I agree with Gavin re the 50L. Much misinformation and internet hyperbole signifying little. The 50L suffers from focus shift by design. Canon service can re-calibrate the lens so that the shift falls more acceptably within the DOF as you stop down b/w f1.2 to around f2.8, although there apparently is some copy variation involved that impacts the degree to which re-calibration improves focus in that range. There's been no change in the lens design.
The ZE lenses appear to be especially popular among the video users, as far as I know. Would love to try any of them except for the cost - I'm tapped out.
I kinda disagree. I don't think it was misinformation. It was a matter of varying experiences, and the resulting reports were valid.
I bought an early 50L. Well, three of them. I had a 5D(v1) and the first 50L was just plain soft. I tried another sample. A bit better, but still soft. The third was better still, but none of them performed as well as my old 50/1.4. Bokeh was better, sure, but i couldn't justify keeping the L and being out $1400 to get bokeh that was only a little better than a lens that already did bokeh better than most other 50s.
Later, after the 5DMk2 came out, i tried another 50L. Soft again. But, the Mk2 body's micro-focus adjustment feature allowed me to dial in better performance. With that, the 50L was now very close in sharpness to my old 50/1.4. So, i kept it. It was still much more money, but i didn't have to feel like i was getting compromised sharpness, so i didn't have to feel like an L-stooge.
Still, i sent the lens (and camera, i think) to Canon Professional Services to calibrate. It came back not quite as good as when i sent it. Canon said they couldn't do anything to improve it further, and found no problems with it. So, it came back still not performing better than my old cheap 50/1.4. I found that to be unacceptable.
There are a lot of people who have been unsatisfied with the 50L. And i supppose a good number who love it. But among all the images shown by people who say it's "wonderful," actual 'performance' isn't really demonstrated. People will tout the aesthetic, but too often it seems like a rationalization. Maybe, too, those people just weren't comparing their 50L results with anything. Or maybe they were comparing it to a lemon 50/1.4. As long as they're happy..... But, i'm not impressed by the body of work it has produced so far.
re: the Zeiss.... I was soooo happy to hear that Zeiss was making lenses for the Nikon mount and then later for Canon. But, the bokeh of the 50/1.4 is just horrendous at 1.4. Scared me away from buying it, and i wanted that lens way before it was announced. I've had Zeiss Planars for Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Contax N, Contax C/Y, and Contax G. But, the ZE and ZF 50/1.4s just don't do things the same way. 50/2 seems better, but i have always gotten sharper and more consistent accurate focus with AF lenses on an AF camera.
The Sigma 50/1.4 is an alternative. I had one before the 50L. Bokeh is the BEST - better than the 50L. But the AF seemed a bit inconsistent. There's a guy named Markus Schwarze [EDIT: Sorry, i had previously said Markus Schulze.... It's SCHWARZE. Here:]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/tags/sigma50mmf14hsm/
...on flickr who does some fantastic things with the Sigma. He reports no AF issues on his 5DMk2 and EOS1.
