rumor: canon 50 f/1.2L

Andy · May 23, 2005

you heard it hear first, folks.

Michiel de Brieder · May 23, 2005

hmmm a fast 50 with L build quality, now that might get me into selling the F/1.4

thanks for the rumour

pathfinder · May 23, 2005

andy wrote:

you heard it hear first, folks.

Cool!!! Any idea of time of introduction?? Fall Photo show perhaps>>

robscomputer · May 23, 2005

While cleaning my 50mm f/1.4 I was just thinking about the possibility of Canon releasing a 50mm L lens. Just make it a bit faster and charge twice as much.

Rob

binghott · May 23, 2005

seeing that i'm in the same town as canon's u.s. headquarters, i hear the rumors first. i thought i overheard some wispers of this lens, but i didn't believe any of them, maybe i was wrong. if i heard correctly, this lens will be made in very small quantities, possibly less than 1000 produced altogether. the idea is to make an extraordinary and very hard to find lens, kinda like the 21mm f2.8 distagon, in order to give the canon name an ever better reputation. it will be like a collectors item.

i'll keep my ears to the walls over here in lake success.

T4Tots · May 23, 2005

binghott wrote:

seeing that i'm in the same town as canon's u.s. headquarters, i hear the rumors first. i thought i overheard some wispers of this lens, but i didn't believe any of them, maybe i was wrong. if i heard correctly, this lens will be made in very small quantities, possibly less than 1000 produced altogether. the idea is to make an extraordinary and very hard to find lens, kinda like the 21mm f2.8 distagon, in order to give the canon name an ever better reputation. it will be like a collectors item.

i'll keep my ears to the walls over here in lake success.

Well...they have my attention.

blackwaterstudio · May 23, 2005

hate to see the price on it.

Andy · May 23, 2005

jdsphotography wrote:

hate to see the price on it.

guess: $1299

Matthew Saville · May 24, 2005

andy wrote:

guess: $1299

Maybe that much for an 85mm f/1.2 L? But 50mm is just such an easy focal length to engineer, why would they dare make such a lens so expensive?

I wouldn't buy it, not if f/1.4 lenses are just 2-3 hundred...

In my opinion, an f/1.2 prime lens is not something they should be wasting their time on if they want to impress people. What I want to see is f/2.0 or f/1.8 ZOOM lenses. This whole trend of companies thinking that all of a sudden it's acceptable to produce f/3.5-4.5 lenses needs to stop. Sure, high ISO performance has gone through the roof, but that don't make the bokeh of my digital sensor any better...

Sorry I started ranting. I hope Canon is up to something, whatever it is. For that matter I hope Nikon and Sigma and all the other companies have nifty stuff up their sleeves too...

-Matt-

pathfinder · May 24, 2005

Matthew Saville wrote:

Maybe that much for an 85mm f/1.2 L? But 50mm is just such an easy focal length to engineer, why would they dare make such a lens so expensive?

I wouldn't buy it, not if f/1.4 lenses are just 2-3 hundred...

In my opinion, an f/1.2 prime lens is not something they should be wasting their time on if they want to impress people. What I want to see is f/2.0 or f/1.8 ZOOM lenses. This whole trend of companies thinking that all of a sudden it's acceptable to produce f/3.5-4.5 lenses needs to stop. Sure, high ISO performance has gone through the roof, but that don't make the bokeh of my digital sensor any better...

Sorry I started ranting. I hope Canon is up to something, whatever it is. For that matter I hope Nikon and Sigma and all the other companies have nifty stuff up their sleeves too...

-Matt-

I wouldn't buy one either - If I have time I'll try to post pictures of an Olympus 50mm f1.4 and a 50mm f1.2 and see if you can see the difference. It is very slight to look at.

Unless you plan to shoot at f1.2 most of the time, what would the lens offer that an f1.4 would not? And shooting at f1.2 is very challenging, with a DOF in millimeters I'll bet.

Speaking of which - Andy, where is the link for the adapters for the Zuicko lenses to EOS mount? I know I've read about an adapter some where.

luckyrwe · May 24, 2005

andy wrote:

you heard it hear first, folks.

Okay this is weird, I cannot post relies using Firefox! Anyway....

What is with the 1.2? Why not the 1.0 again, or a .90, or a .75 and set some new records? Are they wimping out and failing to exceed their past successes?

HEY CANON! I WANT THESE (35mm format):

8mm fisheye, 180 degree circular image
20/1.4
35/1.0
50/.05
85/1.0
100/1.2
200/1.4
300/2
400/2
500/3.5

You make the 1200/5.6, you have done so much, but all your pinnacles are BEHIND you! Who do you think you are...Nikon?!

Seymore · May 24, 2005

Lucky... You gonna carry all that glass? May as well get a cushioned wheel barrow!

Why not just write them and ask for a 10-400/1.0 handheld lens? Cover all the bases with one lens.

luckyrwe · May 24, 2005

if ny of you get to make it to Fort Bragg, in the Special Forces Museum they have a 100mm f/1.0 lens that was used in Vietnam. Surely we can top that today!

We need incredible glass like we need moon landings. Because we can!

Matthew Saville · May 24, 2005

luckyrwe wrote:

if ny of you get to make it to Fort Bragg, in the Special Forces Museum they have a 100mm f/1.0 lens that was used in Vietnam. Surely we can top that today!

We need incredible glass like we need moon landings. Because we can!

Amen to that! Actually what I think is most important is to make these lenses AND not make them the size of rocket launchers! Have you seen the new Nikon 200mm f/2.0? It's the size of my transmission! Insane apetures aren't the only path to incredible glass. If I could buy a 300f/2.0 that's say, the size of a 70-200 IS/VR or a 100-400 even, now that would boggle my mind...

Seymore wrote:

Lucky... You gonna carry all that glass? May as well get a cushioned wheel barrow!

Why not just write them and ask for a 10-400/1.0 handheld lens? Cover all the bases with one lens.

Amen to THAT too; I still think we need wide-apeture zooms more than we need wide apeture primes. Technology is such that we'll be short changing ourselves if we believe that f/2.8 will always be the standard "pro" zoom apeture. Seriously. Actually I'm starting to hear word about an f/2.0 zoom or two, was it Olympus that was doing this?

Oh and don't forget the 1.4-4x variable teleconvertor! Actually I've been a long advocate of R&D-ing a "fisheye-400mm" zoom lens, that would go perfect with a D2x's 1.5/2.0x variable cropping function! If we're lucky, Canon will catch on and come out with a FF/1.5x variable crop sensor, then we'll be good to go...

Okay now I'm just geeking out. Must...study...calculus!

-Matt-

Andy · May 24, 2005

zuiko to canon ef adapters (and more)

pathfinder wrote:

Speaking of which - Andy, where is the link for the adapters for the Zuicko lenses to EOS mount? I know I've read about an adapter some where.

here you go, jim!

Andy · May 24, 2005

1/5th the thickness of paper

Matthew Saville wrote:

Amen to that! Actually what I think is most important is to make these lenses AND not make them the size of rocket launchers! Have you seen the new Nikon 200mm f/2.0? It's the size of my transmission! Insane apetures aren't the only path to incredible glass. If I could buy a 300f/2.0 that's say, the size of a 70-200 IS/VR or a 100-400 even, now that would boggle my mind...

Amen to THAT too; I still think we need wide-apeture zooms more than we need wide apeture primes. Technology is such that we'll be short changing ourselves if we believe that f/2.8 will always be the standard "pro" zoom apeture. Seriously. Actually I'm starting to hear word about an f/2.0 zoom or two, was it Olympus that was doing this?

Oh and don't forget the 1.4-4x variable teleconvertor! Actually I've been a long advocate of R&D-ing a "fisheye-400mm" zoom lens, that would go perfect with a D2x's 1.5/2.0x variable cropping function! If we're lucky, Canon will catch on and come out with a FF/1.5x variable crop sensor, then we'll be good to go...

Okay now I'm just geeking out. Must...study...calculus!

-Matt-

as 'gus would say, "have a butcher's look at this" linky dinky

luckyrwe · May 24, 2005

Amen AMEN, I SEE THE LIGHT! Hey at f/1.2 I'd REALLY be able to see the light!!!

Khaos · May 25, 2005

Matthew Saville wrote:

I wouldn't buy it, not if f/1.4 lenses are just 2-3 hundred...

In my opinion, an f/1.2 prime lens is not something they should be wasting their time on if they want to impress people. What I want to see is f/2.0 or f/1.8 ZOOM lenses.

Sorry I started ranting. I hope Canon is up to something, whatever it is. For that matter I hope Nikon and Sigma and all the other companies have nifty stuff up their sleeves too...

-Matt-

1. Take a few pics with the 50 1.4 wide open and then a few with the 35 1.4 L wide open. You'll notice the difference right away. The 50 doesn't get sharp until its smaller than 1.8. I belive the L version will have sharpness at a wider aperture and I'll be buying it.

2. Canon isn't trying to impress. They're a business. Zooms unfortunately are what people want for convenience and cost to cover a wide range. That's fine, but I'm much happier buying excellent primes. I have 2 zooms, and one is only because of Canon's lack of decent true wide angles for a 1.6 crop. That's the 10-22. The other is because it is truly a zoom that operates at prime quality, the 70-200 2.8 IS L.

3. The technology to produce a light, fast, zoom would put the cost through the roof. If it was easily and cheaply done, Canon's competitors would be all over it. To have a 1.8 zoom, will require more glass and wider glass. Even without IS, you're talking a minimum of 5 pounds for the lens, and that's being generous.

I understand your frustration in not getting what you want, but what you want really isn't feasible right now, or affordable.

Matthew Saville · May 26, 2005

Khaos wrote:

1. Take a few pics with the 50 1.4 wide open and then a few with the 35 1.4 L wide open. You'll notice the difference right away. The 50 doesn't get sharp until its smaller than 1.8. I belive the L version will have sharpness at a wider aperture and I'll be buying it.

2. Canon isn't trying to impress. They're a business. Zooms unfortunately are what people want for convenience and cost to cover a wide range. That's fine, but I'm much happier buying excellent primes. I have 2 zooms, and one is only because of Canon's lack of decent true wide angles for a 1.6 crop. That's the 10-22. The other is because it is truly a zoom that operates at prime quality, the 70-200 2.8 IS L.

3. The technology to produce a light, fast, zoom would put the cost through the roof. If it was easily and cheaply done, Canon's competitors would be all over it. To have a 1.8 zoom, will require more glass and wider glass. Even without IS, you're talking a minimum of 5 pounds for the lens, and that's being generous.

I understand your frustration in not getting what you want, but what you want really isn't feasible right now, or affordable.

Well, I understand that they're making lenses the best they can of course, I'm just dissapointed that all we've been seeing lately are f/3.5-4.5 zooms instead of f/2.8 and f/2.0 zooms. And, it seems everyone is downplaying it or accepting it so quickly. f/2.8 and f/2.0 are very possible for a digital sensor specific zoom lens. Heck, when Canon and Nikon came out with their pro, f/2.8 zooms for 35mm, they were leaps and bounds ahead of what people were using at the time. Yeah they're heavy. But everything is no more than a technical, mathematical obstacle which I hope these comapnies are at least pondering...

Don't get me wrong. 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses are #2 and #3 on my "to buy" list. I'm quite over all the hubbub about old primes delivering bad quality images on digital due to light hitting at angles and whatnot...

Cheers, and hey Andy keep us posted, or anyone,
-Matt-

marlof · May 26, 2005

Matthew Saville wrote:

Actually I'm starting to hear word about an f/2.0 zoom or two, was it Olympus that was doing this?

Yes, Olympus is going that route. See the announcement over at DPReview.

luckyrwe · May 26, 2005

They did it then and they can do it now!
A 1000/6.3 lens:
http://www.cameraquest.com/100063f.htm

A nice 500/5
http://www.cameraquest.com/nrf500.htm

10 frames per second, from almost 30 years ago!
http://www.cameraquest.com/nf2high.htm

300/2 from almost 25 years ago!
http://www.cameraquest.com/nf3002.htm

Andy · May 26, 2005

sherpa required!

luckyrwe wrote:

300/2 from almost 25 years ago!
http://www.cameraquest.com/nf3002.htm

...the compact Nikkor 300/2 ED-IF AIS weighs in at a petite 16 lbs....

and each lens comes with it's own sherpa!

Seymore · May 27, 2005

andy wrote:

and each lens comes with it's own sherpa!

Sound to me like Andy's volunteering.

robscomputer · May 27, 2005

Wow, that's 300/2 is huge!

This might be a silly question but is there a physical limitation to how fast a lens can be? I kinda remember a company, maybe Minolta had a 50mm f/.9 lens but never actually saw it. I could be mistaken too.

The fastest lens I've seen is the Canon 50mm f/1.0, has there been anything faster?

Rob

Andy · May 27, 2005

Seymore wrote:

Sound to me like Andy's volunteering.

:nono that's sid!

Matthew Saville · May 27, 2005

Wow this Canon thread was so quickly hijacked by Nikon glass.

Nikon may have a 300 f/2.0 but Canon's got the 200mm f/1.8! And I bet it doesn't cost $29,000 either!

I'm not sure about the physical limitation for the apeture of a lens. Obviosly, you can't just have an f/0.0 lens, can you? DOF would be down to microns, I bet... I think that before f -> 0, to borrow some calculus terminology, we'll see a change in the whole system altogether, meaning lenses may become completely re-designed. Not sure how, but I'm pretty sure that in our lifetime we'll see some incredible feats as far as image recording goes.

Three cheers for our Sherpas! Where's that picture of "Mr. Nikon" and his 1200mm lens that looks like a bazooka?

-Matt-

Andy · May 27, 2005

here you go, matthew

Matthew Saville wrote:

Three cheers for our Sherpas! Where's that picture of "Mr. Nikon" and his 1200mm lens that looks like a bazooka?

-Matt-

mercphoto · May 27, 2005

Matthew Saville wrote:

I'm not sure about the physical limitation for the apeture of a lens. Obviosly, you can't just have an f/0.0 lens, can you?

No, you can't.

Physical limitations, only from a practical standpoint. Mathematical limitations? Yes, most certainly. Have you ever noticed that aperatures are actually expressed not as a single number, but as a ration?

Such as: f/4, or 1:1.4.

So, an f/0.0 lens is mathematically impossible. You cannot have zero in the denominator of a fraction. The best you could do is have a very tiny, yet still non-zero and positive number down there. Such as 0.1. Or 0.0000001. And as you do that, the front element of the lens rapidly approaches infinity in diameter.

But you can never truly get f/0.

Andy · May 27, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

No, you can't.

Physical limitations, only from a practical standpoint. Mathematical limitations? Yes, most certainly. Have you ever noticed that aperatures are actually expressed not as a single number, but as a ration?

Such as: f/4, or 1:1.4.

So, an f/0.0 lens is mathematically impossible. You cannot have zero in the denominator of a fraction. The best you could do is have a very tiny, yet still non-zero and positive number down there. Such as 0.1. Or 0.0000001. And as you do that, the front element of the lens rapidly approaches infinity in diameter.

But you can never truly get f/0.

here we were, having fun, and then bill has to come along and ruin it with math and physics

mercphoto · May 27, 2005

andy wrote:

here we were, having fun, and then bill has to come along and ruin it with math and physics

Hey, we can now start an "its Bill's fault" thread!

pathfinder · May 27, 2005

mercphoto wrote:

No, you can't.

Physical limitations, only from a practical standpoint. Mathematical limitations? Yes, most certainly. Have you ever noticed that aperatures are actually expressed not as a single number, but as a ration?

Such as: f/4, or 1:1.4.

So, an f/0.0 lens is mathematically impossible. You cannot have zero in the denominator of a fraction. The best you could do is have a very tiny, yet still non-zero and positive number down there. Such as 0.1. Or 0.0000001. And as you do that, the front element of the lens rapidly approaches infinity in diameter.

But you can never truly get f/0.

But it should be possible to get an f0.5 though - not too far out mathmatically. I wonder if it is possible optically though. 100 mm focal length, 200mm diameter front element. That ought to create envy and lens lust, if anything will.

rumor: canon 50 f/1.2L

Comments