Hacker
黑客
I coded mine as a Noctilux on the M8, and I'm not seeing any difference.
Canon LTM CANON 50mm F1.2 LTM
- Thread starter M2user
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 160
- Views 65K
Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
I coded mine as a Noctilux on the M8, and I'm not seeing any difference.
johnastovall
Light Hunter - RIP 2010
Canon 50/1.2 wide open on an M8
Roger Hicks
Veteran
It's... OK. "Those who quite like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing they quite like."
I have just given away my 50/1.2 (an old friend's 60th birthday) because I'm happy to live with the 1/2 stop loss with the 50/1.5 C-Sonnar. If I could afford a Noctilux 50/1 I'd buy it; I've used that too and I like it more. Don't know about the 50/0.95 because I haven't tried it yet (at least, not a production version, though I liked the prototype well enough).
As ever, the photographer's eye and preferences count more than the objective qualities. This is not the same as saying that there is no difference. There is, and which you prefer will depend partly on your wallet and partly on your vision. Ignore all those who try to tell you otherwise.
Cheers,
R.
I have just given away my 50/1.2 (an old friend's 60th birthday) because I'm happy to live with the 1/2 stop loss with the 50/1.5 C-Sonnar. If I could afford a Noctilux 50/1 I'd buy it; I've used that too and I like it more. Don't know about the 50/0.95 because I haven't tried it yet (at least, not a production version, though I liked the prototype well enough).
As ever, the photographer's eye and preferences count more than the objective qualities. This is not the same as saying that there is no difference. There is, and which you prefer will depend partly on your wallet and partly on your vision. Ignore all those who try to tell you otherwise.
Cheers,
R.
kevin m
Veteran
No, it's better than that, and here's my evidence:
R-D1 shot wide open, 6ft.
Where might one find your examples?
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
No, it's better than that, and here's my evidence:
R-D1 shot wide open, 6ft.
Dear Kevin,
I won't argue. You've had nice shots with it. So have I. All I'd say is that I got proportionately more shots I like with the Noctilux. If the Canon is 'OK' then the Noctilux is (to me) sort of 'OK++': a long way from perfect, but still a lot more desirable than the Canon. Is it 10x better? Well, what does that mean? If I could afford 10x the price, yes. As I can't, no, so the (slower) C-Sonnar wins.
Cheers,
R.
kevin m
Veteran
Well I'd be shooting with the Aspherical Summilux 50 over the 50/1.2 in a perfect world. "Perfect" meaning 'not tethered to financial reality,' of course. 😉😀
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Kevin,
Well, yes. Financial reality is indeed a bit of a bugger. But I might well go for a (new, f/0.95) Noctilux and a 50/2.5 Summarit if it weren't. The Summilux aspherical is too much of a compromise...
Cheers,
R.
Erik L
Well-known
Erik L
Well-known
wasnt it the nikkor 1.1?
M2user
Member
Many thanks to all contributors to this thread.
You have posted some very nice examples using the Canon 50mm F/1.2 .
Another lens that is very rarely mentioned perhaps because of its rarity is the Fujinon 50mm F/1.2 LTM but its rarity puts it beyond my means. Does anybody on the forum use such a lens?
With regard to the Canon 50mm F/1.2 LTM, this is the lens for me and I have decided to purchase a mint example that I have seen in a local dealers shop.
Although I will use it mainly on the M2 , can it also be used with a Leica II with
a SBOOI finder.Will the Leica II be able to give accurate focus at full aperture or is the lens a No-No on a Barnack.Your opinions would be very much appreciated.
You have posted some very nice examples using the Canon 50mm F/1.2 .
Another lens that is very rarely mentioned perhaps because of its rarity is the Fujinon 50mm F/1.2 LTM but its rarity puts it beyond my means. Does anybody on the forum use such a lens?
With regard to the Canon 50mm F/1.2 LTM, this is the lens for me and I have decided to purchase a mint example that I have seen in a local dealers shop.
Although I will use it mainly on the M2 , can it also be used with a Leica II with
a SBOOI finder.Will the Leica II be able to give accurate focus at full aperture or is the lens a No-No on a Barnack.Your opinions would be very much appreciated.
Erik L
Well-known
i believe the barnacks have plenty of baselength, so it should be no problem.
raid
Dad Photographer
Erik: You caught the typo. Yes, it was a 1.1.
John Shriver
Well-known
I'd think I'd prefer a Leica III or later for focusing the 50/1.2, since the II only has 1X rangefinder magnification, all the later models have 1.5X, which increases the effective base-line by 50%.
Indeed, I'd think this is a case where the increased rigidity of the "cast" crate in the Leica IIIc and later is called for. The II through IIIb are "built up" from bits of brass sheet screwed together, and aren't all that dimensionally stable. Just like a Summarex is too demanding for the cameras before the IIIc, I think the 50/1.2 could be as well.
Also note that a SBOOI is pretty much essential with the 50/1.2 on a Barnack, as it blocks much of the built-in viewfinder. The 50/1.2 is really awkwardly large on a Barnack.
I wouldn't consider trying anything bigger than the 50/1.4 on a Barnack myself. I've used the 50/1.2 on my IIIa, but just for laughs.
Indeed, I'd think this is a case where the increased rigidity of the "cast" crate in the Leica IIIc and later is called for. The II through IIIb are "built up" from bits of brass sheet screwed together, and aren't all that dimensionally stable. Just like a Summarex is too demanding for the cameras before the IIIc, I think the 50/1.2 could be as well.
Also note that a SBOOI is pretty much essential with the 50/1.2 on a Barnack, as it blocks much of the built-in viewfinder. The 50/1.2 is really awkwardly large on a Barnack.
I wouldn't consider trying anything bigger than the 50/1.4 on a Barnack myself. I've used the 50/1.2 on my IIIa, but just for laughs.
ruby.monkey
Veteran
A few shots with he Canon at f/1.2:
It's not a lens I use often, due to its weight (and the fact that my example has rather a stiff aperture ring), but when I do use it I'm usually happy with the results.
It's not a lens I use often, due to its weight (and the fact that my example has rather a stiff aperture ring), but when I do use it I'm usually happy with the results.
Krosya
Konicaze
Canon 50/1.2 ltm at 1.2"
David Murphy
Veteran
Sometimes camera baffles cause vignetting with certain lenses. The Canon P does this sometimes with some lenses. I own a 50/1.2 Canon and it's the best lens for the money I've ever used. I use it a lot wide open with no vignetting issues - at least that is obvious without careful measurement.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
These are beautiful images. Thanks for posting them. Great photography with a very good lens.
Mackinaw
Think Different
- Local time
- 3:17 PM
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,706
Look in the corners. While I don't consider it to be major, the corners will be a tad darker than the center (hardly surprising for a lens that was designed 50+ years ago). Still, the Canon 50/1.2 is a fine lens. While I don't use it much anymore, preferring the Canon 50/1.4, it's a lens I'll never sell.
Jim B.
M2user
Member
Since starting this thread I have been finding other interesting threads regarding the Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM this one in particular,which was posted on the Leica M forum, is very interesting with some very nice photo examples:-
www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58442
www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58442
fbf
Well-known
There was one sold on ebay for 2xx$ around xmas.
