The Canon 50/1.2 "I don't get no respect" thread

Krosya said:
Btw, I see you have Konica 50/2.4 lens as well - how do you like it? Have any pics taken with it? And how does it compare to 50/2 Heliar that I spied on ur pic too?
Click to expand...

They belong to a forum member here actually. I asked him to get it, and did not get it myself, seeing that it was only Exc+. I want Mint if possible. I will go shoot some pictures tomorrow if I have time. But from what I have taken so far, the f2.4 is much better than the collapsibles (Heliar f2 included), all of which I avoid due to mechanical reasons but will make an exception to the M-Hexanon f2.4. That is how good it is.

BTW, I'm going to be offered a Zunow 5cm f1.1 NOS, so that will be something else I think. More pictures to come, including the f0.95 with hood and the black paint lenses. 40mm lenses are not counted I presume:

2458597987_a50498bc13_o.jpg
 
Well Roger, let's just say that it can be a fine line between challenging another poster - which I think is sometimes necessary - and becoming rude. If I perceived a slight where none was intended and responded rudely, then I apologize.
 
If you could post some side-by-side pics from Hex 50/2.4 and Heliar 50/2 I would really appreciate it. These two lenses make me kinda wonder if I should try them. So I'll be looking forwar to ur post, if you dont mind doing this.
 
Krosya said:
Btw, I see you have Konica 50/2.4 lens as well - how do you like it? Have any pics taken with it? And how does it compare to 50/2 Heliar that I spied on ur pic too?
Click to expand...

Don't waste time with the others, these blow the Canon out of the water for sure:

2458684431_d13297b3be_o.jpg



KIDDING...
 
Roger Hicks said:
The Canon 50/1.2 is, I've found, more than good enough with the right subject: I've certainly had pics from this lens published in books, in magazines and on the web. But I've also found -- and I've used more lenses than most -- that it's not too good at full aperture and it's pretty awful at f/22 as well, though at some intermediate apertures it is excellent. This is why, for most applications, I'd back quite a number of other fast lenses.


R.
Click to expand...

Roger,
Do you have a link or maybe can post some examples of those pics that you had published that were taken with Canon 1.2? I'd really like to see them.
 
kevin m said:
Well Roger, let's just say that it can be a fine line between challenging another poster - which I think is sometimes necessary - and becoming rude. If I perceived a slight where none was intended and responded rudely, then I apologize.
Click to expand...
Dear Kevin,

I completely agree with your point about challenging those with whom you do not agree (sometimes firmly), and I wholeheartedly accept your apology. I hope you will be kind enough to accept mine, also, for a somewhat testy reply. Be assured that there was never any intention of personal insult.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Kevin,

I completely agree with your point about challenging those with whom you do not agree (sometimes firmly), and I wholeheartedly accept your apology. I hope you will be kind enough to accept mine, also, for a somewhat testy reply. Be assured that there was never any intention of personal insult.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

I need both your help to source for me a Mint, flawless Canon 50mm f1.2. 😎
 
Krosya said:
Roger,
Do you have a link or maybe can post some examples of those pics that you had published that were taken with Canon 1.2?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not, because that's not how I put my pictures up: I use pics from whatever camera/lens combination I find useful to make a point. Sometimes I can't even remember exactly what I used, which indicates how much lenses really matter, especially with web images.

There are a couple (clearly labelled as such) in

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps king.html

but to find others I'd need to go through the entire site; all my books; and 25+ years of back issues of magazines, some of which I no longer have.

Sorry,

Roger
 
Hacker said:
I need both your help to source for me a Mint, flawless Canon 50mm f1.2. 😎
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... There's a fundamental problem here.

I won't sell you mine because I don't think it's good enough, and for the relatively small amount it's worth (£100-200?), I might as well keep it.

Kevin (I suspect) would be unwilling to sell you his, because he likes it too much.

So your likeliest candidate as a vendor is someone who is dissatisfied and unscrupulous...

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger's right, I'm keeping mine for the time being. It's got me shopping for an M body to mount it on, actually.

I got mine off ebay, suprisingly. The seller was very open and honest in his communications and took extra pictures to show me the condition. There are some good eggs and good deals to be had on ebay still. 🙂
 
Last edited:
The Original Poster (me) has just returned, and discovered a bit of a flamefest that he had no intention of creating. My reference to "I don't get no respect" was tongue in cheek, and my intention was to encourage others to post some pictures taken with this lens.

I never said the Canon was as good as the Noct. It isn't. What I did say is that judiciously used, it can make pleasing pictures. It can get you a shot where without that last half stop, you might lose.

I think people's perceptions of a photo are influenced if they know what lens it was taken with. Two people really downed the B&W Canon picture with which I started the thread. One even asked if I was kidding. Now, in Roger's excellent Noctilux article, there are pictures that are no sharper than mine. Yet nobody mentions this. This isn't unusual. The Noct often gets a free pass on things people won't tolerate in another lens.

Here are some more Canon 50/1.2 shots from a piano recital. Wide open on an M8, 1/60 at ISO 640 (actually 320 with -1 EV, which works better). If I'd been shooting my 50/1.5 Nokton, I'd have been shooting at 1/20-1/30, and motion blur would probably have eaten up any sharpness advantage of the lens. ISO 1250 would have been much noisier. So I gave the Canon a whirl:
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/L1002312HokansonChord.htm
http://users.2alpha.com/~pklein/musicians/L1002314HokansonBow.htm

--Peter
 
Peter Klein said:
The Original Poster (me) has just returned, and discovered a bit of a flamefest that he had no intention of creating. My reference to "I don't get no respect" was tongue in cheek, and my intention was to encourage others to post some pictures taken with this lens.
Click to expand...
Dear Peter,

I don't think that anyone would argue with very much of what you say, if anything (some might take exception to your kind words about my article, though obviously I admire your taste and discernment); and I already posted that I certainly did not mean to pass on the 'f*** you' message in the original story about 'respect'.

I think it's a very valuable thread, with Canon users explaining how they get the best possible out of their lenses. As I say, I use mine too. Just not very often. The last time was probably 6 months ago.

You're probably right about the 'free ride', too. When you're looking at grab shots at 1/30 on an M8, yes, camera shake or missed focus (from haste) is entirely likely with either lens. I wouldn't claim perfection -- but that's part of my point, that ultra-speed lenses are unlikely to deliver perfection, even under ideal conditions with plenty of time to focus and high shutter speeds where the plane of focus isn't always critical anyway.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger: Thanks, no offense taken. Actually, the "two nuns" story is great, and I plan to use it sometime! 😉

I think we both agree that many people don't understand the compromises and pitfalls of available light and fast lenses.

Frankly, I could kick myself for not buying a Noctilux a few years ago when they were "only" $1400-ish used. Since I didn't, and the price has now inflated at a rate unseen since the Weimar Republic, I must make do with what I've got. So I do. And sometimes it's even OK.

--Peter
 
I find I get better , sharper pictures with it on my M3 than on my Bessa.... I do like the lens, but felt I had a 'soft-one' until I started using it on my M3. I had thought it was due to minute differences in the distance between the lens mount and film plane, but I had never seen similar problems with my next fastest lens (summilux 50/1.4). Whilst with the M3 I expect the longer rangefinder base helps with more accurate focussing.

Something that I have learnt with fast lenses (85/1.2) on my DSLR, with the immediacy of the results, is that, for me, a large number of 'soft' images are created by my own movement or subject movement from within to outside what is a very small depth of field.

Transferring this to my RF cameras, I found that by observing the way I compose and focus, being mindful of the shallow depth of field, has helped enormously when it comes to getting sharper shots...

Sounds obvious I know 😀....I'm sure there are soft/sharp build quality differences, but I found that my problems lay with the craftsman not the tool....

large.jpg


large.jpg
 
Last edited:
Silva Lining said:
I find I get better , sharper pictures with it on my M3 than on my Bessa.... I do like the lens, but felt I had a 'soft-one' until I started using it on my M3. I had thought it was due to minute differences in the distance between the lens mount and film plane, but I had never seen similar problems with my next fastest lens (summilux 50/1.4). Whilst with the M3 I expect the longer rangefinder base helps with more accurate focussing.

Something that I have learnt with fast lenses (85/1.2) on my DSLR, with the immediacy of the results, is that, for me, a large number of 'soft' images are created by my own movement or subject movement from within to outside what is a very small depth of field.

Transferring this to my RF cameras, I found that by observing the way I compose and focus, being mindful of the shallow depth of field, has helped enormously when it comes to getting sharper shots...

Sounds obvious I know 😀....I'm sure there are soft/sharp build quality differences, but I found that my problems lay with the craftsman not the tool....
Click to expand...

Sounds like it's the user's skill is what is important here to get good results from this or any fast lens like that. Hmmm. who would have thought? lol 😉
 
Peter Klein said:
Now, in Roger's excellent Noctilux article, there are pictures that are no sharper than mine. Yet nobody mentions this. This isn't unusual. The Noct often gets a free pass on things people won't tolerate in another lens.


--Peter
Click to expand...

This is too funny!!!! But wait, didn't you see what Roger wrote - it's IMPOSSIBLE to judge lens based just on a web image. hehe 😉

Here is a perfect example why one CAN judge a lens based on web photos - based on photos in that Noctilux article - I would never buy one. Based on Ned's photos here on RFF - I would once I had money for it. So there you have it!
 
Last edited:
Krosya said:
This is too funny!!!! But wait, didn't you see what Roger wrote - it's IMPOSSIBLE to judge lens based just on a web image. hehe 😉

Here is a perfect example why one CAN judge a lens based on web photos - based on photos in that Noctilux article - I would never buy one. Based on Ned's photos here on RFF - I would once I had money for it. So there you have it!
Click to expand...

I agree that Neds photos are gas inducing when it comes to the Noctilux but, his Summarit pics are the same. I looked at them and immediately went eBay browsing looking at Summarit prices and suddenly woke up to myself. I have a half a dozen lenses in my cupboard that will improve immeasurably if I send them to Ned ... I wonder how much he'd charge me? 😛
 
Krosya said:
Here is a perfect example why one CAN judge a lens based on web photos - based on photos in that Noctilux article - I would never buy one. Based on Ned's photos here on RFF - I would once I had money for it. So there you have it!
Click to expand...
You've just cut the ground out from under your own feet.

You're not judging the lens; you're judging the photographer.

If you really think you can judge sharpness and contrast from web images, the best of luck to you. If you think you can judge the quality of the photographer, I'm in complete agreement.

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom