Canon 50mm F1.0L II

Does anyone here actually want Canon to bring their 50/1.0L back? The current 50/1.2L is not that much of a capable lens, and I think it's overpriced by quite a bit. At least I found myself very hard to justify the extra cost of the 50/1.2L over the very capable and practical 50/1.4, and I know a good number of photographers around me are in the same situation. Plus Leica has a 50/0.95 now!


I don't see why Canon cannot make a modern autofocus 50/1.0L for around $2000. The optically excellent 85/1.2L II is a good example to show what Canon can do. I probably will buy one in short term if Canon does make it as I found myself desire a F1.0 @ 50mm.


It is also about company image. That way Nikon won't shine as much...


Any thoughts?

I think Canon put their best effort forward with the 50mm f/1.2. If it wasn't enough to meet your standards, then I highly doubt that Canon could do any better at f/1.0 because it would be even more costly and have more aberrations. I don't think it makes sense to compare a normal lens (50mm) with a short telephoto (85mm) as the optical design is necessarily very different.


The 50mm f/1.2 isn't that bad. It has a focus shift problem, sure, because Canon must have decided that correcting the focus shift was not worth sacrificing some other factor.


And everyone always points out that the resolution and contrast aren't much better than the 50mm f/1.8. Here's the problem with that: for some photographers, other things, such as bokeh, are more important. Maybe the resolution and contrast are the way they are on purpose. For example, perhaps it has undercorrected spherical aberration in order to improve the bokeh greatly.


Everyone has their own preferences. Some would have preferred Canon make the 50mm f/1.2 with focus shift correction (floating elements) even if it cost another $500. Others would prefer Canon made it f/1.4 and cheaper. Others would have preferred better resolution and contrast at the cost of bokeh. Still others would have preferred an f/2 with *really* high resolution. But Canon chose the compromises based on what their market research told them would increase revenue the most.

Thanks Daniel!


I'm by no means to disagree with you, in fact, what you've said are universally correct, but justsome clarifications here:I have the 50/1.0L's MTF curves in mind and I know it's not that great. I want a F1.0 not for its sharpness but for its low light ability and bokeh. I also understand that compromises have to be made in lens design. By using the 85/1.2L II as an example I wastrying to say that Canon can do something quite insane with the technology available to them.


However, I just can't come to appeciate the fact that Canon's not trying to make the best lens possible on their 50s. The current 50/1.2L **might** be the best for their marketing, but they once had a 50/1.0L. I would like to see they build up on that and try to improve it more or less, justnot discontinue it and down grade into a 50/1.2L -- which if I ever need I'll always use the 50/1.4 instead and spendmy extra $1000 elsewhere... I can't give Canon a "smart choice!" towards its 50/1.2L, sorry.


The bottom line is thatI'mwilling tobuy an autofocus Canon 50/1.0L for around $2000, and from what I know people will also want a lens like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benjamin

I'll always use the 50/1.4 instead and spendmy extra $1000 elsewhere

---

Agreed. the 50mm f/1.2 isn't for me either.

I don't know the engineering that it would take, but the existing 50 1.4 with faster autofocus and slightly sturdier feel would be enough for me to fork out the $1400.

It's nice to get the perspective that it might have been built the way it is on purpose, for some other benefit....


However, as an owner of a 50 f/1.2L, i've found that while I sometimes get some fantastic shots with it, what I've specifically noticed with the lens that I DON'T like, is the CA wide open andthe focus shift at aperturessmaller than f/1.2. I sent it back, and they supposedly made some adjustments on the PCB to correct for a focusing issue, though I haven't actually tried it yet, so I don't know if they're just trying to pass off a placebo effect or whatever...


I DO love the subjective quality it delivers, in terms of the bokeh, and the way it seems to deliver color. Still, where it has fallen short, has been distracting. I'll check into seeing if the focus improved at all after service, but if it doesn't, I will seriously consider trading the thing out (hopefully with some money my way) for a f/1.4 version. Having a lens that can't focus correctly at f/2 or f/2.8 is unacceptable. I'd feel a bit weird not having an 'L' prime at my favorite focal length for low light candid shots, but, I'd even be happy if it was just as good at my 35mm f/1.4L... I really dig that lens.