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.
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.
