Canon 50mm F1

[Dolby]

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/classifieds/showproduct.php?product=21988&title=conon-50mm-f1&cat=4

Canon 50mm F1 for R25,000.00 if anyone is interested

Considerong the 50mm F1.8 is R1,000.00 and the F1.4 is R4,000.00 - are these really worth the premium?
Are they that much more expensive to make over the F1.4?

I don't doubt his price after researching ... but I just think 'wow' at F1 and the price!

 

[hilton]

Well it's an entire stop faster. If you consider the cost of say the Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS (R11k) compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 L II IS (23k) then maybe it does (did) cost that much more.

I don't know if the F1 was an L lens though.

 

[koffiejunkie]

I'd suggest you read a few reviews before splashing. I don't see the 1/2 stop over the 50mm f/1.2 L getting you any shots that you would otherwise have missed. You're buying little other than bragging rights.

 

[hilton]

I don't see the 1/3 stop over the 50mm f/1.2 L getting you any shots that you would otherwise have missed.

1/2 stop you meant hey?

 

[bwana]

1/2 stop you meant hey?

depends on what scale you use, though 2/3rds would have been more accurate.

 

[hilton]

Yeah but it's easier to remember linear wise rather than working out fractions of a squared number.

Anyway, there are many more lenses that I would buy before considering the f/1.

 

[koffiejunkie]

1/2 stop you meant hey?

typo, sorry - fixed.

Anyway, there are many more lenses that I would buy before considering the f/1.

Same here. I have actually seen it for sale in a shop - a like new sample too. Too much money for too little gain.

 

[bwana]

Can't see it in my kit bag - the 1.4 is more than enough for my needs.

 

[Logo]

I agree with koffiejunkie what you are paying for here is bragging rights and nothing more. Just do a search on google and you will also see that this lens was not that well received actually. A lot of users reported that the lens was fairly soft at all f/stops.

Even the "king" of lens makers Leica made a 50mm f1 lens, think it was called the noctilux or something like that. They had the same problem the only people who bought it was the people who bought it for bragging rights. That lens was also soft at the edges and very soft wide open with a very strong vignette wide open and only sharp in the middle.

 

[Dolby]

Oh geez - I could never buy a R25k lens

I just wasn't aware that it was so expensive for a faster lens. I mean f1 is 7x the cost of a f1.4 - so just wondering how difficult it is to make

 

[hilton]

Dolby, how's your 70-200 doing?

Do you find it too big to carry around all the time or is it permanently attached to your neck?

 

[koffiejunkie]

Even the "king" of lens makers Leica made a 50mm f1 lens, think it was called the noctilux or something like that. They had the same problem the only people who bought it was the people who bought it for bragging rights.

I tend to think buying Leica at all is mostly for the bragging rights. But that's just me

Leica has a f/0.95, btw. See review (vide) by them DigitalRev.

I just wasn't aware that it was so expensive for a faster lens. I mean f1 is 7x the cost of a f1.4 - so just wondering how difficult it is to make

It's actually not too bad for the 50mm f/1.0. They often go for £3000-4000 here.

 

[bwana]

Oh geez - I could never buy a R25k lens

I just wasn't aware that it was so expensive for a faster lens. I mean f1 is 7x the cost of a f1.4 - so just wondering how difficult it is to make

The 70-200 you bought isn't far off.

 

[EchoZA]

Oh geez - I could never buy a R25k lens

I could... but I doubt I would be alive to brag once the missus found out how much I had spent on a lens

 

[Dolby]

Dolby, how's your 70-200 doing?

Do you find it too big to carry around all the time or is it permanently attached to your neck?

I only have the 3 lenses - but I love band photography and the 70-200 is used about 95% of the time. It rarely comes off the camera and I love it

The 70-200 you bought isn't far off.

True - but I knew I'd need and use it often ... it's my 'main' lens. I couldn't justify that amount on - for example - a portrait lens

 

[Logo]

I tend to think buying Leica at all is mostly for the bragging rights. But that's just me

Leica has a f/0.95, btw. See review (vide) by them DigitalRev.



It's actually not too bad for the 50mm f/1.0. They often go for £3000-4000 here.

Yeah I agree most Leica's are for bragging rights only. There are a few that I won't mind owning but not at the prices some people expect for them. The nice thing about some of the new digital Leicas like the M9, is that they are full frame but again like with the M9 you can't use all M mount lenses with them. Certain lenses won't focus to infinity, some can't focus close, some will damage the camera when used in a way. Too much money for too little camera in return. The thing that a lot of people don't get about Leica though is that the camera bodies weren't that awesome it is the lenses. Now see people asking upwards of R 6000 for something like the Leica IIIc body only.

To get back on track with this thread though, what I don't understand is why someone would buy this lens. It got bad reviews and it has been reduced to the museum at Canon. If you want a portrait lens (I see this 50mm as a portrait lens, can't see much else use for it) I think the 85mm F1.2 USM from Canon is a much better deal. You can get it at Amazon for about half the price of this one here.