Canon 1.2 coupling

[radical7]

Hi guys, researching some good glass at lower prices,
does anybody know if the the canon 1.2 RF coupled?
Thanks!

 

[Mackinaw]

I guess you mean the Canon 50/1.2. It certainly is rangefinder coupled when put on any Canon rangefinder. Any LTM-mount camera too I would guess.

I don't know if I'd call the lens "low priced." Most today go for a pretty penny.

Jim B.

 

[radical7]

Thanks for this. Indeed it is. But cheaper than Nokton 1.1 or Youknowhatilux.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Mine worked fine.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jippiejee]

Yups, mine is fine and sharp with the ltm > m adapter.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I use one with an adapter for M bodies and it couples well. Nifty lens... for special purposes only. Take care! 😉

 

[CameraQuest]

Hi guys, researching some good glass at lower prices,
does anybody know if the the canon 1.2 RF coupled?
Thanks!

invest in the superb Canon Rangefinder book by Peter Dechert


Stephen

 

[Dez]

The Canon 1.2 is an impressive looking piece of glass, but most of the comments I have heard about it tend to say it is nowhere near as good as the 1.4. So if you really need that extra half stop..........................

Cheers,
Dez

 

[JMQ]

yes, it is rangefinder-coupled. It works on any LTM camera, and M camera with a LTM>M adapter. It works perfectly on my M9.

The dedicated hood may be hard to locate, and pretty pricey once you do.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Bear in mind that it's a fat lens with a long focus travel. Things can get cramped when using it on a body with accessory grip fitted.

 

[Mackinaw]

The Canon 1.2 is an impressive looking piece of glass, but most of the comments I have heard about it tend to say it is nowhere near as good as the 1.4. So if you really need that extra half stop..........................

Owning both the Canon 50/1.2 and Canon 50/1.4, I agree that the 50/1.4 is a better lens, but, the 50/1.2 has a "look" all it's own when shot between F1.2 and F2.0. Hard to put your finger on it, but all those partially-corrected optical aberrations just make the lens look different, which some folks (me) find desirable. Plus, if you're into outrageous bokeh, the 50/1.2 has it all over the 50/1.4. Personal opinion of course, some will feel differently.

Jim B.

 

[ctdogs]

So, if you have the Canon 50, 1.4, and you want the 50, 1.2 for extra speed, is it really worth it?

 

[ray*j*gun]

I had both the 50 1,4 and the 50 1,2 and kept the 1,2. I guess I define "Better" differently. Lots of great lenses out there but very few that produce the character of the Canon 1,2.

 

[Sonny Boy Havidson]

I had one long ago. It is a very interesting lens if you can live with its weight, its flare and its infinity lock. Otherwise, do not try to use it on a M39 Leica because this big piece of glass will hide half of the viewfinder.

 

[jippiejee]

... if you can live with its ... infinity lock.

Man, how I hate that thing. Always wondering why it's there in the first place. Thinking of getting rid of it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Man, how I hate that thing. Always wondering why it's there in the first place. Thinking of getting rid of it.

Jam it open with a bit of matchstick.When Balham rebuilt mine they removed the matchstick and reversed the spring so it was normally disengaged and you had to push it in to engage it (useful for removing the lens).

Cheers,

R.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Personally I found it to be a non-issue, unlike the push-to-the-rear lock on my old 50mm Summicron. That one had to come off altogether.

 

[Frontman]

I've used the Canon 50/1.2 on an M3 and an M4, and it focused properly with both cameras. I also like the "look" from the 50/1.2, and on an M camera it certainly isn't too big. The large barrel makes focusing easy, and the longer throw increases precision. I prefer the 1.2 to the 1.4, I think the 1.2 is a better lens for my taste.