DSLRUsers.com

At long last I am home from the US of A, complete with a brand spanking new 50L. I finally screwed the lens onto my 5D and here is the (almost) first image taken, a quick snap of my youngest daughter, standing in the shade in the carport. It is taken at F/2. I must add it was a slap dash PP job but at least it's not a duck.



Although I have used this lens before, I think it will take some time to get used to the extreme narrow DOF. Contrary to many reviews, this lens is razor sharp.

I just cut my finger on that image!

Ozi did you have to manually focus this one?

Please post some more samples of this one.

gstark wrote:I just cut my finger on that image!

It seems slightly soft at 1.2, but I think that is to be expected. Sharpness is overrated anyway, IMHO.

surenj wrote:Ozi did you have to manually focus this one?

Please post some more samples of this one.

Suren, no, AF with one point only, which is how I am told to use this lens on the 5D.

I literally have spent only 3 minutes using the thing at this stage, but so far it seems great. It would want to - the thing cost a fortune. However, the creamy bokeh and low light capabilities of these primes are what I am looking for.

ozimax wrote:

gstark wrote:I just cut my finger on that image!

It seems slightly soft at 1.2, but I think that is to be expected.

Yes. I'd imagine that from about f/2 she'll be super sharp.

Sharpness is overrated anyway, IMHO.

Nope.

If you have it, you can always soften the image, but if it's not sharp, then you're stuffed.

ozimax wrote:Sharpness is overrated anyway, IMHO.

IMHO, for a $2000 lens, everything about the lens has to be perfect.

surenj wrote:

ozimax wrote:Sharpness is overrated anyway, IMHO.

IMHO, for a $2000 lens, everything about the lens has to be perfect.

You reckon...for 2k ? Lol i d say youd need to be paying the order of 4k plus for that kind of expectation.

Well it's supposed to be the flagship model. (regardless of the price)

surenj wrote:

ozimax wrote:Sharpness is overrated anyway, IMHO.

IMHO, for a $2000 lens, everything about the lens has to be perfect.

$1540 USD = $1540 AUD

Rooz wrote:

surenj wrote:

ozimax wrote:Sharpness is overrated anyway, IMHO.

IMHO, for a $2000 lens, everything about the lens has to be perfect.

You reckon...for 2k ? Lol i d say youd need to be paying the order of 4k plus for that kind of expectation.

Now at about $6K for the 200mm F/2, that is perfection.

surenj wrote:IMHO, for a $2000 lens, everything about the lens has to be perfect.

Agreed.
Those lens are made for shooting wide open. It should be spot on IMO.
Like Cliff Mautner once said "no one buys a 85 f1.2 to shoot at f8".

You could probably forgive having to only go to f2 though.

Wink wrote:

surenj wrote:IMHO, for a $2000 lens, everything about the lens has to be perfect.

Agreed.
Those lens are made for shooting wide open. It should be spot on IMO.
Like Cliff Mautner once said "no one buys a 85 f1.2 to shoot at f8".

You could probably forgive having to only go to f2 though.

The lens seems fine (at this early stage) at F1.2. Of course, pixel peeping and real images are two different things. I laugh at how many times an image is posted somewhere that is as sharp as a tack, yet the facial expression is, well, nothing.

Wink wrote:Like Cliff Mautner once said "no one buys a 85 f1.2 to shoot at f8". You could probably forgive having to only go to f2 though.

I do think though that this 1.2 lens is far sharper at F1.4 than my previous copy of the 50mm F/1.4 variety was at F1.4. Shooting a 1.2 lens between say 1.4 and 2.0 makes sense. There is always 1.2 for when the lights go out.

Here is one at F1.2, ISO 1000 under murky lights. (Don't you worry, I DID dry the dishes. I'm not a total slacker, just a partial slacker.)

That lens sings! It's the glass that does the job....the camera is just a box.

Does it come in Nikon mount? That is superb.

Looking good ozi. Patrick, why don't you get an EOS adaptor

Looks stunning! Not 100% on the colours, but very sharp at f/2

surenj wrote:Looking good ozi. Patrick, why don't you get an EOS adaptor

That adaptor will either have to have optics, or lose infinite focus...AND an aperture control....too many places to fail....just get the Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4 instead!

aim54x wrote:Looks stunning! Not 100% on the colours, but very sharp at f/2

Yep you're correct, our kitchen is a terrible place for photography because of the dark ceiling etc. Actually I didn't even bother to correct the colour in this image.

In decent light though, the colours this lens puts out are amazing. I was walking with Robyn on the jetty last night, it was almost dark, and I snapped this shot of a wedding party as I walked by, at F2. As usual, photobucket has muddied the colours but it gives an idea of the low light capabilities of this lens.



Ozi.

Your off to a great start -
for a different look try some close shots (head and shoulders) at 1.2 in soft light absolutely magic - keep the eyes (or closest eye depending on the angel) sharp as and try different angles and keep the iso in mutliple of 60 (320, 640 etc)
DebT

DebT wrote:keep the iso in mutliple of 60 (320, 640 etc)
DebT

I've never heard of this before, but I'll give it a try! Thanks.

ozimax wrote:

DebT wrote:keep the iso in mutliple of 60 (320, 640 etc)
DebT

I've never heard of this before, but I'll give it a try! Thanks.

Never heard of this before either...any reasons to do this? I have always tried to keep my ISO at whole stops (100, 200, 400, 800 etc)

I thought you're worse off using those ISO ranges as they produce more noise because they're just made from either under or over exposing the full stop ISO values?

Hi Deb,

DebT wrote:keep the iso in mutliple of 60 (320, 640 etc)

I've not heard this one before either.

Could you please expand on this for us?

I took exactly 4 photos yesterday. It was a busy day. One of the joys of middle age-edness is grandkids. They are a heap of fun. Our youngest grandson cries when I look at him. It's one of those things I suppose. I do this to people.

ISO 1000, 50mm @ F/1.2


This lens is a heap of fun in low light. I think my flash is now officially redundant.

Great expression Ozi. Maybe you need to stop hiding behind a big camera and socialise with him a bit? For this shot, Did it manage to autofocus without too much fuss?

ozimax wrote:I think my flash is now officially redundant.

Or you could use it -1 EV for little bit of fill only. Imagine your recycle times!

surenj wrote:Great expression Ozi. Maybe you need to stop hiding behind a big camera and socialise with him a bit? For this shot, Did it manage to autofocus without too much fuss?

I have spent only 5 minutes in total with the lens thus far. I am behind in my regular work and need to catch up. I spend most of my spare time with grandson #1.

Yep, the autofocus was fine. Sometimes it hunts a tad but in that situation, I don't mind MF.

surenj wrote:

ozimax wrote:I think my flash is now officially redundant.

Or you could use it -1 EV for little bit of fill only. Imagine your recycle times!

Actually Suren, it's nice not even having to consider a flash, especially with kids. In my experience, they don't like flash anyway, especially the younger ones, so being able to sneak up and take some shots at a fairly high shutter speed is excellent.

RE Canon ISO ranges ,
something I have heard before but Phillip Bloom expressed it quite clearly and put some comparision shots on the big screen (movie theatre big) and it was obvious, the ISO multiples of 60 (320, 640 etc ) were indeed the clearest, the multiples of 100 (200, 400 etc) were next best , and the multiples of 5 (125, 250 etc ) the noisiest .
I have mentioned this to another Adelaide Cannon usre who also prefers the 60's for the same reason.
My own shots also look better in the 60's (5d11 & 1Dmkiv)
- no idea why
perhaps someone who know may start another thread
Deb

ozimax wrote:In my experience, they don't like flash anyway

Fair enough. Although they can be trained. The amount of flash we are talking at f1.2 ISO 1000 is minute anyways!

DebT wrote::ot: RE Canon ISO ranges ,

OK, so this applies only to Canon?

the ISO multiples of 60 (320, 640 etc ) were indeed the clearest, the multiples of 100 (200, 400 etc) were next best , and the multiples of 5 (125, 250 etc ) the noisiest

Hmmmm ...

just reviewing this ... neither 320 nor 640 are a multiple of 60, and all options quoted are multiples of 5.

I would really like to see some further evidence/discussion, and yes, a new thread is probably appropriate.

surenj wrote:Fair enough. Although they can be trained.

Not by me they can't, that's dad's job.

gstark wrote:just reviewing this ... neither 320 nor 640 are a multiple of 60, and all options quoted are multiples of 5.

I would really like to see some further evidence/discussion, and yes, a new thread is probably appropriate.

good point there Gary...

New thread started

http://www.dslrusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=40715&p=425771#p425771

Boy oh boy, this lens is so much fun:

surenj wrote:Ozi did you have to manually focus this one? Please post some more samples of this one.

This baby literally has not been removed from my 5D Mkii since. (I have a brand new 70-200 in it's box, still unopened.)
It is so much fun to use.













[/quote]