Has anybody experience with this lens?, How good?, is it any good wide open? should I forget it and save up (Years!) for a Noctilux?

thanks

John

-- John Tobias (johntobias@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002

Answers

John, Stop spending money on non-essentials such as food and transportation. Spend it on the Noctilux, which IS an essential.

-- Marc Williams (mwilliams111313MI@comcast.net), April 27, 2002.

Dear John,

Granola bars are go for you. And there is always water from drinking fountains. Yes, absolutely abase yourself to get that Nocti.

The Canon 1.2 isn't bad, however. I have one and have gotten reasonable results--meaning slightly soft but okay shots wide open. It is an old lens and one you cannot except to compete with the current crop of fast lenses.

This said, remember that f1.2 isn't f1. In fact, in practical terms, 1.2 isn't much faster than 1.4. It is a touch faster, which is useful, but not as useful as f1 if you are doing available light. Also, the Nocti is fine-tuned for available light.

Before you enter a state of near-starvation, which can cause delirium, ask yourself if you really need this lens. It is very heavy, besides being expensive, and not particularly easy to work with wide open because of the shallow depth of field. I love available light and fast lenses but I don't have a Nocti. I am considering one--very seriously thanks to a few reports in this forum--but I am not buring to run out a buy one tomorrow.

-- Alex Shishin (shishin@pp.iij4u.or.jp), April 27, 2002.

Yes, you are right, anything else will leave me hankering for the original, I guess I'll just need to save

now, anyone want to buy a grannie in mint condition...well good for her age anyway !!! :-)), My soul may be available also!!

John

-- John Tobias (johntobias@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

I'm in the middle of this, too. I love my 50 Summicron, which is my main lens, but have been looking for a 50/1.4, Canon or Nikon, and didn't find quite the right one--then I thought about the 50/1.2 Canon, and asked my brother, who had one, about it. He wasn't impressed. So the latest version of this quest was to realize that I could turn my f2 into an f1 by trying TMZ3200 instead of Tri-X. . . and that turns my 28/2 into f1, and my 135/3.5 into f2, which makes it bearable, and my 85/1.5 into....well, I don't even know that number! :-)

So the first roll of TMZ3200 went into the camera Thursday. How bad can it be? No results yet, though. Read the M7 post two above yours for a one-stop color solution to the same problem. There's gotta be a better way than spending a fortune on a lens that vignettes, weighs a ton, isn't particularly functional at normal stops, and blocks the finder--when I calculate a Noctilux on a $ per picture basis, it's hard to justify, and who wants to carry it, anyway?

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

Unless I'm mistaken, Canon made lenses in the LTM and not the M mount.

-- Andrew (mazurka@rocketmail.com), April 27, 2002.

But fortunately in his ultimate wisdom the Great Maker in Wetzlar made adapters to fit said LTM lenses on M cameras.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

Michael, there was an interesting article/test in Leica Fotographic. Yes, the Noct does indeed vignette wide open (as does any lens- physics you know,) but interestingly, it has far less vignetting than the Summicron at f/2.0. Also, performance at smaller aperatures and higher EV's appears quite remarkable, possibly on pare with the Summilux?

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

Just get the Noct'--a used 1 in mint condition costs less than a new 35 Summilux ASPH.

-- Chris Chen (Wash., DC) (furcafe@NOSPAMcris.com), April 27, 2002.

a lousy lens,soft glass,scratches easily,full of that "plastic" look. it needs exact fitting.not simply screw into adapter. i had one!i have old Summicron,light years ahaed and use faster film. save yo' money.Not for a Noctilux.Used both the new and old versions..way overpriced.Its only half stop faster than Summilux. With todays films ESP color negative such lenses not reqd.

-- jason gold (leeu72@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.

Shutterbug magazine had a fairly interesting article on lens design about 6 months ago.

Among other illustrations they displayed lens diagrams that showed how Canon took the basic design for their 50 f/1.8 and s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d it; first to f/1.4, then f/1.2, and finally to f/0.95.

By the time they'd finished, the optical quality was a basket case - but they retained bragging rights for the 'fastest lens."

Not to 'dis' Canon - most of the other manufacturers were doing the same thing during the heyday of available light photojournalism (c.1962) viz. original Konica f/1.2, Nikkor f/1.1(?), etc, from the same era.

The only reason Leica did better was they waited 5-15 years for optical technology (aspherics, glasses) to catch up to aspirations - and then did it right.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 28, 2002.

First, the Canon is not that bad. It's just not a distance lens.

Second, the original 60/1.2L Hexanon (with a little updating) became the 57/1.2 SLR lens (and became the 60/1.2L rangefinder lens again in 1999), so if there was a stretch, it was in the right direction (they made the SLR lens for close to 20 years - from 1967-1986 - during which entire period it was competitive with every other 1.2, including Leica), since that lens could deliver 40% at 50lp/mm at center and edge, wide-open (some other lenses had higher center and much lower edge).

Finally, the 50/1.1 Nikkor is a not a 7-element Sonnar but by Nikon's account a 9-element Planar. So it isn't a stretch of either of the Nikkor 50s, which were both Sonnars.

-- Dante Stella (dante@dantestella.com), April 28, 2002.

>With todays films ESP color negative such lenses not reqd.

Obviously, for most purposes a Noctilux is not required. However, for shooting in with little light with fast film or for exploring shots with a very narrow depth-of-field, as I am doing in my color work, the Noctilux can be essential. I had bought one a dozen years ago and sold it because it was heavy; and I wasn't using it. Last Fall, I bought one again and would not get rid of it for anything. It's a wonderful special purpose lens that can also be used as an all-around 50mm lens. In the latter type of use, one can see thatr in B&W it has wonderful gradation.

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 28, 2002.

>for shooting in with little light with fast film

CORRECTION: for shooting in with little light with slow film

-- Mitch Alland (malland@mac.com), April 28, 2002.

I've had 2 Canon 50mm f/1.2 lenses and still have one. The first I used on an M3 in the early 80's. The current one I use on a IIIG or IIIF (with a Leitz 50mm aux finder). I liked it then and I like it now. I only use it when I need 1.2 , 1.4, or f/2. Then I switch lenses to either a Canon 50mm f/1.8 or a Summitar 50mm f/2.

Camera shake to me is worse than a softness in a dark corner. The Canon has a "feeling" that some hate, some love.

It's by no means a top lens. But it cost me only $250 so for a tool I find usefull, I keep it in my bag.

My advice is to try one, make some prints, and decide how YOU like it.

Tony

-- Tony Oresteen (aoresteen@mindspring.com), April 28, 2002.