p.1 #1 · Please Post your FL 55 1.2 on Full Frame body shots
Hi. Im shopping.
I was going to get the 50L 1.2 but Im shorter on $$$ than I would like to be and I am wondering if I really AF for the kind of duty it will be doing so....Can I please see you FL 55 shots, preferably wide open but I will take what I can get.
p.1 #3 · Please Post your FL 55 1.2 on Full Frame body shots
I'm at work at the moment so can't post any pics, but if you plan on using this lens on a 5D c/II/III you should be aware that the mirror will hit the rear of the lens when focusing past 6 or 8 meters, so you either need to shave the camera mirror or use live view for anything further than that.
If that is not an issue I would also recommend having a look at the FD 55 1.2. Essentially the same design, but with better coating - nicer colours and more flare resistant.
No mirror problems on the 1Ds series apparently - but I haven't tried that myself.
p.1 #6 · Please Post your FL 55 1.2 on Full Frame body shots
Bifurcator wrote:
But not on fullframe tho, right? I dunno...
Crop IIRC.
I have one, but I don't have FF, only 1.3 and 1.5 crop, but I can only shoot it on 1.5 at the moment.
This will be the thread to look in. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1047314
p.1 #8 · Please Post your FL 55 1.2 on Full Frame body shots
LightShow wrote:
Crop IIRC.
I have one, but I don't have FF, only 1.3 and 1.5 crop, but I can only shoot it on 1.5 at the moment.
This will be the thread to look in. https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1047314
correct, i've never shot it on FF. i've seen a few pictures with it on FF here, but spread across different threads. i've not seen any hints that it performs drastically different on the edges of FF than it does on aps-c. i think it is the best value in f/1.2 lenses these days.
p.1 #9 · Please Post your FL 55 1.2 on Full Frame body shots
I dunno if these all fit but the Minolta MD 50/1.2, Nikkor-S AUTO 55/1.2, OM 50/1.2, and the FL 58/1.2 are all in the same ballpark price range ($200 ~ $350) as the FL 55/1.2. And of those I'm not sure the FL 55/1.2 is the best. I kinda think the OM takes the lead there. Also the freakish fad over the Minolta 58/1.2 seems to be over - at least in Japan. The last 3 I watched went for under $300 on the auction sites here. <shrug> There's also the Yashica ML 50/1.2 which is exceptional and I would expect to go for about the same - when you can find it that is. Again, I dunno if it fits the OP's camera or not tho.
Anyway, I'd be happy with any one of those - to about the same degree.
--
PS: There's also a Pentax K SMC 50/1.2 but I dunno anything about it. Price nor performance...
p.1 #10 · Please Post your FL 55 1.2 on Full Frame body shots
morganb4 wrote:
Better than the Canon 1.4?
Most likely, it's not hard to beat the EF 50/1.4, as 50's go it's acceptable but not stellar and there's quite a number of superior options available if you can live without AF.
p.1 #11 · Please Post your FL 55 1.2 on Full Frame body shots
Bifurcator wrote:
I dunno if these all fit but the Minolta MD 50/1.2, Nikkor-S AUTO 55/1.2, OM 50/1.2, and the FL 58/1.2 are all in the same ballpark price range ($200 ~ $350) as the FL 55/1.2. And of those I'm not sure the FL 55/1.2 is the best. I kinda think the OM takes the lead there. Also the freakish fad over the Minolta 58/1.2 seems to be over - at least in Japan. The last 3 I watched went for under $300 on the auction sites here. <shrug> There's also the Yashica ML 50/1.2 which is exceptional and I would expect to go for about the same - when you can find it that is. Again, I dunno if it fits the OP's camera or not tho.
Anyway, I'd be happy with any one of those - to about the same degree.
--
PS: There's also a Pentax K SMC 50/1.2 but I dunno anything about it. Price nor performance...
maybe where you live they are all in the same range. around here the pentax and om 50/1.2 run around $600-$800 while the FL 55/1.2 can still be picked up for $150-$250. the FL 58/1.2 looks very good and is just as cheap but is nearly impossible to convert to canon. the nikkor 55/1.2 and OM 55/1.2 are both more expensive and worse performing. the minolta rokkor 50/1.2 can be had for $300-$400 and i actually (in retrospect) like it better than the FL 55/1.2 (though it isn't as sharp).
p.1 #15 · Please Post your FL 55 1.2 on Full Frame body shots
Seems I'm a bit too late. After your original post I decided to take this lens with me for the weekend.
Took a few snaps - all wide open (even when I would normally stop down) as I assume you're interested in wide open performance. I don't have a hood for this lens, and you will notice some flare. All of these were shot handheld and in a bit of a rush as I had to help my wife making sure our kids don't fall from the treehouses.
Anyway, here's a link to the pics - you should be able to download them at full res. I don't know how much compression picasa applies but you should get an idea about the bokeh and an impression of the fringing at hard contrast edges:
p.1 #16 · Please Post your FL 55 1.2 on Full Frame body shots
Thanks OpticalFlow. Boken looks really smooth, kind of unusual.
Well I ended up getting the sigma 1.4.
I got what seems like a good copy only very slight haze wide open but still pretty sharp. I got it for a song for a local supplier who has had a lot of business from me recently.
