fd 50/1.2 (not L)

Has anyone used this lens? I've seen both the L and non-L version for

sale recently (for GBP 225 and 125, respectively) and as I like

available-light i may buy one; the L version is a bit expensive for me

but the non-L version I could stretch to. The L version seems to get

good reviews from people, but the non-L version i've not seen much

about, so i'd appreciate any comments on it (and whether it is a fair

price - the condition is listed as Exc++, with excellent optics and

smooth focusing, in good cosmetic condition).

 

thanks

 

Mark

Lenses in Britain are much more expensive than on this side of the Atlantic so it is a little difficult to judge. I would say that the "L" price is typical while the non-L price seems high.

 

 

I had the 55/1.2 SSC which was the predecessor to the 50/1.2, and was very pleased with it. It always appeared to perform as well as the 50/1.8 but provided me the extra speed and the super bright viewfinder when I needed them. However, from what I have read the 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 L are both better than the 50/1.2 and are pretty much on par with each other. If you do not absolutely need the f1.2 aperture then go with the 50/1.4 for much less money. In this focal length the advantage of the "L" is not likely worth the money, but I know there is always that lure of the red line. Good luck.

Of course if you really have your heart set on the f1.2 L then you really must consider it's predecessor, the 55mm f1.2 SSC Aspherical, since by all reports it is clearly superior to all Canon 50mm lenses and while placed in the top 3 or 4 50mm lenses ever made by anyone, may indeed be the best! They generally sell for a 15-25% premium over the 50/1.2 L.

I have the 55 mm SSC ASPHERICAL.

 

It's an extremely good lens. When I shoot with it, I'm always amazed at the rich pastel colours I get.

 

I often use it wide open at art openings etc, and using 400 ASA film I can shoot at about 1/500 sec using ambient light. The shallow depth of focus makes for very good portraits, then, where my subject gets loose from the background. Photographers with modern gear have zooms with aperture of about F4, and they need about 8X longer exposures, with less quality.

 

I also use it in cathedrals etc. where I get top quality results without having to stop down.

 

The 55 mm F 1.2 asph. is a very big lens, with quite a lot of glass.

 

I bought it 5 years ago, for about $ 500. I live in Belgium, lens prices are higher there than in the US. I never regrettted buying it.

 

Dirk.

the 50/1.2L and the 55/1.2 are both out of my price range, so they're out of the question. There are plenty of 50/1.4's about, but they retail for only about 50-60 GBP less than the 50/1.2; if the 1.2 is really noticeably worse than the 1.4 i may go that route, but i would prefer the 1.2 if it's of comparable (or close) quality. I have the 50/1.8 but even that is a little slow sometimes for what i want (dim lighting w/400asa film). i also like using depth of field creatively so the extremely shallow focus of the 1.2 appeals.

As I mentioned I used my 55/1.2 for 15 years and was very happy with it, so I think you can feel comfortable going with the 50/1.2 for it's additional speed and shallow depth of field at f1.2. The 125 pounds looks like a fair price compared to a similar unit at B&H in New York for $280 USD, and you would only save about 25 pounds on eBay with additional risks. Good luck!