DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> canon 50mm 1.2L....EXTREME disappointment
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 55, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/04/2008 10:49:01 AM · #1
Originally posted by awpollard:


Yup... Check you Picture Style (Canon 40D) settings and change them to what you are used to (or like) A couple of them are soft by default (Portrait is one of them), I ended up setting the sharpness to 5 on most of my PS's.


incidentally, you might be surprised how unecessary this really is once you switch to a really sharp lens.

I shoot with the sharpness as low as it can go in-camera. I still get sharp and clean results even without Post processing. True, I usually try to get them sharper with some mild sharpening or whatever is appropriate, but boosting in-camera sharpness isn't really the answer. Especially with a 1300 dollar 50mm prime.
05/04/2008 10:42:53 AM · #2
Agreed. I used to always have to worry about my aperture in low light with the f/1.8. When I switched to the f/1.4, this worry disappeared. I still like to push the aperture to f/1.8 or f/2 out of habit, but those higher quality primes by canon can easily yield breathtaking results. I have a number of wedding pictures from about a month ago where off a 3/4 body shot I have beautiful definition in the eyelashes like that.

Sometimes I just sit and marvel.

If you are sending the lens back, at least ask for a 50mm f/1.4 USM as a loaner.

Additionally, as was mentioned by someone else a bit earlier, I'd not be shooting portraits for lens tests. I'd do what the pro's do. Grab a ruler that has millimeters and throw it on a 30 degree or 45 degree angle. Set the camera to center focus point and take 10 pictures, 3 in a row and then focus elsewhere, and come back between a few shots. Take a few with different focus points selected too.

This should give a fairly broad bit of information that would be usable to whatever service technicians you speak with. Additionally, you will give them the impression that you have a clue, which may help to get more immediate service.

Even though I'm not a Canon Pro Shooter, I get similar or (sometimes) even better service when I go to the service center in Taipei because of taking these steps (and a few others that I've picked up along the way).
05/02/2008 11:30:10 PM · #3
Originally posted by lovethelight:

[thumb]675452[/thumb][thumb]675454[/thumb]

yay!


Woohoo! Now THAT is more like it! Although I still think you can do even better with that lens (more careful focus), it's now at least looking like what you should expect. And the comparison ... really shows the limitations of the other camera/lens.


05/02/2008 08:19:55 PM · #4
Originally posted by lovethelight:

I did some more specific really really careful testing and came to the conclusion of backfocusing. I am very excited about the quality I managed to get after this last test:

These were taken in the same location, same lighting and both at f/3.5. The difference is that the one on the left was taken with my 1.7 on my sony and at ISO100 1/200ss and the one on the right was taken with the 50mm 1.2 on my canon at iso 160 and ss 1/250

both are unedited and unsharpened. They are 100% crops.
[thumb]675452[/thumb][thumb]675454[/thumb]

yay!


The 50/1.2 L looks WAY sharper here. At least it's working on f/3.5 :-) I'd do some more testig if I were you. Shoot the minolta at f/1.7 and the 50L at f/1.6 or f/1.8 and both at f/2. Try shooting a stationary object from a tripod at f/1.2.

Good luck!
05/02/2008 08:10:57 PM · #5
It is theoratically possible to focus recompose without rotating the focal plane by moving the camera up or down perpendicular to camera direction., eg. by bending your knees and moving slowly while keepng your spine straight. It might look strange to your model but it's probably a very good exercise for you thighs. :)

I don't do anything about it meself while shooting. I take more shots if DOF extremely thin and hope that lateral movement corrects the shift on some of the shots. It's still only few millimeters on a tight headshot with a 50mm and a non-issue when you're further away or using longer lenses.

05/02/2008 07:57:32 PM · #6
I did some more specific really really careful testing and came to the conclusion of backfocusing. I am very excited about the quality I managed to get after this last test:

These were taken in the same location, same lighting and both at f/3.5. The difference is that the one on the left was taken with my 1.7 on my sony and at ISO100 1/200ss and the one on the right was taken with the 50mm 1.2 on my canon at iso 160 and ss 1/250

both are unedited and unsharpened. They are 100% crops.
[thumb]675452[/thumb][thumb]675454[/thumb]

yay!
05/02/2008 07:05:35 PM · #7
Originally posted by neophyte:

So I focus on the eye in a portrait, then recompose slightly down to get the eyes, for example, higher up or more to the left in the photo, the eyes are still in focus. I'm not focusing on a different plane nor have I changed the distance. I get what your trying to explain but it doesn't seem to fit my, perhaps myopic, view of recomposition.


if you rotate the camera, you have changed the plane and you have changed the distance. if you slide it parallel to whatever you focused on then I'd agree you haven't changed anything, but if you rotate it, you've moved the plane of focus. When the depth of field is measured in millimeters, small changes like this can make all the difference.

I don't think that's what is going on with this particular lens, but it is still an issue if you focus and recompose when working at wide open apertures and close subjects.
05/02/2008 06:55:42 PM · #8
Originally posted by neophyte:

So I focus on the eye in a portrait, then recompose slightly down to get the eyes, for example, higher up or more to the left in the photo, the eyes are still in focus. I'm not focusing on a different plane nor have I changed the distance. I get what your trying to explain but it doesn't seem to fit my, perhaps myopic, view of recomposition.


Hold your arm out in front of you with your finger touching a wall. Keep your arm straight and lift it up at the shoulder (so that your fingertip starts pointing towards the ceiling). Your finger moves away from the wall as your arm moves higher. Same deal if you move your arm down.

Your focus point is your fingertip. Same rules apply, arm or camera.

Message edited by author 2008-05-02 18:56:29.
05/02/2008 06:25:53 PM · #9
So I focus on the eye in a portrait, then recompose slightly down to get the eyes, for example, higher up or more to the left in the photo, the eyes are still in focus. I'm not focusing on a different plane nor have I changed the distance. I get what your trying to explain but it doesn't seem to fit my, perhaps myopic, view of recomposition.
05/02/2008 05:57:52 PM · #10
Originally posted by neophyte:

I set my camera on single focus instead of continuous. I never change distance (does anyone?)when recomposing. The area I lock stays in focus and only the comp changes (the distance remains constant) so I don't understand that part of your comment.


If you focus, then recompose, you change the distance from the thing you focused on to the camera. The focus is on a plane, at a given distance to the camera. If you recompose, you rotate the camera around the central point, changing the location of that plane you focused on. (easiest to visualise this from above, looking top down on he tangents to a circle around the camera)

The end result is that if you focus then recompose, you are pretty much guaranteed to see some amount of back focusing. The amount this is an issue is related to the depth of field. It'll be more pronounced with a f1.2 lens, at its closest focusing distance, for example. It'll be worse too, if you use the center focus spot, or the let the camera pick the focus point, then recompose, than if you pick the specific focus point closest to where you are focusing.

05/02/2008 05:54:22 PM · #11
This article has a nice diagram which explains the problem of focus-recompose: Why Focus Recompose Sucks

You typically won't see this as a problem "big enough" to be concerned about with a) longer distances, or b) smaller apertures. But when you're talking about f/1.2 lenses and short distances, the DOF is so shallow that both the focal plane distance and the potential that you physically moved the camera are enough to cause problems.
05/02/2008 05:21:59 PM · #12
Originally posted by neophyte:

Originally posted by dwterry:

It's not a brand thing. It's a depth-of-field thing. Recomposing changes the distance and moves the subject out of the focus. Nikon is not magic. It can't know that the distance changed after focus was locked. Don't start a brand war over a physical limitation.


No one said it was magic or brand. My only experience is with nikon. I believe all brands are all more similar than most would admit and I see great photos coming from all of them.

I set my camera on single focus instead of continuous. I never change distance (does anyone?)when recomposing. The area I lock stays in focus and only the comp changes (the distance remains constant) so I don't understand that part of your comment.

Brand war? No. I've made my choice and could care less. Although my comment may have been little too brief I never meant to infer this.

I'd expect this lens at 1.2 would preform like Hauxon's fine examples. If not, I'd contact the manufacturer.


I think what he's saying is at 1.2 the DOF is so shallow that unless you are perfectly square to the subject, the focus point will change enough to knock out the focus if you hold and recompose.
05/02/2008 05:19:53 PM · #13
Originally posted by dwterry:

It's not a brand thing. It's a depth-of-field thing. Recomposing changes the distance and moves the subject out of the focus. Nikon is not magic. It can't know that the distance changed after focus was locked. Don't start a brand war over a physical limitation.


No one said it was magic or brand. My only experience is with nikon. I believe all brands are all more similar than most would admit and I see great photos coming from all of them.

I set my camera on single focus instead of continuous. I never change distance (does anyone?)when recomposing. The area I lock stays in focus and only the comp changes (the distance remains constant) so I don't understand that part of your comment.

Brand war? No. I've made my choice and could care less. Although my comment may have been little too brief I never meant to infer this.

I'd expect this lens at 1.2 would preform like Hauxon's fine examples. If not, I'd contact the manufacturer.
05/02/2008 04:55:05 PM · #14
its a problem specific to that individual lens. Anyone who says that it will be sharp at 1.2 has never used an L lens.

Send it back get a new one and start shooting, you will love the result.

JM
05/02/2008 03:05:37 PM · #15
Originally posted by lovethelight:


alright I am not an idiot. I have tried all apertures from 1.2-16 from distances as close as I can get to as far as I can get. I do not see any significantly awesome sharpness ANYWHERE.


If you can't get a nice sharp image at F16 at about 8 feet with a reasonably fast shutter speed, you need to send that dog back to it's former owner. Something is seriously wrong.
05/02/2008 12:55:27 PM · #16
Originally posted by Citadel:

I think we are kinda saying it here but f/1.2 is going to be a bit soft and you are comparing it to f/1.7 which will have more DOF. I would suggest comparing them side by side at something like f/2. I had an old f/1.4 50 mm Nikon lens and it was soft at large apertures.

