Canon 50/1.2 LTM lens photos?

Krosya

Krosya

Konicaze
Local time
7:39 AM
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
3,550
Hi All,
I thought there was a thread with Canon 50/1.2 screw mount lens photos. Yet I can't find it. Can anyone point me to it and/or post some shots taken with this lens as well as thier opinions on it. Keith, I know you got on from Dante ;) - what do you think of it? Plus I think Roland and Memphis have this lens too. What do you think of it? Recommend or stay away from it? and why?
 
Krosya said:
Hi All,
I thought there was a thread with Canon 50/1.2 screw mount lens photos. Yet I can't find it. Can anyone point me to it and/or post some shots taken with this lens as well as thier opinions on it. Keith, I know you got on from Dante ;) - what do you think of it? Plus I think Roland and Memphis have this lens too. What do you think of it? Recommend or stay away from it? and why?
Click to expand...
I really wouldn't bother if I were you. I have one by accident -- I bought it on a Canon 7 and sold the camera for nearly as much as I paid for the pair -- and even after a professional cleaning by Balham Optical, it's marginal: flary, soft at wide apertures, and bulky.

It's vastly better than it was before Balham got at it, and better than the previous one I had -- but if I were to spend actual money on a fast lens I'd buy almost anything else. Currently in fast 5cm lenses I have a Noctilux (on loan), the Canon, and f/1.5 Sonnar and Nokton (both current -- not originals). I'd back the Noctilux if you want maximum speed and money is no option; Sonnar for fun, a bargain price and a wonderful, unique look.

Tomorrow I'll try to get around to posting some typical shots, but right now, I'm off to bed.

Incidentally my opinion was shared by the late Colin Glanfield, who had just about everything available in Leica (and related) fit. The only significantly worse lens from a major manufacturer, in his view, was the 50/0.95.

Cheers,

R.
 
There are some (including some of mine) photos in the M mount forum
(see my sig). I sold my lens a few weeks ago to Andy, not because I don't
like it, but because I have other 50 portrait lenses that I like better.

For example, I always thought that the 50/1.2 would render very similarly
to the Nikkor 50/1.4. The C-Sonnar is another lens I would pick instead
of the 50/1.2. Etc.

Gabriel has used the lens quite a bit.

Best,

Roland.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I really wouldn't bother if I were you. I have one by accident -- I bought it on a Canon 7 and sold the camera for nearly as much as I paid for the pair -- and even after a professional cleaning by Balham Optical, it's marginal: flary, soft at wide apertures, and bulky.
Click to expand...

Wow - that couldn't be further from my impressions and use. Mine is fairly resistant to flare - tho a hood helps in daylight - and surprisingly sharp wide open. Bulky maybe, but it's short at least, and it *is* a 1.2 - so bulky is expected. Maybe my "available darkness" usages for this lens don't test it's optical performance, or maybe I just got a good copy - but it does what I need it to, and very well.

Ah well - to each their own.

As for Colin - I only knew him as a collector, never a shooter. But I'm hoping to be corrected. This is not a dig against Colin, just that I'm unfamiliar with his work other than his credits in the collecting books.
 
Last edited:
I think the lenses are quite different from sample to sample.

My 2nd one was very flare resistant at medium distances and outside.
But for portraits in available light, there was the type of veiling flare
that was described by Dante and that I also experience with the Nikkor 50/1.4
wide open.

Roland.
 
rogue_designer said:
As for Colin - I only knew him as a collector, never a shooter. But I'm hoping to be corrected.
Click to expand...
Colin ran the Plough Studios, where I started my professional photographic career as an assistant in the 70s. He was an excellent photographer, both commercially (advertising, and illustrating Paul-Henry's books) and for fun: he always said that if he couldn't take his camera, he wouldn't go on holiday.

An AWFUL lot depends on how you use your Canon f/1.2. It's vastly better for B+W than for colour, and for high-contrast subjects, without light sources in shot, it can be very good, because the flare fills the shadows. It's also surprisingly good with test targets. Then I shot quite a lot with mine on the M8 for the '24 lenses' article that appeared in Shutterbug a few months ago, and was amazed at how bad it is next to the Sonnar, Nokton and Noctilux.

For some subjects, it does give a very good, romantic image; but in daylight, at wide apertures (feasible with 1/8000 in an M8) it's downright Gothick. I don't think it's sample-to-sample variation: I think it's just an overstretched design. What others are you comparing it with? I've also had f/1.2 and f/1.4 Nikkors for reflexes, and they're better than the Canon f/1.2 too.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger Hicks said:
What others are you comparing it with? I've also had f/1.2 and f/1.4 Nikkors for reflexes, and they're better than the Canon f/1.2 too.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the more thorough breakdown.

I'm comparing with shots made from the Canon FD 50/1.2 and the L version of the same, as well as the Canon, and Nikon 1.4 LTM lenses. I've not use the Nikon 1.4 F-mounts nor any of the ultra fast Leicas (only having LTM bodies).

It certainly renders differently than the others, and I'll agree the veiling flare does fill in the shadows nicely, but not so much that I'd class it as "flary"

To my eye, It's better than the FD 1.2 (sharper, less flare prone), And while less sharp, its OOF areas are more interesting than the Nikon and Canon 1.4, and on a par with the FD L glass.

Perhaps my eye is just in harmony with the way it draws. *shrug*

I've never tried it in color in daylight (only available dark) - but I do like it with PanF 50, or APX 25 (when I still had some). Darn that 1/1000 shutter limit. ;)
 
Last edited:
No sample images from mine yet as I haven't really encountered the type of environment I specifically bought it for. It's currently mounted on my M2 and has been travelling with me everywhere but I can't seem to keep my hands off my Hexar RF at the moment!:p

One thing I have noticed that could be a broblem for some people is the incredibly long focus throw ... you feel like you're winding it up. I noticed this straight away on my 1.4 and I overcame it by starting to rotate the focus ring as soon as I see the shot I'm after ... in other words as the camera is on it's way to my eye I am already moving the focus ring roughly to the point where I know it will need to be. If you were in a hurry to get a close up pic and bought the camera to your eye with the lens set on infinity ... to be honest by the time you have eventually focused the opportunity may have gone ... it's that tedious! :p

Looks great though and I love the genuine hood. :D

IMG_2640jpgweb-1.jpg
 
Roger Hicks said:
it's marginal: flary, soft at wide apertures, and bulky.
Click to expand...

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of Canon 50/1.2's seem to have left the factory out-of-adjustment, meaning that the flange-back distance (or whatever the camera techs call it) is off. If you get one that is spot-on, the results are surprisingly good. Attached is a pic taken a few years back of my grandson. Leica MP with Canon 50/1.2 taken at F1.6. Delta 100 in Rodinal.

Jim B.
 

Attachments

  • Max on Steps.jpg
    Max on Steps.jpg
    164.6 KB · Views: 0
82036-R1-13-12A-1.jpg



Canon 50mm/1.2@ 1.2.


I took this lens as my main lens in a tip to Germany. This photo was inside a brewery.


This is a second shot;

82036-R1-11-10A.jpg
 
Roger is probably a harsher critic than most here and obviously has a wealth of experience but I don't see anything that makes me query my choice!

Noctilux ~ $5000.00 _____________ Canon ~ $300.00

I know there's things the Noctilux will do that the Canon won't ... but $4700.00 difference? :)
 
I am starting to like my 50/1.2 Canon. I just got a very clean one from Adorama. Here's two at a badly-lit recital given by an amazing 92-year old pianist.

http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/L1002312HokansonChord.htm
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/L1002314HokansonBow.htm

One in the car at night, just for fun. Yes, it flares, so use it!
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/currentpics/L1002300KatyaNiteDrive.htm

And a couple of test shots at home:
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/album170/L1002212KatyaKitchen50-1_2-w.jpg.html
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/pklein/album170/L1002263KatyaRead50-1_2-w.jpg.html

Not too bad! And it weighs about half of what the 50/0.95 Canon or the Noctilux weighs. Sure, I'd like an f/1 lens, but given the conversion and cost issues, I think this will hold me for a while.

These were taken with an M8, and using a 55mm B&W IR cut filter and a generic screw-in 55mm metal lens hood. I find that even in B&W, M8 pictures are sharper without the slightly out-of-focus IR component. But, you often get a half-stop more light in tungsten lighting if you take of the IR filter. which might reduce camera shake at 1/30 or slower.

Roger, you are quite right that it is an overstretched design--I think it's just the 50/1.4's Planar formula writ larger. And the f/0.95 is much the same writ larger still.

The other thing to watch out for is curvature of field. As you move away from the center of the image, the zone of focus moves forward. And I wouldn't want to use it in bright sunlight or for distant landscapes.

Still, for that extra half-stop, it's probably worth it when you need it. You are quite right that a 50/1.5 Nokton, for example, would give a technically better picture, all other things being equal. But if you're at a very slow shutter speed with f/1.4 or f/1.5, less camera shake may have the advantage over a sharper image.

--Peter, who, if he took truth serum, would probably admit he lusts for the Noctilux, but in the name of fiscal responsibility, is settling for the Canon for now.
 
Last edited:
Oops, that's big.. here is a smaller version (but it does not show the detail that I wanted to point out, visible in the huge version above):

204889304-L-1.jpg


Edit, Andy, I deleted the huge photo since you reposted it in a smaller size. Rover
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rogue_designer said:
Perhaps my eye is just in harmony with the way it draws. *shrug*

I've never tried it in color in daylight (only available dark) - but I do like it with PanF 50, or APX 25 (when I still had some). Darn that 1/1000 shutter limit. ;)
Click to expand...
Thanks for your more thorough analysis too. All your points are well taken, especially the one about being 'in harmony' -- I'm sure you're right, and as many of the shots posted here show, it can be an excellent lens for many kinds of shot. I keep mine because until recently it was worth so little that for the few times a decade I want to use it, it's worth having. What are they worth nowadays?

Until recently I was no great fan of 50s anyway -- my wife used them far more than I, and I had sold my Summicron years ago because I almost never used it (even more seldom than the Canon) and it was worth a good deal more than the Canon -- but I have to say that the new Sonnar has probably received as much use as every other 50mm I have owned, put together, since I got it in May this year.

The other thing about both the Canon and the Noctilux is of course that d-o-f is thin enough with an f/1.5; with f/1.2 and f/1 it's even worse.

Several have commented about sample-to-sample variations, and about lenses coming from the factory mis-adjusted. I find this hard to square with others' observations about Canons RFs being similar in built quality to Leicas and my own observations on their build quality. Also, how many of us ever had the chance to try several 50/1.2 Canons straight from the factory? I very strongly suspect that more of this variation may be down to wear and tear, or to less-than-perfect 'repairs', than to factory variations.

Finally -- in response to another post entirely -- although the focusing movement is long, I'd rather have that than the ultra-quick 90 degree focusing found on most modern lenses, though 110-140 degrees seems the optimum to me.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Lots of good info here - keep it coming please.

Also, I found that David Douglas Duncan used this Canon lens. It can't be that bad if he did. Anyone else can confirm this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom