LeicaTom
Watch that step!
About time someone posted a "tribute" thread to this very *underrated* Canon lens......post your Canon f1.2/50mm LTM lens shots here!
One of my favorite shots, I've taken with this lens was taken just after I picked mine up in 2009 which was at that time Mint with both caps
(I traded it for $500 worth of vintage pinup photographs, it's at best Excellent Plus now, the barrel paint Canon used just doesn't hold up well) - it is a very late version 2 lens from 1967 (one of the last lenses made and the rarest and now the most desirable of both versions).
I shot this with my old Wetzlar M6 (which I have since traded *for a IIIC K Grey*) ~
Photo is with the lovely Megan Newman shot at f1.2/ 500 sec with Kodak 400 CN ~ unretouched scanned photo.
Enjoy!
Tom
PS: I thought in 2009 that $500 for a Mint one of these was alot of money.....now you can't touch a Mint one for $700?
Last edited:
umcelinho
Marcelo
Beautiful shot, beautiful model, beautiful bokeh 
back alley
IMAGES
i find that background a bit much...hurts my eyes.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
....then do what Dorothy did in the "Wizard Of Oz", close your eyes
LOL!!!!*Well, it's not for everybody's taste I see, I guess the doughnuts can make you sea sick.......... but the f1.2 has a pleasing bokeh, not harsh like some of the more modern fast lenses have*
Tom
Last edited:
Mackinaw
Think Different
I took this several year's ago:
Jim B.
Jim B.
back alley
IMAGES
....then do what Dorothy did in the "Wizard Of Oz", close your eyes
*Well, it's not for everybody's taste I see...... but the f1.2 has a pleasing bokeh, not harsh like some of the more modern fast lenses do*
Tom
on the contrary...i had this lens for a short while (eventually sold it back to the seller) and liked it very much. i don't remember the oof background being that harsh when i used it.
back alley
IMAGES
I took this several year's ago:
Jim B.
what a great shot!
ruby.monkey
Veteran
Honestly, it's a bloody awful lens and I can't see why anyone in his right mind would want one (not that I like mine so much that I bought it the correct hood or anything - nope, not me).
ferider
Veteran
I like your photo, Tom, don't get me wrong. But it's not the lens that makes it .... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
Underrated the Canon 50/1.2 is not. It regularly goes for more than US 600 on ebay. I had several copies and tried to like it. But it's big, fairly soft (also closed down), has strong aberrations, most copies out there have to be cleaned at least once a year; it needs special filters and hood so it doesn't vignette and to minimize the flare, etc.
The only thing that speaks for it is that it looks pretty on a camera, IMO
Roland.
Underrated the Canon 50/1.2 is not. It regularly goes for more than US 600 on ebay. I had several copies and tried to like it. But it's big, fairly soft (also closed down), has strong aberrations, most copies out there have to be cleaned at least once a year; it needs special filters and hood so it doesn't vignette and to minimize the flare, etc.
The only thing that speaks for it is that it looks pretty on a camera, IMO
Roland.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
Well it is a personal choice. I bought this lens when it was 350$ and It is one of the most common lens I use. If you know the character of your lens, you can use it properly. It is the smallest fast lens if you compare the sizes of all similar lenses. I have a flickr group for this lens you can check it out.
I like its dreamy look when wide open. You dont always need damn sharp lens all the time in photography. What about summar? Besides, canon is sharp enough when stepped down.
Cheers,
And it has a glow:
I like its dreamy look when wide open. You dont always need damn sharp lens all the time in photography. What about summar? Besides, canon is sharp enough when stepped down.
Cheers,
I like your photo, Tom, don't get me wrong. But it's not the lens that makes it .... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
Underrated the Canon 50/1.2 is not. It regularly goes for more than US 600 on ebay. I had several copies and tried to like it. But it's big, fairly soft (also closed down), has strong aberrations, most copies out there have to be cleaned at least once a year; it needs special filters and hood so it doesn't vignette and to minimize the flare, etc.
The only thing that speaks for it is that it looks pretty on a camera, IMO
Roland.
And it has a glow:
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Aykut, all I'm saying is that it's not underrated (anymore).
Mackinaw
Think Different
If memory serves, I bought this lens, which was on a Canon L1, for $275.00 back in the late 1980's.
I actually don't use this lens much anymore, I much prefer the Canon 50/F1.4. My 50/1.2 is haze-prone and requires a cleaning at least twice/year (which is about a ten minute procedure for me now). I find that the lens sharpens up nicely at about F1.6. The picture of young Maxwell was taken at F1.6 on Delta 100 film.
Jim B.
I actually don't use this lens much anymore, I much prefer the Canon 50/F1.4. My 50/1.2 is haze-prone and requires a cleaning at least twice/year (which is about a ten minute procedure for me now). I find that the lens sharpens up nicely at about F1.6. The picture of young Maxwell was taken at F1.6 on Delta 100 film.
Jim B.
leicashot
Well-known
With a picture like that Tom, who could argue. Love her hair and outfit. Nice unique composition, taking advantage of the background and gorgeous angle on the lovely girl.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
I like your photo, Tom, don't get me wrong. But it's not the lens that makes it .... Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
Underrated the Canon 50/1.2 is not. It regularly goes for more than US 600 on ebay. I had several copies and tried to like it. But it's big, fairly soft (also closed down), has strong aberrations, most copies out there have to be cleaned at least once a year; it needs special filters and hood so it doesn't vignette and to minimize the flare, etc.
The only thing that speaks for it is that it looks pretty on a camera, IMO
Roland.
Thanks so much Roland, I really appreciate comments about my work like that, I work hard at shooting my PiNuP's
The filter thing is a problem (I still need to find a IR Cut filter that WORKS with the lens for use on the m8) BUT, I do have like 3 or 4 NOS/Boxed Canon UV filters so they will last me for life.
I beat the original Canon hood thing, by using a Yashica 35 Electro hood (57mm clamp-on) - best looking hood I have on any lens, makes the f1.2/50 look like a f0.95/50 LOL!!!!!! and that hood cost less than $10!
These lenses look great on Canon P and L models, also perfect match on the M Leica ~ BUT, they are way outta control on a LTM body though, tried it once on one of my IIIC K's and it's a pain in the a** and you have to use a accessory 50mm BL finder for sure, also it is really unbalanced, not a good choice if your shooting only LTM bodies......
Tom
Last edited:
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Thanks LS!
I always like using this lens when I'm shooting girls in trees, while I like the outcome of the Bokeh, gets all dreamy, creamy and swirly with doughtnuts and I get a real 1960's look outta the lens......
There's Amaris shot late in 2009 with my M8 at ISO 160 - f1.2/500 or 250 sec, little to no post processing.........
The f1.2/50 is really well balanced on the M8, it is one of my favorite lenses on the M8
Tom
Last edited:
squinza
Established
Tom and Jim, wonderful shots!
kermaier
Well-known
I'd be in your debt if you'd publish a brief tutorial in the haze cleaning procedure! It's cost me about $175 so far, and it needs another cleaning now.....
::Ari
Arvay
Obscurant
love this lens
Mackinaw
Think Different
It's actually pretty simple. You'll need a lens spanner and come in from the back (lens mount) side of the lens. Unfortunately I'm traveling right now and don't have access to the lens so can't give you a good description of what to do (don't trust my memory). I do know that Brian Sweeney has written about cleaning this lens in one of his posts. Maybe he'll see this and chime in.
Jim B.
