Canon LTM 50/1.2 vs 50/1.8

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Hello rangefinder lovers. This is my first post in this forum, though I've been a photo.net member since 2007.</p>

<p>I am delighted to have just picked up a Canon VI-L in stunningly good condition, and can't wait to start shooting with it. The only problem is that it didn't come with a lens. :-(</p>

<p>I'm thinking I'll pick up a 35mm, 50mm, and perhaps an 85mm, and am currently looking at a Canon/Serenar 50/1.8 and a Canon 50/1.2. My question is whether the f/1.2 lens is comparable in sharpness to the f/1.8 lens from around f/2 on. I realize that it's quite soft wide open, but if it performs well stopped down a bit, it may be worth having the extra stop of light for focusing. I have only ever used reflex cameras, with their large, bright viewfinders.</p>

<p>Any elucidation of this matter would be greatly appreciated.</p>

[john tonai]

<p>Since you are using a rangefinder, the brightness of the lens doesn't matter when it comes to focusing. Although I have a 1.2 and like it, I would buy the 1.8 as a normal lens. The 1.2 is pretty large so it negates some of size advantage of the rangefinder camera.</p>

 

[philip_wilson]

<p>As John says the lens has no impact on the viewfinder. It is important to make sure it is coupled to the viewfinder so it brings up the right brightlines (I am not sure if this is the case with Canon rangefinders as I have not used one but others will have done so and can help). With older lenses on Leica you can find the focus is off as the cam system needs to be adjusted. Again not something I am sure of with Canon,s but if you have quite a few OOF shots then the lens may need adjustment.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Mark here is a quick test I did a few years ago with the Canon 50mm f/1.2 on a Canon 7. It's a good lens but a large piece of glass. Check out the Canon 50mm f/1.4 as well. It's as fine an optic as you'll find anywhere and relatively compact.</p><div></div>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks, John and Philip. I'm so used to using SLR's that I had forgotten that with rangefinders, the lens is completely separate from the viewfinder and therefore has no effect on focusing. Duh!</p>

<p>And thank you very much for the link to your test, Louis. The 50/1.2 does seem to be pretty soft till it's stopped down a fair bit. I guess I've been spoiled by the FD 55/1.2 Aspherical and 50/1.2 L. The only reason I'm comparing the LTM f/1.2 to the f/1.8 lens is that those are two that are currently for sale here locally. But I do think that your advice is salient, and that it makes more sense to get a 50/1.4, which I know to be a superb lens in its FD and EF incarnations. I believe that the optical formula of the Canon 50/1.4 has remained unchanged since the lens was first introduced in 1957, and that its basic Tessar design actually dates back to the 1930's.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Not a tessar-- the 50/1.4 is a double-Gauss or planar-type, like nearly all fast normal lenses. But you're correct that this is an antediluvian design, and it goes back to about 1895 I think.</p>

<p>Very few tessar-type lenses have ever been made with maximum apertures larger then f/2.8. If you're looking for a tessar, and you probably aren't, the old 50/3.5 Canon lenses fit the bill. I have one of these, which I almost never use. It is low in contrast but has very high resolution in the center of the field-- actually beats my 50/1.8.</p>

<p>A totally cool lens for an LTM Canon is the 50/1.5, which was a copy of Zeiss's Sonnar. It was available for a brief period in the early and mid-1950s. At large apertures, say wider than f/4, it takes just a bit of the edge off the sharpness, and it makes people, especially women, look great. You might keep your eyes open for one, but they generally sell for stupid prices.</p>

[jim_bielecki1]

<p>I own a Canon 50/1.2 and it actually isn't all that bad of a lens wide-open. This lens seems to be a lot like the 50/0.95, in that it works best, wide-open, if calibrated to a specific body. </p>

<p>But to answer for question, the lens does sharpen up nicely at F2.0, especially in the center of the picture. By F2.8 it will look like any other 50mm lens stopped down to F2.8.</p>

<p>As already pointed out, the Canon 50/1.4 is an excellent lens, even wide-open. This lens has become my standard 50mm lens. Great image quality in a rather compact package. Light too.</p>

<p> </p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>My favorite Canon LTM lenses are Black 35mm f2 and 50mm f2.8, both perform flawlessly and are nicely balanced on my Canon P and useful on my Leica M and thread cameras.</p>

[james_elwing]

 

<p >"<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=2233815">Jim Bielecki</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Sep 11, 2011; 09:43 a.m.</p>

 

<p>I own a Canon 50/1.2 and it actually isn't all that bad of a lens wide-open. This lens seems to be a lot like the 50/0.95, in that it works best, wide-open, if calibrated to a specific body..........the Canon 50/1.4 is an excellent lens, even wide-open. This lens has become my standard 50mm lens. Great image quality in a rather compact package. Light too."<br>

I am a sucker for fast lenses, and yes, the 1.2 is the poor man's .95. It is pure ostentation, however, and the Canon 1.4 is a better lens, comparing well with older Summicrons. Expect Canon 1.8 is also creditable. What the heck; get the 1.2; it obscures the viewfinder, but bling is bling.</p>

