I got to shoot and out of this world model today!

WOW!!! Nice body on her. Love the curves.....:er:
 
I have the 50mm f/1.4 too and it's a great lens. I bought it because I couldn't get my hands on a 50L... they are IMPOSSIBLE to find! I was on a waiting list at B&H forever and Adorama never got one in either. Amazon had them for anywhere from $1,700 to $3,000!!! I didn't want one that bad. I got mine for $1400, which is the same price as from B&H so it was worth the wait and all the shopping.

Side by side there is very little difference. Sharpness wise I would say they are pretty evenly matched. I did notice more color saturation and sharper contrast in the 50L vs. the f/1.4. Here's a sample of what I mean:

50L:

535777121_K99Ht-M.jpg


Then I swapped out the f/1.4 in about 30 seconds:

535777093_P6eU8-M.jpg


This was using my 5DMk2. I did this several times (3) and each time the results were exactly the same. I then grabbed by 1D and it too yielded the exact same results.

Is the 50L worth over 3x's the cost? I would say no for the most part. A couple of minutes in Lightroom and these images would look pretty much identical.

I think the f/1.4 is an amazing lens for the money, one of the best in Canon's affordable line-up.

Here they are side by side:

535813168_RzuC6-M.jpg



wow that L lens is amazing, was the iso/aperature/shutter same on both photos? makes me feel like a street bum with my 50 1.8
 
wow that L lens is amazing, was the iso/aperature/shutter same on both photos? makes me feel like a street bum with my 50 1.8
Thanks. Both images are completely unedited.

The color and contrast are so good on the L lens out of camera that if you bump the saturation even a little it looks over saturated. It's really amazing.

The settings are ISO 800, f/8, 1/125. Shot in RAW of course.
 
Nice picture... The texture looks like it's made out of a basketball.
 
shes a bit thin for my taste, i can see her spine...she needs to eat.
but she;s open to doing nudes, so that's good.:thumbup:
 
Extraterrestrial?
Better.

Female extraterrestrial?
Better!

How do you know if it's a female?
It's got t&%$

What makes them any different than normal t&%$ ?
It's got four. Now will you shut up and get the camera!

Wait - you know, black and white would just capture the moment...
Awwwwww....

WILL YOU SHUTTUP AND TAKE THE GO*&%$#@ PICTURE!!!!!?????
 
I have the 50mm f/1.4 too and it's a great lens. I bought it because I couldn't get my hands on a 50L... they are IMPOSSIBLE to find! I was on a waiting list at B&H forever and Adorama never got one in either. Amazon had them for anywhere from $1,700 to $3,000!!! I didn't want one that bad. I got mine for $1400, which is the same price as from B&H so it was worth the wait and all the shopping.

Side by side there is very little difference. Sharpness wise I would say they are pretty evenly matched. I did notice more color saturation and sharper contrast in the 50L vs. the f/1.4. Here's a sample of what I mean:

50L:

535777121_K99Ht-M.jpg


Then I swapped out the f/1.4 in about 30 seconds:

535777093_P6eU8-M.jpg


This was using my 5DMk2. I did this several times (3) and each time the results were exactly the same. I then grabbed by 1D and it too yielded the exact same results.

Is the 50L worth over 3x's the cost? I would say no for the most part. A couple of minutes in Lightroom and these images would look pretty much identical.

I think the f/1.4 is an amazing lens for the money, one of the best in Canon's affordable line-up.

Here they are side by side:

535813168_RzuC6-M.jpg
Looks like there's exposure variance between the two, the 1.4 is either underexposed, or the L is over.

From what it sounds like though, essentially unless you need f/1.2, or just want the 50L so you can say you own it, it's really not worth the money.
 
Looks like there's exposure variance between the two, the 1.4 is either underexposed, or the L is over.

From what it sounds like though, essentially unless you need f/1.2, or just want the 50L so you can say you own it, it's really not worth the money.
I does *look* that way, but the settings are the same and the results between two different bodies are the same (and multiple different test shots with each). Given this, I am relatively certain it's a difference in lenses.

You're right though, my assessment so far is that the 1.4 is all you would generally need and the differences in IQ is minimal - especially given the price difference. I've also noticed that the 50L struggles to get a good focus at close range (couple of feet) and the 1.4 seems to do much better. But at normal shooting distances the 50L locks on amazingly fast. In the end, I would be quite content with the 1.4 lens. I'll probably keep the 1.4 as a backup.
 
I does *look* that way, but the settings are the same and the results between two different bodies are the same (and multiple different test shots with each). Given this, I am relatively certain it's a difference in lenses.

You're right though, my assessment so far is that the 1.4 is all you would generally need and the differences in IQ is minimal - especially given the price difference. I've also noticed that the 50L struggles to get a good focus at close range (couple of feet) and the 1.4 seems to do much better. But at normal shooting distances the 50L locks on amazingly fast. In the end, I would be quite content with the 1.4 lens. I'll probably keep the 1.4 as a backup.


do u think the close range focusing is do to the 50L being a longer lens? it looks that way in the photo ... and in the photos you took, the 50L seems closer to the subject ..... so unless you set the front of the lens the same distance from the subject .. you cant be sure the 50L doesnt focus as well .. unless you have already done so and this comment is pointless, and according to some people on here my comments are pointless :( (not u lol)
 
I does *look* that way, but the settings are the same and the results between two different bodies are the same (and multiple different test shots with each). Given this, I am relatively certain it's a difference in lenses.

You're right though, my assessment so far is that the 1.4 is all you would generally need and the differences in IQ is minimal - especially given the price difference. I've also noticed that the 50L struggles to get a good focus at close range (couple of feet) and the 1.4 seems to do much better. But at normal shooting distances the 50L locks on amazingly fast. In the end, I would be quite content with the 1.4 lens. I'll probably keep the 1.4 as a backup.
hmm...

I'd have a problem justifying spending a ridiculous amount on a 50mm that has exposure issues and doesn't focus correctly.

I got my 50mm in today, i'll have to check it out later when I get home, I just took it out of the box, mounted it, and shot just a few snaps, then I had to go.
 
hmm...

I'd have a problem justifying spending a ridiculous amount on a 50mm that has exposure issues and doesn't focus correctly.

I got my 50mm in today, i'll have to check it out later when I get home, I just took it out of the box, mounted it, and shot just a few snaps, then I had to go.
It's not a macro lens and the problem, if you can call it that, is well known. So I knew that about it before I bought it. If I want to shoot macro shots I'll either get an tube or I'll buy a macro lens. :)

My 85L simply won't focus on something 2 feet in front of it either. None of them will. That doesn't mean it's broken, it means it has a minimal focusing distance.

What "exposure issues" are you talking about? I don't know of any exposure issues with the lens.
 
It's not a macro lens and the problem, if you can call it that, is well known.
I'm not calling it a macro lens.

My 85L simply won't focus on something 2 feet in front of it either. None of them will. That doesn't mean it's broken, it means it has a minimal focusing distance.
Well duh...

What "exposure issues" are you talking about? I don't know of any exposure issues with the lens.
The 50L is different from the 50 1.4, something isn't right on one of those lenses if the exposure is varying as much as it is in the example you put up. The Sigma 50 1.4 overexposes for example.



I'm not trying to tell you to return your 1.2 and be happy with your 1.4, i'm just trying to understand more completely why someone would want the f/1.2 over the f/1.4 for a practical reason, and so far, that hasn't been found yet IMO. So far:

The 1.4 has better focusing accuracy,

The 1.4 is smaller, and more discreet, thus less intimidating,

The 1.4's color/contrast is identical with flicks of 2 sliders in lightroom

the 1.4 has identical image quality for the most part as far as sharpness is concerned.

That leaves the 1.2 for:

It qualifies for an L,

It's got f/1.2,

It's bigger and looks sexier for sure..

hmm....

it's got f/1.2.


The only reason this lens exists is becuase the 50mm f/1.0 was totally unusable at f/1 on an autofocus camera and was impractical.
 
The 1.4 has better focusing accuracy,
I don't agree with that. One has a shorter (not by much) minimum focusing distance. I'm sure this has something to do with the body design/limitations and the massively wide aperture. I don't shoot things at 2ft or closer with either one, so this isn't much of an issue.

The 1.4 is smaller, and more discreet, thus less intimidating,
Yes.

The 1.4's color/contrast is identical with flicks of 2 sliders in lightroom
Yup.

the 1.4 has identical image quality for the most part as far as sharpness is concerned.
Yup again.

That leaves the 1.2 for:

It qualifies for an L,

It's got f/1.2,

It's bigger and looks sexier for sure..

hmm....

it's got f/1.2.

The only reason this lens exists is becuase the 50mm f/1.0 was totally unusable at f/1 on an autofocus camera and was impractical.
Yup. We agree. It's not worth the premium it commands. The same can probably be said for the 35 and 35L and the 85 and 85L. Not a whole lot of difference for the price difference.

But, the L lenses have one additional thing going for them, weather sealing (in some cases) and a much more robust build quality. The 1.4 is all plastic, and it is a little frail feeling. The L feels like a tank. But since I don't spend months on end in Iraq or chasing celebrities around LA I really don't *need* the build quality of L lenses. I would imagine most photogs don't.
 
Last edited:
Haha. I actually find that thing pretty creepy. Congrats on the new lens! *is jealous*
 

Most reactions

Back
Top