amin_sabet
Established
What's the going rate for a "user quality" copy? Also, will it be easier to focus this lens wide open on my Bessa R3A than it is for me to focus my Zuiko OM 50/1.2 on the OM-2N (SLR)? I'm interested to pick up a fast 50, and I'm pretty sure all the other possibilities are beyond my budget.
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
amin_sabet said:
I purchased a bargain (BGN) item from KEH one year ago for about $300. It's been excellent. Some internal cleaning marks, and I think they would come off if I had it cleaned again. But optical quality is not affected.
I've been using it on the Canon 7 and the Leica IIIf. It obscures about the bottom third of the Leica viewfinder.
I can't speak about the focusing issue.
Last edited:
amin_sabet
Established
Thanks for the reply. Are you able to peg the focus at f/1.2 most of the time with stationary subjects?
Kim Coxon
Moderator
I just sold a good user in the classifieds here for $250. You should be able to focus accurately on the R3. I wouldn't say it would be any easier or more difficult than an SLR. In reality, it will be bo different from focussing a 50/3.5. The picture you see will be exactly the same. It will, however, be less forgiving of any inaccuracies on your part. 
Kim
Kim
foto_fool
Well-known
Amin - Are you looking for the Canon 50/1.2 in LTM because you want the particular lens signature (low contrast, very soft at full aperture, "interesting" bokeh), or because it is one of the least expensive fast 50's out there for your Bessa?
If you are looking for something a little more modern, you might consider this Canon 55mm/f1.2 FL conversion. The last one this guy sold went for something like $320 (though I bought one from him for substantially more). Mine is an FD series and I like it more than the LTM Canon 50/1.2 I sold.
You might also consider the CV 50/1.5 Nokton - sharp, contrasty, great color rendition and flare resistance - and also relatively easy on the wallet when purchased used. Or maybe the 40/1.4 Nokton - you could make use of your R3As 40mm framelines. I hardly notice the half-stop difference from the f1.2 lenses - and anyway it is easy enough to push HP5+ to 800.
BTW - I'm expecting a Beattie screen for my OM-1 any day in the mail - looking forward to having a little more focusing light when using the 50/1.2 wide open.
If you are looking for something a little more modern, you might consider this Canon 55mm/f1.2 FL conversion. The last one this guy sold went for something like $320 (though I bought one from him for substantially more). Mine is an FD series and I like it more than the LTM Canon 50/1.2 I sold.
You might also consider the CV 50/1.5 Nokton - sharp, contrasty, great color rendition and flare resistance - and also relatively easy on the wallet when purchased used. Or maybe the 40/1.4 Nokton - you could make use of your R3As 40mm framelines. I hardly notice the half-stop difference from the f1.2 lenses - and anyway it is easy enough to push HP5+ to 800.
BTW - I'm expecting a Beattie screen for my OM-1 any day in the mail - looking forward to having a little more focusing light when using the 50/1.2 wide open.
I use one on an R2. It would be easier with the R3A's 1x finder.
amin_sabet
Established
foto_fool said:
John, I'm watching that auction already
. I'm primarily looking for a value-priced, very fast lens. Only thing about the one he is auctioning is that it is an FL lens, and my understanding is that the later FD lens was a much better performer. The FD lenses sell for double what the FL lenses sell on Ebay. I saw one of your samples from the converted FD in another thread. If you have any others to share, I'd love to see them.foto_fool said:
That half stop doesn't make much difference to me for speed/exposure, but it subjectively makes a big difference to me in background blur. I see myself using my f/2 lens most of the time, but I want all the speed I can get for occasional use. Wish I could afford to get the 50/0.95 and have it converted!
foto_fool said:
Every bit helps. Let me know how you like it
.
Last edited:
amin_sabet
Established
John, do you know whether the artist known as 38333 can convert other mounts as well? I would be interested in possibly having my Zuiko OM 50/1.2 converted.
Krosya
Konicaze
foto_fool said:
Hi,
Could you please post some photos from your FD-->M converted Canon lens? Why do you like it better than Canon 50/1.2 LTM one? Seller you point to says that his is a Noctilux level at a much lower price. Would you agree? All in all, any more info and light you could shed on this would be helpful.
Thanks.
amin_sabet
Established
foto_fool
Well-known
Amin - the Erwin Puts review was referring to the Aspherical Canon 55/1.2, which may be the best lens ever made in the 50mm focal length (though I have seen references to the bokeh being "horrible"). The non-asph FD and FL examples are great lenses, with better computation, glass and coatings than was available when the 50/1.2 LTM was produced, and even better than the almost contemporaneous 58/1.2. But they do not perform as well as the Aspherical Canon. One sold on eBay recently for almost $600 - about what this lens is worth.
I asked Victor about converting the Zuiko 50/1.2 and he said "no" but it seems to me that it should be possible - maybe not to RF-couple to the min focus distance for the lens, though. Problem is, there are not that many of these lenses to experiment with - certainly not as many as of the Canon 55/1.2. Are you willing to send yours to Vitctor for him to play Frankenstein? I'm not. Too bad - the Zuiko would be a SWEET setup on one of my M-mount RFs.
Kroysa - I like my FD conversion better than the 50/1.2 LTM because the FD is sharper and more contrasty at every aperture, and the bokeh is soft and smooth without being distracting. I have not shot more than a couple of rolls with this lens yet but I will post a gallery later and point a link to it from here.
Anyone who thinks this converted lens will out-signature a Noctilux is fooling themselves. I am one of the people who believes that the Noctilux costs 10x more for a reason, even if I think the premium is excessive for the subtle advantage the Noctilux offers.
I asked Victor about converting the Zuiko 50/1.2 and he said "no" but it seems to me that it should be possible - maybe not to RF-couple to the min focus distance for the lens, though. Problem is, there are not that many of these lenses to experiment with - certainly not as many as of the Canon 55/1.2. Are you willing to send yours to Vitctor for him to play Frankenstein? I'm not. Too bad - the Zuiko would be a SWEET setup on one of my M-mount RFs.
Kroysa - I like my FD conversion better than the 50/1.2 LTM because the FD is sharper and more contrasty at every aperture, and the bokeh is soft and smooth without being distracting. I have not shot more than a couple of rolls with this lens yet but I will post a gallery later and point a link to it from here.
Anyone who thinks this converted lens will out-signature a Noctilux is fooling themselves. I am one of the people who believes that the Noctilux costs 10x more for a reason, even if I think the premium is excessive for the subtle advantage the Noctilux offers.
amin_sabet
Established
foto_fool said:
Got it. Thanks for explaining. Is the FL very similar to the non-ASPH FD then?
foto_fool said:
I'm willing to send him two of my "beater" OM lenses (a dented 50/1.8 with stuck iris blades and a slow Promaster lens) along with the 50/1.2 if they would help him along. I'm reluctant to inquire though since his replies to the two questions on that Ebay auction were on the brusque side.
foto_fool said:
Looking forward to seeing those, thanks!
foto_fool
Well-known
Somebody smarter than I will have to answer the question about the differences between the FL and FD lenses. AFAIK some were new optical formulas, some weren't - I don't know which. There was only something like three years between the introduction of the two series. And the late FD lenses had a semi-bayonet modification of the early breech-lock. I believe I also read somewhere that the materials used in the late FD series were more on the plastic side, less on the brass.
My impression of Victor is that it is not worth the time to try to get him to take on a new lens project. It seems to me that he works on what he wants to work on. He was doing only 50/0.95 conversions for a while, now he is doing the breech-lock 55/1.2's. When he gets tired of these, who knows what he will turn his attention to next? Perhaps we have piqued his interest in the Zuiko lenses - perhaps not.
I posted a few snapshots with the 55/1.2 FD here. The lens was mounted on the Zeiss Ikon and all shots were made at f1.2. The first two were on Fomapan 200 in Ilfosol S and the rest were HP5+ in DDX. These are completely raw scans - no PP at all.
My impression of Victor is that it is not worth the time to try to get him to take on a new lens project. It seems to me that he works on what he wants to work on. He was doing only 50/0.95 conversions for a while, now he is doing the breech-lock 55/1.2's. When he gets tired of these, who knows what he will turn his attention to next? Perhaps we have piqued his interest in the Zuiko lenses - perhaps not.
I posted a few snapshots with the 55/1.2 FD here. The lens was mounted on the Zeiss Ikon and all shots were made at f1.2. The first two were on Fomapan 200 in Ilfosol S and the rest were HP5+ in DDX. These are completely raw scans - no PP at all.
amin_sabet
Established
John, those are great shots of the children. The lens performance seems excellent. I will probably eventually bid for one of Victor's conversions, if not this one then another. I'm glad to hear you had a good transaction with him given that all his feedback is private, he doesn't list his location, and he only accepts MOs and CCs for payment.
David Murphy
Veteran
About $300-$400 for a good one, $400-600 for an exceptional one. The SLR 50/1.2 is easier to focus (IMO), but not quite as kool.
amin_sabet said:
David Murphy
Veteran
I might add that a lot (maybe most) of the Canon 50/1.2's have glass issues -- they are getting old. A CLA usually improves things, but sometimes not totally. Still they are wondersously beautiful lenses.
amin_sabet
Established
John, how does the size of the 55/1.2 FD, including the part added for the conversion, compare to the size of the OM 50/1.2? If it's a lot bulkier, I may just stay with using the SLR when I want f/1.2.
foto_fool
Well-known
No doubt it is a big lens:
amin_sabet
Established
Wow, thanks for the picture! The Zuiko is really compact by SLR standards. The Canon lens, while larger, looks to be a manageable size though too large to be my "every day" lens.
foto_fool
Well-known
The Zuikos are incredible achievements in compactness. I have not done a side-by-side comparison of the same scene, but going through my files it appears that this Canon at f1.2 is sharper than the Zuiko at full aperture. I love the Zuiko but there had to be some optical tradeoffs to achieve the tiny size.
I may have done the Canon a disservice by showing it on the R-D1 - the biggest 35mm RF body I own by far. Front to back the Canon is only about 0.75 cm longer than the 35mm Summilux ASPH with the rectangular shade mounted.
I may have done the Canon a disservice by showing it on the R-D1 - the biggest 35mm RF body I own by far. Front to back the Canon is only about 0.75 cm longer than the 35mm Summilux ASPH with the rectangular shade mounted.