Canon 1.2 vs 1.4

[donnyb89]

Hi all,

I'm new to the forum and this is my first thread, nice to meet you, I'm Italian and I think this is the best website for my passion for the rangefinder. I wanted to ask for an impending purchase which of the two lenses buy, the advantages of a lens and the other, and the various characteristics, considering that the lens will be used on both the digital to analog.
thanks to all

 

[uhoh7]

I do have both of these.

1.4 is sharper and cheaper, 1.2 is alot faster, great character, but softer.

Condition of both lenses varies wildly and both can have haze so shine a very sharp light into each to check.

What digital camera will you use?

You might want to consider the voigtlander 50/1.5 LTM as well. About the same cost as the 1.2 but great build and performance. Wide open it has the "sonnar" look, but great color.

 

[Chris Bail]

Like uhoh007, I have both of these lenses. The 1.4 is technically a better lens. Sharper wide open, nearly as fast, smaller in size and cheaper. However, I am keeping the 1.2 for its interesting character and softness wide open, and selling the 1.4.

 

[donnyb89]

I use a fuji xe1. Which is the right price for the lenses?

 

[Chris Bail]

Search eBay "sold" listings. That will give you an accurate picture of what the market is commanding for these lenses. I know the 1.4 is selling for around $300-$350 currently. The 1.2 is a bit more than that, but I haven't looked lately. Maybe $500-$600...not totally sure.

 

[rfaspen]

I think the prices for the 50/1.4 are dropping. They used to hover just below $400 for decent examples (even more if it was really nice). I bought my very nice 50/1.4 for $400 and was quite happy with that. Now I see similar condition lenses being offered at $350 (I think there's one on RFF classifeds now?). I won't complain though. I still got what I paid for. I really like the 50/1.4, I don't have the 1.2.....yet.

 

[Mackinaw]

I agree with both uhoh and Chris. I own both of these lenses and while the 50/1.4 is my go-to lens for most occasions, the 50/1.2 has ton's of character. I would't think of selling either.

Jim B.

 

[goamules]

rfaspen, All 50mm RF lenses are dropping, from a peak a few years ago.

donnyb89, I'd say if you want a soft focus lens, get the 1.2, though it will be sharp once stopped down if you need that. If you want a normal sharp focus wide open, get the 1.4.

 

[filmtwit]

My old 50mm f1.2 was a bit of a flare monster.
You really had to be careful of background lighting, though you could also get really good results from it too.
I loved it for indoor good ambient lighting.
It was horrible when used outdoors in hot direct lighting circumstances (summer/California sun light).
I wasn't too pleased with it when shooting various bands as the lighting caused a lot of flares for me.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

I only have the f1.2, and, as said above, if you close it down to f5.6 and f8 it becomes seriously sharp. Wide open, however, it gets a weird character. Mine hasn't flared, but I won't be surprised the day it does. It's a bit of a monster, and focusing can be difficult. You're better off with the f1.4 in my opinion.

 

[Mark C]

I shoot my 50 1.2 mostly at 1.4. There it is surprisingly sharp, sharper than anything I've had except the Summilux. Mine is also amazingly flare free, even without a hood. They are prone to haze that will give a big increase in flare, but the haze is easily cleaned.

I haven't had the 1.4 Canon. I did recently get a 50 Summilux and will probably sell the Canon 1.2 eventually. The Canon has done very well as a 1.4 lens, with 1.2 in reserve, but the Summilux is a better all around lens for me.

 

[ruby.monkey]

The f/1.2 is fairly short and fat, and has a rather long focus throw; things can get a bit tight if you have the dedicated hood mounted, especially if you have to piss about with the damned infinity lock. Setting the aperture is also a pain with the hood fitted; and the hood itself has one of the worst mounting systems imaginable. I sometimes find it difficult to get a good grip on the focussing ring as it has very shallow grooved scallops with broad smooth lands in between. Oh, and you have to be careful about choosing filters, since the wrong ones will grind against the middle of the front element as you screw them on.

On the plus side you get a lens that renders pleasantly wide open, sharpens up nicely as you stop down, and offers an aperture range of f/1.2 down to f/22. I don't use mine nearly as often as I do the 50mm f/2 Summicron, but I never regret breaking it out when the mood strikes.

 

[Rogrund]

Some shots from the 50/1.2, the first two wide open and the the two other stopped down a bit.

 

[ottluuk]

The f/1.4 is almost universally praised and a relatively safe way to go - but personally, I use the f/1.2 and like it a lot.

There are image threads for both lenses under the Canon Rangefinders section, check them out! People like different things about how lenses draw so it's a good idea to make up your own mind.

 

[uhoh7]

Good price for exe copies:

1.4: 300USD

1.2 500USD

I think there is a CV 50/1.5 LTM in classifieds here for 400USD

You want a hood for both. Be prepared to return the lens when you see haze the seller does not mention.

IMPORTANT: do not screw a filter directly on the 1.2 or you may scratch it, also be care which cap you use. You need a spacer.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I've had the Canon 1.2, 1.4 and 1.8. Without doubt the 1.4 is my favourite. A 'blinder' all round and very easy to use ergonomically.

The 1.2 is understandably popular for its quirks, if that is a fair way of putting it? However for day to day use I found it too large and bulky for the M6 I had at the time and samples vary hugely in quality though prices never seem to reflect that🙄

Having moved to the XPro1 I'm about to try and sell my 1.4 so this has been a good heads up for me regarding recent prices.

I hope you're happy with whichever you pick.

 

[uhoh7]

Perhaps some of the Canon 1.2 "soft" rep comes from calibration issues.

I was just out testing mine with the M9. Turns out it is front focusing just enough to appear quite soft.

 

[pagpow]

Salve e benvenuto, Donnyb89 --

It might be worth stating that 1.2 is only a half stop faster than 1.4. So the extra speed is unlikely to be worth it on film or necessary with digital.

Giorgio

 

[enero]

Pretty much what everyone has said is spot on. Ive had both and loved both, but when it comes to portability and sharpness, the 1.4 is the way to go. Also its kind of hard to find a good 1.2 for a reasonable price, since they are so "special" a lot of sellers on ebay tend to over change for them. I had one that was in amazing condition, but still gave me really (glowy) soft results at 1.2. I understand that thats what some people like, but it wasnt for me. Otherwise, amazing character through and through. The 1.4 has similar characteristics of the 1.2. Just not as pronounced.

 

[Mackinaw]

Perhaps some of the Canon 1.2 "soft" rep comes from calibration issues........

Agreed. If you want your Canon 50/1.2 to be reasonably sharp wide-open, then proper lens calibration is a must.

I took this shot of my grandson several years back with the Canon 50/1.2 on my Leica MP. Exposure is about F1.6. Not sure of shutter speed. On Ilford Delta 100 film. This is a crop of the original negative too.

Jim B.