Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras $1299.00 ($1273 w/2% credit) fs @ amazon

Quote from sniperruff : Yes some of his lens "reviews" are just specs, but that's perfectly fine since I believe the best way to check out a lens is to wait for an SD, get it at a discount, shoot the crap out of it, then flip it for a profit It makes a huge difference when you walk around all day. I walked around Quebec City the entire day (and Montreal for a few days straight) a few months back and my shoulders are sore towards the end of the day carrying just an XSI, 28-105mm f3.5-4.5, and a 50mm f1.8. Imagine if you're a journalist and you'd also haul around a flash, laptop, chargers, etc. then every ounce counts. I mentioned above that some of his reviews are just specs, but he also has some useful reviews of lenses (which others simply brush off as crap), like this 28-200mm review: http://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-200mm.htm I find that he makes some good points, while also disagree with some others. One shouldn't take everything that's told as absolute truth anyway (especially what you read on photo forums!). In a nutshell, the review says: 1. It has a large aperture with 8 blades, resulting in round bokeh. (that's common sense) 2. The f1.4, which also has an aperture with 8 blades, is also pretty good (info straight from Canon) 3. Edges are not as sharp as the center and CA appears at extremely high aperture (naturally for most lenses) 4. Fast focusing (true to all lenses with ring USM) and nice build quality (duh, it weighs more than 4x 50mm f1.8 II) Personally I didn't learn anything new from the review. Have you ever seen a $1500 lens that's inferior in every category than a $400 lens or a $100 lens? Someone's sarcasm meter is broken. And why is 50mm a portrait lens? You can use it to shoot mountains, and surely for sports, or whatever you like if you're at the right focal length.

it's called portrait lens - cause the angle of 50mm is the closest to human eye's angle

Quote from airshaq20 : Your opinion about photography is just down the drain. Whoever quotes that guy knows nothing. Obviously, you never had a L lens before. 50mm is portrait lens, not for astrophotography and certainly not for sports. Do me a favor and educate yourself about photography and stop quoting me if you never owned any good lens.

If you knew anything about the lens, he makes the astro reference because this L is very sharp at infinity (hey, gotta find something to make up for the $1000 price difference)

The point is, this is a lens without a point. Who needs waterproofing for a portrait lens? Ultra fast focus? 1.2?

I've owned good lenses, but I draw the line at overpriced.

Quote from Falqon : It's fine if you want to waste money, but to pretend other people should is moronic. Shooting at 1.2 is universally regarded as soft, pro's don't need it. Here is an actual opinion from someone who shoots for a living of the non L "The $1,400 50mm f/1.2 L doesn't do anything much differently, is much bigger and heavier, and doesn't focus as consistently. The 50mm f/1.2 is for astronomers, not action shooters." http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/...mm-f14.htm

except he's not someone who shoots for a living, he writes reviews for a living -- http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm
curious, but do you like the photos he shoots and posts throughout his website? -- http://www.kenrockwell.com/gallery.htm

Quote from mnagali : except he's not someone who shoots for a living, he writes reviews for a living -- http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm curious, but do you like the photos he shoots and posts throughout his website? -- http://www.kenrockwell.com/gallery.htm

I thihk he does other things for a living other than that too. I think "pro" is a tough term in photography. I know "pro's" in that it is there main source of income, and I know some hobbiest that blow them out of the water.

That being said, he's made money and won awards with photographs, and has a website that people read; which make him about 1000 times more reputable than the average SD post. (myself included which is why I back up what I say with his opinion)

Some of his photo's are great, he is great with light and simplicity. His rants on forum photographers are priceless and spot on. I don't agree with everything he writes by any means. I think his review of the new mirrorless canon is nuts, as is his love of the iPhone, but all in all he is a great counter to the tons of "spend your way to great photos" websites about photography, and inevitable forum posts with constant buying spree rationalization.

Quote from sniperruff : In a nutshell, the review says: 1. It has a large aperture with 8 blades, resulting in round bokeh. (that's common sense) 2. The f1.4, which also has an aperture with 8 blades, is also pretty good (info straight from Canon) 3. Edges are not as sharp as the center and CA appears at extremely high aperture (naturally for most lenses) 4. Fast focusing (true to all lenses with ring USM) and nice build quality (duh, it weighs more than 4x 50mm f1.8 II) Personally I didn't learn anything new from the review. Have you ever seen a $1500 lens that's inferior in every category than a $400 lens or a $100 lens?

Eh? That's not what the summary of the review says. You want me to re-post the summary?

You said - "The f1.4, which also has an aperture with 8 blades, is also pretty good"
Reviewer said - "Technically the resolution results are very good to excellent but not really superior to its cheaper cousin"
I read that as on resolution, you wasted money by buying the f1.2.

You said - "Edges are not as sharp as the center and CA appears at extremely high aperture (naturally for most lenses)"
Reviewer said - "The center performance is generally stellar but the borders can´t quite follow although they remain easily in very good territory beyond f/1.2. " AND "The vignetting is quite high at maximum aperture and CAs are unusually pronounced for a fix-focal. "
Difference - Nothing natural about it. Read other lens review. You will find plenty that are sharp corner to corner. Also not natural when the reviewer calls out CA being unusually high for a FF.

You said - "Fast focusing (true to all lenses with ring USM) and nice build quality (duh, it weighs more than 4x 50mm f1.8 II)"
Reviewer said - "The build quality of the lens is exceptional and the AF speed is very fast for such a lens."
Difference - Keywords "such a lens". Why? Because read the reviews of the 85mm f1.2. It is known to be slow on focusing speed despite the Ring USM.

You said - "It has a large aperture with 8 blades, resulting in round bokeh. (that's common sense)"
Reviewer said - "At large apertures the lens produces the beautiful, buttery bokeh which can be expected from such a lens."
Do I really need to point out the difference?

And, if you need to read a review of a 28-200mm before making a decision on it, then I guess you haven't played with enough lens to start with.

Quote from sniperruff : It makes a huge difference when you walk around all day. I walked around Quebec City the entire day (and Montreal for a few days straight) a few months back and my shoulders are sore towards the end of the day carrying just an XSI, 28-105mm f3.5-4.5, and a 50mm f1.8. Imagine if you're a journalist and you'd also haul around a flash, laptop, chargers, etc. then every ounce counts.

Not being sarcastic or anything, but if those three pieces of equipment make your back sore, maybe look at a lighter system like m43 or Sony NEX. No worthwhile glass or equipment in the APS-C or FF systems is going to get lighter. Easy rule of thumb is, good quality comes with good glass and good glass is heavy - for all sorts of equipment, from camera lens to telescopes.

I have a m43 camera and for certain types of shooting, it does 80% of what my FF dSLR would do. And, *that* I consider to be a good trade-off between weight and performance.

http://www.canonrumors.com/review...-50-f1-2l/

This is a moderately inciteful review.