Canon FL 50mm f/1.2

Does anyone have any personal experiences or opinions (good or bad)

of this lens? Is it's soft-focus and (versatile?) low-light level

performance worth trading in a FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC (breech-lock) for?

Thanks!

 

JW

No. I think you need them both. I think anyone who has ever used one will have favorable comments. Beautifully soft wide open, nice and sharp stopped down. You do understand though that the metering with an FL lens is not as fast as an FD lens. Once you learn the technique it goes quickly though. Best used with a camera made in the 70's but other will work fine. I picked up my ex+ FL 50 f/1.2 for less than the price of a decent dinner for two.

Why not a FD 1,2 L ? I think it is the best of all.

Tight budget...The FL 50mm f/1.2 was a good bargain at $30!

 

JW

I think you'll find the 50/1.4 runs rings around the 50/1.2 in FL mount, or even early FD mount. For that price.. it might be fun to play with, as its a soft lens.

 

The 50/1.2L is quite nice tho.

 

Both 1.2's are "bragging rights" lenses, and only that speed in the center of the image, as the light falloff wide open is about one stop, which makes em 1.2 in the center, and 1.8 at the edges. The 50/1.4 suffers from falloff as well, but not as much.

Charles are you sure about the degree of fall-off. I have the 1.2L (the new fd one), and I have not experienced fall-off this extreme when shooting it wide open. Perhaps I have not noticed it, but I think if it were that severe I would have. I will go out and take some shots with it wide open and take a closer look, but I don't think it is as much of a problem as you say. What of the 55mm 1.2 aspherical? That is supposed to be better than the old Noctilux...you may be able to find it cheap if someone does not know what they have...

I'm going on memory here...

 

I worked in a shop for 6 years or so that was a major Canon outlet (largest in Florida at one time). During that time, it was great fun to "test" various lenses. Here's where my memory gets sketchy... We always stocked the f/1.2 lens (was it 50 or 55mm?). When the "new" f/1.2L lens came out we did an informal test, with Kodachrome25 of course.

 

Shooting the fabled "newpaper test target" wide open, it was pretty obvious that at about 6 or 8 feet, both lenses were distinctly dark in the corners. The f/1.4 (a great lens) was way less dark.

 

So.. I'm estimating here about a stop under at the extreme edges, definate hot spot in the center of the 1.2 either L or not. The L did have better edge sharpness especially wide open (which is why you get that lens anyway).

Actually it is FL 55/1.2, and it is a lens which replaced my f/1.4 version (i.e. left it redundant). An earlier poster indicated that one should keep and use both. For general photography I guess the FD 50/1.4 SSC is hard to beat, but for low light and/or long shutterspeed pictures ... This is the lens to have. At f/1.2 nice soft pictures are possible (as long as you can focus correctly on the subject, short DOF!). Until f/2.8 the pictures have a nice smoothness, different from the f/1.4 (and certainly not less sharp). Actually, it is quite a sharp lens at f/5.6 and higher. Unless one uses the lens often in situations where the coating (sunlight), handling speed (stopped-down metering is slower) or weight & size (any 55/1.2 is huge) matters, I would say that the FL 55/1.2 could replace the FD 50/1.4 SSC. Look at http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/CanonFD/FD50.html as a reference. In earlier threads the difference between the two lenses have been mentioned before (the FD 55/1.2 SSC has the same design as the FL 55/1.2). The FD 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical stands out from all these other standard lenses: besides superior optical quality at lower apertures, the bokeh is wonderfull (if you like it like that: 3-D images in the background). For a lot less the FL 55/1.2 is a wonderful lens to use, with lower contrast and sharpness than it's aspherical cousin, but certainly not less than the f/1.4's. I found out that I am the limiting factor, in low light it is quite difficult to focus correctly (but the shot, f/1.2 @ 1/8, means you're grabbing the opportunity; at least, you can have a try). Maybe it's a mind thing as well, I hardly use my f/1.4 at open aperture (preferable > f/2.8) while my f/1.2's are often used in the 1.2-2.8 range (too). And I do think the extra weight is worth it (on either my FT or FTb). Just my thoughts.

Oops! My mistake (twice). The lens is a FL 55mm f/1.2, not 50mm. That was stupid. :-)

 

JW

As a side story to this....

 

The shope had come in, and I purchased, a Canon 50/.095, to fit Leica-M.

 

WHAT WHAT? It was only made for the Canon Rangefinder outer bayonet right? Well... this lens was a custom job, but in the shop we were all too inexperienced in Canon RF items to know it. Added to that, the lens was converted VERY skillfully, probably by the famed Marty Forscher. I used it for a bit, and it was pretty soft. What it WAS good at though, was intimate stage photography. Add a little backlight/rimlight from stage lighting, and every shot had a great glow. Just a hint of that smokey look, very pleasing (only on Jazz stage sets though).

 

I ended up ditching that lens, as it was more of a novelty, and got a Canon 50/1.4 for the Leica screwmount, which I used on the M3 for bit, until I sold that outfit.