DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Canon EOS Full Frame for HD (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-full-frame-hd/)
-   -   Canon 50mm 1.2 (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eos-full-frame-hd/238232-canon-50mm-1-2-a.html)

Mark Hahn July 1st, 2009 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xavier Plagaro (Post 1165800)
Is there a way to correct this distortions in post??

A couple of weeks ago I saw some pictures taken with a digital Leica and a Leica lens, there was one of a bed and the bed was so fully undistorted that I couldn't believe it!!! Pretty sad thing to be touched by! ;-DD

The camera built-in correction for stills is not used for video. However I assume any good pp software can fix it.

Jon Fairhurst July 1st, 2009 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xavier Plagaro (Post 1165800)
Is there a way to correct this distortions in post??

Correcting barrel distortion for photos isn't bad, but would be time consuming in post for video. The exact method depends on the NLE.

Here's an example of the 50/1.4 on a portrait aspect photo
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/attachmen...reedompark.jpg

Glen Elliott July 1st, 2009 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad Dyle (Post 1165397)
Is this lens overkill for video? I can get the regular 50mm 1.4 less than $500, but I wanted some opinions first.

I've owned all the Canon 50mm primes. First the 50mm 1.8, then the 1.4, then I returned that for the 1.2. I love, Love, LOVE the 50 1.2. My favorite lens by far!

The 50 1.8 is great for the price but it doesn't have a standard focus ring (cannot use it with my follow focus gears). The 50 1.4 has a zoom ring but feels a bit sloppy. The 1.2 offers better IQ and incredible bokeh, not to mention the great dampening on the focus.

Here are some video stills from a recent wedding I shot with the 50 1.2L:

http://www.msprotege.com/members/Laz...5/grungo01.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/Laz...5/grungo02.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/Laz...5/grungo03.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/Laz...5/grungo04.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/Laz...5/grungo05.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/Laz...5/grungo06.jpg

Xavier Plagaro July 2nd, 2009 05:29 AM

Greater than wonderful!!! ;-DD

Chad Dyle July 2nd, 2009 05:33 AM

Glen,

The stills from the video footage look great. How often do you find yourself shooting video at 1.2? It seems like getting the focus right would be difficult.
I have only had the chance to use the camera at 1 wedding so far. I was able to get the camera about two weeks ago. I don't even think I've taken pictures with all of the lenses I have so far.
My main concern is about pulling focus. I have a Varizoom 7" monitor that I plan on attaching to my rails for now. Its only 800x480, but I think it will do the trick. I was told that while you are recording, the camera outputs SD video, so anything higher wouldn't matter.
I was able to pick up a used 24mm 1.4 yesterday and from your pics, I'll probably go ahead and get the 50mm 1.2. I really appreciate all the help on this forum!

Douglas Joseph July 2nd, 2009 01:25 PM

I own the 50mm 1.4 lens. In all honesty, if you're deciding whether or not to buy the 1.4, or 1.2, go with the 1.2. You might as well go all out. The 1.4 is such a great lens. Probably the best feature about the 5fmii is the ability to create a super, super shallow depth of field that filmmakers covet, and been trying to create using 35mm adapters for so long... so yeah, man... go with the 1.2 and get that shallow depth of field going. The 1.2 is gonna be my next purchase. what's an extra 600 bucks or so? it'll make itself back in no time.

Mark Hahn July 2nd, 2009 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Joseph (Post 1166289)
I own the 50mm 1.4 lens. In all honesty, if you're deciding whether or not to buy the 1.4, or 1.2, go with the 1.2. You might as well go all out. The 1.4 is such a great lens. Probably the best feature about the 5fmii is the ability to create a super, super shallow depth of field that filmmakers covet, and been trying to create using 35mm adapters for so long... so yeah, man... go with the 1.2 and get that shallow depth of field going. The 1.2 is gonna be my next purchase. what's an extra 600 bucks or so? it'll make itself back in no time.

Can you actually see the difference? 1.2 and 1.4 are a small fraction of a stop apart.

Marcus Marchesseault July 2nd, 2009 01:42 PM

"Here are some video stills from a recent wedding I shot with the 50 1.2L"

It's hard to believe those are video stills. HDV is useless for video stills but these look nice and they are downsampled. I know 1080p stills are not suitable for print, but who prints anymore?. I think 2 megapixel stills from 5DII video can make great digital snapshots that might even stand the test of time even though computer monitors will likely increase in resolution tremendously in the next several years.

Mark Hahn July 2nd, 2009 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen Elliott (Post 1165945)
I've owned all the Canon 50mm primes. First the 50mm 1.8, then the 1.4, then I returned that for the 1.2. I love, Love, LOVE the 50 1.2. My favorite lens by far!

The 50 1.8 is great for the price but it doesn't have a standard focus ring (cannot use it with my follow focus gears). The 50 1.4 has a zoom ring but feels a bit sloppy. The 1.2 offers better IQ and incredible bokeh, not to mention the great dampening on the focus.

Here are some video stills from a recent wedding I shot with the 50 1.2L:

http://www.msprotege.com/members/Laz...5/grungo01.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/Laz...5/grungo02.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/Laz...5/grungo03.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/Laz...5/grungo04.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/Laz...5/grungo05.jpg

http://www.msprotege.com/members/Laz...5/grungo06.jpg

What shutter speed were you using? There is very little motion blur, much less than you'd see with 1/50 or other normal video.

Nigel Barker July 3rd, 2009 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Hahn (Post 1166293)
Can you actually see the difference? 1.2 and 1.4 are a small fraction of a stop apart.

No they are not just a small fraction apart. F-stops are a logarithmic scale with each full stop representing a halving (increasing F number) or doubling (decreasing F number) of the light intensity from the previous stop. This is the scale in full stops - F/1, F/1.4, F/2, F/2.8, F/4, F/5.6, F/8, F/11, F/16, F/22, F/32 etc

Going from F1.4 to F1.2 is a half stop i.e. 50% more light is let through.

Evan Donn July 3rd, 2009 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Joseph (Post 1166289)
In all honesty, if you're deciding whether or not to buy the 1.4, or 1.2, go with the 1.2. You might as well go all out.

Well, if you're really going to go all out, why stop at f/1.2? I'm sure you could track down a canon f/.95... now that's shallow DOF!

Mark Hahn July 3rd, 2009 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker (Post 1166511)
No they are not just a small fraction apart. F-stops are a logarithmic scale with each full stop representing a halving (increasing F number) or doubling (decreasing F number) of the light intensity from the previous stop. This is the scale in full stops - F/1, F/1.4, F/2, F/2.8, F/4, F/5.6, F/8, F/11, F/16, F/22, F/32 etc

Going from F1.4 to F1.2 is a half stop i.e. 50% more light is let through.

I understand that. I was wrong when I said a small fraction. It is actually somewhat less than a half stop.

Using 50mm and f1.4 the dof for a 10 foot distance is 1 foot. Changing it to f 1.2 changes the DOF to 0.86 feet. No one will notice that.

Chad Dyle July 4th, 2009 08:13 AM

I decided to buy the 50mm 1.2 and I was able to use it yesterday. I have to say that it is awesome in low light. The dof at 1.2 is pretty narrow though. It seems like a trade off that I'm willing to deal with though.

I love using the 5D, but my only problem right now is pulling focus (with any lens). The focus looks good on the camera, but later it isn't as sharp as I had thought. I have the Zacuto Z-finder coming in August, but I'm considering buying a small LCD to attach to the rig. I have an older Varizoom 7" (840x400), but it isn't that sharp. I was looking at a smaller Ikan monitor instead.

Tom Hardwick July 4th, 2009 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan Mueller (Post 1165405)
Don't have any experience with the 1.2, but I do own the 1.4 and it is an amazing lens!

The original lens tests on the f/1.2 showed that it had been designed specifically to use that fast aperture, and that on stopping down the slower f/1.4 and f/1.8 performed rather better, the latter even more so. If you intend to shoot wide open, go for it. If you'd like more apertures to play with and don't mind working in 50% more light, get the f/1.4.

tom.

Ryan Morey July 4th, 2009 09:26 AM

1.2 alllll the way.It's my absolute favorite lens.I've owned the 1.4 version and it's not even close.The 1.2 is tack sharp wide open and you can pretty much shoot in the dark.....seriously:)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:09 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network