Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Canon 50/1.2 for LTM: worth having?

Per Ofverbeck

Per Ofverbeck

Member
I just found this lens on sale locally, well used but at a decent price.

Would it be something for the G1, or is it known as a dog?

Should be both lighter and cheaper than the f 0.95 one, and noticeably faster than my Summicron 50 - if it can indeed be used wide open.
 
Per Ofverbeck

Per Ofverbeck

Member
Sounds good; thank you!

At present, it has a bid of (equiv) $120 on a local auction site, but who knows what happens when coming to a close....
 
T

TimF

Guest
Per Ofverbeck said:
Should be both lighter and cheaper than the f 0.95 one, and noticeably faster than my Summicron 50 - if it can indeed be used wide open.
Click to expand...
My copy is somewhat soft wide open, but very good indeed at medium apertures. I understand that's pretty normal though others MMV of course.
 
johnastovall

johnastovall

Deceased, but remembered fondly here...
Have a Canon 50/1.2 and have used it wide open without any problems.
Here are couple of examples.

 
Per Ofverbeck

Per Ofverbeck

Member
John, if one can get this kind of contrast and drawing wide open, I´m certainly convinced it is "worth having" :D

I saw in your gallery here that you used it on a M8; on the G1 it would be equal to a portrait lens. But I´ve always liked the 90 - 100 mm (eq) range.

Thanks a lot for showing this lens´ potential! Now, I´ll see how high this auction gets (hope no other local bidders read this thread...:rolleyes:).
 
M

monza

Active member
I really liked my 50/1.2 and regret selling it. I took a chance on an auction, the lens arrived with a opaque film on one of the internal surfaces. However the lens was very easy to disassemble and clean, and once that was done, it looked nearly new. Performance wide open was excellent...there is no reason to get the lens if you aren't shooting it at 1.2. :)
 
B

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Anyone know of a modern canon lens that draws like that? Would make an incredible addition to my wedding lens lineup, portraits with that look and B&W would look incredible, so much better than any PS tomfoolery.
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
Keep watching, there are a lot of these lenses out there and another one will come around soon.

I've owned several examples of them. They tend to be characterized by moderate contrast (at best) and like a lot of older high-speed lenses, the image structure at wide apertures consists of a fairly sharp central core surrounded by a haze of blur. Back in the film era we usually dismissed this kind of performance as "mushy," but now digital shooters seem to enthuse about this "drawing quality." (And it's worth noticing that unsharp masking usually cleans up this kind of mushiness well when required.)

One thing worth watching about this lens is that it's very susceptible to flare from light sources near the picture area, so a lens hood is very helpful. Canon made an impressive-looking vented hood specifically for this optic, but don't be surprised if it costs almost as much as the lens! Another quirk: the front element is unusually convex, to the point that some standard filters will rub against it when screwed in; check before installing. Again, Canon made special filters with the glass mounted flush to the front of the rim.

A shocker is that Canon's 50/0.95 lens is sharper than the 50/1.2 at every aperture -- but the 0.95 will need an expensive mount conversion to use it on any camera except the Canon 7/7s, whereas the 50/1.2 will fit on any LTM camera, or any M camera with an adapter.
 
Hacker

Hacker

New member
The hood is huge! Anyway, I tell myself that for 2009, I have to thin my collection of lenses, and this is on the list of lenses to go (I have the Canon 50mm f/0.95 and the optical design is exact).

 
K

kiloran

Guest
lol, that thing is gonna look huge on a G1. I'd be interested in buying the hood if/when you come to sell it...
 
kweide

kweide

New member
WOW, that´s a dreammachine... wish this could have a CMOS Sensor :D

Still waiting fpr DP2 or digital version of Pen F
 
Per Ofverbeck

Per Ofverbeck

Member
Ranger 9 said:
Keep watching, there are a lot of these lenses out there and another one will come around soon.

I've owned several examples of them. They tend to be characterized by moderate contrast (at best) and like a lot of older high-speed lenses, the image structure at wide apertures consists of a fairly sharp central core surrounded by a haze of blur. Back in the film era we usually dismissed this kind of performance as "mushy," but now digital shooters seem to enthuse about this "drawing quality." (And it's worth noticing that unsharp masking usually cleans up this kind of mushiness well when required.)

One thing worth watching about this lens is that it's very susceptible to flare from light sources near the picture area, so a lens hood is very helpful. Canon made an impressive-looking vented hood specifically for this optic, but don't be surprised if it costs almost as much as the lens! Another quirk: the front element is unusually convex, to the point that some standard filters will rub against it when screwed in; check before installing. Again, Canon made special filters with the glass mounted flush to the front of the rim.

A shocker is that Canon's 50/0.95 lens is sharper than the 50/1.2 at every aperture -- but the 0.95 will need an expensive mount conversion to use it on any camera except the Canon 7/7s, whereas the 50/1.2 will fit on any LTM camera, or any M camera with an adapter.
Click to expand...
Well, that "lot of those lenses out there" sounds just a bit reassuring. I just received a private message pointing to a couple, and the prices make me even more angry with myself for botching that auction...:(

And, yes the price of the hood is daunting in itself. For now, I´ll lick my wounds, wait for the adapter, and try my Summicrons on it; they´re not exactly bottle-bottoms either... And for dreaminess, I have an uncoated 1936 Summar...

After evaluating the results, I´ll decide what to do.

BTW, has anyone actually mounted that lens on a G1? It´s rather fat; will it go clear of the "prism" bump? The M adapter should only be about 8 mm thick.
 
R

Ranger 9

Guest
monza said:
Vivek had the 50/0.95 working on the G1, so the 50/1.2 should fit.
Click to expand...
Did Vivek post any sample pictures, and/or more info about what he did? I've seen several mentions about this experiment, but haven't tracked down the original.

This is a combination I'm really interested in trying; in fact, one of the main reasons I'm interested in Micro Four Thirds.

I shoot with my 50/0.95 a lot [examples] -- it makes things look just weird enough, but not too weird. It's even a good non-weird lens if you stop it down a bit and keep light sources away from the frame area.

Of course, I and others have kind of shot ourselves in the foot now by talking it up on fora over the past couple of years. Back in the days when uninformed net.nellies and magazine pundits would routinely dismiss it as "terrible" -- often without ever having used one -- they were fairly affordable; now they've gotten kind of expensive. (I've learned my lesson, though -- I'm keeping my mouth shut about the Canon 85/1.5. If anyone asks you, it's awful, lousy, completely useless...)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top