)

PS! Does anyone know a good place for a character improvement program? :


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 11, 2015)

Zeidora said:


> +1 -- I bet the Otus wide open has better image quality than the f/1 at f/1.4, and wide open the f/1 is certainly worse. So what's the point? Also wondering about the next Otus.



I never understood the point of spending megabucks on a fast lens that don't give good results wide open, or damned close-to.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> Zeidora said:
> 
> 
> > +1 -- I bet the Otus wide open has better image quality than the f/1 at f/1.4, and wide open the f/1 is certainly worse. So what's the point? Also wondering about the next Otus.
> ...



It is about soul. 

Listen to Nina Simone and her 10 minute one take version of Sinnerman, if you hear noise and repetitive caterwauling then you won't 'get' the 50 f1.0, if you hear the most sublime nuance from some of the best musicians you probably would get the point of the 50 f1.0. Again, not saying one is right or better than the other, but there are things to appreciate more than ultimate sharpness from a lens or sheer volume from music.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2015)

Eldar said:


> As Private says, this is about more than pure sharpness and state-of-the-art performance. With the 55 Otus I have all the sharpness I need and with a Sigma 50 Art, which seems to work this time, I have working AF. But this 50/1.0 lens is iconic and a collectors item.
> 
> I´ll make him an offer he probably wont accept, but is acceptable to me if I get it ... (to be continued ...)
> 
> PS! Does anyone know a good place for a character improvement program? :



Eldar, if there is a difference between your price and his price that encompasses my price, maybe we could make a deal...............

P.S. I have character, so I am told, but I am not sure you'd want any of it


----------



## crontab (Aug 11, 2015)

Eldar said:


> As Private says, this is about more than pure sharpness and state-of-the-art performance. With the 55 Otus I have all the sharpness I need and with a Sigma 50 Art, which seems to work this time, I have working AF. But this 50/1.0 lens is iconic and a collectors item.
> 
> I´ll make him an offer he probably wont accept, but is acceptable to me if I get it ... (to be continued ...)
> 
> PS! Does anyone know a good place for a character improvement program? :



I do. Moscow city


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 11, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> It is about soul.
> 
> Listen to Nina Simone and her 10 minute one take version of Sinnerman, if you hear noise and repetitive caterwauling then you won't 'get' the 50 f1.0, if you hear the most sublime nuance from some of the best musicians you probably would get the point of the 50 f1.0. Again, not saying one is right or better than the other, but there are things to appreciate more than ultimate sharpness from a lens or sheer volume from music.



I can get it from music, but not lenses, for whatever reason.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 11, 2015)

LonelyBoy said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > It is about soul.
> ...



Well it is the same thing. That intangible that you get from the music you like can also be had by some from a lens, especially an unusual lens. Photography for many can be enhanced by the photographers mental state, if they are feeling creative they will be creative, if they have a unique lens that has particular characteristics they will produce images that are enhanced by those characteristics. The 50mm f1.0 is one of those lenses, for many it makes no sense at all but for a few it can bring out a deeper creative thought process that only a particular lens can enhance and create.

My current muse is the 11-24, the 16-35 f4 IS is a killer lens that on paper bests the IQ of the 11-24 almost everywhere, but the 11-24 pushes my creative mindset into places the 16-35 didn't.


----------



## Ruined (Aug 12, 2015)

IMO, the 50mm f/1.0L is inferior in nearly every way to the 50mm f/1.2L, aside from f/1.0 vs f/1.2.

I don't think the difference between f/1.0 and f/1.2 is worth all of the tradeoffs of the 50 f/1.0L vs the 1.2:
- Much more lens flare
- Much slower focusing
- Focus by wire
- Less sharp and draw is not necessarily better, since the f/1.2's draw is phenomenal
- Less contrast
- No weather sealing
- Larger
- Heavier
- Easier to damage front and rear elements
...all of this is not worth f/1.0 over f/1.2 IMO, and that is not even considering that Canon won't repair the lens if it breaks.

Thus, its value boils down to a collectors item, something you put in a display case instead of use. How much a collectors item is worth can dramatically vary based on the amount of bidders interested in an item at a time. I think the allure of this item is just that "it goes to f/1.0," and not much else as the replacement f/1.2 lens bests it in most other areas.

