Canon 50mm f1.0...

M

mrthingyx

Suspended / Banned
Messages
228
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi, all.

Has anybody ever used one? Does anybody near Cambridge have one?

I am trying to work out whether or not it is actually any good (beyond the f1.0 factor) compared to current f1.4 lenses (the 50L, Sigma ART included).

I generally shoot at max aperture because I like the "glow" the pictures have in low light (DOF is fun, but I have kids... making it pointless at close range)... but all I can see are reviews of the lens claiming:

A) it is soft and no comparison to a modern 50 (pretty much all reviews going)
B) Ken Rockwell saying the above is only true because people can't focus with it due to the DOF and it is awesome with modern DSLRs... and it is really sharp.

Anybody ever used one?
 
The lens is part engineered exercise by Canon to show off to the world what they can do as it is very difficult to create an auto focus lens at this aperture. There are plenty of other 50mm with wide open aperture, there are some with wider at 0.95 but they are all manual focus so to make a useable and accurate autofocus lens is an engineering feat in itself.

As for the actual lens, I've not tried one but I have the 85/1.2 which is its spiritual successor (not the 50/1.2).

Watch the following video for an in depth study on the lens.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTqUatPUH0
 
As mentioned above this was a lens canon created just to show they can do it and people own this lens just say they own it i.e. collectors (also f/1 bragging rights) :LOL:

I know someone who owns this lens and I have used this lens briefly. I think the truth lies in between points A) and B)

It's certainly not sharp, it is "glowy" at f1 and not to mention it's very hard to focus it because of thin very thin DoF. Even slight front/back-focus will show on DSLRs.

If you are after very thin DoF you might be better off with 85mm f1.2 or even sigma 85mm f1.4 (http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#com...-f1.2-and-1x-85mm-f1.4-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject)

If you are after low-light capability, super fast lenses don't generally have transmission (t-stop) that match their f-stop. So you actually will only get about 1/3-1/2 stop more light than say a f/1.8 lens. 85mm f1.2 has tstop of 1.5. Its a full stop faster than f/1.8 lens but you only get half stop more light than f1.8. A modern lens like 50mm f/1.8 STM has f-stop and t-stop (transmission) that's nearly the same.

But if you must shoot that black cat in a coal mine go for it, would love to see some of you samples when you get one :D:D
 
So good that Canon stopped making it. A bridge too far IMHO - f/1.0 presents too many optical and practical downsides for too few upsides. Much the same can be said of f/1.2 as well, but at f/1.4 the pendulum swings in favour.

If you want soft and glowy, try a soft-focus filter or do it in post processing.
 
The bokeh you get out of f1.2 lenses are in a different league to f1.4 lenses. So its not just about getting a glowy subject. Even stopped down to f2 bokeh will be better with f1.2 lenses (and also sharpness in general). Minolta rokkor 58mm f1.2 is a very good example of this.
 
nandbytes said:
The bokeh you get out of f1.2 lenses are in a different league to f1.4 lenses. So its not just about getting a glowy subject. Even stopped down to f2 bokeh will be better with f1.2 lenses (and also sharpness in general). Minolta rokkor 58mm f1.2 is a very good example of this.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt the minolta will come close to the 35 ART in sharpness at f1.4 or any aperture.
 
HoppyUK said:
So good that Canon stopped making it. A bridge too far IMHO - f/1.0 presents too many optical and practical downsides for too few upsides. Much the same can be said of f/1.2 as well, but at f/1.4 the pendulum swings in favour.

If you want soft and glowy, try a soft-focus filter or do it in post processing.
Click to expand...

It was like £3k or something at the time so far too expensive, or you could get the 1.8 for £100. It was a Halo glass.

It's a bit like the 1200/5.6 or the 200/1.8 or the 300/1.8. Ultimately economics drives production.
 
Without the correct focus screen in camera, I'd assume it would be very hard to get the correct focus at wide open.
 
Thanks for the feedback, all.

I watched another of Dustin's videos where he talks about what the lens is like to actually use and he lists the compromises (very informative).

I then watched his video about the f1.2L where he explains that - even thought he considered it a flawed product compared to other f1.4s, he just "loved the look" from images at f1.2.

Which is interesting. :)

Technically, there are apparent big problems with the f1.0:

- odd bokeh balls in certain situations (also featuring blade teeth)... trawling Flickr sees this replicated;
- enormous CA and bleed wide open;
- it is no longer repaired.

Based on all that, my primary concern is actually the last one, because whilst I love the look of the photos at f1.0 (subjective, absolutely) I would be horrified at the prospect of a £4K lens breaking and being bent over for its repair.

Thanks all for your time and input - I greatly appreciate it!
 
twist said:
I highly doubt the minolta will come close to the 35 ART in sharpness at f1.4 or any aperture.
Click to expand...

I have a Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.2 and when I initially tested it I thought it was possibly the worst lens I've ever used :D but it's since become one of my favourites because of the look it gives at wider apertures rather than it's technical excellence. I'd imagine that that look would be a PITA to try and recreate post capture.
 
mrthingyx said:
I then watched his video about the f1.2L where he explains that - even thought he considered it a flawed product compared to other f1.4s, he just "loved the look" from images at f1.2.

Which is interesting. :)
Click to expand...

Why don't you look at getting a manual film era f1.2.
 
mrthingyx said:
Because manual focus is not something I particularly enjoy doing. :exit:
Click to expand...

I suppose on a DSLR it's not a pleasant experience. CSC's are IMO the way to go if you want to use old lenses, I love my 50mm f1.2 on my Sony A7.
 
woof woof said:
Why don't you look at getting a manual film era f1.2.
Click to expand...

Good idea, it should give the look the OP is after at much more sensible money. Focusing with miniscule DoF is not easy which ever way you go about it and on the odd occasion I've used the Canon 85/1.2, manual focusing actually worked quite well for portraits. Basically macro technique - by moving your body gently back and forth.

Note James' comment in post #10. Standard DSLR focusing screens don't show DoF in the viewfinder below about f/2.5, regardless of aperture, without the right focusing screen (though they will in live view). Also, the OP's profile shows a Canon 20D as camera. Presumably that's out of date - none of this makes much sense without full-frame.
 
HoppyUK said:
Good idea, it should give the look the OP is after at much more sensible money...
Click to expand...

Sometimes there's an itch that just has to be scratched but a Canon f1 seems a bit much maybe. A film era f1.2 could possibly be had for under £200, maybe... add an A7 body and adapter to give a real world chance of focusing the lens and the lot would be the fraction of the cost of an f1.0. I've used my Minolta 50mm f1.2 and I really like it as it's effectively two lenses in one as at wide apertures it's all dreamy and funky and at more ordinary apertures it's a nice old lens :D
 
Are you talking FD or EF?
 
Raymond Lin said:
I would say it wouldn't be much different to the 85/1.2 and I get on with that just fine.
Click to expand...

Prolly right. While a focusing screen optimised for low f/numbers is better with very fast lenses, you can get by without okay. And in reality, you can't change the screen easily (if at all) with a lot of cameras, and if you do, the new screen won't be as good for more normal lenses like f/4 zooms etc, plus there may be metering issues/errors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top