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... 😀