So in my book, the only way I'd buy this lens is if I could make a good profit reselling it as I'd rather use the 50mm f/1.2 for photos, and I don't collect lenses to put in display cases. Thus I'd check eBay for the last 10 sold auctions, average them, and pay 60% so I can make the other 40% profit reselling.


----------



## WillThompson (Aug 12, 2015)

It is a paperweight.

At f1.0 nothing nearby is sharp!

Sold my copy over ten years ago whilst still serviceable.

Glad I did.

The f1.2 is a far better lens, even with all its shortcomings.


Will T.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 12, 2015)

Why are "all" 50 f1.0 L copies from 1991? Checked on ebay and the onbe here in Norway and a few other places, and all of them are "UF". Wasn't it produced up until 2000?


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 12, 2015)

Viggo said:


> Why are "all" 50 f1.0 L copies from 1991? Checked on ebay and the onbe here in Norway and a few other places, and all of them are "UF". Wasn't it produced up until 2000?



Well it might have been listed as made until 2000 but I think you will find for things like high end lenses they make a production run and stock them, they then turn the production line over to another lens and back again if and when the need arises. This is certainly what they do with the super tele production line and the 50 f1.0 was sold in very small numbers so stock piling them would make sense from a production line point of view.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 12, 2015)

WillThompson said:


> It is a paperweight.
> 
> At f1.0 nothing nearby is sharp!
> 
> ...



Couldn't agree more... unfort I kept mine and it now sits in a glass cabinet. I bought mine in 95' and tried often to use it until one day it was put up and never came out again. Still works but the 1.2 is hands down the winner of these two fifties.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Why are "all" 50 f1.0 L copies from 1991? Checked on ebay and the onbe here in Norway and a few other places, and all of them are "UF". Wasn't it produced up until 2000?
> ...



It makes sense, but both my 300 f2.8 and 200 f2 were produced a month before buying it. And if I bought a 50 1.0 L in 1997 and it was produced in 1991, I would be a bit upset.


----------



## chromophore (Aug 13, 2015)

Viggo said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



Why would you find that upsetting? A lens is not carton of milk. It's an electromechanical device. Properly stored, it will outlast you, your children, and their children. Complaining that it was manufactured six years before you bought it makes no sense, when what matters is that the company that made it has ensured that when it gets sold, it is in impeccable condition.

As I happen to have described elsewhere recently, supertelephoto lenses have a different production process that has to do with the fact that large diameter elements require a lot more individual attention; thus it is actually more likely that they are produced on an as-needed basis than other lenses whose size, complexity, and materials make them more amenable to larger-scale production. For instance, the cost of fluorite crystal and the labor-intensive process of precision polishing them makes the supertelephotos uneconomical to produce in batches, to be sold years down the line. Canon isn't going to make the time, cost, and resources investment to pre-manufacture a thousand EF 800/5.6L IS lenses and let them sit on a shelf to be sold off one at a time over the next decade for this reason.

Bottom line is that it's a peculiar combination of lens design and the expected demand. I would not be surprised, for example, if you buy an MP-E 65mm 1-5x lens from B&H and find the date code was from a few years ago. Not many people are in the market for one, yet its design is easily mass produced in batches and peculiar enough to warrant a moderate production run from time to time.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 14, 2015)

chromophore said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Not sure where you find your facts, but electronic devices outlasting three generations? Not so much.


----------



## chromophore (Aug 14, 2015)

Viggo said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > Viggo said:
> ...



They will last indefinitely *IN CONTROLLED STORAGE*. Not in active usage. If you think that such devices somehow break all on their own while sitting in a warehouse somewhere, then you don't have any understanding of physics, chemistry, or science in general. There is no shortage of examples of EF lenses that, even after having been used for 30+ years, are still perfectly operable. There is no shortage of examples of electronics from 50 years ago that were stored and forgotten somewhere, and once uncovered, are still in working condition. You make it sound like six years is too long to wait and that all the metal in the PCB and contacts will oxidize to rust in your precious lens, or that the glass is going to melt or cloud over and turn to dust.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 15, 2015)

My education is in repairing electronice, and soldering and capacitors will not last forever. And 6-9 years old lens when you're buying it new in a store doesn't upset you? Fine, most people I know including myself would be upset. And it has NEVER happened with any lens I have bought new. And when you want to sell it again it also matters. And rubber and other things will also become brittle. I know I'm a fan of old cars. Even if they were stored in vacuum I wouldn't pay full retail for a 9 year old Lens.


----------



## Corneria (Jan 8, 2016)

My mind is telling me to sell my 50/1.0L, while my heart is telling no. I haven't use my Canon camera for a long time, and of course the lens neither. I absolutely love how it renders colours and bokeh, but it's just isn't smart to keep it any longer. If someone is interested, please PM me!


----------



## iaind (Jan 27, 2016)

Price is dependant on intended use. Are you going to use it daily and shoot multiple images or is it going to lie at the bottom of your bag. The fact that it is now non-repairable should also affect its price. How much is a good paperweight.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Jan 28, 2016)

i was lucky, that a photographer allowed me to use his 50 1.0 in my camera, and yes, it's iconic to have 1.0 opening instead of 1.2 (which i own)

Already on the camera Display i could see, that the (technical and uniconic)performance of this lens is as bad as it gets, but yes, it's a beautiful historic item which i would love to own.

But if a friend asks me to take low light pics of his wedding Party, i would leave it at home and use the 50 1.2 which focusses fairly well with help of the infrared light of the Flash. If the next friend would ask me to take bokeh Portraits, i would rent a 200 2.0, which equals to 50 0.5 (technically only) or maybe a 85 1.2

Unloved DXO claimed in an article, that digital sensors other than film have less eficiency at openings lower than 2.0. This article and underying measurements Sound trustable for me, and if true anything below 2.0 would be obsolete for low light Situation, means helpfull for bokeh only or maybe for reduced vignetting.

I never claimed to be artistic or creative at all, so what i would be willing to pay for, would be a wide open good 50 1.4-2.0 IS lens without flaws, with reliable autofocos, maybe a 50 Art with 300 2.8 IS ii autofocus , for this one i would pay 2000.-

And as a collectors item, i would buy any industrial item from 1920's or older  not a 1990 optical item and not a 1990 sports car, from which 1000's of pieces were produced


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 5, 2016)

Eldar said:


> There´s one of these rather rare lenses on sale here, for about $3.000. It is clearly not a lens I need, but since that is the case with most of my lenses, I was wondering at what price I should be tempted.
> 
> At what price would you be tempted?



I would never buy it myself. I had a friend who did - and it was worthless wide open - which is the only reason to get this lens. This was in the film days when we could not "spray and pray". Spraying was too expensive and praying did not help in itself.

If you are serious about using the lens there's a guy in Hong Kong that modifies the AF so it will actually take sharp pictures(!). If I got this lens for anything other than the bragging rights I'd include the MOD. His before/after samples are impressive.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 5, 2016)

chromophore said:


> There is no shortage of examples of EF lenses that, even after having been used for 30+ years, are still perfectly operable. There is no shortage of examples of electronics from 50 years ago that were stored and forgotten somewhere, and once uncovered, are still in working condition. You make it sound like six years is too long to wait and that all the metal in the PCB and contacts will oxidize to rust in your precious lens, or that the glass is going to melt or cloud over and turn to dust.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisker_(metallurgy)

As of 2006 the EU banned lead in electronics, that means "tin whiskers" are a real possibility. Post 2006 electronic devices may randomly fry themselves given enough time.

I would be very interested to hear what measures the camera manufacturers are using to try and mitigate the problem.


----------



## BBW (Mar 7, 2016)

iaind said:


> Price is dependant on intended use. Are you going to use it daily and shoot multiple images or is it going to lie at the bottom of your bag. The fact that it is now non-repairable should also affect its price. How much is a good paperweight.


As a 1.0 owner I can safely say that this lens is by far the cheapest lens I own if you consider the average price per image taken, even more so if you only count the 'amazing' images.

That being said, I also own a f/1.2 just because I don't want to bring my 1.0 with me to the beach or on vacation since it's not sealed and cannot be repaired. The 1.2 however misses the magic of the 1.0 that's almost glued to my Canon 5D mk III even though I have enough other lenses to choose from.


----------

