your favourite 50-60mm f/1.2 lens

hi guys. what's your favourite normal super fast lens ?

I kinda miss my konica hexanon 50mm f/1.4. I have not tried others, except the nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI, which is pretty good, but doesn't have that "painting" character of hexanons.

I'm open to suggestions

Minoltas 58mm Rokkor is great but...

Leica's Noct F1 or .95 are unreal.

Budget choice, the new 7artisans lens is supposed to be epic and so is the price.

I do have two of them in Canon FD, the FDn 1.2/50 and the older 1.2/55 SSC. I prefer the 50mm, since it's lighter and smaller and additionally delivers better contrast and sharpness wide open.

JT26 said:

Leica's Noct F1 or .95 are unreal.

Click to expand...

So is the price :-D

JT26 said:

Budget choice, the new 7artisans lens is supposed to be epic and so is the price.

Click to expand...

The 7artisans 50mm 1.1 is a Sonnar on steroids. I've seen great work made with this camera. At $350 or so, it is a steal. Since it's a new lens, there's also not the uncertainty of things like separation, fungus, etc etc. that can come with vintage lenses (and f/1.2 quickly fall into the same price-bracket or higher)

I've been postponing purchase, but I know I will give in. It will fit both my most used systems, so I can't go wrong

That 7artisans looks tempting!

What camera will you use the lens on? For APSC mirrorless, there's also the Kamlan 50mm 1.1 which is about half the price.

Sjak said:

JT26 said:

Leica's Noct F1 or .95 are unreal.

Click to expand...

So is the price :-D

Sjak said:

Budget choice, the new 7artisans lens is supposed to be epic and so is the price.

Click to expand...

The 7artisans 50mm 1.1 is a Sonnar on steroids. I've seen great work made with this camera. At $350 or so, it is a steal. Since it's a new lens, there's also not the uncertainty of things like separation, fungus, etc etc. that can come with vintage lenses (and f/1.2 quickly fall into the same price-bracket or higher)

Click to expand...

I read it is actually an Ultron design, not a Sonnar. Sounds good given price. Would prefer FE mount + chip though.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

armin304 said:

I do have two of them in Canon FD, the FDn 1.2/50 and the older 1.2/55 SSC. I prefer the 50mm, since it's lighter and smaller and additionally delivers better contrast and sharpness wide open.

Click to expand...

Understandably as the fdn 1.2/50 has an Aspherical element whilst the 1.2/55ssc does not.

sensiblename99 said:

armin304 said:

I do have two of them in Canon FD, the FDn 1.2/50 and the older 1.2/55 SSC. I prefer the 50mm, since it's lighter and smaller and additionally delivers better contrast and sharpness wide open.

Click to expand...

Understandably as the fdn 1.2/50 has an Aspherical element whilst the 1.2/55ssc does not.

Click to expand...

There were two versions of the FDn 1.2/50, L and non L ;-)

zzzxtreme said:

hi guys. what's your favourite normal super fast lens ?

I kinda miss my konica hexanon 50mm f/1.4. I have not tried others, except the nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI, which is pretty good, but doesn't have that "painting" character of hexanons.

I'm open to suggestions

Click to expand...

For context, I have the following F1.2 50-60mm lenses;

Canon FL 1.2/58
Canon FD 1.2/55 SSC Aspherical
Canon EF 1.2/50L
Yashica ML 1.2/55
Minolta 1.2/58

...and of the Hexanons;

Hexanon 1.2/57 EE (late/black version)
Hexanon 1.4/57 EE (late/black version)
Hexanon 1.4/50 AE (late F22)

Of those lenses that I have used (on a7r2) the Hexanon 1.2/57 is without question my favorite and IMHO the best lens for people and portrait photography (including Sony 1.4/50ZA). It has a permanent place in my camera bag. It does have the painterly quality that you are looking for but it has another quality which I haven't really seen in the other lenses I've listed above. The Hexanon 1.2/57 seems to have a relatively soft bokeh in the medium distance behind the subject but this does turn funky/painterly in the distance. This seems to me to be an unusual combination so I have come to prefer this lens partly for that reason. It also has minimal glow, reasonable flare resistance (but you need to use a lens hood), very little purple fringing and has very good sharpness even outside the central zone (although not as sharp as the Canon FD 1.2/55 SSC Aspherical or Canon EF 1.2/50L but both suffer purple fringing).

The Hexanon 1.2/57 does have a radioactive element and does yellow but the yellowing is easily cleared with exposure to Ikea or other light sources (there are many threads explaining this).

The Hexanon 1.2/57 is also sharper at equivalent apertures than the Hexanon 1.4/57 and the 1.4/57 also has more glow wide open than the 1.2/57. The Hexanon 1.4/50 has even more glow wo than the 1.4/57, so is even less useful IMHO, but it does exhibit quite a funky bokeh (the painterly bokeh that you like). Really, all three lenses are quite similar but the 1.2/57 is the most refined.

Just a few recent examples below.


Hexanon 1.2/57 wo


Hexanon 1.2/57 wo


Hexanon 1.2/57 wo


Hexanon 1.2/57 wo

Volker G said:

sensiblename99 said:

armin304 said:

I do have two of them in Canon FD, the FDn 1.2/50 and the older 1.2/55 SSC. I prefer the 50mm, since it's lighter and smaller and additionally delivers better contrast and sharpness wide open.

Click to expand...

Understandably as the fdn 1.2/50 has an Aspherical element whilst the 1.2/55ssc does not.

Click to expand...

There were two versions of the FDn 1.2/50, L and non L ;-)

Click to expand...

Of course! I always seem to forget that as I'm always only interested in the L version (I seem to have blinkers).

Sjak said:

JT26 said:

Leica's Noct F1 or .95 are unreal.

Click to expand...

So is the price :-D

Sjak said:

Budget choice, the new 7artisans lens is supposed to be epic and so is the price.

Click to expand...

The 7artisans 50mm 1.1 is a Sonnar on steroids. I've seen great work made with this camera. At $350 or so, it is a steal. Since it's a new lens, there's also not the uncertainty of things like separation, fungus, etc etc. that can come with vintage lenses (and f/1.2 quickly fall into the same price-bracket or higher)

I've been postponing purchase, but I know I will give in. It will fit both my most used systems, so I can't go wrong

Click to expand...

You will have to be careful on adapting this lens. It has a significant rear protrusion into the camera body. It will not adapt to M4/3 - I know that for a fact - and mine is on the Ricoh GXR-M which is full LM mount style including the internal chamber.

I do have an A7R and I think that this lens can be mounted on it - but on consulting my adapter hoard I don’t actually have an LM-FE adapter (silly me) to test it - I do have a M39LTM)-FE adapter. This is presumably because the A7R had my high hopes of being my EF lens horse and use AF .... dah-de-dah and not to be a MF body. In any case this is past history. In this regard (MF), and in my camera body stable, the specifically made for manual focusing GXR-M reigns supreme.

I am not overly keen to buy an LM-FE adapter for the A7R as although I have a few LM mount lenses the GXR-M is amuch more pleasant to use camera than my A7R actually is - quite forgetting of course that the FF sensor in the A7R seems to ovecome all other issues

The 7Artisans 50/1.1 is a good enough lens for its money but I would not regard it as a power house “fast fifty” and I would regard it as “soft” at f1.1 and if you have to pull it back to f2.0 to get truly sharp then some of the point is lost. Nevertheless it is a characterful lens and I am not sorry that I bought it - I would have preferred that it could be useful on M4/3 as this has been my chosen “good enough” sensor size for some time now.

Years ago I bought an immaculate FD 50/1.2 L (red ring) - I thought I had paid “good money” for it then but a recent check of what their asking price was on eBay did bring a wry smile to my face.

However there were several f1.2 50’s made by Canon. From the FL through to cheaper and more expensive versions in FD mount. As far as I am concerned the very sharp FL 50/1.4 is cheaper, sharper, smaller and a better buy in my opinion than the FL 50/1.2.

For adapted, it's the Minolta Rokkor 58mm 1.2.

Do you still use gxr-m?
What do you like about it
I've wondered why FL f1.2 seems cheaper than the rest. I'll google FL F1.4 now

Man! Gorgeous photos! Have always wanted the 57mm. Although pricey, it's still much cheaper than Pentax and olympus.

zzzxtreme said:

Do you still use gxr-m?

Click to expand...

Yes but not as much as I should

zzzxtreme said:

What do you like about it

Click to expand...

It is designed as a MF camera from the ground up - it dos not offer AF at all. But it has been very well thought out for MF purposes and really should be a cult camera on an adapted lens forum - especially for those hat are only interested in legacy MF lenses.

It worst attribute is that it only has provsion for a clip on evf and hs no inbuilt evf. This gives the cleft stick of carrying a popsicle evf up on top and making it bulky (and making the evf an easy target for damage) - or simply using the lcd screen for all purposes when the killer made for MF only camera should should be used at all times with a good internal evf.

Technically a very well thought out, more affordable aps-c “Leica”.

zzzxtreme said:

I've wondered why FL f1.2 seems cheaper than the rest. I'll google FL F1.4 now

Click to expand...

The FL 55 mm f1.2 seems not really sharp enough at f1.2 and is larger and more bulky - whereas the 50 mm f1.4 is tack sharp at f1.4 to my memory.

There are two “types” of FL 50/1.4 and can suffer from slow/sticking apertures - but this is an easy fix. Mostly age and lack of use related.

Craig268 said:

For adapted, it's the Minolta Rokkor 58mm 1.2.

Click to expand...

I agree. This old Minolta is something special... although it's a little too special at f/1.2: the rendering is a little too distinctive to shoot lots of shots wide open. The really exceptional bokeh are at f/2. It's great on FF, APS-C, etc.

The Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 is usually the cheapest f/1.2 option, and it's not bad at all on FF. Quite sharp overall with decent bokeh. However, the far corners are dark wide open on FF -- but with the 1.1X crop you get using it on APS-C with a focal reducer, it's actually great wide open (which is around f/0.9 then).

Here's a simple side-by-side between these two lenses. I agree with that comparison: the FL 55mm f/1.2 is slightly sharper, but the OOF PSF has a bit of a bright ring -- which the Minolta 58mm f/1.2 doesn't at all (especially at f/2!), and that explains why the Minolta bokeh are so exceptional. However, in truth, MOST f/1.2 normal lenses have pretty obvious bright rings in their OOF PSF, and this Canon isn't far behind the pack-leading Minolta.

The 7Artisans 50/1.1 mounts fine on Sony cameras. I use mine with an A7iii via a Techart Pro. Performance-wise IMO it's pretty much a Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar with some extra aperture diameter.


Sony A7iii, 7Artisans 50/1.1 @ f/1.1.

-Dave-

My fav is the A series Pentax 50/1.2. It's also the only f/1.2 lens I own (though I have some that are faster).

-Dave-

Tom Caldwell said:

Years ago I bought an immaculate FD 50/1.2 L (red ring) - I thought I had paid “good money” for it then but a recent check of what their asking price was on eBay did bring a wry smile to my face.

However there were several f1.2 50’s made by Canon. From the FL through to cheaper and more expensive versions in FD mount. As far as I am concerned the very sharp FL 50/1.4 is cheaper, sharper, smaller and a better buy in my opinion than the FL 50/1.2.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine the f/1.4 is sharper, unless you mean @ f/1.4 vs. f/1.2. Of course, slower lenses are always cheaper... but I disagree about which is the better buy.

The FL 58mm f/1.2 was essentially the premium normal lens introduced to go with the Canon Pellix. It was always lower priced than it should have been, and sold in unusually high quantities, because it essentially made up for the light loss from the fixed semi-transparent pellicle mirror in the Pellix. Although this might sound like Sony's SLT, Sony uses an EVF in their SLT bodies, with the SLT mirror just diverting some light to the PDAF sensor; the Pellix OVF was pretty dark because it only got 1/3 of the lens light. The FL 55mm f/1.2 is optically improved over the FL 58mm f/1.2, but pricing stayed very aggressive.

In any case, I paid about $200 for my FL 55mm f/1.2, but I've seen more than one clean copy under $100! I actually saw one go for $50!!!! Even $200 is an incredible buy, because this really was "L"-quality glass in its day -- and it really does deliver a better than average rendering for an f/1.2. I'd say the lens is optically worth more like $300. I do like my Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.2 better, but I don't think it delivers IQ worth more than about $350, and they often sell for MUCH more than that. Pricing on MOST f/1.2 lenses is much higher than is really justified by IQ, but I think the FL 55mm f/1.2 is the exception.