Canon 50mm 1.2 - Page 4 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon EOS Full Frame for HD

Canon EOS Full Frame for HD
All about using the Canon 1D X, 6D, 5D Mk. IV / Mk. III / Mk. II D-SLR for 4K and HD video recording.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 30th, 2009, 10:32 AM   #46
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yang Wen View Post
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.
__________________
Glen Elliott
Cord 3 Films
Glen Elliott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2009, 12:13 PM   #47
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!
Chad Dyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2009, 12:36 PM   #48
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...
Nick Hiltgen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2009, 12:51 PM   #49
Trustee
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Luis Obispo CA
Posts: 1,189
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
Barry Goyette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2009, 01:41 PM   #50
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
Jon Fairhurst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2009, 01:12 PM   #51
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.
Emmanuel Plakiotis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2009, 02:24 PM   #52
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tartu, Estonia
Posts: 579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emmanuel Plakiotis View Post
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
Toenis Liivamaegi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2009, 08:20 AM   #53
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."
Yang Wen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2009, 08:33 AM   #54
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.
Tom Hardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 4th, 2009, 11:08 AM   #55
Major Player
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick View Post
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.
Yang Wen is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon EOS Full Frame for HD

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:56 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network