Canon 5D Mark III

[finbarqs]

I'd always check MTF Charts... Canon did one thing right: Marketing. They made their "Special lenses" with a red ring around it, making people ask "why does that lens have a red ring?" To which the answer "It's top quality".

50 f/1.2 AF i hear is slow too... But I guess get what you need, not what people tell you to get!

 

[Cattykit]

50mm f/1.2 is not sharp and it has focusing issues by design.

However, it provides damn unique aesthetics. It's one of my favorite Canon lenses for that matters and I'm glad Canon came up with that lens in this era where people grade lenses based on high frequency sharpness.

 

[angry hampster]

I'd always check MTF Charts... Canon did one thing right: Marketing. They made their "Special lenses" with a red ring around it, making people ask "why does that lens have a red ring?" To which the answer "It's top quality".

50 f/1.2 AF i hear is slow too... But I guess get what you need, not what people tell you to get!

f/1.2 is obviously a specialty lens. This would be like complaining that the focus speed is slow on a tilt-shift lens IMO.

TBF, most of Canon's L lenses are ridiculously good. The 24-70, the 70-200's, all their long primes, and their wide primes are absolutely stellar.

 

[randay]

I'd always check MTF Charts... Canon did one thing right: Marketing. They made their "Special lenses" with a red ring around it, making people ask "why does that lens have a red ring?" To which the answer "It's top quality".

50 f/1.2 AF i hear is slow too... But I guess get what you need, not what people tell you to get!

50 f/1.2L slow?? what are you comparing it to? mine certainly had focus issues but it was anything but slow.

 

[JMapleton]

5D Mark III spotting?

http://myona.com/2012/01/23/canon-dslr-body-sighting-eos-5d-mark-iii-eos-7d-mark-ii/

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Oh gee! Thanks Random that's pretty interesting!

I presume then that you'd get a similar effect with certain canon lenses on a full-frame, is that right? Wondering if there's a compatability list of lenses for the 5D. I'll see what google can find.

Only crop lenses will that issues (ie, the EF-S line).

And all canon EF lenses are compatible with 5d m2/m3. I think the folks here recommend L lenses just cuz they are supposed to be high quality... although how high a quality you need is subjective. i know i'm content with the 50mm f/1.8 that costs a 100 and keep ups with the L glass in sharpness.

 

[angry hampster]

the 50mm f/1.8 that costs a 100 and keep ups with the L glass in sharpness.

Not really.

50L:

 

[RobDickinson]

Not really.

50L:

You cheated. Picked the canon 350d test for the 50f1.8 against the 5d2 test of the 50L. here is the 50/1.8 test fro the 5d2 for a more level playing field.

 

[angry hampster]

Ahh fair enough -- wasn't even paying attention to what cam they used. That aside, I still wouldn't give $100 for the 50mm f/1.8 mkII again. Poorly built lens with hideous out-of-focus blur.

 

[finbarqs]

my 17-40L sucks. It's soft. Good contrast, but not very sharp. But in this case, I want sharpness! my 24-70 out resolves that lens 10 fold!

now I want the zeiss 21mm Distagon T!

 

[RobDickinson]

Ahh fair enough -- wasn't even paying attention to what cam they used. That aside, I still wouldn't give $100 for the 50mm f/1.8 mkII again. Poorly built lens with hideous out-of-focus blur.

What do you expect for $100? Mine was fine and well worth the money, shot wide open the bokeh was OK. it seemed to focus OK (7D, Ma'd). I do prefer the sigma 1.4 though.

Truth is by f4 there isnt many sharper lenses , and not everyone cares for/needs bokeh...

 

[alfa147x]

The 50mm f/1.8 was okay. The bokeh made pictures unusable :\

The Simga f/1.4 is amazing.

 

[speedy2]

The bokeh never bothers me in the 50mm. There's a lot of a lot of other things the shooter can mess up before I begin to even worry about the bokeh.

 

[RobDickinson]

Yep nifty fifty bokeh is unusable.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Not really.

50L:

Well i was thinking more in terms of comparing 50mm 1.8 to L zooms. Its extreamly sharp, but yeah L primes will be sharper. Otherwise they aren't gonna fetch the 10x price

my point was, you can get extreamly good quality using a cheap lens.

 

[RobDickinson]

50/1.8 is ultimately sharper than the 50L. The 50L is compromised for its fast aperture.

Sharpness isnt always the only metric though!

 

[iGas]

Well i was thinking more in terms of comparing 50mm 1.8 to L zooms. Its extreamly sharp, but yeah L primes will be sharper. Otherwise they aren't gonna fetch the 10x price

my point was, you can get extreamly good quality using a cheap lens.

 

[JMapleton]

I had a dream about this camera. I dreamt it had 40MP, 8 FPS, and cost $5700 with an L lens.

In my dream, it was called the Canon 6D X and I think they had a non X version too.

We'll see how close my dream was, although likely not very close.

 

[corkyg]

The 50,, f/1.2 is indeed tricky to use. Anything below f/4 starts having a very shallow DOF - at f/1.2, it is about 1/8th of an inch. But, slow? No. Here's a sample of a blossoming barrel cactus with that lens.

 

[finbarqs]

I had a dream about this camera. I dreamt it had 40MP, 8 FPS, and cost $5700 with an L lens.

In my dream, it was called the Canon 6D X and I think they had a non X version too.

We'll see how close my dream was, although likely not very close.

would rather it be 40MP if it was using a Foveon FF sensor (13.3MP)... 40 MP bayer... at that pixel density we'll be diffraction limited @ f/4 using our standard wide angles!