Canon 50mm 1.2

[robertmccurley]

Anybody have any experience/feedback on the Canon 50mm 1.2 lens? I

thought this might be a nice addition (and cost effective) for low

light wedding shots. Plan to use it with M3 and M2.

[stephen_w.]

Compact, way cheap, very soft 1.4 and 1.2, sharp enough stopped down. I bought one for $200, sold it for the same. I am now using a Summilux.

[Aoresteen]

Mine is very good. I use it with an M3. It is important to make sure the lens is properly adjusted for best results. DAG adjusted mine and I like it's "look". The center is very sharp at 1.2

 

Ive had two of these over the years and if stolen I would get another one right away.

 

Search the archives; there's been a lot of coverage of this lens over the years.

[pensacolaphoto]

Anthony: What did DAG charge you to get the 50/1.2 lens adjusted? I think, mine needs it too.

[max_fun]

I use this lens a lot because I'm not able to afford a Noctilux or a Summilux right now. My greatest complain about the lens is the amount of distortion and the flare susceptibility. As noted above, the sharpness in the center is acceptable wide open, but in low light and with fast film, critical sharpness is not always the highest priority.

[rover]

I recently got one and like it quite a bit. It is big, but the handling is very smooth and sure. Focusing on my .72 M6 and M3 is a snap. Surely it is a little soft wide open, but the difference between 1/4s and 1/8s is a lot bigger problem in most cases.

[nasmformyzombie]

Nice 'glow', nice bokeh, sharp in the center, soft on the edges---all qualities I like in a portrait lens in low light. You should have no problem with focus on your M3.

[peter_evans4]

<p>I've never used it, but I do have a Canon 50/1.4 which I've used wide open to good effect. This slightly slower lens costs less, weighs less, takes a smaller chunk out of your viewfinder, and takes a hood that is fairly easy to find and won't cost you much. Is f1.4 too slow for you?</p>

[robertmccurley]

Thanks everyone for your feedback. Actually Peter I bought one off e-bay today relatively cheap and I was wondering what to expect. The seller was local and it worked out great. It sounds like the lens will serve my needs until I can justify purchasing a Noctilux (like you can ever justify the cost of Leica glass;))

[peter]

I have a Canon 50mm F1.4 in LTM and think it is a wonderful lens - as good as if not better than the Leica Summilux of th period.

 

I have the Canon 58mm (yes 58mm) F1.2 Canon in reflex (FL mount) and find it noticeably soft wide open but that it sharpens up nicely when stopped down.

 

In general I would say if you get a chance to get any Canon LTM lens at the right price grab it, they are very good indeed.

 

(I also have used various versions of the LTM lenses in 50mm F1.5 (chrome) 50mm F1.8 (chrome and black /chrome) 85mm F1.9 (chrome) and 135 mm F3.5 (black / chrome)) I would say as a generalisation all are good or better.

[jason]

Its very soft till about f4. The depth of field or lack there of makes need of very accurate RF. Have the lens adjusted by a technician and permanently fitted M-adapter.. It will make a big difference! You focus on the bride's eyes and get the tip of nose in focus!Better get a Summicron or Summiluz and a soft filter.

I used a 50mmf1.2 for many years, professionaly.

[davidv1]

Stephen - thanks for remembering me.

[john_segursky]

Raid,

 

My 50 f1.2 just came back from DAG and for $85. I can't believe how smoothly everything operates now.

 

 

John