Reading mode: Light Dark

Boycott the 50 1.2

Go to last post
[U] Sala said:
L lenses come with the following "unique and extraordinary"
features that, the last time I checked, the Germans do not provide.

1. autofocus
Click to expand...
You might want to check again on this one. Contax introduced AF in 2001.

Actually they had the first working AF cameras 20 years earlier, they were shown to journalists but never released because it was thought AF's low accuracy would damage their company's reputation. Only after technology had advanced far enough did they come up with what's probably the best AF system around.

The question is what good the 50/1.2 is supposed to be with anything but an 1D with its advanced AF. When the FD 1.0 and 1.2s were out, the corresponding manual focus cameras had viewfinders that were up to a full 20% larger than the 5D's, and in spite of the larger size, even a bit brighter with their fully reflective mirror. AF eats a 2/3 stop of VF brightness.[/U]
 
bionet said:
Most of these shots with super thin DOF are nothing but a pain in
the eyes.
What is it worth to have HALF a cat's face in focus? This is crazy.
Any bridge camera at maximum zoom is better than your expensive
toys blurring 2/3 of the picture.
Click to expand...
Not everyone buys fast lenses to use wide open. I bought the 35/1.4L because it's better at f/2.8 and f/4 than anything else in that focal length. That should apply to the new 50L also. All lenses are better a couple of stops down from wide open.

With fast lenses, you reach the "sweet spot" of best performance earlier, as you stop down, and you have a wider range of sharp f-stops before reaching the diffraction limit. On top of that, there is a safety net of being able to open up and shoot (or try to) at full aperture, in conditions where that's the only way to get the shot.

I don't think many people (at least the experienced photographers) will be buying the 50L for shallow DOF background control. The 85/1.2L, 135/2L and 200/1.8 (discontinued) are better for the shallow DOF look, because the background is simplified (bigger blurs) by the narrower field of view. A 50mm lens blurs the background at f/1.2 and f/1.4, but it's still pretty busy, due to the wider FOV.
 
silverarcher said:
Why don't the rest of you wacko's tone it down a bit? A lot of you
have short fuses, hot heads, and fast typing fingers, but I
appreciate the constructive posts.
Click to expand...
LOL. You just described the original poster! He sees an MTF chart, then launches into a short-fused, hot-headed, fast-fingered, knee-jerk tirade on boycotts and marketing scams before ever even laying a hand on this lens. People like him and posts like his should be boycotted.
 
Really ?

I have a book of Rachael Hale taken with middle format camera, full of this kind of shots. She is a very skilled photographer. It must be a real pain in the eyes for all the people who bought this book translated in several languages ...

And there is tons of others examples of such a way to took photography. Of course there is plenty others way to make photos, but dismiss it and call it pain in the eyes only show that you might lack some photographic culture, or if not that you lack ecclictism
--
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range
 
Powerdoc said:
Really ?
I have a book of Rachael Hale taken with middle format camera, full
of this kind of shots. She is a very skilled photographer. It must
be a real pain in the eyes for all the people who bought this book
translated in several languages ...
Click to expand...
First, even the best art can be disliked by many. This is called "taste". Plus the most widely distributed art is rarely the most sophisticated, or are Hollywood action movies good because the actors are so great?

Second, there's a difference between an amateur applying low DOF all the time to show off in front of this point & shoot camera using friends and a someone who knows when to use it and when not.

Low DOF is a special effect that can work when applied carefully, like Sepia coloring. But if you read in forums you'd think everyone is a portrait photographer - working with people with especially flat faces.
 
I take your comment for me and I didn't like it at all. I don't shoot all the time at small DOF, and I think that your comments where the one of an amateur who think that a good pic, is a pic sharp everywhere. I am happy to see it's not the case, but your bridge comment let me thinked it otherwise. Because with a bridge (at the exception of the sony with the APS sensor) you don't have much DOF control. Considering that DOF control is one of the key of photography, I had serious doubts about your skills. Luckily your second answer told me that it wasn't the case
 
Actually, in terms of automobile technology, design, and engineering, and overall quality, the top of the line Lexus is light years ahead of the comparable Benz. People buy Benzes for image and status, not because they are better cars. The Lexus is a better car. But don't believe me, just read a few auto magazine reviews. And stop believing what you see on TV commercials.

--
Chris in St. Louis
 
Could you please specify what the purpose of your original posting was if you are not even remotely interested in the lens? If you are in Ontario, I would love to really understand (in a direct conversation) what you are up to.
--
Michael

'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan
 
silverarcher said:
Nah, the plastic fantastic is more than enough for me...and
probably most of you out there that don't use your camera to make a
salary.
Why don't the rest of you wacko's tone it down a bit? A lot of you
have short fuses, hot heads, and fast typing fingers, but I
appreciate the constructive posts.
We'll just all wait and see OK?

Who'd rather spend $1600 on a mutual fund or towards their
portfolio or an Educational savings fund instead? Or maybe your
kid's book fees for University or College next month?

I'm just disturbed with those people who consider $1600 "nothing".
Those of you who aren't planning to buy, please tone down your
language.
--
--cheers!
Click to expand...
Read your own original post and compare it to the one you just wrote here... :-)
 
I am amazed! You are brave, actually, audacious! You criticises the thin DOF but here it is the same as criticising god (aka Ansel, or aka all tweaked aka overtweaked pictures aka oversaturated landscapes)! I remeber when i replied gently to one butterfly picture where only first left leg was in focus that 'a bit more DOF would be good'. Look, the question is not about the logic that one want (more than just a leg or one eye of the subject) more subject in focus(i.e. logical part of subject in focus) - the question is about art and it is more artistic the thinner the DOF! Because - what is the purpose of the dSLR - thin-thinner DOF not reached with p&s! I have seen much worse (a real nonsense) here made with dSLR where simple p&s could produce a MUCH better picture. In fact, I like thin DOF when it creates reasonable 3D-like effect. But when and where it is justified is really quetsion of taste...
bionet said:
Most of these shots with super thin DOF are nothing but a pain in
the eyes.
What is it worth to have HALF a cat's face in focus? This is crazy.
Any bridge camera at maximum zoom is better than your expensive
toys blurring 2/3 of the picture.
Click to expand...
 
Powerdoc said:
I take your comment for me and I didn't like it at all.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly but I didn't mean to say you were one of these people. It's just that I've had conversations with snobs who implied that all photos with high DOF were mindlessly taken.. pointed & shot.

The reason that small sensors offer little control is just that there are no bridge cameras with wide aperture prime lenses available. These could be great secondary cameras with an f/1.0 normal lens.

But I do think that 35mm lacks control in the other direction. APS-C or Olympus 4/3 seems about right.
 
vari001 said:
You criticises the thin DOF but here it is the same as criticising god
(aka Ansel, or aka all tweaked aka overtweaked pictures aka oversaturated
landscapes)!
Click to expand...
Yes I know it's provocation on typical photography forums.

The pros I know are much more relaxed about it and many are in fact very fond of the high DOF that P&S cameras produce. But unfortunately there are no models with interchangeable lenses or fast primes.

Cartier-Bresson mostly used f/8 and f/11, and he knew why. Thin DOF is a technical property, like film grain, and the reason why there are artistic uses for it is that artists learn to incorporate these properties and limitations into their works.

So if someone insists that good photos have selective focus, I like to reply that good photos also have sepia colors (or are black & white), thick film grain and scratches!

I like Johnston's article about this:
https://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/mj-dof-response.shtml
 
silverarcher said:
I'm disappointed with this...I feel Canon really dropped the ball
on this one.

Like many before me pointed out, the MTF charts aren't "eye popping".
Boycott not because we can't afford it but because it looks like a
marketing scam. "Oh, we came out with something faster than the
very desirable 1.4, so let's put a red ring around it." We don't
need a red ring. We want uncompromised performance, Canon! Show
that to us in the data!
This may be premature, and I might even end up eating my own words.
haha
--
--cheers!
Click to expand...
F.Y.!

JP

--
http://www.onemodelplace.com/johnpaul

 
limitdown said:
The point of f/1.2 is to actually use it at f/1.2.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mean, like, why do they even put apertures in lenses. I know that I always use my lenses at the lowest aperture number thingy all the time; I mean that's how you're sposd'a do it, right?
 
OK
Sorry if I took that for me

I think that you have more control with FF, because you can stop more without too many problems, granted the larger photosites who are more resistant to diffraction. That's said I will not recommand to stop down more than F16.

It would be lovely to see bridge opening at F1, but unfortunately there is none. The more interesting bridge is the sony with the APS size sensor. In other way, sometime greater DOF is welcome and it can be turned in an advantage but you don't have really the choice.

Speaking of portraits, there is plenty of people who shot in studio at f11 (particulary fashions photographers). The results are great, but they do not have any problems with the background.
--
I love the crop factor at the long end, I hate it in the wide range
 
HA!
The government tells you what to do and we all bend over.
Now Canon's telling you to bend over.
shrugs
--
--cheers!
 
Everybody's gotta open their mouths and have a friggen opinion.

You know what they say about opinions. They're like @$$ holes -- everybody's got one.

What's even more silly is while I'm out shooting, you're making posts that no one will ever read. If it makes you feel any better, keep stretching out the post and wasting the forum's bandwidth. But as far as I'm concerned, I'll be out shooting and looking up posts where I can learn a thing or two. So why don't the lot of you just shoo and read another thread and get Phil to lock this stupid thread up or something.

It's friggen ridiculous how long this thread has gotten...and it's no wonder people like you have elected a president like that you have....but that's OT.

Now excuse me while I prepare to buy some shares in Canon.

--
--cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top