I love my little Pentax Super Tak 50mm 1.4 very much on my A7r but I have to admit since getting some FD lenses that I'd missed focusing the 'correct' way (I was a canon shooter for over a decade) and the shorter flange does help a lot, even that tiny pentax when on the adaptor sticks out a fair way. The lens I had on my 5D3 as a walk around before I traded the canon gear for sony and a far lighter bag was the 50L f1.2. I value a dreamy rendition wide open, great rendition throughout the aperture range and pin sharp to the corners by f5.6. Both the Tak and the 50L had this in spades though the Tak was sharper to be honest. Anyway I see canon made multiple 50mm lenses which were f1.2. There was the L, the plain 1.2 (new and SSC) and various 55mm versions. Any thoughts and discussions about these lenses? I've seen examples from the 55mm f1.2 here but I didn't even know the other two existed, would love to hear about them and examples.
Here's the kind of look I'm looking for wide open, EF 50L in the first and Super Tak in the 2nd. Dreamy. After wide open I prefer it to revert to 'normal' though. The Tak does that but still holds on to it's 'vintage look' rather than the very modern look of the EF L lens, as shown in the 3rd picture shot at f2.
I have the FL 55/1.2, which will likely be the cheapest option. Definitely dreamy wide open and with pretty darn good bokeh. I like it a lot and use it with a speed booster quite a bit. The non L 50/1.2 I've heard is OK, but nothing special. The FD 50/1.2L is better than the EF version by most accounts. I've seen some great samples from that lens.
The 55/1.2 Aspherical is purported to be one of the best normals ever made, but I doubt it's much better than the 50/1.2L, and it is supremely expensive.
These are on APS-C, but here's my FL 55/1.2...first bare, then on speed booster.
What are the differences between the FL and the FD versions of the 55mm other than the body?
Another question and apologies if it sounds silly given that I started with FD but it's been a long time, does the breech lock mount to the same FD adaptor? I have the Novoflex one.
i owned the FL 55/1.2, rokkor 58/1.2, rokkor 50/1.2, tak smc 50/1.4, and numerous other fast 50s. i've also shot a bit with the FD 50L, super tak 50/1.4, nFD 50/1.4, and a bunch of others.
the FL 55/1.2 and FD 55/1.2 lenses (seem the same except for coatings and body) are very sharp wide open and stopped down, but they also have rather ugly bright ring bokeh and dirty looking glow in front of the field of focus at faster than f/2. the FD 50L has a more modern look (and colors) and a pretty sharp transition to out of focus. the nFD 50/1.4 also has a similar look. i don't think any of them really look like the super tak wide open, but the FD 50L is probably as close as you can come to the look of the EF 50/1.2 L.
i don't seem to have any images from either of these two stopped down on the a7. this is because i just use them as specialty lenses, i normally just carry the rokkor 58/1.2 for general shooting. that would probably suit you even better... it has the gentle look of the rokkor 55/1.7 but is sharper and a better stopped down landscape lens than your super tak.
thats what i'd call it (yes). obviously not a techical term. the front bokeh from the canon 55/1.2's just looks icky to me (maybe some people love it?).
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Derek, do you happen to know which Super-Tak 50/1.4 you have and are comparing out of curiosity? Early 8 element version or later 7 element?
i currently own the last smc version, but when i said super tak i was referring to the 8 element version that the OP has.
my rokkor 58/1.2 is sharper across the frame than both after f/4 (taks might be sharper in the center, but all outresolve the sensor there).
sebboh wrote:
thats what i'd call it (yes). obviously not a techical term. the front bokeh from the canon 55/1.2's just looks icky to me (maybe some people love it?).
Not sure if i dislike it very much, it looks yellowish in some areas and I find that in deed a bit dirty .
sebboh wrote:
i currently own the last smc version, but when i said super tak i was referring to the 8 element version that the OP has.
my rokkor 58/1.2 is sharper across the frame than both after f/4 (taks might be sharper in the center, but all outresolve the sensor there).
Thanks. I didn't see where the OP mentioned he had the early 8 element version (which was made for a very short time - 1964 I believe- and quickly replaced with a 7 element version, still Super Tak). I have one of these on the way. I found the later SMC radioactive version I once owned extremely sharp and versatile, though if slower lenses are considered, I prefer the look from the Summicron R 50 overall. The rokkor 58 is of course a great lens but it does feel a little longish to me in use where I normally might use a 50.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
Thanks. I didn't see where the OP mentioned he had the early 8 element version (which was made for a very short time - 1964 I believe- and quickly replaced with a 7 element version, still Super Tak). I have one of these on the way. The found the later SMC radioactive version I once owned extremely sharp and versatile, though if slower lenses are considered, I prefer the look from the Summicron R 50 overall. The rokkor 58 is of course a great lens but it does feel a little longish to me in use where I normally might use a 50....Show more →
i was just going by memory from previous posts by the OP. i actually prefer the slightly longer normal (or shorter), though i'm always tempted by the m version of the 50 cron.
sebboh wrote:
i was just going by memory from previous posts by the OP. i actually prefer the slightly longer normal (or shorter), though i'm always tempted by the m version of the 50 cron.
Gothcha!
For myself, 35 is often my "normal" with 50 often being my "longish" lens . I recall doing a shoot/ job with the Rokkor 58 a few years back where I found myself constantly backing up more than I expected (compared to shooting with a 50). Only 8mm's but it really made a difference. Beautiful color and rendering though (amongst the best I have seen).
I have the FDn 50L and find it sharper than any of the other Canon 50/55's (FD or EOS) I have used at F/1.2 or 1.4. More importantly, the colors are better and contrast is higher at those apertures. Bokeh looks natural to me - it doesn't seem to suffer like modern Leica M aspherical lenses can.
Jman13 wrote:
The FD 50/1.2L is better than the EF version by most accounts. I've seen some great samples from that lens.
I think better is a stretch, or at least heavily dependent on your criteria. It's tough to tell because I've never shot them on the same camera, but on Canon, the EF is center sharper wide open and there's not as much structure to the bokeh compared to the FD on Sony. I prefer the bokeh on the FD, but it's not quite as dreamy. And the FD's certainly easier to use, since you don't have to hold in the DoF preview button to MF around the focus shift at certain apertures and distances. The EF's vignetting isn't as bad at wide apertures. Stopped down to f/4 or lower, it's harder to tell the difference between the two.
I found the FDn 50L to be sharper than the EOS 50/1.2L wide open in the center. I got the same results at that time on my 5DII, but more importantly Samsung NX200. The Samsung NX200 iwas a tougher test for the lenses because it has higher pixel density, a weaker AA filter, and I could get infinity focus on the FDn. I wouldn't try to compare results from different cameras, even if they are FF. The results I get on the A7r with the FDn 50L are much different than I got with my 5DII, or get with my NX30.
I've also heard this is considerable sharpness variation at open aperture between copies of the EOS 50L. Maybe the same can be said for the Fdn version, so maybe it was just copy variation as the difference was small.
My copy of FDn 50L has better color, contrast, saturation, and a little sharper than my FL 55 1.2 but it costs more, newer, etc. so it makes sense. The FL is a real bargain IMHO. I have never used the aspherical, tak, or EOS 50 L though.
Honestly though I would imagine all (or almost all) ~50mm lenses would be very sharp by 5.6.
OP:
Have a look at the 55/1.8 Tak if you haven't yet.
SMC K 50/1.4
My SSC 55/1.2 Aspherical is a great lens, I just prefer my Rokkor 58/1.2 more.
Another fave is my Topcor RE 58/1.4, sharp at every aperture.
And, FL 58/1.2
