your favourite 50-60mm f/1.2 lens

Tom Caldwell said:

the [FL] 50 mm f1.4 is tack sharp at f1.4 to my memory.

Click to expand...

I believe that the FL 50/1.4 is optically identical to the nFD 50/1.4 and indeed the current EF 50/1.4 (except, probably, for coatings). I have to stop my nFD 50/1.4 to f/2 to get it to be what I'd call sharp in the center and f/2.8 in the corners (on APS-C). The lack of sharpness seems to be mainly due to axial chromatic aberrations; if I want to use it at f/1.4, I often use a yellow filter and work in B&W.

Perhaps this lens has lots of sample variation. I remember (vaguely) Hank commenting that his example was a dog but one of his students had one that seemed like a different lens.

Regards,

Alan

Alan WF said:

Tom Caldwell said:

the [FL] 50 mm f1.4 is tack sharp at f1.4 to my memory.

Click to expand...

I believe that the FL 50/1.4 is optically identical to the nFD 50/1.4 and indeed the current EF 50/1.4 (except, probably, for coatings). I have to stop my nFD 50/1.4 to f/2 to get it to be what I'd call sharp in the center and f/2.8 in the corners (on APS-C). The lack of sharpness seems to be mainly due to axial chromatic aberrations; if I want to use it at f/1.4, I often use a yellow filter and work in B&W.

Perhaps this lens has lots of sample variation. I remember (vaguely) Hank commenting that his example was a dog but one of his students had one that seemed like a different lens.

Click to expand...

Yup; very much so for my FDn 50mm f/1.4 vs one a student of mine had.

My "silvernose" FD 50mm f/1.4 is somewhere in that huge gap between the two, but really doesn't behave like it has the same optical formula...?

I don't have it, but I've read nice things about the Samyang 50/1.2. It's for APS-C and MFT only, mind.

Regards,

Alan

ProfHankD said:

My "silvernose" FD 50mm f/1.4 is somewhere in that huge gap between the two, but really doesn't behave like it has the same optical formula...?

Click to expand...

Here are optical diagrams from the Canon Camera Museum. Apart the mounting surfaces at the element circumferences, I see no evolution from the FL 50/1.4 II to the EF 50/1.4. (The FL 50/1.4 I had a different formula, with 6 elements in 5 groups rather than 7 in 6.)

Regards,

Alan




FL 50/1.4 II




nFD 50/1.4




EF 50/1.4

Alan WF said:

Alan WF said:

My "silvernose" FD 50mm f/1.4 is somewhere in that huge gap between the two, but really doesn't behave like it has the same optical formula...?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'm willing to believe my FDn was just a terrible copy, but my silvernose renders quite a bit differently from either FDn without showing any signs of badness... very strange.

Alan WF said:

Here are optical diagrams from the Canon Camera Museum. Apart the mounting surfaces at the element circumferences, I see no evolution from the FL 50/1.4 II to the EF 50/1.4. (The FL 50/1.4 I had a different formula, with 6 elements in 5 groups rather than 7 in 6.)

Click to expand...

They are certainly very similar diagrams, although they do differ in curvature of the rear of the front element and curvature at the glued pair. Still, that doesn't seem to be enough of a difference... unless the real difference is in the types of glass used? I assume my silvernose is probably radioactive (although there's no yellowing) and the FDn isn't, so maybe the slight tweaks were to compensate for not having the same dopants available? For that matter, maybe the two FDn copies had different types of glass as Canon was looking for the best replacements? Still a bit of a mystery to me....

Alan WF said:

Tom Caldwell said:

the [FL] 50 mm f1.4 is tack sharp at f1.4 to my memory.

Click to expand...

I believe that the FL 50/1.4 is optically identical to the nFD 50/1.4 and indeed the current EF 50/1.4 (except, probably, for coatings). I have to stop my nFD 50/1.4 to f/2 to get it to be what I'd call sharp in the center and f/2.8 in the corners (on APS-C). The lack of sharpness seems to be mainly due to axial chromatic aberrations; if I want to use it at f/1.4, I often use a yellow filter and work in B&W.

Perhaps this lens has lots of sample variation. I remember (vaguely) Hank commenting that his example was a dog but one of his students had one that seemed like a different lens.

Regards,

Alan

Click to expand...

I would certainly bow to your better optical knowledge Alan I ended up with a few FL 50/1.4 lenses whilst I tried to get one with an free flowing aperture (as those lenses go they were not particualrly expensive at the time) - they varied from stuck aperture to just slow. But in the end I fixed them all - not sure how many I have but I know where to find them. If the f1.4 was not sharp enough at f1.4 then the 55/1.2 must have been downright awful at f1.2 ...

