Photokina - Canon abandons the pros

[Jim Pascoe]

Not the point.

I think the pictures are exactly the point. What other point is there? The photographer makes a living from photography so I expect he knows exactly what gear he uses and what it's limitations are.  He's shooting fashion type pictures - he's more interested in feel and mode than obsessing over lens tests.  If you want to shoot at 1.2 you put up with the small deficiencies.  I've got an f0.95 lens which is soft wide open.  So what - I love the soft dreamy images.

Jim

[nemophoto]

You cannot expect Canon's 1.2L lens to match it, as it is a much less costly lens. They cannot ask such a price. Not enough customers would buy an even more expensive lens from Canon. Also, the need for super-speed lenses has diminished considerably with digital cameras with super sensitivity compared to films.

Leica's is just about the only super-speed lens that could equal more moderate-aperture lenses.

No, but I CAN expect good results when stopped down 3- to 4-stops from max. For a lens (the Sigma) to out resolve a lens costing twice as much for about 1/3 stop faster, is pretty laughable. Even my older 50/1.4 does better at f4-f5.6. Super speed lens ARE designed to provide excellent results at near max aperture. It's the whole reason you purchase them, rather than a slower model. It is within expectations that a 1.2 lens should be as sharp if not sharper at, say, 2.8 as the plastic barrelled 50/1.8. To not be as sharp as even my 24-70 says I have a dog. All my fast lens (85/1.2, 135/2, 300/2.8 70-200/2. all perform superbly (well maybe the exception being the 85), 1-stop from max. If you can't use a 50/1.2 and achieve good-excellent results at 2-2.8, then you've absolutely wasted your money on a heavy, expensive piece of glass.

[melchiorpavone]

I think the pictures are exactly the point. What other point is there? The photographer makes a living from photography so I expect he knows exactly what gear he uses and what it's limitations are.  He's shooting fashion type pictures - he's more interested in feel and mode than obsessing over lens tests.  If you want to shoot at 1.2 you put up with the small deficiencies.  I've got an f0.95 lens which is soft wide open.  So what - I love the soft dreamy images.

Jim

No, they are not. If he thinks a Canon 50mm 1.2L is going to provide images that are as sharp as a slower lens he is simply mistaken. It can't be done on a practical basis. Maybe the Defense Dept. or NASA can afford million-dollar lenses (and they have such things)...but for ordinary customers it isn't practicable.

[melchiorpavone]

No, but I CAN expect good results when stopped down 3- to 4-stops from max. For a lens (the Sigma) to out resolve a lens costing twice as much for about 1/3 stop faster, is pretty laughable. Even my older 50/1.4 does better at f4-f5.6. Super speed lens ARE designed to provide excellent results at near max aperture. It's the whole reason you purchase them, rather than a slower model. It is within expectations that a 1.2 lens should be as sharp if not sharper at, say, 2.8 as the plastic barrelled 50/1.8. To not be as sharp as even my 24-70 says I have a dog. All my fast lens (85/1.2, 135/2, 300/2.8 70-200/2. all perform superbly (well maybe the exception being the 85), 1-stop from max. If you can't use a 50/1.2 and achieve good-excellent results at 2-2.8, then you've absolutely wasted your money on a heavy, expensive piece of glass.

Nope, you are simply wrong. It's physics. You can expect it, but you won't get it. Not in a 50mm 1.2 lens for reflex cameras costing $1500.

The high-speed lenses from Leica of the 1960s and 70s were optimized for maximum aperture (in other words, the designers made them as good as they could at full aperture, sacrificing a little performance stopped down, but they still were better stopped down). Nowadays, Leica has started using aspherical surfaces and other design approaches that produces even better lenses.

The Japanese designers of the same era focused more on stopped-down performance. In both cases the lenses performed better stopped down, but the Leica lenses were better wide open and improved less as you stopped them down than did the Japanese lenses. But the Leica lenses were still better wide open and stopped down, because they used better glasses and cost tons more. In 1973 I tested my 50mm Summilux-R (reflex, $500) against a contemporary Nikon 50mm f/1.4 ($125) and there was no comparison. Leica figures you buy a fast lens to use it wide open; the Japanese think you will use it mostly stopped down, so the extra speed is just a sales gimmick.  

No, the Canon 50mm 1.2L lens is not a dog. It's the best that can be made with the technology available at a reasonable price. If you want better, be prepared to pay tens of thousands of dollars.

Here is a test of this $1,500 lens:
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d

and a test of the $11,000 Leica Noctilux:
http://www.photozone.de/leicam/860-noctilux50asph

You may find this interesting:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f1.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f12.htm

[Jim Pascoe]

No, they are not. If he thinks a Canon 50mm 1.2L is going to provide images that are as sharp as a slower lens he is simply mistaken. It can't be done on a practical basis. Maybe the Defense Dept. or NASA can afford million-dollar lenses (and they have such things)...but for ordinary customers it isn't practicable.

Hang on - are we talking about lens tests or photography?  How can you possibly tell this guy, who produces superb pictures, that he doesn't know a sharp picture when he see one?
I think you are seriously deluded and all you can do is quote lens tests and reviews.  The pictures you have shown yourself do not demonstrate the superior Leica optics.  It is about pictures not tests.

Would you lecture a virtuoso violinist about why his instrument is not as good as the one you have when you are still on grade 3?

[melchiorpavone]

Hang on - are we talking about lens tests or photography?  How can you possibly tell this guy, who produces superb pictures, that he doesn't know a sharp picture when he see one?
I think you are seriously deluded and all you can do is quote lens tests and reviews.  The pictures you have shown yourself do not demonstrate the superior Leica optics.  It is about pictures not tests.

He said the lens was "no good", if you recall. I pointed out that this was false, and I maintain that it is as good as it can be at the price and speed, and given what current technology allows. You cannot expect it to be as good on an objective basis as a slower lens. This is not possible. None of this has anything to do with his skills as a photographer, or mine. I know what lenses can do and what they cannot do. Read my previous posts and see the tests, as they are objective. The tests show that the lens is sharper in the center wide open, but less sharp at the edges. This is true of every lens ever made. It's physics. Lens design is a very difficult art, and financial constraints play a big role (in addition to all the technological and production limitations). This is a $1500 lens, not a $10K or $50K lens. If you want to see what happens when you turn lens designers free, see the reports on the Leica 50mm f/0.95 Noctilux. But guess what: it's less sharp at the edges too!

Long lenses, wide-angle-lenses, and very fast lenses all perform at a lower "objective" level than moderate aperture normal lenses. You have to make allowances for those, and judge them accordingly. No commercially available 50mm f/1.0 lens is going to produce images wide open that are as good as a 50mm f/3.5 wide open, all things being equal.

You can't get 7000Hp from a 4 cylinder engine, either. It ain't gonna happen.

You haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about, and I do, so don't contradict me! I have 50 years of experience, 43 years with Leicaflex cameras and lenses, all with film. I have often been astonished at the image quality of my equipment with B&W or Kodachrome films. What you see here is mostly inexpensive sans from recent photos taken hand-held on Fuji Pro 400H high-speed color negative film with uncontrolled light, which I use because I am mostly shooting people candidly these days. I don't shoot rocks or trees or use a tripod often. Given my objectives, my photos are satisfactory for my purposes, and are not intended for large display. I could use slower films and spend more and get higher-res scans but I have no need for that. But then I would not be able to get the images I like, which require long lenses and fast films.

[NancyP]

For fashion and portraiture, you want a different "look", not necessarily clinically sharp 100% of the time. I daresay that the bokeh is at least as important as the acutance for a fashion/portrait photographer. Hello, I am getting on in years, and do I want every single skin pore lovingly detailed? No. Do I want plasticky-looking post-processing rendering to hide the pores and make me look like Barbie? No. (OK, maybe I am blaming those G-dawful ads for portraiture post-processing software - the "after" always looks way worse than the "before" to me.

[melchiorpavone]

For fashion and portraiture, you want a different "look", not necessarily clinically sharp 100% of the time. I daresay that the bokeh is at least as important as the acutance for a fashion/portrait photographer. Hello, I am getting on in years, and do I want every single skin pore lovingly detailed? No. Do I want plasticky-looking post-processing rendering to hide the pores and make me look like Barbie? No. (OK, maybe I am blaming those G-dawful ads for portraiture post-processing software - the "after" always looks way worse than the "before" to me.

Oh yes, I have seen those ads, and you are so right!

[Doug Peterson]

Or, maybe I'll go back to medium format and pickup a Pentax 645Z. If it weren't for the dearth of lenses for the system, I would have purchased one already. Am I alone in the frustration that Canon seems to have slipped from being a leader and even pioneer, to a virtual also-ran?

A Mamiya Leaf Credo 40 kit is ballpark the same price as a 645Z with a lens, and comes with a Schneider 80mm LS lens (sync@1/1600th) and has a complete line of LS lenses as well as lots of less expensive non LS glass to fill in gaps if budget requires. If you're waiting for Canon to invest heavily in competing on top 1% image quality I think you'll be waiting a long time - there is a lot more money in it for them to make their mid-tier and low-end offerings better/cheaper, at least in their minds. Do a quick google search on sales figures and you'll see what % of their revenue comes from the 1D line vs their Rebel line, and then tell me what you'd invest in if you were their CEO. In comparison Phase/Leaf can ONLY sell if they produce the absolute highest image quality solutions, so where will they invest?

[eronald]

A Mamiya Leaf Credo 40 kit is ballpark the same price as a 645Z with a lens, and comes with a Schneider 80mm LS lens (sync@1/1600th) and has a complete line of LS lenses as well as lots of less expensive non LS glass to fill in gaps if budget requires. If you're waiting for Canon to invest heavily in competing on top 1% image quality I think you'll be waiting a long time - there is a lot more money in it for them to make their mid-tier and low-end offerings better/cheaper, at least in their minds. Do a quick google search on sales figures and you'll see what % of their revenue comes from the 1D line vs their Rebel line, and then tell me what you'd invest in if you were their CEO. In comparison Phase/Leaf can ONLY sell if they produce the absolute highest image quality solutions, so where will they invest?

Doug,

I don't think badmouthing Canon image quality will get anyone very far - they have a deserved reputation for solid pro bodies, a complete lens range, and exceptional telephoto lenses. And in fact they have been improving their mid-tier bodies a lot - because their consumer research showed them that pros are making less money and are forced to buy them to get the job done. And pro pulls consumer, as you know.

Edmund

[David Anderson]

No, the Canon 50mm 1.2L lens is not a dog. It's the best that can be made with the technology available at a reasonable price. If you want better, be prepared to pay tens of thousands of dollars.

The 50 1.2 L is a superb lens.
It's brilliant for environmental portraits IMHO and (like it's 85mm cousin) has a look all it's own when shooting under f2.

[nemophoto]

The 50 1.2 L is a superb lens.
It's brilliant for environmental portraits IMHO and (like it's 85mm cousin) has a look all it's own when shooting under f2.

Ok. Then MY 50/1.2 is a dog.

And another thought: the comments that fast lenses aren't really suppose to be as sharp is, honestly, crap. I'm looking at a shot, full length (and not even filling out the frame), from a catalog shoot I just did on the streets in NYC. Crap light. I shot with my 135/2. To me, it's one of the best lenses Canon produces. (Too bad no IS, but maybe in the future.) The shot was made at f3.2, 1/250. Tack sharp, resolving, on my 1Dx, individual eye-lashes. Given the exact same setup, but using the 50, sharpness would have been very disappointing.

[melchiorpavone]

Ok. Then MY 50/1.2 is a dog.

And another thought: the comments that fast lenses aren't really suppose to be as sharp is, honestly, crap. I'm looking at a shot, full length (and not even filling out the frame), from a catalog shoot I just did on the streets in NYC. Crap light. I shot with my 135/2. To me, it's one of the best lenses Canon produces. (Too bad no IS, but maybe in the future.) The shot was made at f3.2, 1/250. Tack sharp, resolving, on my 1Dx, individual eye-lashes. Given the exact same setup, but using the 50, sharpness would have been very disappointing.

You obviously don't understand optics. f/2 is not f/1.2.
Haven't I explained all of this to you before? And even the way you talk gives it away. What do you mean by 'suppose to be'? Your vast ignorance of optics is showing, but at least show me that you know that the English word is 'supposed to be'. A 135mm f/2 lens is a very fast lens, but once you go past f/2 the problems really set in. Read a little and learn:

http://www.summilux.net/r_system/objectifs/LeicaRLenses.pdf

It is also possible that the lens is damaged or that the autofocus needs to be adjusted. The depth of field with such a lens is very small.

