philipus Posted August 18, 2011 Share #1 Posted August 18, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello everybody I've searched around for info on how the Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM would work on an M3. There's a lot about the image quality it produces, some hate it some like it a lot. It is said that it is too soft wide open, but the various images I have seen for instance at Flickr doesn't really support that. Then again images on a screen are different than looking at prints, negs or slides. I can't find info on how this lens works on an M3 specifically, though. For instance, does it block out much of the viewfinder? And does it work fully with the camera, including infinity focus? Is it a recommended lens at all? Cheers Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 18, 2011 Posted August 18, 2011 Hi philipus, Take a look here Does the Canon 50mm f/1.2 work well with an M3?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bill Posted August 18, 2011 Share #2 Posted August 18, 2011 It worked fine on my M2 and M7. A nice lens if you get a decent example. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted August 18, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted August 18, 2011 Thanks Bill. That is very helpful. Can I ask, are any of the photos on your Flickr site taken with this lens? Cheers Philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 18, 2011 Share #4 Posted August 18, 2011 You're welcome. They certainly are. I think they are tagged as such. A number of the Seville set were, for sure. I don't have it any more but I did use it for a few years. Things to be wary of are fogging of the rear element from the lubricating oil on the aperture blades (I think) - mine was CLA'd just before I bought it. The front element is quite steeply curved; you have to be careful what filter if any you fit on the front. Finally, in terms of handling it balances very well with the M body, but it has the world's most irritating infinity lock... I know some people have resorted to "minor surgery" to disable it, but I preferred to just live with it. I now have a (modern) Sonnar 1.5, btw that largely replaced the need for the 1.2 in speed terms and provides a more pleasing rendition wide open. Hope this helps. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted August 18, 2011 Author Share #5 Posted August 18, 2011 Thanks Bill. I found your Seville photos. The lens renders very nicely I think. You have some very nice photos there! I also thought that it might balance well on an M body, given its weight. Good info there as well re the front element. What do you mean about the irritating infinity lock? I haven't found a description of this on the Net. cheers philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted August 18, 2011 Share #6 Posted August 18, 2011 There's an infinity lock that is a different design to those I have found before on Leica lenses. It is almost flush with the rear edge of the lens where it meets the body and operates (this is easier to see than to describe) on a spring-loaded see-saw basis. It is easy, in the heat of the moment, to turn the lens to infinity where the lock clicks on, without you realising. When you then try to focus you have to find the lock with your index finger and press it in the right place (to the back, not straight on) to take the lock off. It is, as I say, a different design to those I have found on other lenses and just a little more fiddly. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted August 18, 2011 Share #7 Posted August 18, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The 0.95 looks a little cumbersome on a Leica CL Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeplanter Posted August 18, 2011 Share #8 Posted August 18, 2011 The Canon 50/1.2 is not a bad lens. I find it decently sharp at F1.2 but it really starts to shine at about F1.6. Nice central sharpness at that aperture with a gradually softening of the image as you move way toward the corners. Unusual bokeh too, when shot wide-open, which may be an acquired taste (I like it). The flange-back distance can be off on some of these lenses which probably contributes to the negative comments you see on some photo forums. It almost pays to have this lens calibrated to the M3 you'll be using. When the lens is "on," it's pretty good. Jim B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted August 19, 2011 Share #9 Posted August 19, 2011 I had to have mine calibrated and CLA'ed, but I really like the way it renders. On digital it combines sharpness with a softening 'micro-glow' that gives portraits a very flattering look. I confess I haven't got around to using it on any of the film cameras yet - but this has reminded me that I should try it. (and that image from Pete has reminded me that the M-conversion of my Canon 0,95 is now in it's third year of waiting... time for yet another phone call...) PS: though the infinity lock is irritating (as bill says), you do soon get used to it. I was nearly put off by warnings about the little mechanism, but I've never had any problems with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted August 19, 2011 Author Share #10 Posted August 19, 2011 The 0.95 looks a little cumbersome on a Leica CL Pete Who-ha, that looks almost vulgar! The 1.2 is significantly smaller, I realise now. I had to have mine calibrated and CLA'ed, but I really like the way it renders. On digital it combines sharpness with a softening 'micro-glow' that gives portraits a very flattering look. PS: though the infinity lock is irritating (as bill says), you do soon get used to it. I was nearly put off by warnings about the little mechanism, but I've never had any problems with it. Thanks for the info re the infinity lock. I realise this user-interface issues like this are really individual. I'm curious how I would find the infinity lock. The Canon 50/1.2 is not a bad lens. I find it decently sharp at F1.2 but it really starts to shine at about F1.6. Nice central sharpness at that aperture with a gradually softening of the image as you move way toward the corners. Unusual bokeh too, when shot wide-open Jim, Pete, Plasticman -- do you by any chance have any photos online of the 1.2 or the 0.95? I've seen images at Flickr but it is always interesting to compare how lenses render. Cheers philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted August 19, 2011 Share #11 Posted August 19, 2011 Who-ha, that looks almost vulgar! The 1.2 is significantly smaller, I realise now. Thanks for the info re the infinity lock. I realise this user-interface issues like this are really individual. I'm curious how I would find the infinity lock. Jim, Pete, Plasticman -- do you by any chance have any photos online of the 1.2 or the 0.95? I've seen images at Flickr but it is always interesting to compare how lenses render. Cheers philip Well I'm afraid as I mentioned the 0,95 is in eternal conversion - sometimes I get the feeling I'll never see that lens again. As for the 1,2 - no images online right now, other than a very poorly executed comparison I did while watching a really boring match during the latest soccer World Cup here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
philipus Posted August 19, 2011 Author Share #12 Posted August 19, 2011 Well I'm afraid as I mentioned the 0,95 is in eternal conversion - sometimes I get the feeling I'll never see that lens again. Sorry about that. I remember reading about it before as well. Btw, where is it you've sent it for conversion? If it takes so long, couldn't you ask to have it back and then send it somewhere else? (I don't mean to come with obvious advice or pour salt in the "wounds" so I apologise in advance). The comparison shots are very helpful, thank you. To me, it is always more useful to see how different lenses behave in real life rather than in a test rig or such. cheers philip Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted August 19, 2011 Share #13 Posted August 19, 2011 Sorry about that. I remember reading about it before as well. Btw, where is it you've sent it for conversion? If it takes so long, couldn't you ask to have it back and then send it somewhere else? (I don't mean to come with obvious advice or pour salt in the "wounds" so I apologise in advance). The comparison shots are very helpful, thank you. To me, it is always more useful to see how different lenses behave in real life rather than in a test rig or such. cheers philip One of these days I intend to do a similar informal comparison which includes a few more of the 50s. But it has to be noted that all the lenses I've used on both film and digital look totally different on each medium. Still, one of the interesting factors when I did the teacup shots, was that the rendering of the 1,2 was (in my opinion) closer to the Noctilux than the Nokton. (I mean closer than the Nokton's rendering is to the Noctilux, that is - if you follow me?) As for the conversion - I've thought of all the options - over and over again, I assure you... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted August 19, 2011 Share #14 Posted August 19, 2011 (and that image from Pete has reminded me that the M-conversion of my Canon 0,95 is now in it's third year of waiting... time for yet another phone call...) Don't look at this link then. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted August 19, 2011 Share #15 Posted August 19, 2011 Jim, Pete, Plasticman -- do you by any chance have any photos online of the 1.2 or the 0.95? I've seen images at Flickr but it is always interesting to compare how lenses render. Cheers philip I'm afraid I don't own one of these jewels. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeplanter Posted August 20, 2011 Share #16 Posted August 20, 2011 ......Jim, Pete, Plasticman -- do you by any chance have any photos online of the 1.2 or the 0.95? I've seen images at Flickr but it is always interesting to compare how lenses render..... Here's one taken with the Canon 50/0.95, wide-open, on a M3: Here's a shot from the Canon 50/1.2, taken at F1.6, on my MP: Jim B. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.