Canon EF 50mm f/1.0

T

trencheel303

Messages
4,888
Edit My Images
No
Does anyone have one or have experience of one?

Given it's a whole stop faster than f/1.4 I am considering saving for one as I know they are very expensive.
 
Never heard of it??!?!?!?!?

Is it a new one?
 
It's the discontinued one which was replaced with the f/1.2.

Apparently it's death to image quality at sensible apertures but let's face it what other AF 50 goes to 1.0 ? None I think.
 
ding76uk said:
DoF must be non existent at f1.0. What situation do you see yourself using it in if you don't mind me asking?
Click to expand...

Candids and available light photography. Pretty much an extension of my current lens.
 
Dave and Woof Woof thanks... but neither of those lenses AF. No other 50mm f/1.0 does in the world apart from Canon's one...

back to the OP, anyone actually used one?
 
It's not your everyday lens. I think there's a good reason why Canon replaced it with an f/1.2, and even that lens has 'issues'.

Basically it's a bridge too far, with too many uncorrected aberrations and quirks. It's so big the full light cone doesn't even fit through the mirror box :eek:

I've only used one briefly. If you like lenses, it's a beautiful thing to own, and the image through the viewfinder is pretty unique - very bright and really snaps in and out of focus. You need the right focusing screen to see that fully.

But I wouldn't. I just wouldn't. The 1.2 is much less compromised but even then, if it's fast 50mm you want, I'd get the Sigma 1.4 without a second thought. That lens needs to make no concessions to aperture, optically superb in pretty much every respect. Better than Canon/Nikon equivalents. And the DoF/bokeh on full frame is gorgeous.

Have you seen the review on DPReview? Here it is anyway http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/ "This lens essentially redefines the class" they say :thumbs:
 
Well, I've already got a 50mm f/1.4 on full frame so I got that covered. I know the Sigma is meant to be better than the Canon and I actually was thinking of possibly changing it.

I only asked about the 50/1.0 as it's a whole stop faster than the 1.4 - for me and the kind of things I do, it could potentially open up a world of possibilities - but I might just be hypothesizing too much.

Thanks for your thoughts - and your comment about the light not fitting in the mirror box is interesting, I guess this means clipped OOF highlights? :gag:
 
"I know the Sigma is meant to be better than the Canon and I actually was thinking of possibly changing it."

Is changing necessary though? Even though I've changed a lens or two in my time I think that honestly the difference between the top few lenses of each type or range are probably so insignificant in real world use that they probably really and honestly don't exist.

I have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 and it's a nice lens, a little soft at f1.4 according to some reviews and that's my assessment too. It's perfectly useable at f1.4 though and really you can only grumble if you pixel peep or crop beyond what is sane.

But change from a Canon 50mm f1.4? Would that really show any improvement?

Might be worth changing for USM / HSM but they both have it. IS would be wonderful too but neither have it.
 
woof woof: while I love my fifty, the build quality and focussing ring isn't so great, and my past experience with a Sigma lens - only one, a 10-20 - and I loved it - were very very good. Focussing was spot on, the lens felt amazing and the rings were a joy to use.

I'd not lose much on the fifty so in reality the upgrade to the Sigma wouldn't cost much. In reality though it's probably something I'll never do but the consideration was there after hearing how good the Sigma was.

Sixtoes: 50mm f/1.0 or f/1.2 has been on my mind for a while actually ... lol
 
What do you actually want to use it for? :thinking:
 
I already answered that. Available light photography. And, well, taking photos ;)

I had a look at one though on ebay earlier and the cheeky burger wanted nearly $5,000 for one though so they can get to france and back... I'll stick with the 1.4 :lol:
 
:thumbs: Good decision I think.

There are other ways of handling low light that avoid the liability of mega-shallow DoF, unless you actually want it.

That's the reason I got rid of my fast primes (although I'd like to get a 135L 2 for portraits) as whenever I really wanted a low f/number for low light, I didn't want the shallow DoF that went with it and ended up using flash/tripod anyway.
 
This may be very expensive for trencheel303

Why not consider 85mm f/1.2L II USM? The lens has excellent optics and incredible DOF. It is also different to 50mm and would make a great addition to your collection. It only comes at a cost of an old second hand car, and is a real bargain for what it does.
 
You could get a nice 1DIV for much less money and just use the 50 1.4 and up the ISO. Simpler solution?
 
I'd say get the 85mm f/1.2 II if you want to open up a world of possibility. £3,500+ for a 50mm should be left to companies like Leica.
 
What world of possibility Laudrup? I'm genuinely interested to know.
 
One reason not to buy it...can't be repaired.

Canon no longer support it at technical.
You could buy it and it dies the next day.

The 50 1.4 is as good as the 1.2, ok it lets in half a stop more light...is it worth paying £800 more for a slow front focusing lens?
 
A 50mm f/1.0 with a 5D2 would be an unbeatable setup for extreme low-light photography.. but, as previous posters have pointed out, the f/1.0 is flawed optically, as it pushes lens design to the absolute limit.

I've toyed with the idea of dropping some cash on a 50mm f/1.2 L, but my f/1.4 does everything I want it to. I rarely use f/1.4, so I can't really justify having a huge lump of glass with a red ring on it on my 5D2 :D

A.
 
Gel said:
One reason not to buy it...can't be repaired.

Canon no longer support it at technical.
You could buy it and it dies the next day.

The 50 1.4 is as good as the 1.2, ok it lets in half a stop more light...is it worth paying £800 more for a slow front focusing lens?
Click to expand...

:lol: True!
 
It wouldn't suprise me if Canon make a MkII of the 'One'

Their lens design has moved forward such that they could do it.
 
Gel said:
It wouldn't suprise me if Canon make a MkII of the 'One'

Their lens design has moved forward such that they could do it.
Click to expand...


If they lost the focus shift I'd be very interested. Some users claim it rarely affects their shots, but it killed the majority of the shots I used it for in the week I had it before I returned it.

Doh! Just re-read - you mean a MKII of the 1.0 not the 1.2!!!

Sorry

Phil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top