[David Anderson]

Ok. Then MY 50/1.2 is a dog.

A real possibility unfortunately.
I returned the first copy I bought and the second was much better.

Have you had the lens projected to check for issues ?

[melchiorpavone]

The 50 1.2 L is a superb lens.
It's brilliant for environmental portraits IMHO and (like it's 85mm cousin) has a look all it's own when shooting under f2.

It seems to me likely that your experience is closer to the truth.

[nemophoto]

A real possibility unfortunately.
I returned the first copy I bought and the second was much better.

Have you had the lens projected to check for issues ?

Canon CPS has worked on the lens several times. Most recently six months ago.

[synn]

I have no horse in this race (Hell, I don't even shoot Canon), but it's always amusing to see a Leicaphile at work proclaiming his gear's superiority.

Especially when the person in question is some guy with a Flickr stream full of unexceptional snapshots of people trying to "Educate" a pro with an exceptional portfolio why and how the latter's equipment is crap.

Carry on. 

[NancyP]

Wow - Mamiya body, back, and Schneider 80mm LS lens for $14,000.00. Not in the budget now. But, that is not too far off the "low-end" Pentax 645Z price. 
   I come here to get a better grade of G.A.S.     Unfortunately, it is easier to upgrade your G.A.S. wants than your photography and post-processing skills. (putzes clutzily with PS masks)

I prescribe voluntary penance for the excessive gear-o-phile obsessing not related to actual image making and selling. Go Make A Pinhole Camera, and go shoot with your favorite film or direct positive paper. If nothing else, it would be fun.

[melchiorpavone]

I have no horse in this race (Hell, I don't even shoot Canon), but it's always amusing to see a Leicaphile at work proclaiming his gear's superiority.

Especially when the person in question is some guy with a Flickr stream full of unexceptional snapshots of people trying to "Educate" a pro with an exceptional portfolio why and how the latter's equipment is crap.

Carry on.  

I have no interest in your opinions. 'Pro'? are you kidding me? 'Pro'? What do pros know? Next to nothing. I have 50 years of experience in photography, 43 years with Leicaflex cameras and lenses. I have never said his equipment is "crap". He said that 50mm f/1.2 his lens sucked, which I doubt very much. Can't you read?

I have been defending the lens all along, just trying to explain to him that he has to have realistic expectations.

Here is someone else's opinion:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f12.htm

"This Canon 50mm f/1.2L is the sharpest 50mm lens I've ever used at apertures faster than f/1.4."

and

"Autofocus Accuracy and Consistency

Sharp results at f/1.2 demand perfect focus accuracy. Depth of field is so thin at f/1.2 that any subject, other than a flat test chart, will mostly be out of focus.

If your camera has it, you may need to adjust AF Fine Tuning for perfect results at f/1.2.

If your camera lacks AF Fine Tuning, it's not likely that any given sample of lens will give perfect results on your camera at f/1.2. No worries, if shot with an older camera, learn how or where to focus for perfect results with your lens.

My 5D Mark III gives consistently great results at f/1.2.

On my original 5D in 2007, I got some frames that were way out of focus, even though the AF system assured me I was AOK. Watch for this if you're shooting this on an older camera.

For perfect results every time at every aperture, focus with Live View, but you probably won't need it. "

[synn]

Wow - Mamiya body, back, and Schneider 80mm LS lens for $14,000.00. Not in the budget now. But, that is not too far off the "low-end" Pentax 645Z price. 
   I come here to get a better grade of G.A.S.     Unfortunately, it is easier to upgrade your G.A.S. wants than your photography and post-processing skills. (putzes clutzily with PS masks)

I prescribe voluntary penance for the excessive gear-o-phile obsessing not related to actual image making and selling. Go Make A Pinhole Camera, and go shoot with your favorite film or direct positive paper. If nothing else, it would be fun.

You can get into MFD for as little as 4K.
Depending on your style of shooting and genre, you may/ may not miss some creature comforts.