Extremely EVIL Canon 50 f/1.2L on Queen Mary

julianphotoart

julianphotoart

No likey digital-phooey
Local time
7:57 AM
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
619
I did a very evil thing. I got a Canon 50mm f/1.2L lens. Then we went to the Queen Mary. We were in the DARK engine room. Then we were inside on the pretty dark main deck. As far as I recall, all these were shot at 1.2. Nothing artistic at all but, without flash, it was very very evil fun.
 

Attachments

  • Main Deck 01--750.jpg
    Main Deck 01--750.jpg
    53.1 KB · Views: 0
  • Main Deck 02--750.jpg
    Main Deck 02--750.jpg
    37.2 KB · Views: 0
  • Engine Room 01--700.jpg
    Engine Room 01--700.jpg
    45.3 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
More evil f/1.2 on Queen Mary

More evil f/1.2 on Queen Mary

There's a 3-image limit per post??? Anyway, this also has a shot of the DARK bar interior. Unfortunately, this lens handled every situation extremely smoothly and easily. These images were not altered except for a bit of cropping on the vertical images. They weren't even colour-corrected -- not that they have the right colour but it wasn't all that bad. Can a lens affect the degree of colour-weirdness that one gets from exposures with different or conflicting lighting sources?
 

Attachments

  • Bar 01--700.jpg
    Bar 01--700.jpg
    47.7 KB · Views: 0
  • Engine Room 02--750.jpg
    Engine Room 02--750.jpg
    50.9 KB · Views: 0
  • Engine Room 03--700.jpg
    Engine Room 03--700.jpg
    46.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Beautiful shots. I picked up a Canon FD 55mm 1.2, (not the "L") on the 'bay for $140, and I've been very pleased with it. Very tempting to shoot with it, despite its evil mount.
 
The photos turned out very well.

The Canon FD 50mm/1.2L cannot be used with a DSLR but the EOS version can be used that way. I have the FD version, and I love the lens.
 
Last edited:
Nice pictures - I agree it's a great lens. I have the FD version too, and it is one of my favourite lenses. I recently hired the EF version with a 5D for my wife's 40th birthday party so I could takes pictures of the event in available light (ISO 1600) and was very impressed with the results.
 
The photos were at ISO 100, which was part of the fun of shooting at f/1.2. Also, I must admit that the camera was an extra-evil 5D.
 
I have the 50mm and 85mm 1.2L lens duo; it is a powerhouse when it comes to photography.
 
When I had the 85 1.2L, it lived on my F1N, awesome glass even today. Now that I think about it, when I got rid of that lens, I pretty much stopped shooting anything in colour, at least for myself.

I wonder what the 50 on a Barnack with zone focusing would be like to work with?

Eli
 
The FD 135/2 is not an L lens but it should have been designated L. I am not sure about the EOS version.
 
Last edited:
Double Negative said:
I've got a good spread of Canon L primes; 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2 and 300/2.8 (I plan to probably get the new 24/1.4 - if not, the old). They're all very good lenses optically, some better than others (the 135 and 300 are very sweet, the former a bargain amongst Ls). The 85 is a portrait lens like no other. But the 50 is very impressive. Somewhat controversial (akin to the Zeiss 1,5/50 Sonnar) due to the "focus shift issue." But in real world shooting and with a bit of knowledge - not an issue at all.

It's a shame one can't compare L glass to M glass directly, digitally; I think the AA filters on Canon bodies really hurts potential sharpness. I look at files from the M8 as compared to the 1D2N and L glass and there's no comparison. Some day maybe I'll try a comparison on film. Gear tests beyond the "hey, it works" kind aren't really my thing though...
Click to expand...


whats considered the Must have lenses for FD
mine is pretty small kit compared to yours.

135 f2 lens
canon FL 100 f3.5
canon 50 f1.8
vivitar series one zoom
just ordered at KEH this one, wondering if its decent

"28 F2.8 TOKINA RMC FD BL (52) 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS WIDE ANGLE LENS Grade: Excellent Shipping will be by: Ground UPS Quantity: 1 Price: $17.00 Total: $17.00"
 
raid said:
The FD 135/2 is not an L lens but it should have been designated L. I am not sure about the EOS version.
Click to expand...

Why? At least in the late FD days, the L designation was attached to lenses which required (for the time) unusual construction methods such as aspherical lens elements or exotic glass types (e.g. fluorite). It was not an indication of performance in any way. In the early FD day, Canon tended to state what it was. Typically these methods were used to construct lenses which were not possible to be build in any other way (e.g. ultra fast, ultra wide, extreme zoom ratios or a combination there of).

If the FD 135/2 doesn't need to use aspherical elements or exotic glass, it is not an L lens and should not have been designated as such. As I said the L label at least in those days was not about performance.

Cheers
joachim
 
Double Negative said:
I've got a good spread of Canon L primes; 14/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2 and 300/2.8 (I plan to probably get the new 24/1.4 - if not, the old). They're all very good lenses optically, some better than others (the 135 and 300 are very sweet, the former a bargain amongst Ls). The 85 is a portrait lens like no other. But the 50 is very impressive. Somewhat controversial (akin to the Zeiss 1,5/50 Sonnar) due to the "focus shift issue." But in real world shooting and with a bit of knowledge - not an issue at all.

It's a shame one can't compare L glass to M glass directly, digitally; I think the AA filters on Canon bodies really hurts potential sharpness. I look at files from the M8 as compared to the 1D2N and L glass and there's no comparison. Some day maybe I'll try a comparison on film. Gear tests beyond the "hey, it works" kind aren't really my thing though...
Click to expand...


To my opinion, the 35 mm 1,4L is the best lens from Canon when shooting with a Full Frame camera. I have the old 50 mm 1,0L which lacks the contrast compared to the new 50 mm 1,2L. Then vignetting is heavy too on the old one when used on a 1Ds III.

I also have the old 85 mm 1,2L (not II) which is a typical portrait lens. The far cheaper 1,8 version comes out sharper in most tests. I don't have the legendary 135 mm 2,0L, but the 200 mm 2,8L II which I frequently use with both 1,4x and 2x converters, and the 25 mm spacer. - With all these tools it is a wide ranging optical system. Which I use a lot. I also have the 300 mm 2,8L (w/o IS) which hasn't been farther than 200 meters from my car.

I am also planning to buy the new 24 mm 1,4L II which primarily is intended to perform better on FF cameras. So, if you shoot with a 1DIIn then the old one is just as good.

The AA filters do indeed reduce sharpness on the Canon cameras - and others. The lack of the AA filters is one of M8's strongest sides (- but also on of it's weaknesses). The files from M8 are as good resolution wise at least as good as 1Ds II. The M8 files looks more like cropped 1Ds III files. I know, I have them both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom