Canon LTM OT: Canon 55/1.2 Asph (FD)

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
R

ray_g

Guest
OT, but I'd rather post it here given the number of Canon FD afficionados and experts on this forum.

I am looking at a 55/1.2 ASPH, and I am wondering, in particular, how it compares to the 50/1.2L nFD. Erwin Puts' tests showed a clear advantage over the 50/1.4 especially at wide apertures. Any comparison between this lens and the L lens? Anyone with any personal experience?

Aside from sharpness, any comments on OOF rendition. Some samples from Don Colucci on PNet showed less than pleasant "bokeh."

From the lens schematics, the design of the 50/1.2L and the 55/1.2SSC AL appear quite similar, and in fact one was the precursor of the other. Considering the price difference, is there any advantage to getting the costlier, older, ASPH? I am not really interested in its collector value.
 
Ray: I have seen posting on PN in which users of both lenses put the 55/1.2ASPH above the 1.2l (which I own and love). Supposedly, it is the best ever 50/1.2 lens. I still would go with the newer and smaller 50/1.2L lens. It has 52mm filter thread and is tack sharp.
 
Ray, tried them both and the 55 is not worth the extra cost. I have some photos somewhere taken with both. You can not tell the difference. I use the L
 
Ray, go for the (chromring) 1.2/55 ASPHERICAL SSC. I've got one a few weeks ago. It's a huge lens (quite as big as my 0.95/50 RF) but seems to be better than my (excellent) FD 1.4/50mm.
It's less expensive than the 1.2/55 "AL". This was the first version with hand-lapped aspherical element which costs more than 140.000 yen at its time according to Canon Camera Museum.

cheers, Frank
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_Main.html
 
The 50mm f/1.2L is pretty amazing. I don't think it is as good as the Konica 50/1.2 for the Hexar RF. I have not compared them directly, but that is my feeling. I am basing that on the fact that when I switched to Leica after coming from FD, I was shocked at how much more snap the 50/2 summicron had over the 50/1.2L, which was utterly unimpeachable, except in direct comparison to the summicron. I don't remember having the same shock comparing the summicron to the Konica lens.

In any case, the 50/1.2L is an excellent standard lens that will serve you well in all situations. I have a writeup on it on my website if you are intereseted. Unfortunately I have not had a chance to compare to the 55mm lens. It is here:
http://www.stuartrichardson.com/5012L.htm
 
AFAIK there is optically no big difference between the FD SSC 1.2/55 ASPHERICAL and NewFD 1.2/50 L. It's merely a matter of mounting. A matter of taste which mounting you prefer. And weight... :cool:

In German ColorFoto 7/1980 (in these days the leading german Photo magazine) there was a test with 9 SLR f/1.2 lenses plus one RF-lens,Leitz Noctilux 1.0.
The Canons were the 1.2/55 and 1.2/55 ASPHERICAL

Summary, convert some text to English...
> General Photography
> Canon Nr 1 and 2, Leitz Nr 10.

> Holidays, Landscapes, aperture closed
> Canon and some others level on top, Leitz 10

> Reportage, Action, sometimes open aperture:
> Canon Platz 1 und 2, Leitz Platz 10

> Reportage, Theater, Night szenery, aperture mostly open:
> Canon Platz 1 und 2, Leitz Platz 9 knapp vor Konica (Platz 10).
 
Last edited:
Thanks again. Frank, the test included the 55/1.2 ASPH and which lens? The 55/1.2 (non- ASPH) SSC does not have that good a reputation. Could it have been the 50/1.2L (also aspherical)?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom