Quick comparison Canon FD 50/1.2 L vs X-Fujinon EBC 50/1.2

[Bille]

Quick comparison Canon FD 50/1.2 L vs X-Fujinon EBC 50/1.2 on Sony NEX 7

f1.2 Performance

X-Fujinon 50/1.2 at f1.2


X-Fujinon 50/1.2 at f1.2 (Crop)


Canon FD 50/1.2 L at f1.2


Canon FD 50/1.2 L at f1.2 (Crop)


f4 Performance

X-Fujinon 50/1.2 at f4


X-Fujinon 50/1.2 at f4 (Crop)


Canon FD 50/1.2 L at f4


Canon FD 50/1.2 L at f4 (Crop)


"Bokeh"

X-Fujinon 50/1.2 at f1.2


Canon FD 50/1.2 L at f1.2


X-Fujinon 50/1.2 at f2.8


Canon FD 50/1.2 L at f2.8


Please draw your conclusions!

[qtmonster]

To my eyes, the FD50L seems warmer and resolves more details. The latter is apparent on the last 2 shots.

[Aanything]

The canon looks better wide open, but it's a bit hard to tell from small pics.

[inombrable]

Canon is looking better in this test to my eyes.

[fermy]

Yep, Canon is better, no surprises here. The obvious difference is less CA in Canon, aspherics rule. That's about 2 to 4x difference in price though

[Phenix jc]

The L is better w o.
Fortunately...
The bokeh is very similar.
Thanks for sharing.

[Attila]

[Bille]

I see a trace of higher resolution on the Fujinon, at the expense of contrast. Bokeh is smoother on the L.

Waiting for the rumored FD Speedbooster now ...

[lukias]

Honestly, the Fujinon definitley resolves more detail WO(but with blooming and CA) and closed down.
Its pretty clear if you look beyond the hazyness.

[Lightshow]

Both are nice. Thanks for sharing.

[Pontus]

I don't have the Canon (I have a lot of other f1.2 lenses though) and it's hard to say from these samples but the X-Fujinon is surprisingly sharp at large apertures and the pictures turn out really nice after some post processing. Both lenses are expensive now, the Canon because it has always been expensive and the X-Fujinon because it is good and because it is extremely rare. X-Fujinons used to be cheap but since we got mirrorless cameras and adapters, the prices have skyrocketed. You can hardly find a X-Fujinon 50/1.2 and if you do, you will have to pay a collectors premium.

[Bille]

[DR.JUAN]

I think that the rokkor 58/1.2 has a bit better perform. Of the two fuji and canon, the last for me.

[Orio]

The main problem with the Fujinon is that wide open the spherical aberration diffuses the purple fringing (along with everything else) making it appear wider than it actually is.

[8310]

[szpeter22]

To my eyes F1.2 crop photo of Fujinon shows better sharpness and contrast, but with obviously much worse CA. It would be nice to see the full resolution files. At F4 the Fujinon has again stronger contrast in the cropped image. I can see wrinkles on the forehead, or the lips in Fujinon image, which I can hardly detect in the Canon picture. Canon has smoother bokeh. Fujinon seems to have less shallow DOF, the background is less blurred. Fujinon colors are more realistic, but Canon's color looks more appaeling.

Fujinon EBC 50 1.2 is definitely not the same optical formula as Porst UMC 50 1.2. Physically the two lenses are identical outside, except the logo, of course. But Fujinon has a shorter focal distance (47-48 mm). In short distance test (portrait 2m) Porst has a bit better sharpness wide open, but definitely worse when closed down. Porst has a warmer color than Fujinon. Fujinon percieved sharpness is close to that of Contax at F1.7 and F2, but Contax is still better. (No F1.7 click on Fujinon, but you can set it easily for a test)

Test shots are here (Olympus OM 50 1.8 and Pentax SMC 50 1.2 included), 1.6x cropped by Canon 450D:

www.flickr.com/photos/69721502@N06/



Shots were taken on tripod, live view, 10x magnification for focusing and 2 sec delay for reducing camera shake.

Checking with the target Fujinon colors seem to be the truest, however Contax looks nicer (warmer). Bokeh is the smoothest on Pentax, but at the cost of weaker general sharpness. When light spots are in the image stopping down Porst and Fujinon 6 blade aperture becomes obvious, Contax keeps up pretty well. Pentax is of course the best with its 8 aperture blades.

Pentax costs about the same as Fujinon, but this latter is very difficult to find. Fujinon costs 3x the Contax and double the Porst. Fujinon and Porst is small, 298 grams only, Contax is only 190 grams.

Fujinon is very sharp and contrasty from F2.8 in any terms and especially for a F1.2 lens. It is sharper in every position than Pentax SMC 50 1.2 by a clear margin and on RAW files it is a bit sharper and contrastier than the Contax.

The best buy, I think, is Contax, cheap, lightweight, sharp and contrasty from F1.7, bokeh is smooth, colors are typical Zeiss T*. It is easy to manually focus due to high contrast wide open and the mechanical perfection.

Porst is very good wide open in the centre, but soft everywhere else compared to the competition here (the test is not on FF camera!) Stopping down it remains only average in the centre and even worse away from the centre.

One more note: the sharpness of F1.2 manual focusing lenses is first of all in your ability to focus properly. I have made 2-4 test shots in each position and could find difference in sharpness in many cases. Using these lenses in real life typically does not allow so much preparation. And lens copies can vary a lot, too. The observations above only apply to my copies.

[martinsmith99]

Not a great deal in it, but the Canon wins on sharpness, CA & bokeh IMO.

[shapencolour]

In my eyes Porst is sharper and contrastier than Canon at f4,save chromatic aberrations that are more pronounced at f 1.2 (The Canon has an aspherical edge to be seen).

What I experienced so far was that Porst 50/1.2 (not the 55/1.2 made by Cosina,very good,but different 6/4 optical design) and EBC Fujinon 50/1.2 were of identical performance on the NEX5N/7- no wonder ,the same 7/7 optical construction and coatings - Fuji made.

[rafa1981]

I am owner of the Porst UMC-X too and I know the lens rendering well. Looking at the pics posted on the internet using the Fuji branded version I can say that I'm almost sure that optically is the same lens as its Fuji counterpart. Just that the Fuji is rarest, so it has the usual collector's fee.

In my opinion this lens is best used at f2 and f2.8 where the image quality is hard to believe for such a low pedigree lens. This lens was sharp enough to be used at f1.2 in 4/3 (E620 with 12MPx) given dark subjects and controlled light (otherwise the spherical aberration shows up). I think that the center can outresolve a 36MPx FF sensor at f2, but take it with a grain of salt, as I have never tested it.

The "flaws" of this lens, or at least my copy that the aberrations above f4 are a little below the performance that the slower 50mm lenses use to have and the strong green/magenta bokeh/OOF areas aberration.

[Fujinonuser]

@szpeter22
I have owned several different copies of the Fujinon and the Porst 1.2 / 50mm lenses and I cannot confirm that both lenses are different. The Porst is a re-branded Fujinon in all respects. We must not forget that we speak here of photographic gear that left the factory about thirty years ago. When you compare Fujinon lenses of the same speed and focal length, you will notice that there are slight differences within the same focal length. Apparently, those lenses were manufactured and coated at different times, meeting the overall quality standards of Fujinon lenses. Personally, I cannot remember the Fujinon or Porst lenses to be as foggy WO as shown in the sample pics. The EBC coating usually eliminates ghosting to a higher degree than with other much better known brands. Color fringing (CA) was not to be seen in pictures taken on film, but it may become visible in certain conditions in digital photography. Its visibility also depends on the camera used.

[Bille]

[pengbai]

[Fujinonuser]

@Bille
I must admit that my experience with the 1.2 Fujinons and Porsts was with analog film cameras and high-resolution film. I guess that there are also differences among different manufacturers of digital cameras. Nevertheless, some coma with an ultra-fast lens would not be surprising. In digital photography, if you stop down an ultra-fast lens and compare it to a standard lens at the same aperture stop, you may encounter some astonishing results due to the wider rear element of the ultra-fast lens. That's only my personal two cents, of course.