Anyone use those Canon EOS "L" primes?

[filmtwit]

Not really an "L" lens, but the Minolta-Rokkor 58mm f1.2 (in EOS mount) is pretty dreamy:

The above was on the Canon 650 at f2.

Trying to focus at f1.2 is harder then hell and the depth of field is pretty damn small. Below, you can see I was lucky enough to get my buddy's nose in focus and it drops off really quickly. (Canon 50D DSLR)

 

[Olsen]

Is that the 24-70mm you mean?



I am not familiar with those reviews, but my experience has been that at least the Zeiss 35mm f2.0 ZE lens has the "look" I expect from the best quality lenses. But beyond that subjective appraisal, I am not qualified to make any definitive technical statements.

Sorry, I meant 24 - 70 mm 2,8L. This is a 'must have' lens for a Canon EOS user. This is expected to be updated soon, with IS.

I am very much a Carl Zeiss fan. I have used Carl Zeiss lenses since the early 70' with my Hasselblad gear. I have also had both the ZM 50 mm 2,8 Planar and the 25 mm 2,8 Biogon which I have used on my M8. I have sold both, which I regret.

Please note that, even though the Canon 1Ds and 5D series Canon D SLRs have the brightest viewfinder on the market, the ZE lenses are difficult to focus manually. This is due to that the modern viewfinders are not made for supporting the photographer in focusing themselves. I bought my first EOS camera back in 99', an EOS3. Because my eyesight was failing me and I regarded AF as an advantage. I still do. Focusing manually with my M8 is a totally different thing.

If you can focus manually without any problems it could well be that the difference in performance between ZE and original Canon glass is just a matter of taste. They would draw differently. Possibly with emphasis on contrast on the hand of Zeiss. Which is a good thing.

 

[majid]

Sorry but nooo way. I've had both the 50mm 1.2L and the 1.4, and I've used a nikkor 50 1.4 AFS on a d700 body.

The nikkor is probably better than the canon 1.4 (being a newer lens) and I personally don't like the f1.4 canon at all. However the 50mm 1.2L is significantly better than both those lenses. Internet lore pours on about this and that, but I can promise you there's a big difference in the way they both work. I would buy another 50L in a heartbeat over the f1.4.

It might be sample variation in my copy, but I just don't get that "Wow!" feeling from my 50mm f/1.2L that I did with my 35mm f/1.4L or my Leica 50mm Summicron or Summilux ASPH.

 

[filmfan]

haha, I just showed my photog friend this thread and he is now selling his 50L to finance the 35L. Looks like I will be able to try one out pretty soon.

 

[B.J.Scharp]

I have/use the 17-40L and the 135L

The first is a good wide zoom for landscape use, but not extreme in any way. (I've considered selling it in favour of a Voigtlaender 20mm)

The second is simply wonderful. Fast (both in focus as in light), well balanced, great bokeh and razor sharp. If I could wish for one thing, it'd be sealing, as I use it for shooting swimming matches, but then again, it's been splashed often, and I've never had a problem. I would heartily recommend this lens to anyone looking for a lens of that focal length.

Btw, I have a 135 tele-elmar on the way, I'm curious to see how that compares to the Canon.