Which 50mm for P and VT 50mm1.2 or Serenar 1.8

[heronop2003]

i've found both of lens in thailand and the price is quite simila and i got the p and VT so which 50mm is better Canon 50mm 1.2 or Serener 1.8. Both of them is in excellent condition but have haze in 50mm 1.2 so can i clean haze inside?

 

[rover]

This was just posted a few days ago, the 50/1.2 is said to be constructed like the 1.4, you should be able to open her up pretty well. The haze should clean, but if it is thick it may not come off 100%,

http://homepage.mac.com/jlw/photo/canon_disassembly_pix/index.html

The 1.2 is a significantly larger lens. If you do a lot of low light shooting, there is no substitute for fast glass. It is soft wide open, but has a pleasent character to its images. Stopped down it is pretty sharp, like all good glass. The 1.8 is a very good all around performer. It is pretty fast too.

Normally the 1.8 would be much less expensive, less than $150 US. I would not pay more than that for one, and would shop to find one for less actually. The 1.2 sells for a wider range. With light haze inside it would sell for under $300 US. Some times good clean ones sell for close to $400.

 

[ChrisN]

The haze in the 1.2 lens is frequently etching of the lens coating, caused by a fungus growing on the lens and secreting acid, which eats the coating and damages the glass. If the lens is suffering from that, it will be very difficult to get it fixed. I have one in that condition.

The 1.2 is a very heavy lens; the 1.8 is much nicer for general use.

Rover, I paid a little more than the figure you quote for my 1.8! Mind you it was in excellent condition!

 

[Meleica]

see some lens comments and pricing info here:

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/can.htm


clearly the 50mm 1.2 is more valuable.... which will be a better shooter ? Probably the 1.8 lens.

Dan

 

[payasam]

I'd guess that the prices of the two are about the same because the 1.2 has haze or worse in it. I used a Serenar 1.8 with an M3 and a VT Deluxe for over 17 years and was entirely satisfied with it. It is not a large lens either.

 

[rogue_designer]

I own both - but for daily carry, usually use the 1.8. It weighs less and blocks less of the viewfinder (on my P, with lens hoods). But as was said, if you are shooting in low-light - the extra stop is handy.

the 1.2 has a very interesting character as well, and there are some subjects for which it excels (the 3D quality of it's rendering, and interesting bokeh signature I find quite pleasing). So it does get regular use in my kit.

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

If the haze is cleanable, the 50/1.2 is much more valuable. It is larger, but not by extraordinary degrees.

For what it is worth, I lucked into finding a 50/1.2 that at 1.4 and 2.0 were incredibly sharp, dispels the oft-repeated rumors out there that this lens is soft in wider ranges. 1.2 is a bit softer, but what 1.2 isn't 😉

 

[Flyfisher Tom]

the 1.2 has a very interesting character as well, and there are some subjects for which it excels (the 3D quality of it's rendering, and interesting bokeh signature I find quite pleasing).

I agree ... the 1.8 is a fine lens, but the 1.2 has a special character at 1.2 and 1.4 that is quite unique. Sort of a tunnel effect and 3-dimensionality at 1.2 that is different from all other lenses.

It is wide but relatively flat (unlike the Noctilux which is wide, heavy, and stout). Does block a small percentage of the VF, but not remotely enough to interfere. Its size and weight sound bigger than it is in actual practice.

 

[raid]

I use the 50/1,2 for special applications and I use the 50/1.8 for everyday photos. However, I do not limit my Canon P for use with these two 50mm lenses. Sometimes I like to use a 50/2 Nikkor for the Sonnar look and Japanese high quality build, and on other times I take out the pre-war/war Zeiss Sonnar 50/2 simply for its age and rarity and use it instead.

Raid