I have not had the chance to use a Canon 50/1.2L, except in the store.
The OM 50/1.2 was a fun lens, and I had more than one at one point.
It seemed to me that the longer 100/2 was better at the purpose of
isolating a subject with DOF than the 50/1.2 was. Plus I liked the color
and contrast of the later 50/1.4 and 100/2 over the OM 50/1.2.
And I too would rather have a 50/1.2L than the 50/1.0L but if you
really want to have the best cool fast Canon (non-50) I would go
for the weighty 85/1.2, just for the bragging rights. It could even
save some trips to the gym for a workout.
Many modern lenses are very sharp, but getting any fast lens
sharp requires precise focus. Most auto-focus systems will have
random variation. This is where the optical viewfinder performance
and lens manual focusing ease is essential, but sorely lacking in
todays cameras. Forget the pictures, the real fun of a fast lens
is what it does to the viewfinder image.
I wonder if the multiple auto-focus sensors is one of the issues
of using a fast lens with narrow DOF and getting the focus
point you really want?
WayneS
At 10:54 AM 6/19/2009, you wrote:
>Hi Edward,
>
>Forgive me if I'm wrong, but is focus shift not an optical property
>shared by almost all fast 50mm lenses, including Leica lenses? And, as
>far as I know, and in my experience, the 50/1.2L is vastly superior in
>all respects to the old 50/1.0L except that it's two-thirds of a stop
>slower? I can understand your statement if you have actually used both
>OM and EOS 50/1.2 lenses, but from your message it seems as if you are
>just speculating based on internet forum posts etc. (forgive me if I
>am wrong).
>
>I would seriously steer anybody away from paying the ludicrous second-
>hand prices of the 50/1.0L, the 50/1.2L really is superior on all
>fronts: the 50/1.0L ALSO has focus shift, people just didn't pixel-
>peep in the film days, and it's so soft at 1.0 and around that
>aperture that one cannot meaningfully compare focus points. At f/1.2,
>the 50/1.2L completely out-resolves a EOS 5D sensor across most of the
>frame, it's so sharp. It's a much much smaller and lighter lens than
>the f/1.0 lens, it has fast and silent mechanically couple focus (not
>slow focus-by-wire like the 1.0 lens), very little light falloff, and
>so on. Basically, a perfect 50mm lens, but yes - a bit large.
>
>I used to be very heavily into the EOS system, and have extensive
>experience with all their 50mm lenses. In my experience, the 50/1.0L
>is an expensive novelty, and the 50/1.2L is superior to any other fast
>fifty I've ever seen - and if bokeh counts, so too over fast Leica
>50mm lenses. Only the Aspherical Leica 50/1.4 has greater resolution,
>but they cannot come close to the soft / pleasing out-of-focus
>rendering of the 50/1.2L.
>
>The Olympus 50/1.2, however, is close, and is wonderful for being so
>very much smaller.
>
>regards,
>Dawid
>
>On 19 Jun 2009, at 4:03 PM, Sawyer, Edward wrote:
>> Btw, I'd definitely take the oly 50/1.2 over the Canon EF 50/1.2L
>> for many reasons. Namely, price, size, focus-shift problems - all
>> are an issue with the Canon. IF you want the best cool fast Canon
>> 50, the 1.0L is the one to have. At least that has no focus shift
>> issues. Yes, it's still huge and overpriced but the images are
>> pretty unique. The Oly 55/1.2 is worth considering too, I think.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|