As a result of the discussion a few weeks ago comparing Canon's 50mm lenses-- specifically, the f/1.8, f/1.4 and the very pricey f/1.2, I decided to take the fancy pants 1.2 out for a spin. I was headed up to the Catskills this weekend to shoot a wedding, so it seemed like the right time.
And boy, was I ever not disappointed. We stopped at a diner along the way, and I thought I'd never get out of there. Table flowers, dented salt and pepper shakers, cups of coffee-- even the tattered window curtain had this new creamy depth of field. It was sort of addictive, I have to say.
Along with the 50mm f1.2, I also brought along the 70-200mm f/2.8 and the 24-70 f/2.8, but I really didn't want to take that 50mm off; I pretty much shot the whole wedding with it. It was like Butter, my friends. Definitely going on the wishlist. Luckily my friends at Fotocare can help me out in a pinch.
Here are some pictures from the diner:
The devil is in the details with the 1.2. I spent a lot of time communing with the flowers at the wedding.
And with the nice ties.
I did remember to get some wider shots once in a while; the 1.2 was good at that, too.
At the end of the night, I even used it for landscape shots of the tent. I was really surprised what a nice effect I got. Love the low-light capability.
My synopsis: pure, buttery love. worth the dough, if you have it. If not, rent! It's like a weekend with miracle fruit for your eyes.
Stumble Upon
Did anybody asked you "why are your images so blurry" yet? :)
If you like that you should really try the 85mm f1.2. It is an amazing lens for portraits. I shot the first version in Rwanda and have lusted after one ever since.
mmmmmm......creamy depth of field.
Did you have your exposure compensation on? You're about a stop to two stops under on every image...
PP
I wouldn't expect to see that much vignetting in the corners- were you surprised by that?
Yea, they look underexposed to me too. On the subject of f/1.2 aperture....
Just because you can does not mean you should... :)