New 50mm 1.2 owner....the right thing?!

[Roger Hicks]

That's exact the pitfall using the "super-fast" lenses ... quite likely a huge amount of extreme DoF / bokeh shots ... For testing accurate focus it is useful but otherwise gets soon boring ... I found that using a 50mm at f/1.2 and faster gives best results at distances above 3m. Night life in a city or impressions from events, bars, restaurants, concerts ... 🙂 . . .

Dear Gabor,

I agree. Everyone over-uses the maximum aperture of a super-fast lens when they get it -- it's hard not to -- but very few people can then continue to compose that sort of picture in good light: it's one of the clichés of the present day and will presumably decline in popularity.

Note that I'm not denying that some photographers can do it, or that all of us can do it with some shots. I'm just quite bored with a lot of the shots I see using that technique.

Shooting at wide apertures in poor light is another matter entirely, though I have to confess that I share Al's weakness for the 15/4.5 as an available light lens; also 21/2.8.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Al Kaplan]

Roger, lately I've really been trying to shoot more with my 21/3.4 Super Angulon, really! It's not easy to get used to the "narrow" angle of view, for one thing! And it's classic "glass, brass, and chrome". Put it on an M and it weighs a ton. I can do all sorts of things with the Bessa/15 combo one handed, right or left, including winding the film. The M/21 (or M/15) combo I can't use that way. The other combo I frequently use for available light is an M with a heavy-as-can-be "glass, brass, and chrome" 85mm f/2 Nikkor, but I use two hands and it's used for completely different types of shots.

Hey, it could be worse! I could be trying to shoot available light with an f/8 Zeiss Hologon. I suppose if I was still shooting for money I'd spring for the new f/2.8 Zeiss 15.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I suppose if I was still shooting for money I'd spring for the new f/2.8 Zeiss 15.

Dear Al,

I dunno. I had one on loan, and although it's a magnificent chunk of glass, the only reason I'd buy one is the option of a centre-grad filter (or indeed any filters) OR wanting to shoot low-ISO (film or digital) all the time in poor light with action freezing. I've reasonably often shot 1/4 second wide open with the f/4.5 and got what I regard as acceptable sharpness most of the time, albeit with local subject motion (e.g. drummer's arm moving).

You think the Super-Angulon is heavy!

Cheers,

R.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I don't really see much advantage there either, compared with either of my f/1.5 lenses (Sonnar and Nokton); if anything, I find that the extra sharpness of the Nokton, in particular, emphasizes the focus gradient more (in the sense of the difference between in-focus and out-of-focus). Edit: In fact, I half suspect that stopping the Canon down to f/1.4 might have the same effect, because the image does crisp up quite rapidly. Dunno: never tried it. You might care to, though.

Then again, I don't shoot that many lenses wide open for shallow d-o-f. The main ones that I do use that way are mostly quite long: 135/2.8 Elmarit-M, 135/1.8 Soligor, 21 inch f/7.7 (on 10x8 inch).

The lens I really liked for shallow d-o-f and three-dimensional rendering was the 58/1.4 Nikkor, one of many lenses I wish I'd never sold. Funny: there are few if any cameras I regret selling, but quite a lot of lenses.

Cheers,

R.

You've got years of experience with RF lenses Roger, I have two and a pitiful collection of lenses. I suppose its really just a chance to play with a new lens and see what I can get out of it whilst trying to avoid the obvious pitfalls.

My main concern with shooting wide open is that I'm not fast at focussing and like to make sure the focus is exactly where I want it to be. As such how much I will actually shoot at f1.2, at least successfully in my eyes, remains to be seen.

I'd love to have as much experience with the variety of lenses as many members here have. I have no doubt that I'd use very few of them regularly but knowing what is available to do which jobs best is a great advantage and one only garnered by experimentation.

Yes, you are right about that, the aim of my post was just to show some crazy conversions, after what the guy does with his kit is not my problem...🙄

Yeah I know, the comment was aimed more at the Flickr poster than you. I went and had a look and got bored of the photos. Though I wouldn't mind having the knowledge to make some of those conversions and be more hands on with my kit. I'm too clumsy and oafish to open a lens up to clean off any fungus or haze!

guilty...

...aren't we all, really?!🙄

 

[drewbarb]

The Canon 50mm f1.2 is a very nice lens. It can be prone to growing gunk in it, so be sure to keep it clean (search for the various threads here and there on the relative ease of opening and cleaning this lens). Since it's a short, fat lens, rather than just a big, long lens, I find it balances well on an M camera. It's a really nice match with an M3, with it's higher magnification finder and big 50mm framelines, but there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to just stick it on your M6 and go. Get a good 50mm LTM-M adapter and go to town. Enjoy it!

Edit- sorry to those who've seen this before; I just wanted to add an image from this lens for inspiration.

 

[willie_901]

I enjoyed using the Canon 50/1.2 LTM I once owned.

Be advised that it is rather prone to flare compared to modern fast 50mm lenses.

Enjoy,

willie

 

[Pherdinand]

i have a 50x60cm print from an acros 100 neg that was exposed through the 50/1.2 (although not at full aperture - somewhere at f/2.8) and it looks awesome.
The lens is good enough for me. I'm using it on an m2 and i have not found a problem in this combination.

 

[OurManInTangier]

It can be prone to growing gunk in it, so be sure to keep it clean (search for the various threads here and there on the relative ease of opening and cleaning this lens).

Thanks for the heads up regarding threads discussing the cleaning of this lens, I'll go and search these out. Supposedly it is clean of haze and fungus but does have a little dust and some minor "cleaning marks." Hopefully it won't prove worse than this!

 

[goldchen96]

I bought a canon 1,2/50 half a year ago from ebay, haze inside rear element(s). got it CLAd in a small camera repair shop in edinburgh. they did a very good job.
even though it has this "dream-like" low contrast look wide open i regard it to be a nice poor mans noct. if you focus correctly it is quite sharp in the centre, usable i'd say, and if you can't afford a noctilux, like me, go for it! Once I get tired of the look i might buy a modern 50mm lens to accompany this little jewel...
i tend to sometimes take pictures with shallow DOF just for the sake of doing so, but, so what? its just my personal playground. stopped down it is really sharp with good contrast, by the way. (the attached files look a lot sharper on my computer than they do by clicking on them in the post. sure have to learn how to do this correctly!?)
Cheers, Goldchen

M6, Canon 1,2/50mm at f1,2, APX 100, Rodinal

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I bought mine to use wide open. But it is plenty, plenty sharp stopped down:

 

[Krosya]

As most people post B&W pics fron Canon 50/1.2 - I thought I'd mix it up and show some colours. Here are a couple - not at 1.2, but at about f2 or so:

 

[Krosya]

Now here is one at 1.2 - exposure a bit off, but I just wanted to show off that bokeh/OOF background as one does with this type of a lens 😉 :

 

[Nokton48]

I sometimes find it faster, with this lens, to rock forward, or backwards, as the subject pivots and positions, keeping the camera position relative. When it's perfect, I fire. Focusing back and forth can be a bit fiddly, especially at F1.2. Saves a second or two.

 

[Mackinaw]

Another bokeh shot, taken at F1.6. Some folks find the harsh highlights objectionable. I think they can add character to a photo.

Jim B.

 

[Krosya]

Another bokeh shot, taken at F1.6. Some folks find the harsh highlights objectionable. I think they can add character to a photo.

Jim B.

Jim,
Great pic - every time I see it - it makes me smile. One question though - how do you know it was at f1.6? I mean lens has full stops only at 1.2, 1.4, 5.0, etc. Did you just set it between 1.4 and 2 and guess it was 1.6?

 

[OurManInTangier]

I sometimes find it faster, with this lens, to rock forward, or backwards, as the subject pivots and positions, keeping the camera position relative. When it's perfect, I fire. Focusing back and forth can be a bit fiddly, especially at F1.2. Saves a second or two.

I actually do this with my CZ 50 Planar and even with my 35 'cron, I rarely shoot wide open either! I don't remember where I heard about this technique, probably here or in a book but adopted it as it seemed to make sense and it certainly works for me. I can get too particular over my point of focus which is a royal pain in ones derriere when you're trying to photograph a glimpse, this method seems to allow me to get the focus I want pretty quickly and accurately...or at least as Bob Dylan sang, Most Of The Time.

Goldchen96 - I really like the shot of the Tern you've got there. I'm doing a project on the British Coast at the moment and wish I had that as an atmospheric shot ( I need to show some wildlife without it becoming an overt wildlife shot - something that produces a feeling for the place and its inhabitants be they animals or people...which your shot does.) Tough capture on a RF but really nicely done.

 

[Mackinaw]

One question though - how do you know it was at f1.6? I mean lens has full stops only at 1.2, 1.4, 5.0, etc. Did you just set it between 1.4 and 2 and guess it was 1.6?

Pretty much. This lens really starts to shine in the F1.4 - F2.0 range which is where I try to keep it.

Jim B.

 

[harry01562]

As you can see from the several photos posted, this lens can be a fun one to use. The bokeh is generally very nice, and the lens is not that soft, really, wide open. It has a signature that reminds me of the early Leica "fast" lenses. Stopped down just a bit, it sharpens up considerably.

I also love the look of the Canon 1.5, which is a Sonnar clone. Unfortunately, its become something of a cult lens, and gets pricey. If you can find one at a reasonable price, it's one to look for, as well. When both lenses are used at around 2.8 or above, they are fairly similar in "look". Both are also not bad as far as flare is concerned. I was surprised that that large chunk of glass was as good as it is. I use a very short hood made by Mamiya, that is remarkably like the expensive Canon original.

You'll like the lens.

Harry

 

[cfritze]

First shots with mine, which arrived today. I forgot to add in ~ 2/3 ev compensation - my R-D1 typically underexposes in low light/large aperture - so adjusted up a bit during processing, else straight from the raw images. ("Punk" day at school for this one.)

f2 - f1.4 - f2.8

 

[RSphoto]

shot w/ canon IVsb.
f/1.2 1/30s should be focused on the face, not shoulder.:bang: