The Canon 50/1.2 "I don't get no respect" thread

Keith said:
You've summed it up perfectly Roger. A like or dislike of this and other classic lenses is a very personal thing and is has little to do with flare resistance sharpness, or any other positive or negative a person may want to attach to it. :)
Click to expand...

I think the samples are very nice, but they are at best relative samples. I can imagine the same shooters like Krosya or Kevin holding a different lens, and the result may be different, perhaps better or worse than the 50mm f1.2, but my experience tells me that the Canon is just average.
 
Last edited:
Krosya said:
Well, I posted many pics from mine - look at other threads ;)
But here is one more wide open:
2429813228_a86e892560_o.jpg

in my opinion - not too bad, is it? ;)
Click to expand...

Krosya, that sure looks like a lot of depth of field for a 50mm wide open and that close. Is that cropped a lot?
 
The problem with the samples is that the lens makes up only 20% of the equation. The other 80% is the photog's skill.
 
kevin m said:
"Violently polarized?" Is your argument so weak that you have to make disparaging characterizations of those who disagree with you? . . . think it possible you may be mistaken."[/i]
Click to expand...

Dear Kevin,

Believe it or not, I did not have you in mind when I wrote the above. Your reaction does however suggest that you are uncommonly thin-skinned about this lens.

You seem incapable of accepting that pictures on the internet are not a means of comparison that most would regard as especially illustrative of contrast or sharpness. Reduce a picture to a few hundred pixels on a side; run it through a computer...

I am not mistaken. I have found two examples of this lens to be lacking in contrast and sharpness at full aperture. So have others, with their lenses.

You are not mistaken either. You have found yours to meet your standards for contrast and sharpness. So have others, with their lenses.

Anyone who took the advice of either of us uncritically would be a fool. Re-read the last paragraph in what I wrote as advice to anyone considering this lens:

If it looks like it would take the sort of pictures you want to take, buy one. If you have no problems, great. But if you are unimpressed, then remember that others have been unimpressed too.

I'll probably be accused of telling the OP to f*** off next, which was the exact opposite of my intent. You, Kevin, take pictures you like with the lens. Great. I'm happy for you. Likewise for Raid. But your opinion and his are not the only ones, and (to judge from the rest of the thread) they to not necessarily even reflect the prevailing opinion.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
MikeL said:
Krosya, that sure looks like a lot of depth of field for a 50mm wide open and that close. Is that cropped a lot?
Click to expand...

It was cropped some - keep in mind - (and this is one thing I hate about this lens) it's closest focus is at 1m. I so wish it could focus closer!
 
Roger Hicks said:
Likewise for Raid. But your opinion and his are not the only ones, and (to judge from the rest of the thread) they to not necessarily even reflect the prevailing opinion.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Hi Roger,
To me, this whole thread is not of high importance. It is often a personal choice what a photographers likes to see in his personal lens. I did not use the Canon 1.2 lens often in the past because I "listened" to the negative postings about it. Then the lens got much worse suddenly and I sent it to DAG. It really became an excellent lens (again, this is in my opinion) for my use. So what's the big deal if some people here find it "average", and some find it "adequate" and some find it "wonderful". Take the Canon 50/0.095 as another Canon fast lens that either gets ravings or very negative comments for its usefulness.

Let's take photos.
 
Your reaction does however suggest that you are uncommonly thin-skinned about this lens.
Click to expand...

Again with this ad-hominem nonsense?

You seem incapable of accepting that pictures on the internet are not a means of comparison ...
Click to expand...

And you seem incapable of accepting that we are firmly into the digital age, and that other, perhaps more forward-looking photographers have not only adapted, but found they like this new technology.

But your opinion and his are not the only ones, and (to judge from the rest of the thread) they to not necessarily even reflect the prevailing opinion.
Click to expand...

That's the very point of this thread, isn't it, to point out that the "prevailing opinion" isn't necessarily the truth? "Prevailing opinion" is just another way of saying "conventional wisdom," anyway, and the conventional wisdom in this case - as in so many others - is simply laziness and groupthink coalesced into an immovable blob. In any event, the "prevailing opinion" would be worth a damn sight more if the "prevailing opinion" would get off its butt and post a PICTURE to illustrate its point, which, again, must have somewhat more value than paragraphs full of WORDS when discussing lenses, n'est-ce pas?
 
In the interest of making this the "ultimate" 50/1.2 thread, I'll include this shot from the trash bin to illustrate flare. Shot directly into the setting sun, 1/15 (hence the subject and hand blur) f4.0, Fuji NPH.

I find this type of flare more natural and pleasing than what I got with my Aspherical 35mm Summilux, but let your eyes be the judge.

2459626396_55be598f8c.jpg
 
Krosya said:
Nice lenses! But as far as Canon goes - if you have a different hood - it's not THAT big. ;) Mine has an Olympus 55/1.2 lens hood and it works great:
Click to expand...

It looks small if you give the side view. Most hoods will work, but the one that came with the lens is, I guess, optimized for maximum coverage.

2458739535_fddd960c50_o.jpg
 
Btw, I see you have Konica 50/2.4 lens as well - how do you like it? Have any pics taken with it? And how does it compare to 50/2 Heliar that I spied on ur pic too?
 
Last edited:
Krosya said:
You make me blush :angel::p, but I would still love to have that 60. One day, one day........
Click to expand...

One is waiting for you :D. Seriously though, it is not all cracked up to be. The Hexanon 50 f1.2 is better, most importantly, has better bokeh, IMHO.

2458739223_f12a50f8d8_o.jpg
 
kevin m said:
Again with this ad-hominem nonsense?
. . . you seem incapable of accepting that we are firmly into the digital age, and that other, perhaps more forward-looking photographers have not only adapted, but found they like this new technology.
Click to expand...

Dear Kevin,

I leave it to others to decide who is resorting to ad hominem arguments (and indeed downright rudeness). I have cheerfully conceded that you are not mistaken in your opinion of your lens for your purposes, but you seem to have a major problem with the idea that there may possibly be more who disagree with you, on the basis of experience, than agree. Of course, your view may be in the majority. Unlike you, I don't really care. I am all in favour of the advice in this thread on how to make a 50/1.2 look good.

What pictures am I supposed to post? Any lens can be made to look bad, but some are harder than others to show to their best advantage. Anyone who looks at my website can see what I shoot, and what with, but 'the digital age' can (and often does) embrace more than a picture on a computer screen. A screen-filling image is maybe 600x900 pixels. Anyone who submitted such a picture for publication, at any size bigger than 2x3 inches, would be laughed at. Why? Because it's not sharp enough...

I'll cheerfully concede this, too: sharpness and contrast aren't everything. My 35/1.4 pre-aspheric Summilux is objectively a pretty poor lens next to the current ASPH (not least because of the appalling coma). I don't really care: it is sweet-handling, and gives eminently publishable results, which is quite important to me. It is, after all, is how I have been earning my living for the last 30 years or so.

At that point, I'll cheerfully concede something more: pictures do trump words. People who take pictures, and get paid for taking them, can usually work with pretty much anything. The Canon 50/1.2 is, I've found, more than good enough with the right subject: I've certainly had pics from this lens published in books, in magazines and on the web. But I've also found -- and I've used more lenses than most -- that it's not too good at full aperture and it's pretty awful at f/22 as well, though at some intermediate apertures it is excellent. This is why, for most applications, I'd back quite a number of other fast lenses.

Raid, who likewise has used more lenses than most, has found differently; but he is remaining civil in his championing of the lens. As he says, it's not that important. I really don't mind you putting your side, though of course I don't agree with it. Will you not extend the same courtesy to me?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom