58mm 1:1.2 FL experiences?

[trw]

Does anyone have any experience with the Canon FL 58mm 1:1.2, good or

bad?

 

Does anyone know why they chose such an odd focal length? What is it

suitable and what is it unsuitable for?

[pensacolaphoto]

I have use a 55mm/1.2 lens, which is newer than your 58mm/1.2 lens. Most likely, it will soft wide open and sharper after 4.0-5.6. It will a good lens for soft focus portraits and for softer images overall when used from 1.2-4. Canon may have tried to make the 58mm length the "normal" length.

[maury_cohen]

Suitable for low-light exposures where critical sharpness is secondary. If you shoot with ISO 3200 the grain will probably render the results as reasonably sharp.

[awahlster]

It's a stop down metering fast primes lens of less then steller reputation soft wide open and only averae stopped down it was a very short run design which tells you it wasn't well excepted in the market which is a good indicator of what photogrpahers thought of it.

 

-From a performance point of view just about every other FL and FD mount 50-55mm lens Canon offered out performs it.

[wigwam jones]

58mm was once the 'normal' lens - ie, the 50mm of its time. If you mount a 58mm lens and look through the SLR viewfinder, you should notice that you can leave both eyes open - the magnification is the same.

 

I have the 55mm 1.2 FL lens and a (broken) 58mm 1.2. I like the 55mm 1.2, it is soft wide open but nice to be able to see through it to focus in low-light situations. Otherwise, I reach for a rangefinder. Great lens and one of my favorites.

 

Best,

 

Wiggy

[gregory_nicholson]

Does anyone know why they chose such an odd focal length?

 

I think it was the shortest focal length Canon could offer an f/1.2 lens for the SLR. They had the 50 f/1.2 and 50 f/0.95 for the rangefinder cameras but not a retrofocus design. (please correct if known to be wrong)