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

[Krosya]

Hi Krosya,

I think I'd been spoiled by going through all the photos I'd shot inside the gallery with the M8 and 35mm Nokton before I scanned and looked at the black and whites from the Ikon and Canon. At times I was shooting straight into very bright light sources with the M8 and as we know the Nokton is amazing in these conditions.

This example would probably have been avoided with the lens hood which I have but it's enormous and really makes the camera stand out so I gave it a miss. I took a few inside the gallery that look like they have flying saucers in them when shooting into the down lights ... but that really was expecting a bit much.

The general flaryness of the lens doesn't bother me at all because that's part of it's signature and I do love it for low light portraits so I'd never part with. The crescent in the lower right of this pic would likely have been avoided with the lens hood ... but that said I think I will still consider a superfast 50mm for the future to use when I'm in doubt about what the Canon may do in extreme curcumstances. It is an old lens after all!

Hi Keith,
Base on your original post you made it sound horrible. Now that I look at the pic - it's really not bad at all. Yes, some minor stuff, but considering you didnt have a hood - this lens did pretty well. So, I'd say its a keeper.

 

[Krosya]

My Canon 50/1.2 does this too - look at the shell on this pic:

or tips of the tulips on this one:

but it only seems to do this wide open

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Wow. Such controversy on a 1956 super-speed lens. I've got my examples on another computer, I'll have to upload them. I made mine out of two parts lenses, broke three cutting blades on a dremel getting the optics out of one of them that someone welded into a 6-element fixed-focus lens. Came out quite well, especially for the $90 invested.

According to "Photographic Lenses", Neblette 1965 edition, the Olympic Nikkor is the same optical formula as the Canon 50/1.2 and 50/f0.95.

 

[Nokton48]

"but it only seems to do this wide open"

I get that, too. It's the "Canon F1.2 Glow".

 

[Krosya]

Well, so how does Canon 50/1.2 perform "into the sun" ? Here are some pics with sun being in the frame or right outside of it. Hood was on.

 

[Krosya]

Some Bokeh pics from Canon 50/1.2 wode open:

 

[Krosya]

And of course some sharpness pics all at 1.2 Canon 50/1.2:

 

[Krosya]

and a couple more Bokeh pics - as this is what this lens does well:

some highlights are blown here - as I kept it at 1.2:

 

[kevin m]

I get that, too. It's the "Canon F1.2 Glow".

And it's important to note that it's gone by f1.4, at which aperture the Canon is a fine performer by any standard, and an absolute bargain compared to any comparable speed Leica lens.

 

[Ororaro]

Some awesome shots in this thread...

 

[gdi]

That 1.2 of yours look pretty nice, and sharp!

 

[Nokton48]

And it's important to note that it's gone by f1.4, at which aperture the Canon is a fine performer by any standard, and an absolute bargain compared to any comparable speed Leica lens.

Absolutely agree. But it's wide-open performance has never bothered me. I like it very much. 99 percent of the time, I use it wide-open. That's really why I bought it; for those times that the extra 1/2 stop makes the difference between getting something usuable, or not. Those "right on the edge" situations. So I continue to keep and use it.

 

[gdi]

Examples from the "Koma King"...

it has boke, sometimes weird...

 

[Krosya]

gdi, what is that first shot? all those lights? looks cool!

 

[kevin m]

f2.8, 1/250th Fuji NPH converted via PS channel mixer

 

[gdi]

gdi, what is that first shot? all those lights? looks cool!

The Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center....

 

[Mean Panda]

Great pictures from all of you. These pictures bring me some memories of my Canon 1.2. Most pictures I took from this lens were too soft for my work and later replaced by a Hexanon. But it seems like a fun lens to play with.

 

[Keith]

This lens seems to be developing a bit of a cult following which is a cycle I've noticed with fast enigmatic lenses in general. I remember when I first joined this forum the Canon .95 was being talked about a lot and was being compared to the Noctilux and there was a lot of discussion regarding the then outrageous price of the Leica and the relative afordability of the Canon and the merits of both choices.

Superfast glass seems to be held in awe and rangefinders with their bright clear viewfinders add a uniqueness to the equation that means if you can see it you can usually photograph it ... whatever the light ... or lack of as the case may be. There's also the challenge of choosing a very slow film and shooting in conventional light and trying to control the depth of field.

They're harder to use due to their size and often long focus throw ... and focusing errors can mean a lot of 'almost good shots.' But when you get it right the results are stunning and the photos in this thread are just that! Long live the Canon 50mm f1.2!

 

[Krosya]

They're harder to use due to their size and often long focus throw ... and focusing errors can mean a lot of 'almost good shots.' But when you get it right the results are stunning and the photos in this thread are just that! Long live the Canon 50mm f1.2!

I agree, Keith. But after using this lens a while (and I seem to use it more now than my Hex 50) and reading some comments, seeing some pics from it taken by other people - I realize more and more - these types of lenses really need a "close relationship" with the photograper. Meaning - it's not the type of lens where one can try it for a day or two and be able to make any worthy comments on it. It needs a good bit of hands-on experience. I use it a lot and I'm still learning. But I see that I have a lot less "missed" shots with it. But of course slower lenses are far easier to use. Take Hex 50/2 for example - one can take it, run a couple of rolls with it and know pretty much all they need to about it - as it's a very good and consistant lens. But with 50/1.2 it's a whole different story. And while a bit challenging - it can deliver some very nice and pleasant results - if one knows how to use it. After all even Noctilux (which I do think is a better yet different lens) can be a "dog" in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they are doing....

 

[Keith]

I agree, Keith. But after using this lens a while (and I seem to use it more now than my Hex 50) and reading some comments, seeing some pics from it taken by other people - I realize more and more - these types of lenses really need a "close relationship" with the photograper. Meaning - it's not the type of lens where one can try it for a day or two and be able to make any worthy comments on it. It needs a good bit of hands-on experience. I use it a lot and I'm still learning. But I see that I have a lot less "missed" shots with it. But of course slower lenses are far easier to use. Take Hex 50/2 for example - one can take it, run a couple of rolls with it and know pretty much all they need to about it - as it's a very good and consistant lens. But with 50/1.2 it's a whole different story. And while a bit challenging - it can deliver some very nice and pleasant results - if one knows how to use it. After all even Noctilux (which I do think is a better yet different lens) can be a "dog" in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they are doing....

I've just gone and got my 1.2 Canon and put it on the Hexar which has a roll of Pan F 50 in it and will be travelling with me tomorrow. We're going to work a little more on our relationship!