Canon 50mm 1.2

Glen Elliott · July 30th, 2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yang Wen

I own the 50/1.4 and it's a fine lens for run n' gun shooting. At $1300 for the 1.2 version, you can get a 50/1.4 and a used 24/1.4 (version I) for the same amount... Think about that.. With the 1.2, you only get a half a stop more light and slightly better focus mechanism..

Most people vacillate solely over the f-stop differences between the 1.4 and 1.2. The 1.2 also has superior optics as well.

Additionally I wouldn't describe the focus mechanism "slightly" better- I've owned both and it's night and day, IMHO.

Chad Dyle · August 1st, 2009, 11:13 AM

So I'm making the transition from videographer to videographer using a still camera that shoots video. I don't have much experience with still cameras, so I'm learning as I go. One question that I have is if DoF is the same across different lenses. If I have my 50mm 1.2 and 24mm 1.4 both set to 2.8, do they both have the same depth of field or is this different from lens to lens? I'm trying to figure out the best way to do some Glidecam work with this camera and I think my 24mm lens is the best option. I balance the Glidecam as best as possible, but I can see every little bit of wobble on the 50mm lens.

Thanks!

Nick Hiltgen · August 1st, 2009, 11:36 AM

Your depth of field will also very based on the size of your lens. you should have a deeper depth of field for any 24mm lens at 2.8 then any 50mm lens at 2.8. So no, they should not be the same.

Barry Goyette · August 1st, 2009, 11:51 AM

chad-

depth of field is a very complex issue that relies on a great many factors including f-stop, focal length, the relationship of camera to subject to background, imager resolution, output size and resolution...yada yada...in the case of a 24mm versus 50mm lens there are several reasons why the 24mm will exhibit "more" depth of field than the 50mm and they relate to two things...the 24mm's wider angle of view brings in more background elements into the frame making them smaller...thus while they may be technically no more "sharp" than the 50mm...they will appear less fuzzy as they are simply smaller. The second reason is that to get the same "picture" out of a 24mm as one gets from the 50mm (which is impossible...but go with me) lets just say getting the approximate same relationship of foreground elements to background elements...the foreground elements will need to be much closer to the background on the 24 than on the 50...and thus...we've altered another one of the parameters that determine depth of field.

If you want to really make your head spin....search depth of field or DoF here at dvinfo to find out more than you ever wanted to learn on the subject.

Barry

Jon Fairhurst · August 1st, 2009, 12:41 PM

The best explanation that I've heard is that a long lens magnifies not only the image, but the out-of-focus blur. A wide lens makes objects small and also makes the blur effect small.

But if you shove your wide lens right up the nose of an object, it will be large, and the out-of-focus potential on that object will also be large.

Sure, it's more complicated that just this, but it's an intuitive way to think about it.

Emmanuel Plakiotis · August 2nd, 2009, 12:12 PM

Over the last month, trying to decide if it is justified to buy an 85L 1.2 and/or 50L 1.2, I read a lot of opinions in various forums and Canon user groups. While there was a unilateral drooling over the 85, the opinions over the 50 were more diverse, with quite a few openly negative ones. Bear in mind two parameters:
First, that far more people have bought and used the 85 over the 50, because of its potential as a portrait lens in the still world.
Second, all the lens reviewers so far have been still photographers and no one consider video usefulness.

Because lens adoration can be very subjective is better to test drive yourself if you are going to spend that much of money.

I personally bought and use the Contax/Zeiss 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 and I think for video the FF DoF of both lenses is already very difficult to control. (I don't have a follow focus unit yet).
If you want my personal taste the 50 is a very sweet lens and can be bought very cheap. I bought the Contax/Zeiss 18/4, 28/2, 50/1.4 85/1.4, 135/2, 180/2.8 for 1200 euros in a package deal.
For still they are all excellent for the money I paid, for video the two wide angles produce a lot of barrel distortion during movement and are not very useful. Essentially they share the same optics with the new zeiss compacts, which cost USD4000 each.

Toenis Liivamaegi · August 2nd, 2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmanuel Plakiotis

I personally bought and use the Contax/Zeiss 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 and I think for video the FF DoF of both lenses is already very difficult to control. (I don't have a follow focus unit yet).
If you want my personal taste the 50 is a very sweet lens and can be bought very cheap. I bought the Contax/Zeiss 18/4, 28/2, 50/1.4 85/1.4, 135/2, 180/2.8 for 1200 euros in a package deal.
For still they are all excellent for the money I paid, for video the two wide angles produce a lot of barrel distortion during movement and are not very useful. Essentially they share the same optics with the new zeiss compacts, which cost USD4000 each.

But please consider (ML) firmware rack focus etc before going with manual focus only lenses.

T

Yang Wen · August 4th, 2009, 07:20 AM

The bottom line is people buy 50L for the f/1.2 bokeh. If you dont' need that, there's hardly a reason to spend the extra money for it and put up with the extra weight. The 50L is more resistant to flare but I welcome a bit flare in my images...

Better thing to do - rather than taking individual anecdotal evidence from this thread.. read the facts here: Review of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens

"The superbly built EF 50mm f/1.2L lens provided modestly sharper images with better out of focus blurring (bokeh) at f/1.4 and f/2 and was much more resistant to flare and internal reflections than the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens. This improved performance comes at the cost of increased size, weight and a greater than 5-fold higher purchase price. The f/1.2L lens did not focus faster or more accurately than the f/1.4 lens in these tests run under good lighting. Corner sharpness was lower and corner chromatic aberration was greater with the f/1.2L lens."

Tom Hardwick · August 4th, 2009, 07:33 AM

That test shows the crippling effect of vignetting. If you assume that the exposure at f/5.6 is correct, then even the centre of the frame at f/1.2 is nearly a stop under-exposed, the edges even more so.

Yang Wen · August 4th, 2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick

That test shows the crippling effect of vignetting. If you assume that the exposure at f/5.6 is correct, then even the centre of the frame at f/1.2 is nearly a stop under-exposed, the edges even more so.

To be fair to the f/1.2, the vignette will only show up on the left and right edges.. due to the 16:9 crop in movie mode.

For stills, the f/1.2 is more worth while over the f/1.4, albeit the rule of diminishing return still applies.

August 1st, 2009, 11:13 AM	#47
Chad Dyle Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: New Orleans, LA Posts: 410	Incoming stupid question! So I'm making the transition from videographer to videographer using a still camera that shoots video. I don't have much experience with still cameras, so I'm learning as I go. One question that I have is if DoF is the same across different lenses. If I have my 50mm 1.2 and 24mm 1.4 both set to 2.8, do they both have the same depth of field or is this different from lens to lens? I'm trying to figure out the best way to do some Glidecam work with this camera and I think my 24mm lens is the best option. I balance the Glidecam as best as possible, but I can see every little bit of wobble on the 50mm lens. Thanks! __________________ www.chaddyle.com www.chaddyleproductions.com

August 1st, 2009, 11:36 AM	#48
Nick Hiltgen Trustee Join Date: May 2003 Location: Atlanta GA Posts: 1,427	Your depth of field will also very based on the size of your lens. you should have a deeper depth of field for any 24mm lens at 2.8 then any 50mm lens at 2.8. So no, they should not be the same. __________________ I have a dream that one day canon will release a 35mm ef to xl adapter and I'll have iris control and a 35mm dof of all my ef lenses, and it will be awesome...

August 1st, 2009, 12:41 PM	#50
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	The best explanation that I've heard is that a long lens magnifies not only the image, but the out-of-focus blur. A wide lens makes objects small and also makes the blur effect small. But if you shove your wide lens right up the nose of an object, it will be large, and the out-of-focus potential on that object will also be large. Sure, it's more complicated that just this, but it's an intuitive way to think about it. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

August 1st, 2009, 11:51 AM	#49
Barry Goyette Trustee Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: San Luis Obispo CA Posts: 1,195	chad- depth of field is a very complex issue that relies on a great many factors including f-stop, focal length, the relationship of camera to subject to background, imager resolution, output size and resolution...yada yada...in the case of a 24mm versus 50mm lens there are several reasons why the 24mm will exhibit "more" depth of field than the 50mm and they relate to two things...the 24mm's wider angle of view brings in more background elements into the frame making them smaller...thus while they may be technically no more "sharp" than the 50mm...they will appear less fuzzy as they are simply smaller. The second reason is that to get the same "picture" out of a 24mm as one gets from the 50mm (which is impossible...but go with me) lets just say getting the approximate same relationship of foreground elements to background elements...the foreground elements will need to be much closer to the background on the 24 than on the 50...and thus...we've altered another one of the parameters that determine depth of field. If you want to really make your head spin....search depth of field or DoF here at dvinfo to find out more than you ever wanted to learn on the subject. Barry

August 2nd, 2009, 12:12 PM	#51
Emmanuel Plakiotis Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 344	Over the last month, trying to decide if it is justified to buy an 85L 1.2 and/or 50L 1.2, I read a lot of opinions in various forums and Canon user groups. While there was a unilateral drooling over the 85, the opinions over the 50 were more diverse, with quite a few openly negative ones. Bear in mind two parameters: First, that far more people have bought and used the 85 over the 50, because of its potential as a portrait lens in the still world. Second, all the lens reviewers so far have been still photographers and no one consider video usefulness. Because lens adoration can be very subjective is better to test drive yourself if you are going to spend that much of money. I personally bought and use the Contax/Zeiss 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 and I think for video the FF DoF of both lenses is already very difficult to control. (I don't have a follow focus unit yet). If you want my personal taste the 50 is a very sweet lens and can be bought very cheap. I bought the Contax/Zeiss 18/4, 28/2, 50/1.4 85/1.4, 135/2, 180/2.8 for 1200 euros in a package deal. For still they are all excellent for the money I paid, for video the two wide angles produce a lot of barrel distortion during movement and are not very useful. Essentially they share the same optics with the new zeiss compacts, which cost USD4000 each.

August 4th, 2009, 07:20 AM	#53
Yang Wen Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 991	The bottom line is people buy 50L for the f/1.2 bokeh. If you dont' need that, there's hardly a reason to spend the extra money for it and put up with the extra weight. The 50L is more resistant to flare but I welcome a bit flare in my images... Better thing to do - rather than taking individual anecdotal evidence from this thread.. read the facts here: Review of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens "The superbly built EF 50mm f/1.2L lens provided modestly sharper images with better out of focus blurring (bokeh) at f/1.4 and f/2 and was much more resistant to flare and internal reflections than the EF 50mm f/1.4 lens. This improved performance comes at the cost of increased size, weight and a greater than 5-fold higher purchase price. The f/1.2L lens did not focus faster or more accurately than the f/1.4 lens in these tests run under good lighting. Corner sharpness was lower and corner chromatic aberration was greater with the f/1.2L lens."

August 4th, 2009, 07:33 AM	#54
Tom Hardwick Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Billericay, England UK Posts: 4,711	That test shows the crippling effect of vignetting. If you assume that the exposure at f/5.6 is correct, then even the centre of the frame at f/1.2 is nearly a stop under-exposed, the edges even more so.