 

 

 

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks for the further insight, guys.</p>

<p>Yes, Dave, I meant "planar" instead of "tessar." I didn't know that the design dated back that far. Incredible.</p>

<p>I think that what I might do is pick up the Serenar 50/1.8 that's available locally for now, and keep my eye open for a 50/1.4. I'm afraid that I'd be disappointed with the 50/1.2 at wider apertures, given that I'm used to shooting with my FD and EF aspherical primes. And, if the slower LTM lenses are as sharp as the LTM 50/1.2 at narrower apertures, it might be more prudent to put money towards a second LTM lens, such as the 35/2 that Paul recommends. </p>

[frederick_muller]

<p>In my experience the Canon 50mm f1.2 is actually better than the older Serenar 50mm f1.8 at f2. It is comparable to the newer Canon 50mm f1.8 Black at the same aperture. In the f2.8-5.6 range the Canon 50mm f1.2 is excellent, with a beautiful signature and color rendition.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Frederick, does the 50/1.2 actually partially block the viewfinder, as James contends?</p>

[jason]

<p>The f1.2 Canon lens should be adjusted to your camera. There will be noticeable improvement in sharpness.I used one on my M-3. The adapter was set with a screw. In plain English,the lens could only be used on a bayonet mount. It was pretty good for such a large aperture and so long ago! Canon was moving ahead of Leitz big time. Soon after the Canon lenses(and Nikkor-Nikon) Leitz-Leica set to re-design their lenses.My sample was damaged by a bad cleaning that scratched the front element. Never lend out lenses.I think though the slower lenses would truly be better. The depth of field at f1.2 and in 3 to 5 feet range is really small.<br>

The 55mmf1.2 Canon lens for the FD mount is a whole different animal. It has few competitors.<br>

Good luck.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Thanks, Jason. I am certainly familiar with the FD 55/1.2 SSC Aspherical, and own a copy of it as well as a 50/1.2 L, 85/1.2 SSC Aspherical, and 85/1.2 L, among many other fine FD lenses.</p>

<p>But I'm completely new to rangefinders, hence my recent questions. I've decided to go with a couple of Voigtlander Skopars for my VI-L, the 35/2.5 and the 50/2.5. Once I have secured these beautiful lenses this coming weekend, all I'll need is a hand-held light meter, since the VI-L doesn't have one built-in.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>35mm is too close to 50mm IMHO. Perhaps a 28+50 pairing is more useful? Either that or 35+75, with 24 and 135 at the extremes.</p>

<p>As for f/1.2, I reckon that f/2.0 is plenty unless you really, really want DOF as sharp as a blade (or your money back!).</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Karim, the viewfinder of the VI-L is set up for 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm, so I plan on initially sticking with those focal lengths instead of having to mess around with accessory viewfinders.</p>

<p>By the way, I find the 35mm and 50mm fields of view to be quite different. </p>

[jeff_guthrie]

<p>I have examples of all the Canon 50mm LTM lenses, from the .095 to the 3.5. The 50/1.2 is the one which I use the most. It is calibrated to my M4, and focuses quite well. Sharpness is fine wide open, and a little less "dreamy" than the images I get from the .095. But the .095 is tack sharp when stopped down to 1.4.</p>

<p>When considering these lenses, you must take care to find a good example. Makes sure any lens you buy has a guarantee. Many of the old Canon LTM lenses have haze in the rear elements. Sometimes this haze cleans up easily, other times it doesn't, and in some examples I've found that in order to remove the haze from the lens, the inner coating has been removed as well. When used with rangefinder cameras, it is critical that the lens be adjusted to match the camera, or it will not be sharp. At closer distances the depth of field is almost non-existent, and a minor misadjustment which would not show when using a 1.8 or wide angle lens will definitely be noticeable at 1.2.</p>

[drpath]

<p>As Jeff remarks, the main issue with the 50/1.2 is a haze that forms on the elements and reduces contrast. It's usually an oily film, probably from the lens lubricants, which is easily removed with appropriate solvents, but this requires lens disassembly. The lens protrudes slightly into the viewfinder on my VI-T, so I imagine it would cut the corner off in your camera as well. </p>

<p>These issues are the reasons I and many others prefer the 50mm f1.4. But I admit that I can't usually tell one from the other in real photographs. And the 50/1.2 is a beautiful hunk of glass.</p>

<p>By the way, Canon's 35mm f1.8 is a fine lens, much easier to find and buy than the 35mm f2.0. Dante Stella has a nice write-up on this lens and the Canon Sonnar. </p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>Best bang for the buck and probably the best lens in Canon rangefinder is the Canon 50mm f1.4. Do you really need f1.2 for how many more dollars when the film today has 2 stop latitude? As far as older lens are concerned I can not provide any comparisons. I will say then when purchasing an older lens for the 1950's consider the cost of a shade and possibly a filter (if it is an obscure size) to the budget. In that case costwise the newer lens may be better as they come with hoods and standard size filters.</p>