Leica LTM Canon 1.2 SM on Leica IIf

[angeloks]

Hi, I just sold my SLR fast 50mm. I was thinking of buying a 50mm 1.2 SM for my little Leica IIf. I was wondering if the lens will obstrude the viewfinder? Anyone has experience using it on IIIf or something? And does anyone here has one for sale?

Thanks!
Julien

 

[Maurice]

I have a IIIF and a Canon 50mm 1:1,2-it obstructs the rangefinder-so you've only can see a part of what you're focussing on-so focussing in dim light(and that's where you use such a lens)is quite difficult(but not impossible)

 

[angeloks]

And how does it look with the lens on? Do you have a picture of your IIIf with the 50mm 1.2 mounted?

 

[Roger Hicks]

On my IIIa, mine certainly needs a separate finder -- and the IIIf ain't that much bigger. You may also want the film/flange register shimmed to perfection. Personally I think it's a bad combination, the lens tail wagging the camera dog.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Graybeard]

Even the (smaller) Canon 50mm/f1.4 lens is pretty large for a Barnack Leica.

 

[johnastovall]

If you want an modern and economical fast 50 screw mount, take a look at the CV 50/1.5 asphericalNokton.

 

[John Shriver]

It will look ridiculous on a Barnack. I've done it, and it was extremely hard to use.

 

[Matthew Allen]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have a picture of this combination? I like ridiculous things.

Matthew

 

[Sonnar Brian]

You would be best to give up a bit of speed and look for a Canon 50/1.5. The F1.5 lens does not obscure the viewfinder of my IIIf. The Canon 50/1.4 with a 48mm filter obscures about 1/3rd of the viewfinder. The 50/1.2 has a 55mm filter.

 

[angeloks]

Well if it obstrudes the viewfinder, I don't care that much. But Maurice said that it would also obstrudes the rangefinder. That makes the combination is a bit akward. But yet, I do like these kind of things! Anyway, thank you all for your inputs.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Kind of like this...

The RF is not obstructed.

 

[crawdiddy]

I've tried my f1.2 on my IIIf, and it does obscure the viewfinder partly.

I haven't actually shot anything with it. I've been meaning to try it.

I don't think it looks ridiculous. I would say it looks rather good.

I'll post a shot later, when I get home.

 

[angeloks]

So in the end, the lens does obstrude the viewfinder (I would have guessed that), but does it also obstrudes the rangefinder?

 

[Maurice]

Here is a picture of how the viewfinder looks with an Canon 50mm 1:1,2 mounted
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21859854@N04/2194254565/

 

[ruby.monkey]

The 50/1.2 pretty much obscures the rangefinder spot window on my IIIf, to the point where it's too dim to allow focussing.

 

[Keith]

I agree with the comment about the tail wagging the dog! This lens really needs to be mounted on a camera it suits otherwise it becomes a pointless exercise in frustration. That flickr shot through the viewfinder of it mounted on a IIIf is hilarious. On an M3 it's near perfect and on my Zeiss Ikon it doesn't come anywhere near the 50mm framelines ... horses for courses as they say!

It's quite a difficult lens to use due to it's weight and rather long focus throw ... at f1.2 it has a very short field of focus and hindering the process by putting it on an unsuitable body seems a little masochistic!

 

[ChrisN]

I guess it would look something like this:

 

[angeloks]

Hehe, thank you all for your inputs! I guess the 1.4 or the Nokton seem more appropriate choices!

 

[ruby.monkey]

Or a Fed-2?

 

[Jerevan]

Chris, completely off-topic, but your tagline: "Ansel Adams, March 1991"? Do you know something we don't know? He died in 1984, according to offical sources...