C100: C100 + Canon 50mm f/1.2 L

sony3000

sony3000

Active member
Want to share with you very simple and effective setup that I use 90% of the time. Canon C100 + Canon 50mm f/1.2 L + Shoulder Rig. The lens I use from f/2.0-f/2.8, C100 with WDR and simple color grading, shoulder rig gives me freedom and much more time for thinking and creativity. I have noticed that when I use a slider and steadycam I have less time to think and I am more like a robot. Most of the time minimalistic setup will give me much better results. At that wedding I used only these 3 things. I would like to hear what is your opinion.
Featured.jpg
 
I have the older Canon 50/1.2 L, and was horrified at the images at 1.2! LOL - way too soft, strange artifacts and so on. But yes, it improves rapidly as you close down.

But therein lies the rub: At f2, what's the difference between the 1.2 and, say, the Sigma 1.4? I tried the Canon 1.4 and preferred the Sigma to f2.8 (and after that, they're pretty identical, then the Canon takes over). The point of fast lenses is to use them as wide open as you dare. So, why use my 50/1.2 at f2-f2.8 when the Sigma does as good a job?

For photography, different story perhaps - easier focusing? Better AF? My Sigma's a dog with AF. Hopefully the new Canon 50/1.2 is significantly better when wide open. Is it worth the difference for the extra half stop? The 50/1.2L seems to have a very 'self selecting' market - if you REALLY need it, you get one.

But then, Dual Pixel AF or no, 50mm at f1.2 is a frighteningly shallow DoF to work at. :-)
 
I find it amusing how while some people say f/1.2 on S35 is too shallow, others say shooting on FF is an advantage.

Also, that comment sounded really snarky. Not intended!
 
It depends, I guess, on whether one's being paid to deliver video that's in focus. When you are hired to deliver a nice interview and the nose is nice and sharp, or the ears are absolutely nailed, the eyes are soft, and no matter how sexy shallow depth of field is, you're paid to deliver results.

Where full frame comes in is for depth of field effects in wide angle shots. You're still shooting f2-f2.8 at, say, 28mm - but encompassing a whole lot more in the scene. When I saw shallow DoF on a wide shot, I was pretty much sold on the concept. Just a shame about the other disadvantages. LOL
 
I would have to agree with Matt, I've never been very impressed with this lens sharpness wise. I think it's a lot of money to lay down for an F1.2 that isn't that useable wide open, there's better lenses at far less money.
 
I have the 1.2 and it's just ok, I also have the 55mm older fl 1.2 that I love, of course it's usually on a g6 but I love it, don't ask me why, but it flares horizontal like an anamorphic ? maybe due to cleaning marks who knows. Your video was nice though, I imagine the client was pleased.
 
I like the 50 1.2L. I have never noticed it not being sharp, especially for video. Of course, I tend to throw filters on lenses to soften up the footage even more. What I really like about the lens is the relatively long focus throw and the nice, solid feel. It's very easy to hand hold with built in grooves. The Canon 50 1.4 feels like junk and has a massive amount of play in the focus ring. I've never used the older Sigma and the newer Sigma might be brilliant, but I their reported 95 degree focus throw concerns me.
 
I'm tossing up between the 50L and Sigma 50 Art.

I like the bokeh of the 50L much better but it seems as though it can have quite a lot of CA wide open, similar to my 85L. Whilst it's not an issue for photos, it is an issue with video. It seems the Sigma 50 Art doesn't have that problem.

It also seems like I'd have to employ a diffusion filter of some sort on the Sigma 50 as it's just too sharp!
 
The whole point of my post is not about if the Canon 50mm L is a good for the buck lens, it was about bringing the minimum amount of gear to photoshoot may give you more freedom in creativity :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top