kevin m
Veteran
I shot my first roll of film with my 'minty' Canon 50/1.2 and the Canon VI-T body I just received from Wayne. (Thanks, Wayne!)
First impressions are favorable. The lens handles well for a 'superspeed' lens; the focus throw isn't too long, and the lens isn't too big. (I find a "wide" lens like this seems smaller than a "tall" lens that protrudes more from the body. YMMV. ) The focus lock is a PITA. I will disable it at my first opportunity. The lens could also stand to be cleaned and relubricated, as the 50-year old grease is a bit stiff. On the plus side, the glass is damned near spotless. This lens passes the 'flashlight' test, with only a few specks of dust and a few of the bubbles these old lenses always seem to have. But no haze, no fungus, no oil. Sweet. Holding out for a near mint sample seems to have paid off.
My feelings on the body so far are mixed. It's wonderfully made, but the trigger wind actually seems to interfere with focusing more than I imagined it would, perhaps since this lens has a longer focus throw than most. But that's a matter of taste. The only real negative is the rangefinder patch. It could well be that this will brighten up considerably with a cleaning (which I plan to have done) but right now it's dimmer than a Canonet, nevermind an M. Dull, dull, dull. And fuzzy, too. The viewfinder itself is very nice, it's just the rangefinder patch doesn't inspire confidence in focusing a lens this fast.
On to the pics: Shot on Fuji NPZ (iso 800) First shot at f2.0
First impressions are favorable. The lens handles well for a 'superspeed' lens; the focus throw isn't too long, and the lens isn't too big. (I find a "wide" lens like this seems smaller than a "tall" lens that protrudes more from the body. YMMV. ) The focus lock is a PITA. I will disable it at my first opportunity. The lens could also stand to be cleaned and relubricated, as the 50-year old grease is a bit stiff. On the plus side, the glass is damned near spotless. This lens passes the 'flashlight' test, with only a few specks of dust and a few of the bubbles these old lenses always seem to have. But no haze, no fungus, no oil. Sweet. Holding out for a near mint sample seems to have paid off.
My feelings on the body so far are mixed. It's wonderfully made, but the trigger wind actually seems to interfere with focusing more than I imagined it would, perhaps since this lens has a longer focus throw than most. But that's a matter of taste. The only real negative is the rangefinder patch. It could well be that this will brighten up considerably with a cleaning (which I plan to have done) but right now it's dimmer than a Canonet, nevermind an M. Dull, dull, dull. And fuzzy, too. The viewfinder itself is very nice, it's just the rangefinder patch doesn't inspire confidence in focusing a lens this fast.
On to the pics: Shot on Fuji NPZ (iso 800) First shot at f2.0
Attachments
Last edited:
photogdave
Shops local
Nice looking image! Why this lens gets so much grief is beyond me!
kevin m
Veteran
kevin m
Veteran
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Well... and I thought you had cast away all your rangefinder gear and allegiances, and here you are, playing with one again.
Nice test shots, Kevin. I had not felt like needing anything in the realm of lenses but now... I feel like I'd like one of these.
Any B&W shots by any chance?
Oh, congratulations on the purchase!
Nice test shots, Kevin. I had not felt like needing anything in the realm of lenses but now... I feel like I'd like one of these.
Any B&W shots by any chance?
Oh, congratulations on the purchase!
kevin m
Veteran
Hi Francisco, thanks!
I guess I missed RF's more than I thought I would. I don't think I can be blamed for that on THIS forum.
No B&W yet. I'll shoot and develop some this week. The results don't look too bad considering it's an 800 speed film, though!
I guess I missed RF's more than I thought I would. I don't think I can be blamed for that on THIS forum.
No B&W yet. I'll shoot and develop some this week. The results don't look too bad considering it's an 800 speed film, though!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
The Canon 1.2 I got off Dante a while ago has quickly become my favourite lens. I went out and shot some rainforestscapes with it the other day and was blown away by the results. I got it for low light portraits but so far I like everything it does!
I reckon you'll grow to regard this lens as highly as I regard mine!
I reckon you'll grow to regard this lens as highly as I regard mine!
Last edited:
venchka
Veteran
Shucks!
Shucks!
Kevin,
You make the body perform much better than I ever did. Makes me want to get the 50/1.2 lens for my other VI-T body.
Cheers!
Wayne
Shucks!
Kevin,
You make the body perform much better than I ever did. Makes me want to get the 50/1.2 lens for my other VI-T body.
Cheers!
Wayne
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Hard to get rid of the rangefinder instinct...
Morca007
Matt
Whew, very nice! My dream lenses are those fast Canons.
kevin m
Veteran
My first impression is that this lens has replaced the pre-asph Summilux as my favorite 50mm lens, especially considering the price. It's not very good wide open, IMO. Even the center areas of the lens tend to get 'mushy' at f1.2. (Nice to have the speed in a pinch, though.) But it's a very good f1.4 lens, resistant to flare (look at the first pic I posted: the window light is five stops hotter than the light on her face!,) with a clear central area dissolving into a pleasant OOF area that, unlike the Sonnar-clone 50/1.5 Canon, or even the Noctilux in certain conditions, doesn't draw attention to itself.
I plan to get mine cleaned and relubed, Fred. It's good to hear it's smooth, because I really miss the smooth, fast focus of the 50 'lux.
I plan to get mine cleaned and relubed, Fred. It's good to hear it's smooth, because I really miss the smooth, fast focus of the 50 'lux.
MikeL
Go Fish
Looks nice Kevin. Do you feel the weight/size is worth the difference between it and the 50mm pre-asph summilux? It's one of my favorites for people.
kevin m
Veteran
Mike, it was mine too! The pre-asph 'lux is still my favorite Leica lens, and I owned the 35 Asph 'lux at the same time!
Time will tell, I guess, since handling was a big reason I liked the 'lux so much. This lens has a longer focus throw and it's stiffer right now. I plan to have it cleaned and relubed, so I hope that will loosen it up. The infinity lock is a PITA, but I can disable that. Even thought the Canon takes 55mm filters it's a short lens, so, to me, it doesn't seem big on an RF body.
The plus side is that, after this first roll anyway, the Canon looks better at f1.4 than the Leica was at the same aperture. I always stopped the 'lux down half a stop, when possible, because it improved so much. The Canon is the same, f1.2 is weak, but stopped down to f1.4 it's as good a lens as I need. It's probably not fair to consider it a cheap alternative to the Noctilux, but I think it is fair to consider it an alternative to the Summilux that just happens to be a bargain.
I have to get a Leica body to mount it to, I think; the Canon lens seems better than the Canon body.
Time will tell, I guess, since handling was a big reason I liked the 'lux so much. This lens has a longer focus throw and it's stiffer right now. I plan to have it cleaned and relubed, so I hope that will loosen it up. The infinity lock is a PITA, but I can disable that. Even thought the Canon takes 55mm filters it's a short lens, so, to me, it doesn't seem big on an RF body.
The plus side is that, after this first roll anyway, the Canon looks better at f1.4 than the Leica was at the same aperture. I always stopped the 'lux down half a stop, when possible, because it improved so much. The Canon is the same, f1.2 is weak, but stopped down to f1.4 it's as good a lens as I need. It's probably not fair to consider it a cheap alternative to the Noctilux, but I think it is fair to consider it an alternative to the Summilux that just happens to be a bargain.
I have to get a Leica body to mount it to, I think; the Canon lens seems better than the Canon body.
> I will disable it at my first opportunity.
Removing it is relatively difficult. Some disassembly of the focus mount is required. I should have documented it. I re-assembled mine without the spring on the infinity latch. That's handy for taking it off the camera.
The Vt rangefinder cleans up well, at least mine did after a CLA.
Removing it is relatively difficult. Some disassembly of the focus mount is required. I should have documented it. I re-assembled mine without the spring on the infinity latch. That's handy for taking it off the camera.
The Vt rangefinder cleans up well, at least mine did after a CLA.
kevin m
Veteran
That's good news! I'll reserve judgement until I've had it cleaned, then. It's worse than my old Canonet right now.
I thought Youxin Ye CLA'd Canons, but I called him and he doesn't! Is there anyone besides DAG who does the Canons? Don's done my Leicas in the past and I loved his work, but he can get a bit backlogged at times.
ferider
Veteran
Kevin,
you write your lens is soft in the center wide open. It shouldn't be.
Whatever body you use it on in the future, make sure the
lens is well collimated (to it). You can check by taking a test photo
of a distance tape.
Can be an issue with the 50/1.2 in particular.
Best,
Roland.
you write your lens is soft in the center wide open. It shouldn't be.
Whatever body you use it on in the future, make sure the
lens is well collimated (to it). You can check by taking a test photo
of a distance tape.
Can be an issue with the 50/1.2 in particular.
Best,
Roland.
Essex in New Jersey has worked on Canons for me.
There online quote still lists $130+8 return shipping. I've had them do my Vt with a hazy finder and sticky shutter for that price, and a jammed Canon 7 for the same price.
http://essexcamera.com/camera_list.php?brand=CANON
There online quote still lists $130+8 return shipping. I've had them do my Vt with a hazy finder and sticky shutter for that price, and a jammed Canon 7 for the same price.
http://essexcamera.com/camera_list.php?brand=CANON
kevin m
Veteran
Thanks, Roland, I'll check on that. Look at the pics in post #3 of this thread. The one on the left is at f1.4, the right f1.2. Does that look about right to you?
Thanks, Brian, I'll contact them.
