Zuiko OM 50/1.2

[amin_sabet]

I'm a fan of this lens. Wish I could find an f/1.2 normal lens like this (sharp, compact, contrasty, affordable, nice bokeh, etc) to use with my new Bessa R3A. Seems like all the f/1.2 or faster rangefinder lenses are quite expensive.

 

[kb244]

"sharp, compact, contrasty, affordable, nice bokeh, etc"

Delusions of Granduer when you add in "affordable". it's like asking for a sharp and fast 600mm telephoto lens that won't cost you over 500$ 😀

Though changing your shooting habit such as subject distance and so forth you might make by with a slightly longer than normal thats an 2.8 or so.

Also I'd call something like a Canon 50/1.4 or some 1.4 lens somewhat "affordable" in comparison and definitely 1.8-ish lens.

 

[foto_fool]

I have a late Zuiko 50/1.2 and it is one of my favorite lenses of all time. For RF you might want to search for "38333" as a seller on eBay. He is currently doing an M-mount conversion on the Canon 55/1.2 FD ("sharp, compact, contrasty, nice bokeh, etc") that is rangefinder-coupled from 2.5 ft to infinity. The last auction went for about $320 but the average is more like $540. Still "affordable" compared to other fast lenses.

 

[amin_sabet]

"sharp, compact, contrasty, affordable, nice bokeh, etc"

Delusions of Granduer when you add in "affordable". it's like asking for a sharp and fast 600mm telephoto lens that won't cost you over 500$ 😀.

That's what I thought as well. However, the Zuiko OM 50/1.2 meets every one of those criteria, and I paid less than $500 for a brand new (old stock) copy. All I'm saying is that it would be nice if such a thing were available in RF-land.


John, the Canon 551.2 FD conversion sounds like just what I may be looking for. Thanks for the tip!

 

[foto_fool]

The Canon 50mm/f1.2 in LTM meets the criteria of affordable and nice bokeh (though some would argue with me here), and it is compact front to back, but it fails on all other counts. The 55/1.2 FD conversion meets all the criteria but compactness - it is about twice as long as the older LTM formula, tthough it is smaller than a 35mm/1.2 Nokton, 50mm Noctilux or 75mm Summilux.

The lens you are asking for is the Konica 50/1.2 Hexanon that comes with the Hexar RF Limited kit, but that lens fails miserably on the "affordable" front, as does the somewhat bigger Hexanon 60/1.2 in LTM.

 

[xayraa33]

the older Zuiko 55mm f1.2 is also a very nice lens.

 

[amin_sabet]

The Canon 50mm/f1.2 in LTM meets the criteria of affordable and nice bokeh (though some would argue with me here), and it is compact front to back, but it fails on all other counts. The 55/1.2 FD conversion meets all the criteria but compactness - it is about twice as long as the older LTM formula, tthough it is smaller than a 35mm/1.2 Nokton, 50mm Noctilux or 75mm Summilux.

The lens you are asking for is the Konica 50/1.2 Hexanon that comes with the Hexar RF Limited kit, but that lens fails miserably on the "affordable" front, as does the somewhat bigger Hexanon 60/1.2 in LTM.

Of those, the 55 FD sounds like the best compromise for my needs. The images I've seen from the Hexanon 50/1.2 have shown it to be quite a lens, but unfortunately the price puts it in the dream only category for me.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Amin,

The Zuiko 50/1.2 was very expensive when it was new and still being made. You got it cheap cause its old and basically was sold at "Clearance" price.

 

[amin_sabet]

That makes sense Chris. I suppose the reason much of the fastest RF lenses haven't gone "clearance" is that they still work on the popular RF mounts.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

That makes sense Chris. I suppose the reason much of the fastest RF lenses haven't gone "clearance" is that they still work on the popular RF mounts.

Right. If I remember right, the 50/1.2 Zuiko cost around $1000 in the late 80's when it was being made. I was pretty young then (I'm 32 now) but I remember drooling over camera store ads in the back of Popular Photography as a kid and wishing I had the money....

 

[Trius]

The 50/1.2 may be affordable by other standards, but the price seems high when compared to the Zuiko 50/1.8 and 50/1.4. Some say the bokeh of the 1.4 is not good; I disagree, but I haven't made a stufy of it. 😉 But I do admit that if I found a 50/1.2 at a steal of a price, I'd jump on it. Until then the 50/1.4 is fine.

As for RF lenses, I'll content myself with the Nokton 40/1.4, I think.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The 50/1.2 may be affordable by other standards, but the price seems high when compared to the Zuiko 50/1.8 and 50/1.4. Some say the bokeh of the 1.4 is not good; I disagree, but I haven't made a stufy of it. 😉 But I do admit that if I found a 50/1.2 at a steal of a price, I'd jump on it. Until then the 50/1.4 is fine.

As for RF lenses, I'll content myself with the Nokton 40/1.4, I think.

The slower 50's are bargains for sure. A 1.8 can be had in perfect condition for $20, while a 1.4 can be had for $60. I think the 1.8 and 1.4 both have ugly rendering of out of focus areas; I like to do portraits with 50's and these lenses are bad for that. The Zuiko 50mm f2 macro has nicer Bokeh but it is harsh too compared to the Zuiko 40mm f2 and the Zuiko 85mm f2. The Zuiko 1.4 isn't the absolute worst though; that honor goes to the AF-Nikkor 50mm f1.4. An extremely sharp lens that sucks for work where you want a smooth blurred background.

 

[xayraa33]

the Zuiko OM 55mm f1.2 lens cost me 450 dollars back in 1976.
it was a nice lens regardless of price.
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007zAJ

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

the Zuiko OM 55mm f1.2 lens cost me 450 dollars back in 1976.
it was a nice lens regardless of price.
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007zAJ

The 55 is the older one, the one the original poster has is the 50mm f1.2, which was introduced in the mid 80's and was more expensive, and is more expensive used.

 

[ferider]

The 50/1.2 is smaller (49mm vs 55mm filter) and has no radioactive glass.
I did buy mine for around US 400 at B+H new when they were still selling
them and the OM4Ti. Must have been early 90s. Don't have it any more
the 1.4 is plenty for me.

Roland.

 

[xayraa33]

The 55 is the older one, the one the original poster has is the 50mm f1.2, which was introduced in the mid 80's and was more expensive, and is more expensive used.

yes the 55mm was older than the 50mm, I mentioned that in post #6.
back in 1976 only the 55 mil was available.

 

[foto_fool]

Roland, your reason for selling the 50/1.2 and keeping the 50/1.4?

I did the opposite. For a short while I had the 50/1.4, 55/1.2 and 50/1.2. The 55/1.2 was a good performer, but the other two were sharper at anything wider than f5.6 and did better color. I felt the 50/1.2 was the equal fo the 50/1.4 in terms of overall performance, and with no size and little weight penalty plus an extra stop...

BTW - I measured the radioactivity of the 55/1.2 and found it to be very low - about the same as a radium-dial watch. The lanthanum glass elements were noticibly yellow, which may have had an effect on the lens' color performance.

And speaking of dream lenses - I noticed that Noriaki has split a Hexar RF Limited kit and is selling the 50/1.2 and body separately, though IMO he is asking way too much for the lens. He also has another 60/1.2 on offer just now as well. Anybody want to buy a mint 35mm Summilux ASPH?

 

[ferider]

The usual, John, nothing related to lens performance, back then I needed another lens for my Hasselblad .... 😱

I only mentioned radiactivity because of the yellowing. As a color shooter that bothered me.

Best,

Roland.

 

[hans voralberg]

I wish I had one 🙁 Been looking for one for like forever but still have none.

 

[amin_sabet]

I briefly had an OM 55/1.2. The coatings were yellow, but the images did not have a cast. Also, there was no activity with a Geiger counter in my lab. Maybe they weren't all radioactive?

Chris, I agree with you about the 40/2 doing a nice job with the bokeh. People say this lens is overpriced, and I can see that this is true compared to the original price. However, for what it offers (sharp across the frame, nice bokeh, good build, contrasty, flare resistant, very compact and light), it is well worth it to me. Here's an example of the 40/2 bokeh (at f/2.8 I think) with a tricky background. Most of my modern digital lenses would have ringed out on that one.