Canon 50mm F1.2 Users reports and experience?

[rover]

Didn't you say the shade is rare??
I don't have the lens, but yesterday a 50/1.2 shade went for 36 GBP, which sounds OK to me compared to 220 USD for a 0.95/50 so called shade... 110040275471

Yes, and one last week sold for @$95.

 

[Sonnar2]

So do you Americans do not bid in UK auctions for some reason?

 

[Daniel Unkefer]

I bought the $95 1.2 Canon shade several weeks ago. It was from a dealer in California, who offered it on his website. It's in mint condition😎

 

[dexdog]

So do you Americans do not bid in UK auctions for some reason?

Can't speak for others, but I bid on UK and other European auctions.

 

[Sonnar2]

I like UK more because freight is cheaper and no customs duty. But most American sellers I dealt with are more friendly. It's just because I've recently seen some UK auctions with Canon gear closing lower than US, i.e a nice cla'd Canon P for 166 GBP.

 

[John Shriver]

I have no issues bidding on UK auctions. Germany is more of a hassle, since the shipping prices are ridiculously high from their privatized post office (DHL). Shipping anything of any size from Germany to United States seems to cost 40 Euros, which is nutso. Germans are also a bit more likely to only accept wire transfer, not PayPal.

Yes, my Canon searches on eBay are always worldwide.

 

[jlw]

I happened to have this print handy of a photo made with a Canon 50/1.2 at full aperture, so threw it on the scanner. I shot the picture in 1990 with a Canon VI-T; I'm guessing the film was Kodak T-Max P3200.

Note that since it's scanned from a print rather than from the original film, you can't get too picky making judgments about image quality; still, it's something to look at!

In the overall image, note the white flare spot at the top of the picture, falling on the theater light hanging down just to the right of center. This was caused by another theater light that's just outside the frame, and is characteristic of how this lens behaves with bright light sources close to the picture area. I could have cropped it out, but in this case I liked it:

A lens hood (which I did not use for this picture) really helps, which may be one reason the dedicated hood for this lens is so sought-after and expensive! A generic 55mm hood will fit, but since it's unvented and the lens is fairly fat, it probably will block some of the viewfinder. The expensive Canon hood has vents cut into it so you can partially see through it.

The detail section gives an idea of the "look" of a full-aperture image. It appears somewhat soft and maybe even a bit mushy (a word I've often heard used to describe pictures with this particular lens) yet details are rendered pretty well -- note that you can see individual strands of hair sticking up from Kay's head:

In summary, I'd say that while this lens' performance is not up to modern standards of sharpness and contrast, it's usable and offers a "signature" that may appeal to you, especially if you like the '50s-available-light look.

 

[drewbarb]

I have used this lens for a couple of years, and have enjoyed it immensely (thanks again, Raid!). On my M3's it was always tack sharp in the center, even wide open, unless I got the focus wrong. Caveat-I check the alignemnt of my rangefinders every couple of months, just to make sure they're in good shape, and the lens was serviced recently before I bought it. Under these conditions, with the camera and lens known to be in good shape, this is an outstandeing lens. I have been blown away by what it can do. It exhibits beautiful bokeh, and has that lovely old-school feel- sharp, but not clinically so, and yields contrast that's a dream to print to any desired level. It's been a great "poor man's Noctilux". I think the handling is pretty good. The focus throw does a good balance of short-enough to work fast and long-enough to be accurate. It's heavy, but it's not very long, so it balances nicely, and is a perfect mate to an M3, ergonomically, as well as being a dream with the M3's finder. Not wanting (or being able) to spend a hundred dollars on a hood, I made one out of a 55mm-62mm step ring and straight 62mm shade. I used a dremel tool to cut vents in the step ring, and it's worked quite well. Cost was $18 and an hour's labor. The only issue I have with this lens is that mine has lately develped some serios issues inside- either there is fungus or a group is coming uncemented. It has suddenly started flaring like crazy is no longer sharp anywhere. I need to send it in for service. But get a good example, make sure it and the camera are in proper adjustment, and love it.

 

[Letien]

The depth-of-field is extremely narrow at f/1.2, so mount the camera on a tripod and focus very carefully on a subject that will betray any imprecision - many people use newsprint laid flat on the table in front of the camera as the test subject, and mark the particular line of print they focus on. That will indicate whether the focus is spot-on, in front, or behind the desired focus point.

[/QUOTE]

I simply use a ruler lay flat on the ground. For open back camera like canon rf, I also use a piece of groundglass to fit it on film plane. It works.

 

[jlw]

I simply use a ruler lay flat on the ground. For open back camera like canon rf, I also use a piece of groundglass to fit it on film plane. It works.

If you find that yours is one of those that wasn't adjusted correctly for focus point from new:

The focus point is determined by a brass ring inside the lens, which shims the optical section from the focusing mount. You can remove the entire optical section by (carefully!!) unscrewing the slotted ring around the rear lens element; the optical section lifts out in one piece.

If you find your lens invariably focuses closer than the RF indicates (assuming you're sure the RF is adjusted correctly!) that means the brass ring is too thick; if you're brave, you can (CAREFULLY!!!) thin it down by rubbing it against fine-grained abrasive paper placed on a flat surface. Use a circular motion and change your grip frequently to randomize your hand movements. Proceed slowly -- correct adjustment is a matter of hundredths of a millimeter!!

If you find your lens invariably focuses farther than the RF indicates, it means the brass ring is too thin. You can shim it by cutting a supplementary ring from brass shim stock, which is available in very thin dimensions at any good hardware store. The thinnest shim stock is considerably thinner than ordinary paper, and cuts easily with scissors or a sharp hobby knife. Use the original ring as a pattern and carefully cut the shim so it matches exactly.

Note that I DO NOT RECOMMEND this procedure except as a last resort! That goes especially for the "thinning" process, since it's non-reversible. Adding a shim isn't so bad -- if it doesn't help, you can just throw the shim away.

Still, if you've got a 50/1.2 that's not worth keeping "stock" and which seems to perform well except for depth misadjustment, this is one thing you can do about it. Might be a good use for a lens which has slight element separation, a marred barrel, or other wear/damage that makes it too ugly to bring collector prices...