New 5d Mark 3 on the way

[Captdanno]

Went from Rebel to 5d M3, big jump I know.. Camera coming today any firmware advice? I guess I need to see what version I have on camera first.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:
Was there something wrong with the bokeh in my posted sample?
It broke all the rules you have read. And it is 2 1/2 stops off your favorite.
People should start shooting and forget the numbers. Use what works.

---

It might be amusing to have people send in pictures with no Exif data and let the purists try to guess which ones were taken with a zoom lens and which ones with a prime. 

[mitch236]

You guys misinterpreted my response.  I was merely pointing out that comparing a zoom (say a 70-200 f/2.8) to a prime, the main advantage is a larger aperture (say 85 f/1.2).  I wasn't making any claims about whether that's important to anyone in particular.  But like anything, it's only important to the end user if he or she finds it useful.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@mitch236 wrote:

You guys misinterpreted my response.  I was merely pointing out that comparing a zoom (say a 70-200 f/2.8) to a prime, the main advantage is a larger aperture (say 85 f/1.2).  I wasn't making any claims about whether that's important to anyone in particular.  But like anything, it's only important to the end user if he or she finds it useful.

---

I've never used an f/1.2 lens, but I do remember when the first 50mm f/1.2 and f/1.1 lenses came out. (Canon had one and Nikon had the other; I don't recall which was which.) Reviewers judged both lenses difficult to handle, on account of their ridiculously low DOF. I sure don't remember anyone proposing to use either one of them as a portrait lens. Their value, if any, was for low light situations in an era when effective film speeds topped out at around 400. Apparently times have changed a lot.

[ebiggs1]

"It might be amusing to have people send in pictures with no Exif data and let the purists try to guess which ones were taken with a zoom lens and which ones with a prime."

It certainly would.    Especially by some of the keyboard photographers.

[cale_kat]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@mitch236 wrote:

You guys misinterpreted my response.  I was merely pointing out that comparing a zoom (say a 70-200 f/2.8) to a prime, the main advantage is a larger aperture (say 85 f/1.2).  I wasn't making any claims about whether that's important to anyone in particular.  But like anything, it's only important to the end user if he or she finds it useful.

---

I've never used an f/1.2 lens, but I do remember when the first 50mm f/1.2 and f/1.1 lenses came out. (Canon had one and Nikon had the other; I don't recall which was which.) Reviewers judged both lenses difficult to handle, on account of their ridiculously low DOF. I sure don't remember anyone proposing to use either one of them as a portrait lens. Their value, if any, was for low light situations in an era when effective film speeds topped out at around 400. Apparently times have changed a lot.

---

So basically, you don't know what you're talking about....

Just saying... You haven't owned one. You're relying on the opinions of others. And you have no appreciation of fast glass.

[ebiggs1]

Bob from Boston,

You need to realize, as most don't, a f1.2 is only 1/2 stop faster than the more common f1.4.  It is not all that "fast".

The EF 50mm f1.2 does have extremely shallow DOF when used at f1.2.  One must take that into consideration as you said.

If you don't have at least 1 stop difference, you aren't talking much of a gain.

[ebiggs1]

BTW, I sold my 50mm f1.2 but lately I have been toying with buying another one. (They aren't cheap!)  It's just the fact it isn't a friendly lens anymore.

I still have a 50mm f1.4 in both Canon and Sigma but don't use either very often.

Of course it may be do to the fact I use only 1 series cameras now.

[cale_kat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Bob from Boston,

You need to realize, as most don't, a f1.2 is only 1/2 stop faster than the more common f1.4.  It is not all that "fast".

The EF 50mm f1.2 does have extremely shallow DOF when used at f1.2.  One must take that into consideration as you said.

If you don't have at least 1 stop difference, you aren't talking much of a gain.

---

So basically, you're saying that the 50mm F/1.2L is just like the 50mm F/1.4? Wow, you've been out of the loop.

[cale_kat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"It might be amusing to have people send in pictures with no Exif data and let the purists try to guess which ones were taken with a zoom lens and which ones with a prime."

It certainly would.    Especially by some of the keyboard photographers.

---

Ohhh., I want to know.. am I a keyboard photographer? Enquiring minds want to know. 🙂

[RobertTheFat]

---

@cale_kat wrote:

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@mitch236 wrote:

You guys misinterpreted my response.  I was merely pointing out that comparing a zoom (say a 70-200 f/2.8) to a prime, the main advantage is a larger aperture (say 85 f/1.2).  I wasn't making any claims about whether that's important to anyone in particular.  But like anything, it's only important to the end user if he or she finds it useful.

---

I've never used an f/1.2 lens, but I do remember when the first 50mm f/1.2 and f/1.1 lenses came out. (Canon had one and Nikon had the other; I don't recall which was which.) Reviewers judged both lenses difficult to handle, on account of their ridiculously low DOF. I sure don't remember anyone proposing to use either one of them as a portrait lens. Their value, if any, was for low light situations in an era when effective film speeds topped out at around 400. Apparently times have changed a lot.

---

So basically, you don't know what you're talking about....

I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion, given that I ventured no independent opinion on any subject. And since I'm old enough to remember the time frame on which my recollections were based, you might at least allow for the possibility that they're accurate.

Just saying... You haven't owned one. You're relying on the opinions of others. And you have no appreciation of fast glass.

And exactly how do you know what I think of fast glass? I said nothing against it, except for the universally accepted observation that fast lenses have low DOF. As it happens, I probably have less regard for fast glass than I did when I was shooting Tri-X on my Nikons at f/1.4, now that I can crank my 5D3 up to ISO 2000 and still get good results at f/4.

---