Do you like the Canon 50/1.2 ltm?
Old 08-24-2016   #1
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 818
Do you like the Canon 50/1.2 ltm?

About two years ago, I bought a mint Canon 50/1.2 ltm for a lot of money. However, I was not able to shoot anything good with the lens. I was giving up and took it to a guy name Steve Choi in Southern California. He cleaned for $350 ( I was new, did not know much DAG, or Youxin) and the lens was shooting very nicely for while. Then I found out that this lens develop haze and that it needs cleanup every year. I also found a video on Youtube that teaches how to clean it up. I got the tools ($50) and with the video, I cleaned the lens myself in 15 minutes. I am enjoying this lens so much, that I do not think I can use another 50mm lens. Now, that I can clean it whenever I want, I really like the lens on the M9 and M8. I will be trying it on the M5 and M3. What is your experience with this lens?

Here are some shots taken with the Leica M8.u.


Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Model by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #2
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,702
Nice lens. So he charged you $350 for something that now takes you only 15 minutes to do?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #3
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Nice lens. So he charged you $350 for something that now takes you only 15 minutes to do?
Yeap. I was referred by a friend who has his camera looked at and did not charge anything. So extrange. I will never go back to him.
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #4
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,702
Yeah, it's kinda weird going there. They fixed a Rolleiflex GX that noone else would touch for $200 for me. I was ecstatic about that. But then they go and do something like what they did to you.

Anyway, congrats on doing it yourself now.
  Reply With Quote

Another detail about the lens:
Old 08-24-2016   #5
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 818
Another detail about the lens:

My lens did not have any marks on the glass at all. However, I have noticed that the UV/IR cut filter, the UV filter, the ND filter, any filter will affect the behavior of the lens wide open, and even stepped down, even if not by much. So, the best shots are with no filter at all and a good shade (hood).
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #6
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,721
I've had a couple I have a black one at the moment that I got quite cheap because of the haze but as you say it's quite easy to clean. It's a good idea to make sure you get the aperture blades completely oil free which in my experience stops the haze coming back.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #7
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
I've had a couple I have a black one at the moment that I got quite cheap because of the haze but as you say it's quite easy to clean. It's a good idea to make sure you get the aperture blades completely oil free which in my experience stops the haze coming back.
I did not mess with the aperture blades, so I will be cleaning often. I would think that the professional I paid for earlier could have done that, but apparently he did not. Bottom line is: I want to communicate my happiness with this lens, it is unbelievable.
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #8
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
 
rogue_designer's Avatar
 
rogue_designer is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Age: 44
Posts: 2,489
I've shot one for years. It has never developed haze - which makes me wonder what lubricant he used.

At any rate - it's a fantastic lens. I'm quite fond of it.
__________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Usually using: Rolleiflex 3.5E, Fuji X Pro 1/X100S, Horseman VHR, Horseman 45LX

---
My Flickr | StreetLevel Photography
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #9
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
It's OK. I prefer the C-Sonnar 1,5/50: 1/2 stop slower, but far less flare, smaller, lighter and sharper.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #10
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,777
Could it be that the $350 repair was not just to remove haze? I once had DAG repair my Canon 50/1.2 that behaved very strangely in that some parts in each image were out of focus (not necessarily in the back of the image). Don found out that internal glass elements had moved around.






__________________
- Raid

________________


http://raid.smugmug.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #11
Mephiloco
Registered User
 
Mephiloco is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NOLA
Posts: 512
I'm on my 3rd and best 50/1.2. I've gotten great shots with it over the years but now it sits, waiting to be sold now that I have a C-Sonnar and a A7s. Hate that the market for them has pretty much dropped out over the last few years, think it's going to be the first piece of gear I sell for a loss.

That aside, I was surprised at how great of a lens it is. All the articles/forums online complained about it because a dated design and a mediocre lens at best. The only thing I found to be true from online reading is that it is heavy (for a rangefinger lens), though it does balance very well on a digital body.
__________________
Leica M240, M2, M4-2, IIIc, Sony A7S
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #12
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mephiloco View Post
I'm on my 3rd and best 50/1.2. I've gotten great shots with it over the years but now it sits, waiting to be sold now that I have a C-Sonnar and a A7s. Hate that the market for them has pretty much dropped out over the last few years, think it's going to be the first piece of gear I sell for a loss.

That aside, I was surprised at how great of a lens it is. All the articles/forums online complained about it because a dated design and a mediocre lens at best. The only thing I found to be true from online reading is that it is heavy (for a rangefinger lens), though it does balance very well on a digital body.
Did the market drop out?
It's a $350-$500 lens last I noticed.
I still feel it's a viable lens and easily worth the price (and cleaning routine).
My current one is the parts of two lenses that had different flaws.
One with unrepairable rear elenents. One with scratched front element.
It's the best copy I've owned out of 3 tries now. (In yhe end the most expensive as well).
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Good point!
Old 08-24-2016   #13
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 818
Good point!

I took two lenses the Canon and a mint (bought in this forum) CV Nokton 35mm f1.2 Asph II. I could not focus with this last one. I could focus with the Canon, but the image quality was horrible. He looked at the lenses and did some test shots, amplified the results and asked me to leave the lenses do an estimate. I left the lenses and he was supposed to call me, he told me the Canon needed focus adjustment because it was front focusing, and clean up. I wanted to focus 0.5 m with the Nokton, not the 0.7 the camera allowed. As it turned out, when I picked up the lens, he did nothing to the Nokton and said so. But gave me the Canon clean and nice. Later after few days I realized that the one needing the collimation was the Nokton, which I asked Youxing Ye, he referred me to DAD because he did not do collimation. Dag charged $180 for the collimation and the lens is perfect since then. The Canon "went back to black". So, I concluded that the Canon did not need collimation but clean up only, but was charged for it anyway. Since the time had passed, I did not asked for adjustment and let it go. The problem is that this thread is becoming about it, not about the nice quality of the lens.
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #14
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,250
It's a cool lens. Unique in design, size and pictures that come back. It took me 3 copies to get a clean one that doesn't fog up. Here are some tests:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...d.php?t=155193

and here a couple of film samples:







One of the nice features of this lens is that you don't have to worry about cosine error (due to field curvature, focus and recompose is easy).

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

There is one for sale in this forum right now.
Old 08-24-2016   #15
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 818
There is one for sale in this forum right now.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...ca-50-90/cat/2
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #16
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferider View Post
It's a cool lens. Unique in design, size and pictures that come back. It took me 3 copies to get a clean one that doesn't fog up. Here are some tests:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...d.php?t=155193

and here a couple of film samples:







One of the nice features of this lens is that you don't have to worry about cosine error (due to field curvature, focus and recompose is easy).

Roland.
Nice shots Roland!
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #17
edge100
-
 
edge100 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 758
I've actually owned this lens twice.

The first copy was excellent, and produced wonderfully dreamy images at f/1.2.

The second copy was this exact lens (http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/tag/canon-50-1-2-ltm/). It was absolutely florid with haze on the rear element. Youxin was going to clean it for $90, but I decided to simply return it to the seller.

Unfortunately, haze is just a fact of life with this lens, and it needs to be cleaned every 12-18 months. Contrast this with the MUCH better 50 f/1.4 LTM, which is a stellar performer (far better at 1.4 than the 1.2 ever was) and doesn't suffer from the same haze issue (at least I've never had an issue with it on any of the 3 copies I've owned).
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-24-2016   #18
View Range
Registered User
 
View Range is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 272
I have used Steve several times. I always found his prices to be fair. What I really liked is that he could tell you when the repair would be done. It's hard to know if $350 is too high because it isn't stated what he had to do. The fact you could not get any good photos suggests there were more problems with the lens than just haze. $350 is less than 4 hours of labor.

I have used this lens once and found it unacceptable at f1.2 and only acceptable at f4.0 and f5.6, but I would not condemn every example of the lens because I can't tell if one I used was properly adjusted or not.

I used DAG only once and had a major problem with him business model. In the end I was just happy to get my equipment back after its 18 month stay in Wisconsin. But then again, if I had special equipment that I was really concerned about, I would sent it to DAG.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #19
Fraser
Registered User
 
Fraser is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,721
@1.2
[email protected]_01 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
15fbpicM9canon50_01 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
Heres a comparison with my other 50 1.2s
[email protected]_01 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #20
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraser View Post
@1.2
[email protected]_01 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
15fbpicM9canon50_01 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
Heres a comparison with my other 50 1.2s
[email protected]_01 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr
That is what I am talking about.
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Samples at f1.2
Old 08-25-2016   #21
pepeguitarra
Registered User
 
pepeguitarra's Avatar
 
pepeguitarra is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 818
Samples at f1.2

Canon 50mm f1.2 ltm @f1.2 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr



Canon 50/1.2 ltm @ f1.2 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr
__________________
It is not a photo until you print it! Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-25-2016   #22
johannielscom
Ich bin ein Barnacker
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 7,366
Cleaning the 50mm 1.2 yourself is easy:

http://www.johanniels.com/index.php/...ngefinder-lens
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-14-2016   #23
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by f16sunshine View Post
Did the market drop out?
It's a $350-$500 lens last I noticed.
I still feel it's a viable lens and easily worth the price (and cleaning routine).
My current one is the parts of two lenses that had different flaws.
One with unrepairable rear elenents. One with scratched front element.
It's the best copy I've owned out of 3 tries now. (In yhe end the most expensive as well).
I owned a 50mm f1.2 Canon lens.
It was heavy but gave great results.
A friend borrowed it, returning with deep scratches in front element.
I sold it to a guy at camera swap, as he had a damaged helicoid,
maybe rust and not so great back element.
It was in South Africa.
Maybe same lens?
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2016   #24
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,604
C'mon everybody post something!
I merely gave history of one lens..
It gave great images.
Soft at 1.2 but sharp stopped down.
I preferred the low contrast to a prototype Noctilux f1.2.
Leica allowed me to use it for a short time.
The Canon f1.2 was adjusted on a collimator, M-adapter fitted with screw.
I used it to photograph my new born daughter, many years ago.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2016   #25
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
 
Fixcinater is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Portales, NM, USA
Posts: 542
There is a thread in the Canon RF subforum with a good number of images.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2016   #26
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,864
I hate the size and weight of that Canon lens and in the past I always read in photo magazines that it was not a very good lens.

But I personally like the photo results that this hefty lens produces.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2016   #27
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,585
Quote:
Originally Posted by leicapixie View Post
C'mon everybody post something!......
I took this pic of my grandson many years ago. Perhaps my most popular picture. Canon 50/1.2, taken at F1.4 or so, as I recall.



Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-27-2016   #28
leicapixie
Registered User
 
leicapixie is offline
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Toronto.Canada
Posts: 1,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackinaw View Post
I took this pic of my grandson many years ago. Perhaps my most popular picture. Canon 50/1.2, taken at F1.4 or so, as I recall.



Jim B.
Great photo. Love the look.
Looking at this, miss that lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2017   #29
lundrog
Registered User
 
lundrog's Avatar
 
lundrog is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: MN, Sartell
Posts: 100
Horrid lens. Joking.. Love this lens. Fuji X-E2/X-E2s

Canon 50mm 1.2 LTM












__________________
Roger Lund
Lens Collector, Shot with Fuji X-E2, Fuji X-E2s
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2017   #30
Spavinaw
Registered User
 
Spavinaw is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Rocket City
Posts: 585
I have two Canon 50mm f1.2 lenses (one with problems). Neither has ever developed haze. Do you think there is something wrong with them????? It's my 50mm f1.5 that regularly develops haze and occasionally my Serenar 35mm f3.5.
__________________
Are we having fun yet?
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2017   #31
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
 
Fixcinater is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Portales, NM, USA
Posts: 542
I doubt there is anything wrong. I have had three of them, one is still in my possession and after cleaning the typical haze out a couple of years ago, it has not accumulated any more haze in that time. One of the others did not clean up 100% when I was removing the haze, but the other did and looked basically as new on the internal surfaces.

What are the problems the one has?
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2017   #32
Spavinaw
Registered User
 
Spavinaw is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Rocket City
Posts: 585
Concerning my lens with problems: I have looked long and hard and as far as I can tell it has no aperture blades. Second, the front part of the lens is cross threaded into the back part of the body. That is, the aperture ring sits at an angle to the focusing ring. Try as I might, I have not been able to take the lens apart. I've had this lens so long I cannot remember where or how I got it--on a body maybe?
__________________
Are we having fun yet?
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2017   #33
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
 
Fixcinater is offline
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Portales, NM, USA
Posts: 542
Inside the rear screw mount is the brass RF ring, then a slotted retaining ring, and then inside that is the rear element. If you can pick up an inexpensive lens spanner and confirm the tips fit those slots in the retaining ring, you can easily remove the entirety of the body with the glass in it, leaving just the focus mech and mount assembly. It's possible that it was somewhat cock-eyed upon installation last time and with some care you should be able to re-install it lined up correctly.

It's possible the blades have gotten soaked with oil and therefore do not stop down with the aperture ring. I've had multiple lenses do this, a Minolta 58/1.2 was especially impressive once I got some Ronsonol into the assembly and it broke down the oil enough to let the blades come out into view and stopped down to f/16 or 22 almost immediately.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:03.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.