Canon LTM CANON 50mm F1.2 LTM

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Canon 50/1.2 wide open on an M8
8088837-lg.jpg

8096819-lg.jpg
 
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.
 
kevin m said:
No, it's better than that, and here's my evidence:

R-D1 shot wide open, 6ft.

2856014859_1893989c31.jpg
Click to expand...

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.
 
...so the (slower) C-Sonnar wins.
Click to expand...

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. ;):D
 
kevin m said:
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. ;):D
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
M2user said:
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.
Click to expand...

i believe the barnacks have plenty of baselength, so it should be no problem.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
These are beautiful images. Thanks for posting them. Great photography with a very good lens.
 
David Murphy said:
I use it a lot wide open with no vignetting issues - at least that is obvious without careful measurement.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom