( 29 reviews )
-
( 2 of 2 found this review helpful ) Posted: Jul 26 2009
I'm using this lens on a full-frame DSLR Canon 5D Mk2. The first couple of days, I was struggling with getting the right exposure for my shots. Generally, I noticed that (intended) focused area (using center focus, partial metering) were a bit underexposed and background lighting was typically overexposed--this happens on most aperture settings, not just wide open. Moreover, when viewing the image at 100% size, I noticed that I typically couldn't get the focus spot on. I have several Canon lenses and have never had any issues; I'm not a pixel peeper; and, whenever I hear about "back focusing" issues, I generally disregard them since most of these "issues" are due to users' inexperience and wrong expectations of the lens. That being said, I've had years of experience shooting with fast prime lenses (20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/1.4 28mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4), and the 50mm f/1.2 was the ONLY lens where I found focusing needing a bit of adjustment. Luckily, 5D Mk2 (and, EOS 50D) has lens autofocus micro adjustment function for the user to adjust the point of focus for lenses. In my case, I had to set +17 steps "backward." This adjustment thing is something new to me, and I really don't know what the number means. But, what's important is that, after this adjustment, I was able to focus and get the exposures with better results. Aside from having to adjust the focus point, everything else about the lens is perfect; I love the the colors it produces, bokeh is ultra smooth, the build and feel is great, and even the hefty aesthetic pleases me. I would easily give this lens 4.75 out of five.
-
Posted: Jul 15 2009
Pros: Creamy smooth bokeh, good build, focused as fast as the 50mm f/1.4 (not faster), rich colors, and great contrast. Neutral: Mine backfocused by 3mm, which was not an issue because it is fixable on the 5D II, or I could have sent it in for re-calibration. Plus, I'm sure there are other copies that don't backfocus. Cons: Where it was in focus was very soft wide-open until about f/2.0. Above f/2.0 it was maybe 10% softer than the 50mm f/1.4 lens. Had a noticeable magenta fringe wide open, more than the 85mm f/1.2. Wide open and in good light, missed shots entirely about 30% of the time - I'd focus on an a person's eye (using center focus) and it would be focused on an object several feet in front. Bottom line: I expected this to be as good as the 85mm f/1.2 and it wasn't. I returned it, but I'm going to try another copy - there are so many good reviews and I really want it. I might have had a lemon.
-
Posted: Jun 30 2009
It may seem there are too slight differences between 1.4 and 1.2 on paper to justify spending 4 times more money. Just like so many people, I spent so much time comparing 1.2 and 1.4 on various websites before I finally ended up with 1.2. I've been using it about a year now on my 40D. You just have mount them on a cameras and try a few shots on your hands. You will feel the difference. That's how my confusion ended. You just can NOT talk about 1.2 when you haven't touched it. Yes, it costs 4 times more but the build quality is at least 10 times better than 1.4. Image quality is far better of course. Some says you get sharper images on certain stops with 1.4 but sharpness is not everything about image quality. I agree 1.4 is a good lens but I'd rather use 1.8 than 1.4. Both produces good images and both feels cheap.. why spend 4 times more than 1.8 for 1.4.. 1.2 is built like a tank and produces beautiful photos and looks fantastic on a camera. That's all I can say. So stop reading these reviews and go to a nearest camera shop and try them for yourself!
