Canon 50/1.2

merciful · 06-23-2004

Just made a deal for one: it'll be a couple weeks before it gets here, but I'm pleased. It should be the perfect 50 for the M3 and my portrait style, at least considering that the Noctilux is a trifle pricey for me right now.

taffer · 06-23-2004

hey, congrats ! I've read something about this lens and I recognize I've been browsing the Bay for it. Please if you can post some shots taken with it after your first rolls !

Rich Silfver · 06-23-2004

merciful, I'd be interested in seeing some examples as well once you've put a roll though the camera. :-)

merciful · 06-24-2004

You'll definitely see some stuff.

george verbryck · 06-28-2004

I have a canon 50/1.2 and it is very prone to flare but some results are OK on the whole I prefer the Nokton which is half a stop slower but so much less prone to flare more low light pictures turn out. I would definately recomend a lens shade for the canon no matter what you use it for, the canon one can be hard to come by and expensive. I have used a universal series 7 clamp on that worked good . Good luck with the lens if you find that your pictures are out of focus @ 1.2 you might send the lens and the camera in to have it calibrated for the combination as depth of field a @ 1.2 and 10 feet is about 2". Cheers George

Brian Sweeney · 06-28-2004

My Canon 50mm F0.95 is the same optical formula as the F1.2, and gives some good results. It is "soft" wide-open, but focusses accurately with my Canon 7. At F2 I would compare its sharpness as being slightly better than my Canonet QL17 GIII. Mine is a very clean example with perfect glass. I would inspect for haze in the internal elements, that is a lot of glass!

Brian Sweeney · 06-28-2004

My Canon 50mm F0.95 is the same optical formula as the F1.2, and gives some good results. It is "soft" wide-open, but focusses accurately with my Canon 7. At F2 I would compare its sharpness as being slightly better than my Canonet QL17 GIII. Mine is a very clean example with perfect glass. I would inspect for haze in the internal elements, that is a lot of glass!

This is wide open and pointed into the late-day sun.

merciful · 06-28-2004

Thanks, Brian. Sharpness isn't really a concern of mine: I've the M-Hexanon 50 for that. It's the retro look I'm after. The one I've bought has just been CLAed.

Nice: not much flare there.

george verbryck · 07-12-2004

I do not have a scanner but I just picked up a roll from this lens and my M3 all shot @ 1.2 and shutter speeds from 1/4 to 1/15 of a second. This is in a local bar where it is very dark and contrasty I used the pentax digital spot meter to determine exposure. I took a picture of a representative example with my digital to represent the flair I have expeienced this is one where you can still see the subject but the flair almost overpowers the entire picture. I used the canon hood and my lens is far fron perfect but is in general good shape, Cheers GeorgeWell I can not figure out how to attach an image if you have interest email me an I will send you a copy.

Brian Sweeney · 07-12-2004

George,
Have you checked the lens for internal haze? My Summarits both had a slight haze that was disastrous to image quality. The haze was hard to see unaided, but shine a light through the lens and it was visible. The Summarits have a reputation for flare; but after seeing the performance of my CLA'd Summarits I suspect it was more haze than bad design. My 50mm F0.95 does not appear to have a flare problem; I have seen worse in many other lenses.

It is worth a look.

Brian Sweeney · 07-12-2004

Just one more "lens torture test", National Zoo. I purposely moved the lens into the sun glint and made sure it was hitting the lens.

george verbryck · 07-12-2004

I see in your second example the flare I am refering to , if you put a light source in the frame the problem becomes even worse. My lens probably does have some haze in it afterall it is 40 years old but it does not have any more than my dual range summicron which is very sharp and somewhat flare resistant. I guess the reason I posted is that I bought this lens specifically to take low light slow shutterspeed pictures indoors, for that purpose it does not work well. I use either the nokton or my contax IIa with the 1.5 sonnar with much better results. I do not mean to opine that the lens is useless or can not make a decent image, just that if your purpose is to use it for its high speed you might want to look elsewhere. If I use the nokton I can point it at a light source and still get respectable definition in the frame even the light will stay in its shape and not get to blown out. The sonnar is not as good but it is defineately better and it gives the more old time appearance i.e. it is softer and more forgiving. This of course is just an opinion , I wanted the lens to work out that is why I paid cold hard cash for it even after I saw some less than favorable reveiws of it on the leica photo.net forum. I have not used the .95 so maybe the quality control on that lens is better or I got a lousy example either way this is/was my experience. At least all of my shots were in focus I wondered if that would work out or not, maybe someday i will get the noct. Cheers George

Brian Sweeney · 07-13-2004

In the second photo the Orange patches surrounding the duck to the right are definitely flare; the bluish reflections at the lower right of the photo is the sky reflecting off of the water. In the first photo the orange spots at the bottom of the photo are the internal reflections caused by the Sun being in the frame. My Canonet QL17 has a much worse tendency to flare under the same conditions.

The Canon 7 has a lot of internal baffling that "mates" up to baffles at the rear of the F0.95 lens. I suspect this helps things out.

I do not have the F1.2 lens; I do have the Canon F1.4 lens which I find very resilient to flare. But these lenses are not as good as modern multi-coated, aspheric optics when it comes to handling flare and reflections. Someday I will breakdown and get a Nokton for my Nikon SP; but for now I am having a good time comparing the performance of optics designed without computers.

At work I bought a Canon 50mm F0.95 lens with the C-Mount adapter. It sat in a drawer for a long time. Yesterday I got to work and was quite happy to see it mounted on a Digital Infrared Sensor. We used an IR (1550nm) communications laser connected to a single mode fiber as if it were a flashlight. The laser put out 1/10,000 watt.