Canon LTM CANON 50mm F1.2 LTM

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
So how does the Canon f/1.4 compare, especially when stopped down to.. say f/2?

Does it fare any better at the closest focus distance?

I've just bought an M2 you see and I'm looking for a good 50mm. Can't say I'm interested in any kind of signature though. The Canon stuff seems to represent good value and seems to be of reasonably high quality from the ones that I've handled.

Thanks, Benjamin
 
at f2, the 50/1.4 is a bit better IMO.

Personally, you don't get the 1.2 to if you regularly expect to use it at anything above 1.8 (although, it still performs very well - I usually swap to a smaller, faster focusing lens once I'm in that range).
 
mabelsound said:
It's sharp enough wide open, as long as you like the storied "Canon glow."
Click to expand...

I never heard this particular story, or anything about the "canon glow" - even google just points here for that term. What exactly IS that? I have plenty of Canon lenses and none of them are glowing. (I do have an Industar 61 L/D that used radioactive glass... but even that lens doesn't glow!) ;)
 
januaryman said:
I never heard this particular story, or anything about the "canon glow" - even google just points here for that term. What exactly IS that? I have plenty of Canon lenses and none of them are glowing. (I do have an Industar 61 L/D that used radioactive glass... but even that lens doesn't glow!) ;)
Click to expand...

'twas a joke, a reference to "Leica glow," which in reference to non-Leica lenses is usually called "softness." ;)
 
...a reference to "Leica glow," which in reference to non-Leica lenses is usually called "softness."
Click to expand...

True. Or flare. Or coma. Or a whole host of other lens maladies. In a Canon, VC or Konica lens, it's a "bug;" in a Leica lens, it's a "feature." :D
 
The Canon 50mm/1.4 is a Xenon design lens, and it is very sharp. It renders colors slightly "cooler" than a Canon 50mm/1.8 or 50mm/1.5. The Canon 50mm/1.2 can be a very sharp lens if it is adjusted professionally. Age of a lens can have an impact on the lens.
 
The Canon 50/1.4 is double-Gauss formula, like the 50/1.8. The 50/1.2 is much like a double-Gauss, but with a doubled pair of front elements.

The 50/1.5 is the odd man out, with a Sonnar design.
 
Well, with that said, the devil is in the details. A xenon does act differently than a planar, despite similar formulae. So I wouldn't bang your head too hard. :D

Edit. At least one source I saw lists the Xenon as an asymmetrical derivative of the double gauss. So who really knows aside from Tronnier

From that same source: Some well know variants of six element Double Gauss designs are:

Agfa: Soligon
Angenieux: S-type
Astro: Kino, Tachar
Bausch & Lomb: Aminar, baltar, Raytar
Boyer: Saphir
Dallmeyer: Super Six
Enna: Annaston
Isco: Westagon
Kinoptik: Apochromat, Fulgior
Kodak: Ektar, Aero Ektar
Leitz: Elcan, f/1.2Noktilux,
Sumarrit, Summar, Summitar,
Summicron, Dygon
Meyer: Domiron
Rodenstock: Heligon
Ross: Xtralux
Schneider: f/2 Xenon, Xenogon
Steinheil: Quinon
Taylor-Hobson: Amotal, Ivotal,
Kinic, Opic Panchrotal, Speed
Panchro
Wollensak: Raptar
Wray: Copying Lens
Zeiss: Biotar, Flexon
 
Last edited:
Does anyone know if the 55mm f/1.2 Canon FL lens is the same optically as the 50/1.2 LTM?

Picture%20099.jpg
 
januaryman said:
I never heard this particular story, or anything about the "canon glow" - even google just points here for that term. What exactly IS that? I have plenty of Canon lenses and none of them are glowing. (I do have an Industar 61 L/D that used radioactive glass... but even that lens doesn't glow!) ;)
Click to expand...

Here is a bit of "Canon Glow" - see edge of some flowers:

2439877816_9edf671739_o.jpg
 
John Shriver said:
The Canon 50/1.4 is double-Gauss formula, like the 50/1.8. The 50/1.2 is much like a double-Gauss, but with a doubled pair of front elements.

The 50/1.5 is the odd man out, with a Sonnar design.
Click to expand...

... and to me, at least, the most interesting. Never did manage to find one. Got its Russian cousin, the Jupiter 3. It will have to do.
 
An SLR mount 50mm lens has to be rather different from a LTM mount one, due to having to clear the mirror.

That said, lots of SLR 50mm lenses are also double-Gauss designs. But they are generally a lot less symmetric than their rangefinder cousins. Also, for SLR's with small throats in their lens mounts, there was a tenedency towards 55mm and 58mm focal lengths, especially at faster speed. (Reduces the asymmetry needed.) Lots of 58mm lenses on Exakta/Topcon mount cameras, for instance.
 
januaryman said:
... and to me, at least, the most interesting. Never did manage to find one. Got its Russian cousin, the Jupiter 3. It will have to do.
Click to expand...

Jim -- A good J3 is a pretty nice lens. I borrowed one a couple of summers ago, and was pleased w/ the results. Tried to buy it but the owner wouldn't sell (smart man). So I wound up getting the Canon 50/1.5 as a consolation prize...:rolleyes::) Keep looking for the Canon, and in the meantime enjoy your J3.

Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the photos posted on this thread, and wondering whether a third Canon 50 is in my future. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom