Canon FD 50mm f1.2 L

[wolan]

Hi,

I have seen some nice pictures on Flick taken with this lens. I like the bokeh and sharpness WO seems to be rather good.

What do you think of this lens? How does it stack in your opinion against other vintage 50/55 f1.2 lenses (in particular against the Canon 55 f1.2 SSC)?

I have experience with the Nikon 50mm, which I did not like because its nervous bokeh, and the Tomioka 55mm f1.2, which has a wonderful bokeh, but sharpness WO is not particularly exciting.

Please share some photos if you have any.

Cheers.

[caspert79]

If you're willing to spend quite a bit of money why not look at the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.2? Stopped down its center resolution is even higher than the Voigtlander 50/2 APO-Lanthar.

[wolan]

[caspert79]

[wolan]

Full-Frame, on a Nikon Z6 to be precise
Cheers.

[PBFACTS]

[stevemark]

[tb_a]

According to an old test report of a popular photo magazine the SMC Pentax K 50/1.2 was best in terms of center resolution wide open, even better than the so much appraised Canon L lens.

[cooltouch]

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. Pentax has long been known for its crazy sharp optics.

[womble]

Pentax "K" 50mm f/1.2 images. Not ideal as they are down-sized and taken on a mixture of film and digital (and an older digital at that), but it gives you a bit of a feel for the lens. TBH, my copy of the K50/1.4 might be sharper stopped down a little than my copy of the 1.2 but I've never tested it. Proper lens tests are not my thing, I just use them and see if I like them. Also note I say "my copy" because with older lenses there is bound to be variation between examples.

Ilford Delta 100, lens wide open and hand held.


At the Museum (1) par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

Fuji Neopan 1600, probably at about f/2, again hand held.


Be set in the midst of knowledge par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

Pentax K20D. No idea what aperture, probably something middling. Hand held.


Autumn comes to Lamer par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity


More lambs (1) par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

[tb_a]

I've got 4 different F1.1 to F1.2 lenses from Fuji, Minolta, Pentax and 7Artisans which I've compared here if you scroll down: http://forum.mflenses.com/ultra-fast-normal-lenses-on-a7r-ii-t79965.html

In terms of sharpness the Fujinon is best. In terms of bokeh I prefer the Minolta lens.

[martinsmith99]

Do they really get used at their widest aperture?

Apart from test shots, I'm usually stopped down a bit for photographic purposes.

[tb_a]

[stevemark]

[cooltouch]

[caspert79]

If very narrow DOF is what you're after, you may also consider 58/1.4 lenses. The longer focal length results in very thin DOF as well.

From the ultra fast lenses I owned, the Hexanon 57/1.2 was my probably my favorite. Even better bokeh than the Rokkor 58/1.2 IMO.

[stevemark]

[RokkorDoctor]

[wolan]

[stevemark]

[Doc Sharptail]

Interesting discussion!

The lone fast 50mm I have is also difficult to focus with on film.

It, however, is one of the few lenses I have that will focus properly with a micro-prism spot focusing screen.
I have done several pleasing portraits with it wide-open at f1.4 on film with the old nikkormat FTN, and it's other-wise dismally dim viewfinder.
It is incredibly difficult to focus with otherwise, even on the F-3 camera.

On digital, it is usable. There is a bit of hunting for focus confirmation with it. Face detect focusing mode is a non starter with this lens. I keep forgetting that face detect is one of the camera's poorly selected defaults, and end up having to do a bit of checking.
Single point seems to work best with it, but there's still a fair amount of flicker to the confirmation dot. The pay off is being patient with it, and focusing slowly, if that makes any sense for what is supposed to be a "fast" lens.

-D.S.

[ZuikosHexanonsandVivitars]

Yes, a really interesting discussion. I want to offer a different opinion, and I hope you won´t call me names for that impertinence

Those superfast lenses were being made for "available light photograpy". So therefore a certain softness fully open wouldn´t matter all too much in dim light, because as often in such conditions, one would see rather high contrast. In normal lit situations, one would probably want to stop down to 4 or 5.6 in order to avoid issues like poor contrast and color rendition, and lack of sharpness due to film pane imprecision. Now especially the last problem is factually eliminated with digital sensors. Shooting wide open actually works now, and that´s why people started doing it.

But if I would think strictly rational, I would have little good reason to bother going beyond f1.8, shooting vintage glass on digital bodies. Those mass produced 50mm f1.8 "kit lenses" provide a still satisfyingly shallow DOF if I need it, and were often better from their overall performance. That´s simply owed to mass production and competition. As a camera manufacturer, if your 1.8/50 was crap, folks would know about it and won´t buy your gear. Because that was simply the lens 95% of the people had on their cameras. I think of my granddad, my dad and my father in law. They had SLRs with the stock 50 on it, and the quality of that lens mattered, and little else. Remains mainly the advantage of more light - the prime purpose they were built - and that one/two stops a modern digital camera can compensate easily for.

I think the reason why light giants are so fascinating is simply, because they are fascinating. I know I´m obviously stating the obvious. We buy that stuff because we like it, and having beautiful gear that pleases us while we work with it has its own merits. In addition to that, using vintage glass is about creating perfect images, but in a not-exactly-mainstream-kind-of-way. It´s rather about using the unique character of an old lens for that purpose, even exploiting its (possible) flaws in a way that leads to a perfect image, though in a much different way. It strikes me to be more creative, more of artwork than with contemporary "normal" equipment, and if a certain lens is inspiring to the photographer and within their budget, why not buying it.
What I actually wanted to say, those lousy oversized and overprized light buckets may not necessarily be better than a good 1.8/50. I keep adoring them big fifties of mine, though I rather tend to take a 1.8/50 if I shoot for a purpose, and not for experimenting or out of curiosity.

Have mercy

[caspert79]

I always ended up selling my f/1.2 lenses, because my f/1.4 lenses would practically do the same job and for the money that an f/1.2 brings, I could buy something more interesting.

[stevemark]

I pretty much agree with most points you said, and of course I like my fast lenses because look nice.

That said, "one aperture faster" can make quite a difference. Look at the images below.



There's quite a difference between the Canon FD 2.8/100mm and the Nikkor 1.8/105mm!

Similar differences can be seen between e. g. the Canon FD 1.8/85mm and the 1.2/85mm L. Or here between MC 1.2/58 and Nikkor 1.8/50:



S

[RokkorDoctor]