Two questions about the Canon 50/1.2 LTM

[amin_sabet]

What's the going rate for a "user quality" copy? Also, will it be easier to focus this lens wide open on my Bessa R3A than it is for me to focus my Zuiko OM 50/1.2 on the OM-2N (SLR)? I'm interested to pick up a fast 50, and I'm pretty sure all the other possibilities are beyond my budget.

[crawdiddy]

What's the going rate for a "user quality" copy? Also, will it be easier to focus this lens wide open on my Bessa R3A than it is for me to focus my Zuiko OM 50/1.2 on the OM-2N (SLR)? I'm interested to pick up a fast 50, and I'm pretty sure all the other possibilities are beyond my budget.

I purchased a bargain (BGN) item from KEH one year ago for about $300. It's been excellent. Some internal cleaning marks, and I think they would come off if I had it cleaned again. But optical quality is not affected.

I've been using it on the Canon 7 and the Leica IIIf. It obscures about the bottom third of the Leica viewfinder.

I can't speak about the focusing issue.

[amin_sabet]

Thanks for the reply. Are you able to peg the focus at f/1.2 most of the time with stationary subjects?

[nikonhswebmaster]

If you are having a hard time focussing on an SLR, where you can see what is in focus, you may find getting the 1.2 in focus, impossible on an RF, where focus is partly a black art.

[Kim Coxon]

I just sold a good user in the classifieds here for $250. You should be able to focus accurately on the R3. I wouldn't say it would be any easier or more difficult than an SLR. In reality, it will be bo different from focussing a 50/3.5. The picture you see will be exactly the same. It will, however, be less forgiving of any inaccuracies on your part. ;)

Kim

[amin_sabet]

If you are having a hard time focussing on an SLR, where you can see what is in focus, you may find getting the 1.2 in focus, impossible on an RF, where focus is partly a black art.


Much of the time I can get it with the SLR, but it would be great if it were easier with the RF.

I just sold a good user in the classifieds here for $250. You should be able to focus accurately on the R3. I wouldn't say it would be any easier or more difficult than an SLR. In reality, it will be bo different from focussing a 50/3.5. The picture you see will be exactly the same. It will, however, be less forgiving of any inaccuracies on your part. ;)

Kim

Got it. Hopefully I'll be able to find one. I'll put it in my sig =).

[foto_fool]

Amin - Are you looking for the Canon 50/1.2 in LTM because you want the particular lens signature (low contrast, very soft at full aperture, "interesting" bokeh), or because it is one of the least expensive fast 50's out there for your Bessa?

If you are looking for something a little more modern, you might consider this Canon 55mm/f1.2 FL (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=180208927622&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=008) conversion. The last one this guy sold went for something like $320 (though I bought one from him for substantially more). Mine is an FD series and I like it more than the LTM Canon 50/1.2 I sold.

You might also consider the CV 50/1.5 Nokton - sharp, contrasty, great color rendition and flare resistance - and also relatively easy on the wallet when purchased used. Or maybe the 40/1.4 Nokton - you could make use of your R3As 40mm framelines. I hardly notice the half-stop difference from the f1.2 lenses - and anyway it is easy enough to push HP5+ to 800.

BTW - I'm expecting a Beattie screen for my OM-1 any day in the mail - looking forward to having a little more focusing light when using the 50/1.2 wide open.

[Brian Sweeney]

I use one on an R2. It would be easier with the R3A's 1x finder.

[nikonhswebmaster]

For lurkers only:

The narrow depth of field of any fast lens is going to make focussing on round objects like eyes the most difficult. You, of course, want the front of the eye to be sharp, to give the eye sparkle, but with an RF you have to focus on the whole eye then move your focus just slightly forward. While this compensation for focussing on edges becomes second nature, it is not as easy to master as actually seeing the pupil in focus on an SLR.

The issue with focussing on an SLR is seeing what is in focus simply because the image is not large or bright enough. Some SLR focus screens add a split image to emulate a rangefinder. But SLR finders are really difficult to see clearly when they get crowded with the huge amount of information that a super wide angle like a 28 creates. Then finding an object in the "chatter" is often easier with a rangefinder.

The point of a rangefinder however is NOT ease of focus, it is primarily the smaller, quieter, less obtrusive form factor, which allows the RF to go where the SLR is not welcome.

:)

[amin_sabet]

Amin - Are you looking for the Canon 50/1.2 in LTM because you want the particular lens signature (low contrast, very soft at full aperture, "interesting" bokeh), or because it is one of the least expensive fast 50's out there for your Bessa?

If you are looking for something a little more modern, you might consider this Canon 55mm/f1.2 FL (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=180208927622&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=008) conversion. The last one this guy sold went for something like $320 (though I bought one from him for substantially more). Mine is an FD series and I like it more than the LTM Canon 50/1.2 I sold.

John, I'm watching that auction already :D. I'm primarily looking for a value-priced, very fast lens. Only thing about the one he is auctioning is that it is an FL lens, and my understanding is that the later FD lens was a much better performer. The FD lenses sell for double what the FL lenses sell on Ebay. I saw one of your samples from the converted FD in another thread. If you have any others to share, I'd love to see them.

You might also consider the CV 50/1.5 Nokton - sharp, contrasty, great color rendition and flare resistance - and also relatively easy on the wallet when purchased used. Or maybe the 40/1.4 Nokton - you could make use of your R3As 40mm framelines. I hardly notice the half-stop difference from the f1.2 lenses - and anyway it is easy enough to push HP5+ to 800.

That half stop doesn't make much difference to me for speed/exposure, but it subjectively makes a big difference to me in background blur. I see myself using my f/2 lens most of the time, but I want all the speed I can get for occasional use. Wish I could afford to get the 50/0.95 and have it converted!

BTW - I'm expecting a Beattie screen for my OM-1 any day in the mail - looking forward to having a little more focusing light when using the 50/1.2 wide open.

Every bit helps. Let me know how you like it ;) .

[amin_sabet]

John, do you know whether the artist known as 38333 can convert other mounts as well? I would be interested in possibly having my Zuiko OM 50/1.2 converted.

[Krosya]

Amin - Are you looking for the Canon 50/1.2 in LTM because you want the particular lens signature (low contrast, very soft at full aperture, "interesting" bokeh), or because it is one of the least expensive fast 50's out there for your Bessa?

If you are looking for something a little more modern, you might consider this Canon 55mm/f1.2 FL (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=180208927622&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=008) conversion. The last one this guy sold went for something like $320 (though I bought one from him for substantially more). Mine is an FD series and I like it more than the LTM Canon 50/1.2 I sold.

You might also consider the CV 50/1.5 Nokton - sharp, contrasty, great color rendition and flare resistance - and also relatively easy on the wallet when purchased used. Or maybe the 40/1.4 Nokton - you could make use of your R3As 40mm framelines. I hardly notice the half-stop difference from the f1.2 lenses - and anyway it is easy enough to push HP5+ to 800.

BTW - I'm expecting a Beattie screen for my OM-1 any day in the mail - looking forward to having a little more focusing light when using the 50/1.2 wide open.

Hi,
Could you please post some photos from your FD-->M converted Canon lens? Why do you like it better than Canon 50/1.2 LTM one? Seller you point to says that his is a Noctilux level at a much lower price. Would you agree? All in all, any more info and light you could shed on this would be helpful.
Thanks.

[amin_sabet]

Hi,
Could you please post some photos from your FD-->M converted Canon lens? Why do you like it better than Canon 50/1.2 LTM one? Seller you point to says that his is a Noctilux level at a much lower price. Would you agree? All in all, any more info and light you could shed on this would be helpful.
Thanks.

Erwin Puts said the following here (http://www.imx.nl/photo/canon/canon_fd_lens_reports_50_an.html) about the Canon 55mm f/1.2 FD:
Compared to the Noctilux 1.0/50m that was designed in the same period, we have to say that he decision of Mandler to drop the aspherical surfaces and go fore a straight design with all spherical surfaces was not very smart. The Canon lens outperforms the Noctilux at wider apertures and closer distances. Accepting that the Noct has a half stop more power in light gathering we still have to note that that mere half stop asks for some compromises.

And compared to the Noctilux 1.2/50m with two aspherical surfaces, we would say that again the Canon is the better lens overall. the exception might be the full aperture where the Noct has some advantages in transparancy, but that is not much.

This Canon lens is an amazingly effective lens and a superb design in itself. Of course it lacks the sparkle and transparancy in small details that we can see in better designs, but they are of lower maximum aperture. Some commentators called the Canon FD 1.2 aspherical the best standard lens in the world. It is hard to disagree.

Not sure how the 55/1.2 FL compares to the 55/1.2 FD though.

[foto_fool]

Amin - the Erwin Puts review was referring to the Aspherical Canon 55/1.2, which may be the best lens ever made in the 50mm focal length (though I have seen references to the bokeh being "horrible"). The non-asph FD and FL examples are great lenses, with better computation, glass and coatings than was available when the 50/1.2 LTM was produced, and even better than the almost contemporaneous 58/1.2. But they do not perform as well as the Aspherical Canon. One sold on eBay recently for almost $600 - about what this lens is worth.

I asked Victor about converting the Zuiko 50/1.2 and he said "no" but it seems to me that it should be possible - maybe not to RF-couple to the min focus distance for the lens, though. Problem is, there are not that many of these lenses to experiment with - certainly not as many as of the Canon 55/1.2. Are you willing to send yours to Vitctor for him to play Frankenstein? I'm not. Too bad - the Zuiko would be a SWEET setup on one of my M-mount RFs.

Kroysa - I like my FD conversion better than the 50/1.2 LTM because the FD is sharper and more contrasty at every aperture, and the bokeh is soft and smooth without being distracting. I have not shot more than a couple of rolls with this lens yet but I will post a gallery later and point a link to it from here.

Anyone who thinks this converted lens will out-signature a Noctilux is fooling themselves. I am one of the people who believes that the Noctilux costs 10x more for a reason, even if I think the premium is excessive for the subtle advantage the Noctilux offers.

[amin_sabet]

Amin - the Erwin Puts review was referring to the Aspherical Canon 55/1.2, which may be the best lens ever made in the 50mm focal length (though I have seen references to the bokeh being "horrible"). The non-asph FD and FL examples are great lenses, with better computation, glass and coatings than was available when the 50/1.2 LTM was produced, and even better than the almost contemporaneous 58/1.2. But they do not perform as well as the Aspherical Canon. One sold on eBay recently for almost $600 - about what this lens is worth.

Got it. Thanks for explaining. Is the FL very similar to the non-ASPH FD then?

I asked Victor about converting the Zuiko 50/1.2 and he said "no" but it seems to me that it should be possible - maybe not to RF-couple to the min focus distance for the lens, though. Problem is, there are not that many of these lenses to experiment with - certainly not as many as of the Canon 55/1.2. Are you willing to send yours to Vitctor for him to play Frankenstein? I'm not. Too bad - the Zuiko would be a SWEET setup on one of my M-mount RFs.

I'm willing to send him two of my "beater" OM lenses (a dented 50/1.8 with stuck iris blades and a slow Promaster lens) along with the 50/1.2 if they would help him along. I'm reluctant to inquire though since his replies to the two questions on that Ebay auction were on the brusque side.

Kroysa - I like my FD conversion better than the 50/1.2 LTM because the FD is sharper and more contrasty at every aperture, and the bokeh is soft and smooth without being distracting. I have not shot more than a couple of rolls with this lens yet but I will post a gallery later and point a link to it from here.

