Canon EF 50mm f1.0 listing

stephenmelvin · Apr 18, 2005

Perhaps I should have said "pointless," rather than useless. You're spending a great deal of money on for a feature that doesn't work on state-of-the-art dSLR's.

GPB said:
Isn't that like saying that any EF lens on a digital body having a
crop factor (1.3 or 1.6) is useless because an 85 becomes a 135?
Of course it's not...but that's your logic. So a full 1.0 stop
can't be realized, nor can the full 85mm FOV because of the
crop...it's USELESS!

Now who's being over the top? That's not a good analogy at all. An 85 is an 85 is an 85, whether on a dSLR or a view camera. But when a lens' maximum aperture is invisible to the sensor, but not to the meter, there's a problem.

GPB said:
A couple questions. What does a Canon 50/1.4 "become" on a digital
body? Certainly that 1.4 cannot be realized?

It becomes T/1.6, losing 1/3 stop.

You've stated the

GPB said:
same for 85 1.2L...f/1.2 cannot be realized...

It becomes T/1.44, losing 1/2 stop.

so at what point is

GPB said:
NO light reflected and SOME light reflected from the micro lenses?
Surely angle of incidence comes into play...?

That's what I'm talking about.

Are all digital

GPB said:
bodies reflecting the same amount of light from the micro lenses?

No. I'm quoting number from the Kodak sensor in the Olympus E-1. It actually has a higer acceptance angle than Canon's sensors.

And it's not "reflecting" the light. It simply doesn't see it.

GPB said:
Exactly the same? What role does crop play and angle of incidence?

None.

GPB said:
Clearly, if I attach a Canon 50/1.0L lens to my digital camera,
it's not useless. I know one person that is rather fond of this
lens...and they shoot digital. Crazy people!

Well if he's happy with it, no sense in upsetting him. Here is the post I'm quoting from:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=12520105

And some numbers:

fstop tstp loss
1.00 1.32 -0.78
1.21 1.44 -0.52
1.41 1.60 -0.35
1.80 1.92 -0.19
2.08 2.18 -0.13

Cheerio!

GPB said:
-- Greg

stephenmelvin · Apr 18, 2005

Ken Phillips said:
You aren't even close! I'm not even gonna explain it ... except to
say that you are utterly wrong about how lenses, and that the
effect of sensor size on the speed of a lens is NONE!
Ken
-

Who said anything about sensor size?

GPB · Apr 18, 2005

I once had a boss (and good friend) who if I had told him this kind of stuff, he would have said, "you know, you're slicing excrement with a scalpel". It's irrelevant regarding the f-stop and the reason it's irrelevant is that you have decided the lens is not worth the money to you, but others may not feel as you do. So in your opinion for you, it's not worth it. For me, the 85/1.2L is worth it, and I surely wouldn't mind trying the 50/1.0. I'd rarely shoot it wide open, but would in a pinch.

I thought my analogy was as sane as your "useless" comment.

-- Greg

stephenmelvin · Apr 18, 2005

GPB said:
I once had a boss (and good friend) who if I had told him this kind
of stuff, he would have said, "you know, you're slicing excrement
with a scalpel".

How is letting people know that the 50mm f/1.0 loses nearly a stop on a dSLR "slicing excrement?"

It's irrelevant regarding the f-stop and the

GPB said:
reason it's irrelevant is that you have decided the lens is not
worth the money to you, but others may not feel as you do.

And that's fine. You feel like spending over a grand on a lens that doesn't perform significantly better on your camera than a lens 1/5 the price, that's your perogative.

So in

GPB said:
your opinion for you, it's not worth it. For me, the 85/1.2L is
worth it, and I surely wouldn't mind trying the 50/1.0. I'd rarely
shoot it wide open, but would in a pinch.

Also your perogative.

GPB said:
I thought my analogy was as sane as your "useless" comment.

I didn't think your analogy was insane. Just over the top.

GPB said:
-- Greg

GPB · Apr 18, 2005

You said useless. You didn't say how much the 1.4 lost. You provided misinformation. You didn't talk about how much is lost on the cropped sensors. Etc...etc.

No links to tests to backup claims.

-- Greg

stephenmelvin · Apr 18, 2005

GPB said:
You said useless. You didn't say how much the 1.4 lost.

f/1.0 is useless. It gives you nearly the same result wide open as the f/1.4

You

GPB said:
provided misinformation.

Such as?

You didn't talk about how much is lost on

GPB said:
the cropped sensors. Etc...etc.

What does a cropped sensor have to do with it?

Here's a post from somebody who owns the 85mm f/1.2 and actually tested it out:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=12661100

GPB said:
No links to tests to backup claims.

-- Greg

crobinso_canada · Apr 18, 2005

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=12806368

take care,

Chris

GPB · Apr 18, 2005

Steve,

You claimed the lens was useless on digital. You made a similar statement about the 85 1.2L. Clearly, that is not correct.

You stated the angle of incidence is important where light hits the sensor. On a full frame camera, the angle is shallower as it hits the far edge of a full frame, versus a cropped, smaller sensor. That should be taken into account.

You said vignetting is from the f/1.0 with digital but neglecting to address vignetting on film. Vignetting would also be less on a "cropped sensor."

You neglected to explain that a 50 1.4 does not have a usable 1.4 aperture on film because of the same reasons. Further, any wide aperture lens would have the same problem, so to extrapolate your logic, it's useless to buy the 50 1.4 because 1.4 is the same as the 50 1.8. You see what I'm getting at? You have not considered other quality factors.

The thing I like best about the 85 1.2L is that I can shoot it at 1.8, already stopped down 1.17 stops and it's stellar. The 85 1.8 is not stellar wide open...few lenses are. Is the 85 1.2L usable wide open, yes...both are usable...but I wouldn't say stellar. That is an advantage you have not addressed.

Regarding value...that's in the eye of the purchaser. This isn't a financial planning forum...but I agree your discussion on value clearly applies. Your statement the lens is "useless with digital" is clearly over the top. You've even corrected the wording.

When making claims, it's always useful to provide links to those who are smarter that you (as you said) so we can see the original story.

Respectfully.

-- Greg

stephenmelvin said:
GPB said:

You provided misinformation.

Click to expand...

Such as?

You didn't talk about how much is lost on

stephenmelvin said:

the cropped sensors. Etc...etc.

Click to expand...

What does a cropped sensor have to do with it?

Here's a post from somebody who owns the 85mm f/1.2 and actually
tested it out:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=12661100

stephenmelvin said:

No links to tests to backup claims.

-- Greg

Click to expand...

Jason Hutchinson · Apr 18, 2005

Have you ever even held a 50f/1.0? At f/1.4, it blows away my 50f/1.4 (and every other one I've tried) in terms of CA and spherical aberrations. Absolutely night and day, no comparison. The 50f/1.0 looks much more like the 85f/1.2 at these apertures than the 50f/1.4.

As for that not gaining the stop BS, you get 4x the shutter speed that you get with an f/2 lens, and that is from actual hands-on shooting. The guy you're speaking of who knows lenses (Joe right?), has not even shot with this combination and was asking me a while back about the possible light losses. The fact is he has not data about Canon's microlens layout the losses it would have to off-axis light.

Jason

stephenmelvin · Apr 18, 2005

GPB said:
Steve,

You claimed the lens was useless on digital. You made a similar
statement about the 85 1.2L. Clearly, that is not correct.

No I didn't actually. I claimed f/1.0 is useless, and I backed it up.

GPB said:
You stated the angle of incidence is important where light hits the
sensor. On a full frame camera, the angle is shallower as it hits
the far edge of a full frame, versus a cropped, smaller sensor.
That should be taken into account.

This has nothing to do with sensor size or corner vignetting. The extra light from a large aperture lens comes in from the edges of the lens, thus hitting the image plane at a steeper angle. Note how your aperture diaphram closes down at smaller apertures, blocking light from the edges of the lens. It's the same thing here, and affects the center of the frame as well as the corners.

GPB said:
You said vignetting is from the f/1.0 with digital but neglecting
to address vignetting on film. Vignetting would also be less on a
"cropped sensor."

This has nothing to do with vignetting.

GPB said:
You neglected to explain that a 50 1.4 does not have a usable 1.4
aperture on film because of the same reasons.

Sure it does. Film is sensitive to light in every direction. That's why 12mm superwide lenses that protrude deep into rangefinder cameras work with film.

Further, any wide

GPB said:
aperture lens would have the same problem, so to extrapolate your
logic, it's useless to buy the 50 1.4 because 1.4 is the same as
the 50 1.8.

But the difference between the marked aperture and the amount of light that actually hits the photosites is much smaller here than it is for f/1.0 and f/1.2 lenses.

You see what I'm getting at? You have not considered

GPB said:
other quality factors.

Certainly I have. I just didn't consider them to be as important as losing nearly a full stop from the lens' marked aperture. The f/1.8 becomes a T/2.0, and the f/1.4 is a T/1.6. Not really an issue.

GPB said:
The thing I like best about the 85 1.2L is that I can shoot it at
1.8, already stopped down 1.17 stops and it's stellar. The 85 1.8
is not stellar wide open...few lenses are. Is the 85 1.2L usable
wide open, yes...both are usable...but I wouldn't say stellar.
That is an advantage you have not addressed.

Quite true. Is that ability worth the $1,200 difference in price? Clearly it is to you.

GPB said:
Regarding value...that's in the eye of the purchaser. This isn't a
financial planning forum...but I agree your discussion on value
clearly applies. Your statement the lens is "useless with digital"
is clearly over the top. You've even corrected the wording.

As I said before, I never claimed the lens was useless. Only the maximum aperture.

GPB said:
When making claims, it's always useful to provide links to those
who are smarter that you (as you said) so we can see the original
story.

As I also did. It was Joseph Wisniewski, who is an optical engineer and designs and builds lenses. When it comes to the technical side of cameras and lenses, probably the smartest person on the DP Review forums. Also an expert at hunting and exposing trolls.

GPB said:
Respectfully.

Same here.
steve

GPB said:
-- Greg

stephenmelvin · Apr 18, 2005

Jason Hutchinson said:
Have you ever even held a 50f/1.0?

Nope.

At f/1.4, it blows away my

Jason Hutchinson said:
50f/1.4 (and every other one I've tried) in terms of CA and
spherical aberrations. Absolutely night and day, no comparison.

Funny, I've read (from expert reviewers) that it was soft and mushy wide open. Perhaps they were wrong.

Jason Hutchinson said:
The 50f/1.0 looks much more like the 85f/1.2 at these apertures
than the 50f/1.4.

Not sure what you mean here.

Jason Hutchinson said:
As for that not gaining the stop BS, you get 4x the shutter speed
that you get with an f/2 lens, and that is from actual hands-on
shooting.

Have you done any controlled testing? Links to three people who have were posted in this thread. Just because your meter reads two stops faster doesn't mean that light's making it to the photosites.

The guy you're speaking of who knows lenses (Joe

Jason Hutchinson said:
right?), has not even shot with this combination and was asking me
a while back about the possible light losses.

So? Perhaps he was just seeing if you had noticed any. A one stop underexposure isn't always obvious, and it's easy to call it 'meter error.'

The fact is he has

Jason Hutchinson said:
not data about Canon's microlens layout the losses it would have to
off-axis light.

I'm pretty certain he does. Why don't you ask him?

Jason Hutchinson said:
Jason

Jason Hutchinson · Apr 18, 2005

stephenmelvin said:
Funny, I've read (from expert reviewers) that it was soft and mushy wide > open. Perhaps they were wrong.

At f/1.4, where they both can be compared, it kills it in terms of these two parameters I mentioned. It also has less vignetting too, which is considerable with the f/1.4 wide open. I don't mind the vignetting myself.

stephenmelvin said:
Not sure what you mean here.

I'll show you what I mean. Here is a full size resampled shot wide open with the 85f/1.2:

Here's the 100% crop of an out of camera JPG handheld with no USM applied... just cropped and re-JPGd.:

With even the slightest bit of USM to the out of camera that shot really pops. The spherical aberration laden 50f/1.4 when at f/1.4 does not have the same effect. In fact if you combine that with the longitudinal CA wide open, it makes for something you'd rather not sharpen at all.

This is the reason why the Canon 50f/1.4 beats the Zeiss wide open in MTF tests yet most people find the Zeiss vastly better to the eye. Keep in mind I own and like the 50f/1.4, and don't personally own a 50f/1.0 so I have no motives to brag about its performance. I will not even get into the vastly** more accurate AF of the 50f/1.0 vs the 50f/1.4 especially at infinity.

stephenmelvin said:
Have you done any controlled testing? Links to three people who have > were posted in this thread. Just because your meter reads two stops > faster doesn't mean that light's making it to the photosites.

Your light meter is going to read the same either way, since all metering is done wide open. Yes I've done a carefully compared test of the 85f/1.2 vs. the 85f/1.8 both wide open giving twice the shutter speed to the f/1.8 lens to get rid of the interaction of the meter.

One thing you haven't mentioned once, is the effect that the exit pupil distance has on any losses? Why not?

stephenmelvin said:
I'm pretty certain he does. Why don't you ask him?

He didn't when I had talked to him, everything was just estimations based on other data. I know Canon USA doesn't even get this info so if he likely got it he got it straight from Canon Japan rather than some source local to him.

Jason

stephenmelvin said:
Jason

crobinso_canada · Apr 18, 2005

Interesting review here (although it doesn't take into consideration that
going lower than f1.4 on digital is very limited due to the micorlenses).

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/50-1.0

cheers,

Chris

crobinso_canada · Apr 18, 2005

50mm f1.0
Photodo test result: 3,9
Weighted MTF for 50 mm: f1 0,46, f1,4 0,55, f2 0,66, f2,8

50mm f1.4
Photodo test result: 4,4
Weighted MTF for 50 mm: f1,4 0,58, f2 0,73, f2,8 0,78, f4 0,84, f8 0,86

http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/canon.shtml#Canon

review:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/50-1.0

take care,
Chris

GHuff · Apr 18, 2005

The 50 f/1 is still a very nice lens. It has very nice color contrast and bokeh. I own a completely mint copy. And as I have stated before, it can be quite a tool if you need it.

Yes there are 50/ 1.4s out there, at lots less cost. But so what?, I wanted it and I bought it....ya gotta have fun with this stuff.

I'm selling mine soon privately (it is already spoken for and a check on the way), and I ordered an 85 1.2L. I expect to get more use out of the 85 1.2L than the 50 for the things that I enjoy shooting.

By the way, the sold price of the mint 50 almost doubled what the new 85 cost. So don't make too much fun of this lens. It is serious and can command some serious money to a collector or someone that really wants it.

Stephen DeNagy106674 · Apr 18, 2005

Hi!

I appreciate the arguments suggesting the microlenses cut the off axis light as you and others have said.

While the comparisons are suggestive, I think the ways they were photographed is not helpful.

I would think the only way to do this comparison is to photograph a grey card (18%) which then gives us a standard density for comparison. Then, shoot wide open, and vary the shutter speed on manual, to find the “correct” exposure. Ideally, the scene could be calibrated with a high end incident light meter. That way, we would know what the exposure “should be” and what it actually is.

FWIW, the scarecrow pictures comparing the 85’s (1.2 and 1.8), the f/1.2 image looks overexposed. Maybe it wanted to be at 1/3200!

While these experiments are a bit contorted, it seems to be the only way to truly measure the vignetting and light transmission.

FWIW, I would expect that the only thing that should suffer would be the edges, not the center image. I can’t see how the microlenses would diminish on-axis light, since it has a direct shot at the central sensors. Unless there is Vaseline on the lens, the edges should not contribute to the photons striking the center.

My 2 cents (or shillings, as it goes!)

--Steve

Todd Walker · Apr 18, 2005

crobinso_canada said:
50mm f1.0
Photodo test result: 3,9
Weighted MTF for 50 mm: f1 0,46, f1,4 0,55, f2 0,66, f2,8

50mm f1.4
Photodo test result: 4,4
Weighted MTF for 50 mm: f1,4 0,58, f2 0,73, f2,8 0,78, f4 0,84, f8
0,86

You can quote test scores all you want. Look at the images from the 1.4 vs. the 1.0L and you'll see that the 50/1.0L is worth every penny that Canon charged for it.

When will people on this forum realize that photography isn't about MTF charts, shooting rulers, and pictures of cats (no offense Jason -- your 85/1.2 kitty pics were very nice ;-)

--
Todd Walker
http://www.toddwalker.net
http://www.twphotography.net
http://www.pbase.com/twalker294

Jason Hutchinson · Apr 18, 2005

So, your point is the 50f/1.4 has a score of .58 at f/1.4 while the 50f/1.0 has a score of .55 right?

Then take a look at their score for the Zeiss 50f/1.4. It is .57, which is lower than the Canon 50f/1.4. Yet look at the two side by side wide open, or talk to most anyone who has and they'll rave about the Zeiss superiority.

Why is that? Because the longitudinal CA of the 50f/1.4 causes it to score reasonably well with black and white MTF targets but varying from OK to horrible on color real world targets. Make the lighting tough, and both the 50f/1.0 and Zeiss 50f/1.4 still look good but now the 50f/1.4 has more purple fringing than basically any lens in the entire Canon line. Great now you add some USM and these artifacts jump right out at you worse than before. Not so with the 50f/1.0 and the Zeiss 50f/1.4 (which is fairly cheap by the way).

On top of that, all that was assuming perfect focus. The 50f/1.0 is a DREAM to focus compared to the 50f/1.4. Both autofocus and manual focus. The linear precision required of the focus mechanism on the 50f/1.4 is rediculous. A poster showed an animated GIF of a wide open crop with 5 of the smallest changes in manual focus he could possibly make. Only the 3rd frame is acceptably "pixel" sharp and the smallest change from that point is a total blur. This is why very often people post 100% crops from the 50f/1.4 at infinity that are total blurs.

In fact, the focus precision needed to get a good sharp image at f/1.4 with that lens is about 1/10th of the length of those little bumps you can feel as you twist the focus mechanism (those bumps are a huge problem in themselves). Turn the focus ring and the lens will tend to sit in those bumps and not stay where you left it (1/3rd of a mm is far too inaccurate).

Even looking at the lenses themselves you can see much of the trouble. Try setting this lens to 6 meters:

It goes from 3 to infinity in a tiny and bump filled blip.

Then try setting this one to 6 meters:

On a smooth as silk mechanism with plenty of travel.

Jason

Ken Phillips · Apr 19, 2005

... as I was responding to remnants of another unrelated thread floating in my brain mixed with yours!

But ... in the center of the sensor, the micro lenses won't have the effect that you say. In other words, an f/1.0 lens will deliver twice the light as an an f/1.4 to at least some parts of the sensor, and it will deliver MORE LIGHT TO ALL AREAS.

And nearly all lenses vignette ... even on film ... at larger (lower f/#) apertures.
Ken

--

http://www.ahomls.com/gallery.htm
Voted Best of the City 2004 by Cincinnati Magazine
I don't believe in fate, but I do believe in f/8!

Alec Sergeyev · Apr 19, 2005

Steve,

In that thread you linked to, the original author provided no proof of his findings, merely some numbers he claimed came from experimental results with one camera. I personally would not base my purchasing decisions on such results. I saw pictures taken with 85 f/1.2 and they looked to me worth every penny, which is why I'll be buying this lens in a couple of weeks.

Moreover, the original author (Joseph Wisniewski) of that thread claimed here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=12521492

that the DOF of the fast lenses is also affected on a DSLR. Now, I don't claim to be an expert in optical physics, but such unsubstantiated claim is totally ridiculous, and I would appreciate an explanation for it one way or another. Joseph never answered this question in the original thread.

Thank you!

Alec

Canon EF 50mm f1.0 listing

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Keyboard shortcuts