Anyways...


Originally posted by lovethelight:

I have tried all apertures from 1.2-16 from distances as close as I can get to as far as I can get. I do not see any significantly awesome sharpness ANYWHERE.

05/02/2008 11:20:43 AM · #17
I think we are kinda saying it here but f/1.2 is going to be a bit soft and you are comparing it to f/1.7 which will have more DOF. I would suggest comparing them side by side at something like f/2. I had an old f/1.4 50 mm Nikon lens and it was soft at large apertures.

Anyways...
05/02/2008 11:03:37 AM · #18
Originally posted by neophyte:

Originally posted by jmlelii:

Center focus, hold and reposition WILL NOT WORK.


It does on Nikon...(On the 50 mm 1.4)


It's not a brand thing. It's a depth-of-field thing. Recomposing changes the distance and moves the subject out of the focus. Nikon is not magic. It can't know that the distance changed after focus was locked. Don't start a brand war over a physical limitation.

05/02/2008 10:31:46 AM · #19
Originally posted by jmlelii:

Center focus, hold and reposition WILL NOT WORK.


It does on Nikon...(On the 50 mm 1.4)
05/02/2008 10:23:42 AM · #20
Originally posted by Hauxon:

Here are two portraits of mine with the lens:

Hrannar, those are lovely portraits.

05/02/2008 10:12:09 AM · #21
when I bought all the equipment for rentphotostuff.com, we didn't have any problems with focusing. We did however have to send back an 85 1.2L because the manual focus wasn't engaging properly.

Send that lens back to Canon w/ the warranty info and explain the problem. We had great service, that lens was back and ready to be rented within two weeks.

I personally would return it for a full refund and just buy another. Its a wonderful lens and you will be amazed at how sharp it is as well as the color, contrast etc. etc..

Whomever said the 50 1.8 is as good or better is pretty much dead wrong. Its no where near as good as the 1.2L in image quality and especially build quality.
05/02/2008 09:59:20 AM · #22
Originally posted by rider:

when you say it is crappy what do you mean? out of focus? poor contrast? poor build? your minolta 50 is a 1.7 i would think that that was probably a pretty good lens also. try some different settings on your camera then you might like the len's better i know when i got my 40d at first i wasn't impressed


Yup... Check you Picture Style (Canon 40D) settings and change them to what you are used to (or like) A couple of them are soft by default (Portrait is one of them), I ended up setting the sharpness to 5 on most of my PS's.

Message edited by author 2008-05-02 09:59:48.
05/02/2008 09:55:58 AM · #23
i had an opportunity to use this lens a few days ago and i didnt experience any sharpness issues. i mean it wasnt SHARP but it was usable for 1.2. it is a lens that cant be used for everything, but like most prime lenses you have to learn the quirks of it.
05/02/2008 09:49:10 AM · #24
i have both the 24-70 and 50mm 1.2L, the 24-70 is insanely sharp but the 50mm blows it away in sharpness, color and contrast. that's how good that lens is. anything above f/1.8 it's almost too sharp for portaits. you start seeing every tiny imperfection on the face. i agree, use it on a tripod and if u still get blurry pics then there's something wrong with that lens.

sometimes i think about how much i paid for that lens and how huge it is, i think about selling it for the 1.4 version. but then after i shoot with it and look at the pictures afterwards all thoughts about selling it go away. it's crazy expensive but i love it. anyone else have those thoughts??? :)
05/02/2008 09:46:31 AM · #25
If it's not a focus-recompose error because of the extremely narrow DOF your lens is faulty.

I've had mine about 9 months and it's a stellar lens. The focus-shift problem of the lens happens between f/2.8 and f/4 and does in real life not affect images that much (DOF wider). I often hear people complain about sharpness and I agree to a point. I had a 50/1.4 before and found it to be usable at f/1.4 but didn't get really, really sharp until f/2. The 50/1.2 L is not the sharpest lens in the world at f/1.2 but it's still usably sharp and af f/1.4 already getting tack sharp. The reason to have this lens is however the creamy bokeh, great colors, good contrast, incredible resistance to flare and ghosting and of course the f/1.2 light gathering ability. If the only thing you want is sharpness you should probably just buy macro lenses. ;-)

Here are two portraits of mine with the lens:

Canon 5D + 50mm f/1.2 L @f/1.2 L (ISO 1600 outside)
//farm2.static.flickr.com/1178/1061250058_95db535f7b_o.jpg

Canon 1Ds Mark II + 50mm f/1.2 L @ f/1.4 (ISO 50 in studio)
//farm3.static.flickr.com/2114/2304693832_35c8d9d94b_o.jpg

As you can see DOF is really really thin and even too bit thin for the girl shot. :)

Hope your problem works out.

Best Hrannar

Message edited by Manic - please keep images under 500px and 30kb, or post links or thumbs instead.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 08:52:37 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 08:52:37 AM EDT.