Looking forward to seeing those, thanks!

[foto_fool]

Somebody smarter than I will have to answer the question about the differences between the FL and FD lenses. AFAIK some were new optical formulas, some weren't - I don't know which. There was only something like three years between the introduction of the two series. And the late FD lenses had a semi-bayonet modification of the early breech-lock. I believe I also read somewhere that the materials used in the late FD series were more on the plastic side, less on the brass.

My impression of Victor is that it is not worth the time to try to get him to take on a new lens project. It seems to me that he works on what he wants to work on. He was doing only 50/0.95 conversions for a while, now he is doing the breech-lock 55/1.2's. When he gets tired of these, who knows what he will turn his attention to next? Perhaps we have piqued his interest in the Zuiko lenses - perhaps not.

I posted a few snapshots with the 55/1.2 FD here (http://public.fotki.com/jkellyca/canon-fd-55mmf12-m-mount/). The lens was mounted on the Zeiss Ikon and all shots were made at f1.2. The first two were on Fomapan 200 in Ilfosol S and the rest were HP5+ in DDX. These are completely raw scans - no PP at all.

[amin_sabet]

John, those are great shots of the children. The lens performance seems excellent. I will probably eventually bid for one of Victor's conversions, if not this one then another. I'm glad to hear you had a good transaction with him given that all his feedback is private, he doesn't list his location, and he only accepts MOs and CCs for payment.

[jlw]

The point of a rangefinder however is NOT ease of focus, it is primarily the smaller, quieter, less obtrusive form factor, which allows the RF to go where the SLR is not welcome.

Actually, a lot of us RF users would dispute that. The primary reason I got into RFs was that I get much more accurate, more positive focusing with an RF than I do with an SLR for any lens 50mm and shorter.

(With lenses in the 85-100mm range it's about a tie, and for 135 and up the SLR has the edge.)

A lot of this comes down to magnification. Because an RF does not force the user to view through the lens to focus, it yields the same level of focusing accuracy regardless of what lens you have mounted (or what filter you have on the lens.) That gives the RF camera the advantage when using wide-angle lens. Viewed through an SLR finder, a wide gives an image with very low magnification, which makes it hard to see the details on which you're trying to focus. And because wide-angle lenses have a lot of DOF, there's not much visible difference through an SLR finder between an image which is in focus and one which is slightly out of focus. (The difference will become painfully obvious, though, when you enlarge the resulting picture.)

Incidentally, SLR users often think they can focus their lenses very accurately because the split-image focusing aid in a manual-focus SLR seems so decisive and clear. In reality, that's just an illusion. The split-image focusing aid simply shifts your vision so you're seeing the subject through the two opposite edges of the lens. It does nothing to correct the underlying problems of low magnification and DOF mushiness.

Sure, focusing with the split-image aid seems very precise, but precision is not the same thing as accuracy! SLR users often wind up blaming their wide-angle and ultraspeed normal lenses when their pictures have only mediocre sharpness ("This lens has focus shift", "I must not have gotten a good example", etc.) when in fact the real problem is that they can't focus them accurately!

[David Murphy]

About $300-$400 for a good one, $400-600 for an exceptional one. The SLR 50/1.2 is easier to focus (IMO), but not quite as kool.

What's the going rate for a "user quality" copy? Also, will it be easier to focus this lens wide open on my Bessa R3A than it is for me to focus my Zuiko OM 50/1.2 on the OM-2N (SLR)? I'm interested to pick up a fast 50, and I'm pretty sure all the other possibilities are beyond my budget.

[David Murphy]

I might add that a lot (maybe most) of the Canon 50/1.2's have glass issues -- they are getting old. A CLA usually improves things, but sometimes not totally. Still they are wondersously beautiful lenses.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Actually, a lot of us RF users would dispute that. The primary reason I got into RFs was that I get much more accurate, more positive focusing with an RF than I do with an SLR for any lens 50mm and shorter.

(With lenses in the 85-100mm range it's about a tie, and for 135 and up the SLR has the edge.)

A lot of this comes down to magnification. Because an RF does not force the user to view through the lens to focus, it yields the same level of focusing accuracy regardless of what lens you have mounted (or what filter you have on the lens.) That gives the RF camera the advantage when using wide-angle lens. Viewed through an SLR finder, a wide gives an image with very low magnification, which makes it hard to see the details on which you're trying to focus. And because wide-angle lenses have a lot of DOF, there's not much visible difference through an SLR finder between an image which is in focus and one which is slightly out of focus. (The difference will become painfully obvious, though, when you enlarge the resulting picture.)

Incidentally, SLR users often think they can focus their lenses very accurately because the split-image focusing aid in a manual-focus SLR seems so decisive and clear. In reality, that's just an illusion. The split-image focusing aid simply shifts your vision so you're seeing the subject through the two opposite edges of the lens. It does nothing to correct the underlying problems of low magnification and DOF mushiness.

Sure, focusing with the split-image aid seems very precise, but precision is not the same thing as accuracy! SLR users often wind up blaming their wide-angle and ultraspeed normal lenses when their pictures have only mediocre sharpness ("This lens has focus shift", "I must not have gotten a good example", etc.) when in fact the real problem is that they can't focus them accurately!

i have to admit i have been very spoiled over the years using nikon F cameras which have VERY bright screens. I actually used screens without a split image. Focus with an SLR works for some people and not for others. I have always been able to sense when a photo snaps into focus, many cannot.

But I am not a wide open shooter, 99% of what I do is with lenses stopped down to 5.6 or more. I only use fast lenses to make focus easier. I am not a fan of out of focus areas in photos, but that is just me, if you like that look with a wide angle, you would certainly find an RF far easier to work with.

All my current work is at F 22, so I am really stopping down. I would stop down more if I could. Which i suppose makes me an F64 devotee, even though i was never a big fan of Adams.

[David Murphy]

i have to admit i have been very spoiled over the years using nikon F cameras which have VERY bright screens. I actually used screens without a split image. Focus with an SLR works for some people and not for others. I have always been able to sense when a photo snaps into focus, many cannot.

But I am not a wide open shooter, 99% of what I do is with lenses stopped down to 5.6 or more. I only use fast lenses to make focus easier. I am not a fan of out of focus areas in photos, but that is just me, if you like that look with a wide angle, you would certainly find an RF far easier to work with.

All my current work is at F 22, so I am really stopping down. I would stop down more if I could. Which i suppose makes me an F64 devotee, even though i was never a big fan of Adams.

I doubt any F1.2 lens on a rangefinder can focus better than an F2 with a good finder -- they are indeed wonderfully bright.

[amin_sabet]

John, how does the size of the 55/1.2 FD, including the part added for the conversion, compare to the size of the OM 50/1.2? If it's a lot bulkier, I may just stay with using the SLR when I want f/1.2.

[foto_fool]

No doubt it is a big lens:
http://images33.fotki.com/v1069/photos/1/1126243/4871630/P1000411-vi.jpg

[amin_sabet]

Wow, thanks for the picture! The Zuiko is really compact by SLR standards. The Canon lens, while larger, looks to be a manageable size though too large to be my "every day" lens.

[foto_fool]

The Zuikos are incredible achievements in compactness. I have not done a side-by-side comparison of the same scene, but going through my files it appears that this Canon at f1.2 is sharper than the Zuiko at full aperture. I love the Zuiko but there had to be some optical tradeoffs to achieve the tiny size.

I may have done the Canon a disservice by showing it on the R-D1 - the biggest 35mm RF body I own by far. Front to back the Canon is only about 0.75 cm longer than the 35mm Summilux ASPH with the rectangular shade mounted.