Canon 50mm F1.2, early, in LTM

Sonnar Brian

Sonnar Brian

Product of the Fifties
Staff member
Local time
10:10 AM
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
19,780
View My Gallery
This lens lives in the shadow of the younger sibling, the 50/0.95. The Canon 50/1.4 is sharper, and has higher contrast. The 50/1.2 is native LTM mount, the 50/0.95 is Canon 7 breech-lock, must be adapted for use on the Leica. Prices on the 50/0.95 have skyrocketed 15x over what they sold for 15 years ago.

The Canon 50/1.2 can be found (with patience) for $400~$500. I have both lenses: could never see a reason to convert the 50/0.95 to M-Mount. The cost of the conversion exceeds what I paid for this lens in Dec 2019. The lens came with a beautiful Canon Vt Deluxe as a rear cap.

The 1956 Canon 50mm F1.2 is a double-Gauss 7 element in 5 group "Super-Speed" lens, uses a then-new high-index of refraction/ low-dispersion glass that made it possible to offer such speed using only 7 elements. The Nikkor 5cm F1.1 uses 9 elements in 6 groups. The Zunow 5cm F1.1 is a Sonnar formula, also used 9 elements.

This lens is susceptible to haze and etching from the lubricants used attacking the surface behind the aperture. I suspect that much of the bad-rep is due to haze. When looking for one, be able to inspect and return. Some light haze will lower contrast, of the lens is cheap enough- use a hood.

This one is my third in 15 years, and is the first one with perfect glass. This one is from 1957, as is the Vt Deluxe that it came with- both most likely bought new together.

Start off with numbers for vignetting, focus at infinity.



I took this lens and a perfect-glass Canon 50/1.4 to the Marine Museum for an informal comparison. Mostly shooting the 50/1.2 wide-open and at F1.4.

At F1.2-



And at F1.4.

 
F1.2,



And F1.4-



F1.2-


F1.4,


This lens is low-contrast, which is often a benefit for digital cameras.
 
Wide-Open,





With strong Back-Light.

If you pick up this lens: The front element protrudes well into the filter threads. the original 55mm filters made for it have the glass all the way in front. A regular 55mm filter usually has the glass towards the beginning of the threads, will bang into the front element. Either look for the original filters, take the glass out of a 55mm filter and use as an extension, or use a 55->58 step up ring.
 
My Canon 50/1.2 had to get repaired by DAG for a focus range that went diagonally across the plane. It was due to moving lens elements. Don adjusted them.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
.......This lens is susceptible to haze and etching from the lubricants used attacking the surface behind the aperture. I suspect that much of the bad-rep is due to haze. When looking for one, be able to inspect and return. Some light haze will lower contrast, of the lens is cheap enough- use a hood.......
Click to expand...

Kanto Camera, in Japan, has partnered with an optical company to reproduce the troublesome lens element(s) that are susceptible to haze, staining or discoloration. No idea what this service would cost, but the option is out there.

http://www.kantocamera.com/english/repair/repair.html

Jim B.
 
Mackinaw said:
Kanto Camera, in Japan, has partnered with an optical company to reproduce the troublesome lens element(s) that are susceptible to haze, staining or discoloration. No idea what this service would cost, but the option is out there.

http://www.kantocamera.com/english/repair/repair.html

Jim B.
Click to expand...

Thankyou for this! I'm lucky that "third time is the charm", but this will give new life to these classic lenses.

I believe that Lubricants used by Canon leaked (or outgassed) to the element and caused the damage. I do not believe that it is age alone. It is some interaction between the glass and lubricants. The same type glass was used in many of the Canon lenses. The 50/1.2 I have now is an Early SN- either Canon used a Lubricant that did not cause etching, or the lubricant in my lens was changed early on. The SN puts mine in 1957, the SN of the body it came with is about the same age. The Vt Deluxe that the lens came on was made for ~6months.
 
Erik van Straten said:
I see only a very small difference between shots at f/1.2 and shots at f/1.4.


Erik.
Click to expand...

It's true- I brought along the 50/1.4 and shot the same scenes for a better comparison. I'll upload those shots soon to new thread. BLUF- the 50/1.4 has higher contrast and is a bit sharper wide-open. But... I just like the rendering of the 50/1.2 better. I "finished off" my Canon 50mm collection, have eleven different Canon 50mm lenses now.
 
I have both lenses, the 50/1.2 and 50/1.4. The 50/1.4 is a much better lens, but the 50/1.2 has much more character. Here's one taken with the 50/1.2 years back. Probably at F1.4. Forgot the film. On my Leica MP.

50788327256_1bc8cab550_c.jpg


Jim B.
 
I have the 50 1.2 with the recurrent haze problem. CLA about 3-4 years ago to clean it up. Now its back and contrast is lower. I'm asking Kanto Camera for an estimate on the element "upgrade", but I expect it will be expensive if they are replacing all of the elements.

BTW, nice images all. Thanks for sharing. Love the rendering at 1.2.
 
ellisson said:
I have the 50 1.2 with the recurrent haze problem. CLA about 3-4 years ago to clean it up. Now its back and contrast is lower. I'm asking Kanto Camera for an estimate on the element "upgrade", but I expect it will be expensive if they are replacing all of the elements.......
Click to expand...

Let us know what price they quote you. My 50/1.2 shows staining on one element. I may consider having Kanto replace the element if the price is reasonable.

Jim B.
 
Sonnar Brian said:
.....I believe that Lubricants used by Canon leaked (or outgassed) to the element and caused the damage. I do not believe that it is age alone. It is some interaction between the glass and lubricants. The same type glass was used in many of the Canon lenses......
Click to expand...

We had this discussion a few years back. If you look at Canon literature of the day, they were quite proud of using newly developed "rare earth" glass elements. Somebody speculated that the lubricants Canon used didn't age well with these rare-earth elements. Don't know if that's true, but it kind of makes sense.

Jim B.
 
I remember that discussion, since have taken a number of Canon lenses apart. The worst I've seen is in the Later 100/3.5 LTM series. I bought an R and FL version of the 100/3.5: those cleaned up well. I replaced the damaged elements in the LTM lens with those from the SLR lenses- worked out well. I ended up with 3 LTM Canon 100/3.5's.
 
I picked up an earlier Black 50/1.8 "Ebay Gamble" for $50 that cleaned up perfectly, sn just over 210,000, probably late 1956 or 1957. About the same age as my 50/1.2. For the Black 50/1.8 lenses- 4 of 6 that I've seen were damaged.
 
Hi, sometime ago I compared them on my Sony A7RIII.
I’ve uploaded the exemples to flickr.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/146474230@N05/albums/72157676515698607
Camera was on a tripod, both lenses were handled identically.
Before I cleaned the whole 1.2 including the hazed element and relubricated the focus thread. Actually the haze is coming back after a couple of months, so it has to be cleaned every now and then. I used lithium grease to lube it, as this was recommended - I think from someone here on RFF if I remember correctly.
 
Musashi1205 said:
Hi, sometime ago I compared them on my Sony A7RIII.
I’ve uploaded the exemples to flickr.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/146474230@N05/albums/72157676515698607
Camera was on a tripod, both lenses were handled identically.
Before I cleaned the whole 1.2 including the hazed element and relubricated the focus thread. Actually the haze is coming back after a couple of months, so it has to be cleaned every now and then. I used lithium grease to lube it, as this was recommended - I think from someone here on RFF if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

Did you flood-clean the aperture blades and mechanism when you cleaned the lens? I've never seen lenses haze over like some of these Canon lenses. My current 50/1.2 and 50/1.8 have been free of haze for over a year since I bought them, and the 50/1.4 has been haze-free in the couple of years that I've owned it. The Canon 100/3.5: two of three hazed over within a year. I have it down to 10 minutes to clean them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom