The FD 50/1.2 L is supposed to have better close range performance due to the Canon version of floating elements. The EF 50L does not have this feature. Superior performance of the FD version should include better contrast and sharpness, in the close range and the lack of focus shift. Focus shift could be the bug-a-boo of the EF 50L, in AFing at smaller than wide open/1.2.
The Canon 55/1.2 AL SSC is supposed to be the best 50-ish lens Canon has ever made. If my memory serves me right, it is supposed to resolve 300-400 lp/mm at wide open in the image center. Also this is the only Canon lens with a "golden ring": http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3539/3298021075_44891ccb5c_o.jpg
Erwin Puts takes about this lens and the later FD50L. The FD50L being not really any different or negligible improvement in performance over the 55 aspherical. Further, any improvements were negated by the shorter 50mm focal length, which apparently is harder to correct over the 55.
My choice of the FD 50L, was because it only weights less than 400g., and because the 55 aspherical is more a collectors item (more expensive). Its nerve racking enough with the semi-collectible FD50L.
JimBuchanan, any idea if the FD50L might be full-frame safe? from your photo, it looks like the rear element is reasonably far back into the adapter at 2m focus, so it might still be well inside the flange at infinity?
and i use it with canon 5D (in order to get infinity you have to shave mirror). It is very good performer in terms of sharpness and contrast and flare wideopen, but what i personally dislike about this lense - in certain light condition you get the strong aspherical onion like rings - it is just like ef 50mm f1.0. Soon you will find out by yourself.
Dim.ka_ says, 5D mirror interference. I don't know, yet, but I am not optimistic. I did remove the female threads of the original rear element holder and mounted it in a new smaller diameter holder, but I don't think that will help.
Interesting OOF onion rings. This reminds me of the intrafocus and extrafocus rings of telescope testing.
i know another one lense with such character - it is new sigma 50 1.4 HSM http://album.foto.ru:8080/photos/or/198779/401396.jpg]
I quess it is related how the aspherical element was created - whether it was moulded in asph pressform or something and/or just machined polished or hand polished (i have not seen this with Nikon 58 1.2 noct nikkor or leica noctilux and other Leica asph - may be someone can say more in this regard). In this case fd 55 1.2 ssc Al asph might be better as it was hand polished, as i know.
But with Canon this character presented in fd 24 1.4 ssc asph/ fd 85 1.2L / fd 85 1.2 ssc asph but it is not that bad as with fd 50 1.2L
The EF50/1.2L is based on modern machinery and design. It should be an improvement over the FD55/1.2 AL SSC. However, it has focus shift problem. Too bad.
phuang3 wrote:
The EF50/1.2L is based on modern machinery and design. It should be an improvement over the FD55/1.2 AL SSC. However, it has focus shift problem. Too bad.
I've had the EF 50/1.2 L for about ten years. It produces beautiful results. I generally shoot it f/1.2 to f/1.8, and f/8 to /11. Never had a problem with focus shift.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I still have my Canon 55 1.2 aspherical. Great lens..
The Voigtlander 50 1.2 is a real gem.
I agree. I really liked my Canon 55 f/1.2 Aspherical, but I sold it because I liked the Voigtlander even better. I had the Minolta Rocker 58 f/1.2 before the Canon and it was a very nice lens too. This is an old thread revived after about 10 years. There are all sorts of very big very well corrected 50 f/1.2 lenses now, but I still like the older (and much smaller) double gauss type designs. I hardly use any of them now, however, as my favorite lens is my Leica 50 f/1.4 Aspherical. I know this thread is about f/1.2 lenses, but I just like the 50 lux aspherical better than any of the f/1.2 lenses I have used even though they are quite nice lenses in their own right.