I will have to get them out and have a little play to remind myself. Thay are all in very good physical condition and it was only the slow apertures that were the problem.

I thought it might (fit on the A7 bodies) - I simply don’t have an LM-FE adapter. The Jupiter-12 which will not mount on the M4/3 bodies will mount - I don’t know how - on the FE mount bodies. The “don’t know” is based on the apparent fact that the bulb of the J-12 would actually touch the sensor - but it does not seem to do this as I have successfully mounted one on an A7R with the LTM adapter that I actually have - but one might have trouble fititng a sheet of paper between the bulb and the sensor. This would mean that the J-12 on the A7 series might not be at optimum performance.

The reason why the 7Artisans will not mount on M4/3 is more because of the shape of the internal baffle which grounds the rear lens mount before it reaches infiniity focus. If it had a different shaped rear lens mount that was actually flush with the glass it might just work to infinity. There might be as much as 2mm going begging there.

ProfHankD said:

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.

Click to expand...

There seem to be two versions of the FL 50/1.4

The 5-digit serial number with A/M switch ring behind the aperture ring which is a shorter lens with narrower focus ring - I have two copies

The 6-digit serial number whihc presumably is a later made version which has the A/M setting by a “post” button near the mount end. One might imagine by serial number that this is the later made version but it is quite noticably longer - I have three copies.

I also have a 5-digit serial number 55/1.2 which might be consider by serial number as in the same style as the first above but it has the style difference of the post button of the second type and also has the wider aperture ring “style” - I have one copy.

My only other FL is the 35/2.5 “hogback” with protruding rear cove plate which prevents it being mounted focal reduced.

I will see if I can give them all a quick test later when wide open to see if there is any differences in sharpness. They are all pretty good lenses in my opinion and probably a big part of how Canon made its repuation as a great lens manufacturer.

The f1.4’s seemed to all have ‘sticky apertures but I fixed tham all and a quick test shows that they have stayed fixed.

Tom Caldwell said:

There seem to be two versions of the FL 50/1.4

The 5-digit serial number with A/M switch ring behind the aperture ring which is a shorter lens with narrower focus ring - I have two copies

The 6-digit serial number whihc presumably is a later made version which has the A/M setting by a “post” button near the mount end. One might imagine by serial number that this is the later made version but it is quite noticably longer - I have three copies.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are:

• FL 50/1.4 from 1966 with 6 elements in 5 groups and 64 x 43 mm
• FL 50/1.4 II from 1968 with 7 elements in 6 groups and 65 x 51 mm

More information at MIR .

The second version is than the first (51 mm compared to 43 mm) and heavier (340 g compared to 280 g), so I'd guess your first two lenses are the the earlier version and the other three are the later version.

That said, the image of the second version at the link above appears to have a serial number with five digits.

Regards,

Alan

Tom Caldwell said:

Alan WF said:

Tom Caldwell said:

the [FL] 50 mm f1.4 is tack sharp at f1.4 to my memory.

Click to expand...

I have to stop my nFD 50/1.4 to f/2 to get it to be what I'd call sharp in the center and f/2.8 in the corners (on APS-C). The lack of sharpness seems to be mainly due to axial chromatic aberrations; if I want to use it at f/1.4, I often use a yellow filter and work in B&W.

Click to expand...

I would certainly bow to your better optical knowledge Alan

Click to expand...

I know astronomical optics, but in photographic optics I'm no expert.

Tom Caldwell said:

If the f1.4 was not sharp enough at f1.4 then the 55/1.2 must have been downright awful at f1.2 ...

Click to expand...

When I looked at this, I was comparing a nFD 50/1.4 on MFT to modern lenses, so it was a rather stringent test. So, when I say "sharp", I mean "as sharp as a modern lens".

Regards,

Alan

Rokkor 58/1.2

nFD 50/1.2 and FD 55/1.2 Aspherical, FL 58/1.2, Canon S 50/1.2 LTM

FL 55/1.2, OM 50/1.2, X-Fujnon 50/1.2, SMC K 50/1.2

OM 55/1.2

For the legendary bokeh the Minolta MC 58mm/F1.2 and for the best center sharpness wide open the Pentax K SMC 50mm/F1.2.

Alan WF said:

Tom Caldwell said:

Alan WF said:

Tom Caldwell said:

the [FL] 50 mm f1.4 is tack sharp at f1.4 to my memory.

Click to expand...

I have to stop my nFD 50/1.4 to f/2 to get it to be what I'd call sharp in the center and f/2.8 in the corners (on APS-C). The lack of sharpness seems to be mainly due to axial chromatic aberrations; if I want to use it at f/1.4, I often use a yellow filter and work in B&W.

Click to expand...

I would certainly bow to your better optical knowledge Alan

Click to expand...

I know astronomical optics, but in photographic optics I'm no expert.

Click to expand...

I have no optical knowledge at all other than what I have read and what I pick up on these forums from those better informed. I have tried to read about it but once the reasoning gets into the technical jargon it loses me. I have best stick to accountancy - a subject I know very well

Alan WF said:

Alan WF said:

If the f1.4 was not sharp enough at f1.4 then the 55/1.2 must have been downright awful at f1.2 ...

Click to expand...

When I looked at this, I was comparing a nFD 50/1.4 on MFT to modern lenses, so it was a rather stringent test. So, when I say "sharp", I mean "as sharp as a modern lens".

Click to expand...

I have a “I know what I like” attitude to the world, I am not into role playing or following a fashion herd. I like good design and “simple to use” - a product that is well made is not one you have to fight with, feeling uncomfortable in hand, or simply having to have to remember what to press or twirl to do what. Good design should very quickly become an extension of the thought process. I would rather have something that was a little less than perfect that I really like to use than the perfect capable product that was a pig to use.

So my photographs are bound to be a little “dog eared” from lack of using the most perfect kit Maybe one day I will find a perfect to use set of gear that is also technically perfect. Meanwhile I am willing to wait the market out to see what emerges as the very best FF ML camera body host for my EF lenses out of the four systems that are now being offered.

As Panasonic (at least) seem willing to put a lot of thought into their ergonomics of design (vide G9) I would be hopeful that the upcoming S1/S1R will be worthy of a close look - far too early to be working myself into any frenzy ...

What this has to do with “sharp” I am not really sure

But I suppose what I am saying is that I am willing to try any new wine and if it tastes good then I look at the label - not the other way aound. I don’t need others to tell me what to buy - I make my own research, make my own decisions, and make my own mistakes.

... and so with photographs - I enjoy making them and testing my skills - I sometime like to use grunge gear simply to see just what I can make with it. I don’t need perfection in gear or in images and some of my most loved images were actually technical failures.

On the other hand buying lenses became more than a needs basis, a hobby and then a collection. I actually have a FDn 50/1.2 L Red Ring lens in perfect condiion. I also have a copy of the cheaper FDn 50/1.2 without the red ring. These were bought years ago when our dollar was stronger and buying from overseas was still interesting. I am actually quite surprised (horrified?) at how much the asking price of a similarly perfect FDn 50/1.2 L is on eBay at the moment - especially in AUD$ plus 10% GST ....

I have others (FDn 100/2.0?) but I would have to look through my FD collection to be sure ....

I had my little FL “50’s” collection lined up but I was about to get into “trouble” for leaving them untidily about so I have put them away again. Meantime I have the FL 55/1.2 on the G9 camera body adapted focal reduced - when I get a chance I will see what it can do.

Alan WF said:

Regards,

Alan

Click to expand...

One good lens, cheap too.

zzzxtreme said:

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

Click to expand...

I don't know why it's cheaper, it just is.

sebboh over on FM has some wonderful shots with the FL 55/1.2

https://www.flickr.com/photos/28476552@N04/tags/canonfl55mmf12/

--
A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/
[My Lens list](http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/viewprofile.php?Action=viewprofile&username=LightShow)
####Where's my FF NEX-7 ?????
Firmware request:
-A button map for toggling the EVF & LCD
-Still waiting for the minimum shutter speed with auto ISO for my NEX-7 and A7r. I know it will never happen.
-Customize the display screen layout, I'd love to have both Histogram and level at the same time.
-More peaking options, being able to set peaking sensitivity and a threshold level.
-An RGB overlay on the histogram -An option to return the focus assist zoom to one button press
-An option to return to how the NEX-7 handled playback, ie. center button to zoom, then you could use the control dial to zoom in and out, then center button to exit the zoom mode.

One more vote for Rokkor 58mm f/1.2. Not a lens of metrics but pure art!






Centaurea




Asteraceae

https://www.flickr.com/photos/97103793@N06/

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...

I gave in a few weeks ago.....

Having always salivated over super fast 50s, I was always on the lookout for an affordable option, and then have to deal with the uncertainties you listed above, so that's why I opted for a 7artisans one.

Using it wide open with manual focus, it has forced me to re-think my photo stance as one slight intake of breath and I would miss focus. Using it on the Techart Pro however, and it is a joy to use for quick street photography.

Well, a bit unexpected cheap and underated option, Rikenon / Revuenon (Tomioka) 55mm f1.2 or f1.4 version and there are some Pentax Takumar 55mm.. great lenses! and then why not take a look at the Voigtlander 58mm f1.4 seems to be forgotten one of the best portrait lenses for DX/APS -C …

it depends on what you like and what you want to shoot