johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
's fine. Sorry, couldn't reply earlier, I was travelling, then working.
No worries mate, we're all living the life!
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
I'm not super knowledgeable with the Canon alternatives but at least this lens seems to be quite a bit better than the EF 50mm f/1.2L, which was ridiculously overpriced for what it was
If we're talking acuity on sensors that came out after it was introduced, at the very maximum, sure - but for its intended usecase, wider-aperture portraits, it's plenty sharp, perhaps perfectly sharp, as in not too sharp.
I think it's more interesting that Canon managed to improve the optical performance at all apertures vs. the old EF 50/1.2L while retaining the character and reducing lens weight and especially price.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
...and that was amply demonstrated by this new 45mm which at least gets impeccably sharp by f/4 if Klaus is to be believed (and I know no reasons to suggest otherwise).
As Klaus mentioned, making sharp 50mm lenses at f/4 and smaller isn't hard; the opposite would be the exception! Also, if it's sharp at the razer-thin DoF of a test chart, then it's as sharp or sharper at normal distances (which is why test charts are used).
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
If I had happened to fall into the well of RF mount and gone native, I would've likely chosen the 50mm f/1.4. Of course it's a lot more expensive, but it should be a very capable performer - I say "should" because reviews are a little bit scarce for the time being...
What reviews I've seen have been stellar. The lens isn't perfect, obviously, but it's very good and it serves its purpose in Canon's VCM lineup. It's laudable that Canon was able to do a whole video-focused f/1.4 range, keeping size and aperture consistent while also managing excellent image quality for both video and stills shooting.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
But as @fraibert@ has rightly pointed out, the Tamron 45mm f/1.8 is a sound alternative (and the only AF 45mm lens for DSLR mounts unless I'm mistaken?) It's sharp from wide open and has image stabilization. I have it and enjoy using it a lot. Yes, the AF is not super fast, and the lens is one the large side (more so with the adapter) but it should be rather inexpensive, focuses very closely (down to 1:3 maximum magnification) and has great build quality and is a joy to use.
Like I said, I have the lens, but I don't think it's sharper than this 45/1.2 STM wide open at f/1.8. Neither lacks sharpness in my opinion though!
I might say that I'd prefer the Tamron on an unstabilized body, but really that depends on what I'm rigging up for.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
This lens' only claim to fame is f/1.2 max. aperture (and we don't even know how accurate is that claim, lol) on the budget. But as the test done by Klaus shows, even near center at f/1.2 has fallen outside the boundaries of the acceptable (in PZ/OL speak, "Good" means slightly soft though acceptable for some purposes, and the sharpness diagram shows this aperture giving results in the lower half of that "good" range).
Well, a transmission test would tell, but if it's faster than f/1.4 lenses (and it's absolutely faster than f/1.8 lenses) then it's 'f/1.2 class'. I really don't think there's an issue here though.
Realistically, if you get your subject in focus anywhere in the center or midframe, and you're shooting portraits (not trying to shoot... landscapes? at f/1.2), it's more than sharp enough for the majority of outputs, i.e., social media and prints. Obviously if you need sharper at f/1.2, Canon (and Sony and Nikon) have lenses for you, at many multiples the price of this one!
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Yeah, that, and the EF 50mm f/1.2L too, which was a decidedly "character" lens, and didn't sharpen up nearly as well as this lens does.
I have to guess that Canon intentionally optimized character over stopped-down sharpness on the EF 50/1.2L. It seems reasonable given that the output demands weren't that high when it was released, and for absolute sharpness you have the ancient EF 50/1.4 USM that still outresolves all full-frame sensors at f/5.6 (as do many, many other lenses of its type).
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
But judging by the reactions here, it has found its users. 
I'll stick with the Tamron though.
I mean, if you were in Canon and didn't have the Tamron to adapt? And you had a body with IBIS? I can absolutely see folks sticking with the Tamron if they already have it in a compatible mount, but at the same time, it's hard to imagine picking the Tamron up; even on sale, used, when accounting for adapter cost, you're still in the ballpark of the MSRP of the new 45/1.2 STM.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
BTW have you noticed that Bastian of PhillipReeve.net has promised to publish the review of Canon 50mm f/1.0L lens before New Year? Now that'll be an interesting read. 
Well, the much derided Ken Rockwell reviewed the lens, and he found it 'sharp' at f/1.0 - but he finds every lens sharp.
Dustin Abbot's Review is perhaps a more thorough, succinct, and accurate portrayal of the performance of the lens.
But in any case, the main problem with the EF 50/1.0L is that it was too expensive, too awkward to use as a standard lens (while the equally awkward EF 85/1.2L lenses were more dedicated portraiture lenses and thus didn't get pushed out of their 'niche' as much), and just not that optically 'good'.
I wouldn't mind seeing Canon reach for the stars and build a fast-focusing RF 50/1.0L in the future, especially if they manage to make it as apochromatic as the RF 85/1.2L is!
|
