8 out of 10 points and recommendedGreat Build Quality. Decent Image Quality.Exponentially Overpriced - Most overpriced L-lens on the market
After purchasing what I thought was going to be one of the best primes from Canon, I was very disappointed. My 2.8 and 4.0 L zooms performed better and more consistently than this lens.reviewed September 16th, 2007 (purchased for $1,359)
The main issue I experienced was OOF pictures. After shooting an indoor family event, I was astounded that I had as low a keeper rate of 1 out of 5-6 shots if I was lucky.
The lens is known to 'backfocus' and Canon apparently denies it. It occurs on short-distance-to-subject exposures. But I noticed mis-focusing even at 15' subject distances.
Also, apparently this lens does not use the rear-element focusing as the 35mm 1.4L, instead focusing a larger element toward the front of the lens, which causes focusing across the lens' full distance range to be very slow. Slower than any of my non-L lenses.
The 50mm f/1.4 is a FAR better value. Sure, the lens isn't perfect and has its own issues, although its sharpness performance (for me at least) is far better than this site's review makes it out to be, but the cost/value benefit is far more in-line.
I'd rather have the 35 1.4L and the 85 1.2L MkII any day. If you need the 50mm focal length, pick up the 1.4 ....
FYI: I sent the lens back to where it came from.
10 out of 10 points and recommendedExcellent Image Quality. Great Value.Build Quality Slightly on Cheap Side.
This is a GREAT value for a lens.reviewed September 16th, 2007 (purchased for $309)
I have purchased, used and eventually returned the 50mm f/1.2L from Canon after very disappointing results.
This lens puts out great results. I don't see softness issues on my 1.6x body (20D).
I concur with others in this group that SLR Gear should grab a hold of another copy and retest. Just as they should obtain another copy of the 50mm 1.2L - what a bad experience that was.
My 2 cents...