squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I have been lusting over everyone's Noctilux photos for many months now, and have been stealthily prowling for my own super-duper-fast RF lens. I finally found a near-mint Canon 50/1.2.
I had read Roger's review of this lens and was prepared to find it to be of limited utility. But I have to admit, I am really impressed. I love the dreamy feel of these photos. I don't really give a hoot about sharpness at 1.2; that's not what I was after. But it's more than sharp enough for the effect I am looking for. Furthermore, focus is SPOT ON with the R-D1, a total shock to me. I thought it would be way off.
One more thing--the R-D1 is a particularly good camera to use this lens on, and the same would go for the M8. You can't get very close at all with it (1 meter minimum), but the R-D1's crop sensor makes subjects appear much closer than they would on film.
These are merely test shots around the house, but I am going to try to get out with it over the weekend and put it through its paces. It underexposes on the R-D1 by quite a bit, so EV compensation is useful. These were shot RAW, converted to grayscale in Lightroom, and the exposure and blacks both brought up--that's all.
I had read Roger's review of this lens and was prepared to find it to be of limited utility. But I have to admit, I am really impressed. I love the dreamy feel of these photos. I don't really give a hoot about sharpness at 1.2; that's not what I was after. But it's more than sharp enough for the effect I am looking for. Furthermore, focus is SPOT ON with the R-D1, a total shock to me. I thought it would be way off.
One more thing--the R-D1 is a particularly good camera to use this lens on, and the same would go for the M8. You can't get very close at all with it (1 meter minimum), but the R-D1's crop sensor makes subjects appear much closer than they would on film.
These are merely test shots around the house, but I am going to try to get out with it over the weekend and put it through its paces. It underexposes on the R-D1 by quite a bit, so EV compensation is useful. These were shot RAW, converted to grayscale in Lightroom, and the exposure and blacks both brought up--that's all.
sleepyhead
Well-known
Lovely - enjoy it!
bluelight
Established
I also love the 50 1.2. I find its sharpness more than sufficient for the image that I'm after.
Congrad..
Congrad..
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
Lush & Lovely...Beautiful Tones...tres coool mablesound
I've been thinking about this lens as well
the same standpoint /can't afford the noctilux ,crave the look
and suffering from LUST
hopefully my coming summitar will appease me
best-h
I've been thinking about this lens as well
the same standpoint /can't afford the noctilux ,crave the look
and suffering from LUST
hopefully my coming summitar will appease me
best-h
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Don't get me wrong, I am sure the Noct is a better performer than the 50/1.2, or the 50/.95 for that matter. But I paid $400 for this lens, and they go for cheaper than that on eBay. If the main reason you want the Noct is for ultra-shallow DOF and dreamy glow, I'm not sure that the Noct is going to be 25 times better.
Anyway, I've had the thing for four hours, so I can't really speak authoritatively. But my initial impression is very positive.
Anyway, I've had the thing for four hours, so I can't really speak authoritatively. But my initial impression is very positive.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Definitely do so. On a crop sensor, it's a portrait lens.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
You will continue to be pleased with your 1.2. I've owned mine for years, and it's never dissapointed me. When the situation is really dark, and I don't want to use ultra film, or push development, I also use an 0.95 mounted on a Canon 7s. Another larger, heavier solution, for film only, unless converted to M mount, but a very nice lens for its time.
I hadn't thought about the crop factor, but you're correct, it makes for lovely portraits. The point of focus is very clear on the piano keys and the fruit. At this distance, DOF is measured in millimeters...
Enjoy, and say nice things about Canon to all your Leica friends. The new book out on the lenses by Peter Kitchingman will only make the lenses more desirable, also. The price paid by you for a near mint lens is reasonable, by todays standards.
Harry
I hadn't thought about the crop factor, but you're correct, it makes for lovely portraits. The point of focus is very clear on the piano keys and the fruit. At this distance, DOF is measured in millimeters...
Enjoy, and say nice things about Canon to all your Leica friends. The new book out on the lenses by Peter Kitchingman will only make the lenses more desirable, also. The price paid by you for a near mint lens is reasonable, by todays standards.
Harry
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Yes, that reminds me, I need to order a copy of Peter's book!
Krosya
Konicaze
I like mine too. Although I had it listed for sale a little while back and even had offers, but sale didn't go through and I chose not to re-list it, as I think I'd miss it too much, so I kept it. Lovely lens that offers a very different signature and qualities.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
Yes, he needs the support of the community. His next book, on the accessories, should be another barnburner.
I'm waiting, impatiently, for mine (copy #10). Peter did a class job, with little regard for cost, and the result is quality book. We owe a great deal to him and others like him, who have increased our knowledge and enhanced our ability to collect the toys we love.
Harry
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
This is really maybe the only fast lens I really want anymore, other than a Summilux (version two) in a way I think they are quite similar in looks and signature and I`ve been told that the Canon f1.2 set at f1.4 has an ever nicer bokeh than the f1.4 Canon lens does....
I think $400 for one`s a good deal, if it has both caps and a hood and all that crap about "the hoods worth more than the lens" is just horsehockey. *just collectors pay those mad prices* user versions of all hoods turn up sooner or later......
I don`t pay more than $75 for any lens hood, I don`t care what lens it is and I have hoods on all my lenses I own, Leica or otherwise
Keep up the great work with this lens, it seems it was made to work on the RD-1
Tom
I think $400 for one`s a good deal, if it has both caps and a hood and all that crap about "the hoods worth more than the lens" is just horsehockey. *just collectors pay those mad prices* user versions of all hoods turn up sooner or later......
I don`t pay more than $75 for any lens hood, I don`t care what lens it is and I have hoods on all my lenses I own, Leica or otherwise
Keep up the great work with this lens, it seems it was made to work on the RD-1
Tom
Last edited:
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
It didn't have a hood, but I just bought one from Heavystar. Piece of cake.
And yup, I bought Peter's book last night! I'm less interested in the accessories project, but did he ever write one about the actual cameras?
And yup, I bought Peter's book last night! I'm less interested in the accessories project, but did he ever write one about the actual cameras?
kevin m
Veteran
No disrespect to Roger, but his 'review' of the lens was largely recounting anecdotes from other photographers from thirty years ago. Like the saying goes, one quick test is worth more than 1,000 expert opinions.
I'm equally stunned how well this lens performs on the R-D1. Close up and wide open is no problem. (It's "finding infinity" where the R-D1 short RF base trips up.)
I'm finding that the sweet spot of this lens is wide-open, focused in the five to ten foot range. There, it loses the sometimes weird bokeh it has wide-open at minimum focus distance, and it looks like a normal, fast lens with smooth transition to OOF. I think it's lovely. I must also note that the R-D1, even in JPEG mode, delivers color accuracy that no film I've tried can match.
(I've posted this image before, but this time it's bigger!
)
R-D1, Canon 50/1.2, wide open, focused distance 6ft.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Just to clarify, I meant this review he wrote in Shutterbug, which I think is pretty even-handed.
I remember that portrait well, kevin, and I think it's really good. And I agree about color and the R-D1...it does very well rendering colors naturally in low light. Indeed, it continues to be my favorite camera...although I did just get an M2...
I remember that portrait well, kevin, and I think it's really good. And I agree about color and the R-D1...it does very well rendering colors naturally in low light. Indeed, it continues to be my favorite camera...although I did just get an M2...
kevin m
Veteran
I hadn't seen that review, thanks! You're right, it is more even-handed than his off-the-cuff remarks here have been.
I would still take exception to this comment, however:
Neither your pics, mine, nor the other good examples I've seen from this lens wide open look anything like "desperation" to me.
I would also beg to differ with this remark:
It's not "vastly" superior. It's sharper on center wide open than the Canon. Noticeably so. But it also has heavy light fall off in some situations, and downright ugly vignetting in others than the Canon simply doesn't have. That said, if the price were equal I'd prefer the Noctilux and shoot so as to avoid the vignetting. But we all know the prices aren't equal.
I would still take exception to this comment, however:
Neither your pics, mine, nor the other good examples I've seen from this lens wide open look anything like "desperation" to me.
I would also beg to differ with this remark:
It's not "vastly" superior. It's sharper on center wide open than the Canon. Noticeably so. But it also has heavy light fall off in some situations, and downright ugly vignetting in others than the Canon simply doesn't have. That said, if the price were equal I'd prefer the Noctilux and shoot so as to avoid the vignetting. But we all know the prices aren't equal.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Yup, that's the line that made me think I might not like the lens! But I'm with you, f/1.2 is not only the whole point, but offers more detail than I expected. No desperation, indeed. Maybe his copy is screwy; otherwise, it's just a matter of taste.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
book on cameras
book on cameras
The book on the cameras is planned as the final of the 3 volumes. He felt that the book by Peter Dechert provides most collectors with at least the essential information they need, I would guess. Peter's book will provide the additional information gleaned through the years since the earlier book. The set of three should rival those available for the Leica and Nikon. At last, Canon won't be the overlooked one.
He's considering at least a basic look at the voluminous literature Canon produced during the RF period in the 2nd book. I'm especially interested in that, as I'm also a book collector, and the written word has always been important to me. The computer is a handy device, but it doesn't fit in my hand as well as a book.....
Harry
book on cameras
The book on the cameras is planned as the final of the 3 volumes. He felt that the book by Peter Dechert provides most collectors with at least the essential information they need, I would guess. Peter's book will provide the additional information gleaned through the years since the earlier book. The set of three should rival those available for the Leica and Nikon. At last, Canon won't be the overlooked one.
He's considering at least a basic look at the voluminous literature Canon produced during the RF period in the 2nd book. I'm especially interested in that, as I'm also a book collector, and the written word has always been important to me. The computer is a handy device, but it doesn't fit in my hand as well as a book.....
Harry
