Musashi1205
Established
Hi there, I need a little advice please:
First: I own the Canon Ltm 50mm 1.4 but I‘m quite interested in the 1.2. How do they compare in terms of OOF / Bokeh. Any of you having both? I‘m reading quite a lot the last 2 or 3 months about this but didn’t find enough side by side comparisons.
Second: I‘m aware that most wide angle rf lenses don’t perform good on Sony sensors, but some are quite good, i.e. the 28mm m-rokkor. Anyone of you owns the Canon LTM 35mm f2 or maybe also the f2.8? Is it any good or does it also produce smearing or other weird behavior (color shift etc.)?
Any insights are very much appreciated. Thanks!
First: I own the Canon Ltm 50mm 1.4 but I‘m quite interested in the 1.2. How do they compare in terms of OOF / Bokeh. Any of you having both? I‘m reading quite a lot the last 2 or 3 months about this but didn’t find enough side by side comparisons.
Second: I‘m aware that most wide angle rf lenses don’t perform good on Sony sensors, but some are quite good, i.e. the 28mm m-rokkor. Anyone of you owns the Canon LTM 35mm f2 or maybe also the f2.8? Is it any good or does it also produce smearing or other weird behavior (color shift etc.)?
Any insights are very much appreciated. Thanks!
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I own the Canon 50 mil f 1.4 lens and it is a good lens, very modern rendering for its age.
I don't own a Canon 50mil f1.2 and was always told the f 1.2 lens was not that great in the 1970s, but looking at photo samples taken by that lens I believe I was given the wrong advice, that thing is a bokeh monster.
Bille
Well-known
From what I remember, the 50/1.2 is a very different animal producing weird swirly, soapy bokeh and is fairly soft wide open. The 50/1.4 is technically a better lens.
I think the 35/2 should be all right on the a7. Corner trouble typically starts with lenses from 28mm and wider.
I think the 35/2 should be all right on the a7. Corner trouble typically starts with lenses from 28mm and wider.
peterm1
Veteran
I have both but have not shot them side by side or compared them directly.
In general I would say (some of this you already know since you own the Canon 50mm f1.4) is that I would agree that the f1.4 has what most people will call a "modern" look. Fairly sharp and contrasty at most settings with good color and good contrast. It is very forgiving in this regard. I would call its bokeh fairly neutral I think.
The 50mm f1.2 is quite another animal in some respects at least. I love "character" lenses and this is a character lens. I has a tendency to flare due to its large front element so a hood is needed. Worse (for some) it is very low contrast when shot wide open though as a result it also produces what can be nice pastel colors at these settings too. As you stop down it changes character and becomes sharper with more contrast though my own still tends to low contrast (though this may be because the coating on mine is not in good condition). Mine begins to be pretty sharp at f2.8 or so. And it is quite flattering as a portrait lens.
As to bokeh I think I prefer the f1.2 but I have not really shot it for bokeh for some reason and my impression is that it is rather smooth as you might expect but not quite so ultra smooth and gooey as you might have thought. Never the less it is good. Here is a nice link with some good samples (though not all taken with this lens).
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...i80p-Ag-7eAhUES48KHSOZCuoQsAR6BAgEEAE#imgrc=_
You will also get an idea from this article which by chance I found and re-read only a few days ago. https://themachineplanet.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/canon-50mm-f1-2-ltm-not-screwmounting-around/
The following image by me was taken on an earlier Sony NEX camera stopped down a trice to perhaps f2.8 or maybe even f3.5. Because of this and the positioning of the background the bokeh is not really shown to good advantage but it does at least show the low contrast this lens tends to produce. I do not mind that incidentally as it is something that can be fixed in post and in any event I prefer low contrast on digital sensors. And of course with most digital cameras you can in any event elect for a camera to produce a "vivid" image through its own in camera processing if this is your desire.
In summary I tend to think of the f1.4 as a general purpose lens that I can pop on the camera and use for most purposes but the f1.2 is more a special purpose lens to be used when a different look is wanted. (It also looks damned cool on the front of a digital camera).
Those Eyes - Color by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
I have not used the 35mm lenses so will leave it to others to answer.
In general I would say (some of this you already know since you own the Canon 50mm f1.4) is that I would agree that the f1.4 has what most people will call a "modern" look. Fairly sharp and contrasty at most settings with good color and good contrast. It is very forgiving in this regard. I would call its bokeh fairly neutral I think.
The 50mm f1.2 is quite another animal in some respects at least. I love "character" lenses and this is a character lens. I has a tendency to flare due to its large front element so a hood is needed. Worse (for some) it is very low contrast when shot wide open though as a result it also produces what can be nice pastel colors at these settings too. As you stop down it changes character and becomes sharper with more contrast though my own still tends to low contrast (though this may be because the coating on mine is not in good condition). Mine begins to be pretty sharp at f2.8 or so. And it is quite flattering as a portrait lens.
As to bokeh I think I prefer the f1.2 but I have not really shot it for bokeh for some reason and my impression is that it is rather smooth as you might expect but not quite so ultra smooth and gooey as you might have thought. Never the less it is good. Here is a nice link with some good samples (though not all taken with this lens).
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...i80p-Ag-7eAhUES48KHSOZCuoQsAR6BAgEEAE#imgrc=_
You will also get an idea from this article which by chance I found and re-read only a few days ago. https://themachineplanet.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/canon-50mm-f1-2-ltm-not-screwmounting-around/
The following image by me was taken on an earlier Sony NEX camera stopped down a trice to perhaps f2.8 or maybe even f3.5. Because of this and the positioning of the background the bokeh is not really shown to good advantage but it does at least show the low contrast this lens tends to produce. I do not mind that incidentally as it is something that can be fixed in post and in any event I prefer low contrast on digital sensors. And of course with most digital cameras you can in any event elect for a camera to produce a "vivid" image through its own in camera processing if this is your desire.
In summary I tend to think of the f1.4 as a general purpose lens that I can pop on the camera and use for most purposes but the f1.2 is more a special purpose lens to be used when a different look is wanted. (It also looks damned cool on the front of a digital camera).
Those Eyes - Color by Life in Shadows, on FlickrI have not used the 35mm lenses so will leave it to others to answer.
Musashi1205
Established
Thank you very much for your detailed answer!
This is about what I hoped to read. Yeah, the 1.4 is a fairly good and sharp 50 and I really love it for what it is. I got it about 2 years ago for a good price.
I‘m somehow hooked by another 1.2 lens, the Olympus Zuiko Auto-S 50mm 1.2.
Love the bokeh and overall rendering but actually don’t like the feel and look on my camera with the long adapter. A friend borrowed me this lens for quite some months but a couple of weeks ago he got it back. Since I used it I was looking to buy one but the price and look of the lens on my camera are a real drawback for me. So I started looking for the canon, if it was somehow comparable. The 1.4 is not really giving me that special look I am seeking.
So when I’m going to pay several hundred Euros for a lens I want it to be as perfect in as many regards as possible.
You wrote about character, so this is the proper term to catch my attention.
The google search link you provided I already checked of course. I also read many of the different reviews all over the internet. And I definitely think that you are right about how it looks on digital cameras!
Until now I‘m just a little concerned about „cleaning marks“ on the front element and the actual impact on the photos. A little haze is not a problem for me, it seems really easy to clean this on my own. I‘ve already disassembled some lenses for cleaning and lubrication and the Canon looks simple in this regard.
I find it very important to collect many facts and opinions before I will invest in something like this, hoping to love and keep it for many years.
Any more insights about this lens or the 35mm f2 as mentioned in my first post are very welcome.
Thanks a lot!
This is about what I hoped to read. Yeah, the 1.4 is a fairly good and sharp 50 and I really love it for what it is. I got it about 2 years ago for a good price.
I‘m somehow hooked by another 1.2 lens, the Olympus Zuiko Auto-S 50mm 1.2.
Love the bokeh and overall rendering but actually don’t like the feel and look on my camera with the long adapter. A friend borrowed me this lens for quite some months but a couple of weeks ago he got it back. Since I used it I was looking to buy one but the price and look of the lens on my camera are a real drawback for me. So I started looking for the canon, if it was somehow comparable. The 1.4 is not really giving me that special look I am seeking.
So when I’m going to pay several hundred Euros for a lens I want it to be as perfect in as many regards as possible.
You wrote about character, so this is the proper term to catch my attention.
The google search link you provided I already checked of course. I also read many of the different reviews all over the internet. And I definitely think that you are right about how it looks on digital cameras!
Until now I‘m just a little concerned about „cleaning marks“ on the front element and the actual impact on the photos. A little haze is not a problem for me, it seems really easy to clean this on my own. I‘ve already disassembled some lenses for cleaning and lubrication and the Canon looks simple in this regard.
I find it very important to collect many facts and opinions before I will invest in something like this, hoping to love and keep it for many years.
Any more insights about this lens or the 35mm f2 as mentioned in my first post are very welcome.
Thanks a lot!
I have both but have not shot them side by side or compared them directly.
In general I would say (some of this you already know since you own the Canon 50mm f1.4) is that I would agree that the f1.4 has what most people will call a "modern" look. Fairly sharp and contrasty at most settings with good color and good contrast. It is very forgiving in this regard. I would call its bokeh fairly neutral I think.
The 50mm f1.2 is quite another animal in some respects at least. I love "character" lenses and this is a character lens. I has a tendency to flare due to its large front element so a hood is needed. Worse (for some) it is very low contrast when shot wide open though as a result it also produces what can be nice pastel colors at these settings too. As you stop down it changes character and becomes sharper with more contrast though my own still tends to low contrast (though this may be because the coating on mine is not in good condition). Mine begins to be pretty sharp at f2.8 or so. And it is quite flattering as a portrait lens.
As to bokeh I think I prefer the f1.2 but I have not really shot it for bokeh for some reason and my impression is that it is rather smooth as you might expect but not quite so ultra smooth and gooey as you might have thought. Never the less it is good. Here is a nice link with some good samples (though not all taken with this lens).
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...i80p-Ag-7eAhUES48KHSOZCuoQsAR6BAgEEAE#imgrc=_
You will also get an idea from this article which by chance I found and re-read only a few days ago. https://themachineplanet.wordpress.com/2015/11/17/canon-50mm-f1-2-ltm-not-screwmounting-around/
The following image by me was taken on an earlier Sony NEX camera stopped down a trice to perhaps f2.8 or maybe even f3.5. Because of this and the positioning of the background the bokeh is not really shown to good advantage but it does at least show the low contrast this lens tends to produce. I do not mind that incidentally as it is something that can be fixed in post and in any event I prefer low contrast on digital sensors. And of course with most digital cameras you can in any event elect for a camera to produce a "vivid" image through its own in camera processing if this is your desire.
In summary I tend to think of the f1.4 as a general purpose lens that I can pop on the camera and use for most purposes but the f1.2 is more a special purpose lens to be used when a different look is wanted. (It also looks damned cool on the front of a digital camera).
I have not used the 35mm lenses so will leave it to others to answer.
peterm1
Veteran
In relation to your concern about scratches on the front element of the 50mm f1.2 LTM lens mine is absolutely shagged. The coating is quite badly scratched. I got the lens cheap so it does not bother me too much as in any event I treat mine not being a general purpose lens but rather one I use for specific tasks and subjects. I just keep a hood on it and know that with my lens there are certain shooting situations that are out of the question - backlit subjects for example. Even then it can make nice images. Tonight for example I shot some objects on a coffee table and the light from the TV in the background produced considerable flare in that area of the image. But it was soft flare of the sort produced by old uncoated pre war lenses and actually looked very nice and artistic. (It is still in the camera so I cannot upload it yet to show you).
While on the subject, another f1.2 that may be worth considering is the old Canon FL mount 58mm f1.2 (or the FL 55mm version - though I think this is a bit more expensive it is said to be marginally a better lens though I found little to complain about with its older 58mm brother).
The lens can usually be had relatively cheaply (certainly cheaper than the LTM lens in my experience) and it has nice bokeh and good color and contrast from wide open. I like mine a lot. Its only issue is - well there are two, actually.
The lens is a preset and this may need to be accomodated in use-if you are not used to it , takes a little accommodating.
The other issue is that there is a metal bulbous projection at the base of this specific lens which often seems to interfere with the actuating lever for automatic actuation of the aperture that is normally found on adapters for FL and FD lenses. (If you have adapted either type of lens you will know actuating lever that I refer to). This forced me to file off the actuating lever on one of my FL adapters and keep that as a dedicated adapter for this specific lens - not a big sacrifice given how cheaply such adapters can be bought. (This modification is also why I must use the preset ring on the lens to stop it down rather than relying on the inbuilt mechanism to achieve the same in the adapter which stops the lens down just by turning the aperture ring ).
That lens is so nice to use as a fast 50mm I am not bothered by this necessary fooling about to make it work well but felt it necessary to mention since I suggested this as worthy of your consideration. It is a biggish lens and would look very nice on the Sony body. Though as I said the handling is a slight compromise in the above respect but I found I quickly became used to changing the aperture then turning the separate ring on the camera to give effect to the pre-set aperture.
Some basic info here
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fllenses/index.htm
And a picture i made to show the bokeh some years back
City impressions by Life in Shadows, on Flickr
While on the subject, another f1.2 that may be worth considering is the old Canon FL mount 58mm f1.2 (or the FL 55mm version - though I think this is a bit more expensive it is said to be marginally a better lens though I found little to complain about with its older 58mm brother).
The lens can usually be had relatively cheaply (certainly cheaper than the LTM lens in my experience) and it has nice bokeh and good color and contrast from wide open. I like mine a lot. Its only issue is - well there are two, actually.
The lens is a preset and this may need to be accomodated in use-if you are not used to it , takes a little accommodating.
The other issue is that there is a metal bulbous projection at the base of this specific lens which often seems to interfere with the actuating lever for automatic actuation of the aperture that is normally found on adapters for FL and FD lenses. (If you have adapted either type of lens you will know actuating lever that I refer to). This forced me to file off the actuating lever on one of my FL adapters and keep that as a dedicated adapter for this specific lens - not a big sacrifice given how cheaply such adapters can be bought. (This modification is also why I must use the preset ring on the lens to stop it down rather than relying on the inbuilt mechanism to achieve the same in the adapter which stops the lens down just by turning the aperture ring ).
That lens is so nice to use as a fast 50mm I am not bothered by this necessary fooling about to make it work well but felt it necessary to mention since I suggested this as worthy of your consideration. It is a biggish lens and would look very nice on the Sony body. Though as I said the handling is a slight compromise in the above respect but I found I quickly became used to changing the aperture then turning the separate ring on the camera to give effect to the pre-set aperture.
Some basic info here
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fllenses/index.htm
And a picture i made to show the bokeh some years back
City impressions by Life in Shadows, on Flickr