8bit Barry
Member
Some tests of the Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM using a 'vintage' Canon R3. I absolutey love the render this lens gives at f1.2 (both shots are at f1.2) - it's really interesting.
Focus peaking is such a godsend in this modern age, so I am really happy about using this system. I am going to use it for street photography in London to 'buck the trend' of Leica users! I am certain 20fps will get some unusual results.
The copy I have is unbelievably good, with almost perfect glass. I am so impressed at the control of vignetting too. The lens has a great vintage look.
100% crop so you can see the bokeh
Focus peaking is such a godsend in this modern age, so I am really happy about using this system. I am going to use it for street photography in London to 'buck the trend' of Leica users! I am certain 20fps will get some unusual results.
The copy I have is unbelievably good, with almost perfect glass. I am so impressed at the control of vignetting too. The lens has a great vintage look.
100% crop so you can see the bokeh
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I always loved this lens. It needed a cleaning when I got it, but after that, it was fantastic. It turns out that my sample had the lowest serial number known, according to Kitchingman.
Phil
Phil
8bit Barry
Member
How can I tell the year? My serial no is 39140
peterm1
Veteran
I have not used mine for a while, but your lovely shots have inspired me to take it out and use it again.
An old shot.
Soft Portrait by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
An old shot.
Soft Portrait by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
peterm1
Veteran
Mine is lovely too. Its front element is badly scratched (how the hell does someone do that to a lens?) But it still shoots very well in the right conditions - backlighting is a no-no and if at all possible should be avoided, but I love its low contrast and slightly glowing rendition wide open, especially on overcast days where this is emphasized.
Mackinaw
Think Different
No easy way to date Canon LTM Lenses. The 50/1.2 started with a serial number of 10001 back in April, 1956. Production ran until 1967 (last serial number Peter K. recorded is about 56500). Your lens probably dates to 1960/1961.
Jim B.
trix4ever
Well-known
Sorry to have to say this but that is some of the ugliest out of focus background I have ever seen. (I am allergic to the word 'bokeh', sorry).
Generally I don't care to much about how the background looks but in those images it totally distracts me from the main subject and just seems plain offensive.
I think I'll stick to my Canon 50mm f1.4 ltm which always has a creamy background.
Generally I don't care to much about how the background looks but in those images it totally distracts me from the main subject and just seems plain offensive.
I think I'll stick to my Canon 50mm f1.4 ltm which always has a creamy background.
Canon 50mm F1.2 Wide-Open.
Canon 50mm F1.4 Wide-Open.
Canon 50mm F1.4 Wide-Open.
Canon 50mm F1.2 at F1.4.
Canon 50mm F1.4 wide-open.
Canon 50mm F1.4 wide-open.
trix4ever
Well-known
Thanks for that Brian, funnily enough that last one has the same ghastly out of focus background I didn't like in the previous photos, and I can honestly say I've never seen that with my 50/1.4.
I'll have to dig out some samples from my 50.
trix4ever
Well-known
This is my Canon 50/1.4 ltm, only thing is I can't be sure whether it's at f1.4 or f2...
Sure has the background I expect off this lens though.
peterm1
Veteran
Stopped down a tad this lens can also perform very creditably too. Here it is shot at f2.
Those Eyes - Color by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
Those Eyes - Color by Life in Shadows, on Flickrtrix4ever
Well-known
Stopped down a tad this lens can also perform very creditably too. Here it is shot at f2.
Thanks, I find that much more pleasing to the eye.
I suspect most of these fast lenses give sweeter backgrounds stopped down slightly.
8bit Barry
Member
That’s some passionate hatred there 😆
I really recommend you don’t get a 50mm f0.95 or a Helios 44-2.
I bought the f1.2 specifically because I want to experiment with bokeh for video and stills. In my photographic career I’ve had so many ‘boring’ lenses through my hands with that don’t do anything other than just isolate a subject.
A lot of the images above have no rear light sources / back light / specular light, so it’s just a compositional choice in the end. I really enjoy it.
I’ve got a loan f0.95 coming for an article where I’ll be bokehing the hell out of it just to warn you 😆
Last edited:
peterm1
Veteran
But it does depend upon the background too of course.trix4ever
Well-known
I actually tried the 0.95 years ago and at wide open it wasn't just the background that was blurred...
The 0.95 really needs an evf for focussing, it was a pig on a rangefinder to focus accurately, I tried it on an M6 and a Leica SL and you can hit focus easily on the SL, but even through an evf it focussed better at f1.4 as the contrast was so much higher.
Despite my comments I'm still enjoying this thread.
peterm1
Veteran
"..................on the SL, but even through an evf it focussed better at f1.4 as the contrast was so much higher."
This is pretty common for fast lenses, I must say. Being inherently softer wide-open focussing at that aperture (and using focus peaking) is inherently more difficult I have found.
brusby
Well-known
Interesting. I love the background rendering of the 1.2.
If you dislike the backgrounds of the f1.2 you'll probably detest these from its brother, the 0.95. I offer 'em just for comparison purposes to the f1.2. And yep, the images are plenty soft.
All 3 images below taken recently and within minutes of each other with Canon 50mm f0.95, wide open.
Just metering the natural window light for this room but ended up liking her expression and the natural short lighting on her face.
S1010288 by Brusby, on Flickr
Taken in the doorway to the front porch, which was reflecting light up into her face, giving a bit of the old Hollywood monster light.
S1010257. Canon 50mm f0.95 "Dream" lens by Brusby, on Flickr
In the living room with window light. That's an old pump organ in the background -- made almost unrecognizable by this lens.
S1010262 by Brusby, on Flickr
If you dislike the backgrounds of the f1.2 you'll probably detest these from its brother, the 0.95. I offer 'em just for comparison purposes to the f1.2. And yep, the images are plenty soft.
All 3 images below taken recently and within minutes of each other with Canon 50mm f0.95, wide open.
Just metering the natural window light for this room but ended up liking her expression and the natural short lighting on her face.
S1010288 by Brusby, on FlickrTaken in the doorway to the front porch, which was reflecting light up into her face, giving a bit of the old Hollywood monster light.
S1010257. Canon 50mm f0.95 "Dream" lens by Brusby, on FlickrIn the living room with window light. That's an old pump organ in the background -- made almost unrecognizable by this lens.
S1010262 by Brusby, on Flickr
Last edited:
8bit Barry
Member
A few more recent images to keep the wheels turning.
This shot of my wife was taken on a Canon VT Deluxe with the 50mm f1.2 LTM set to f4. I shot it on Gold 200 which I have to say i do not like one bit. It is way too yellowy often with red shadows disappointing sharpness. In fact I can't seem to find any affordable 35mm colour negative films that I actually like and I refuse to pay £90 for 5 rolls of Portra 400.
Shooting a roll of XP2straight afterwards, the film sharpness was so impressive I think the Canon Rangefinders wll become B&W exclusive cameras, unless anyone can recommend an affordable colour film I could try. For now, I have to say I am loving the 50mm f1.2 LTM on my R3.
The two below are both shot on the Canon R3 / 50mm f1.2 @ f1.2 - it's all very dependent on the background light sources as to how crazy the backgrounds become, but what I do love is the isolation.
8bit Barry
Member
Agreed - that focal plane slice is so thin. I have heard its a difficult beast, but I would really like to get crazy with it and see what it can do. It's a real party photographer's lens, I saw some great photos from social settings with it recently.
Last edited: