This post looks at the Canon 50mm f0.95 and Canon 50mm f1.2 together. For a more recent post just looking at the Canon 50mm f0.95, take a look at this.
As long as I can remember, I’ve always been a bit of a creature of the night. Getting to stay up late was a treat, and in time I found that I loved the stillness that would come from feeling as if I was the only one left awake in the world. This developed into a general preference for the wee hours, and (almost) everything else associated
This penchant for dark places, combined with a love of drinking, and a curiousity for unusual camera gear, led to a natural interest in lenses with wide apertures. The lower the f-stop, the better.
The Canon 50mm f0.95 is something of a legend, dubbed the ‘dream lens’ by its fans. It was the fastest lens to be made commercially, though there have since been others produced that have matched it (such as the Leica Noctilux). People have described it as a ‘light hoover’, as it lets photographers shoot in extremely poorly lit places. I joke that mine can see in the dark.
Even though there are alternatives to the lens around now, none of them have quite managed to conjure up the same sort of mythical status as the Canon has. This is in part due to the fact that it was originally designed only to work on one particular rangefinder camera – the Canon 7 – but the real draw is the dreamy effect it has on the background when shot wide open. The extremely shallow depth of field all but obliterates the background, making it look something like a painting. When used well, this can enhance colours, smooth out skin, and suck the viewer deep into the eyes of the subject of the photograph. Used at night, tiny light sources become huge circular, glassy looking balls of bokeh.
A few years ago I managed to get a hold of a Canon 7, complete with the dream lens from eBay for a bargain price.
I loved some of the pictures it produced:
In general though, the quality was extremely hit or miss. I was lucky to get 1 or 2 good shots out of a roll of 36, which was just way too low a hit rate to make it worthwhile. The promise of what it was capable of turned out to be more attractive than the reality. It seemed like either I had a duff copy of the lens, or that the Canon rangefinder would have to be constantly calibrated to ensure that it would focus properly. After a few months of lost shots, I gave in and sold the whole package on eBay again. By the time it went to auction it went up to almost triple what I had got it for in the first place. The extra money helped pay for my first trip to the US, where I met the girl I’m now married to – so it was definitely a good move.
When I got my Leica M6, and then my digital Leica M8 bodies, I needed to find some fast 50mm glass to use with it, and so I found a Canon 50mm f1.2 lens in the M39/LTM mount – which can be easily used with an adaptor.
It turns out that the 50mm f1.2 is like the baby brother/sister of the 50mm f0.95 in lots of ways. The character of the lens, along with the bokeh it produces is pretty wonderful:
So wonderful, in fact, that I almost forgot about the Canon 50mm f0.95. However, I always thought that one day I might own another one of these special lenses, and so in a moment of madness recently I found one on eBay. This time, it had already been converted to use the Leica M mount. My rationale was that the lens would be a lot easier to use on a digital rangefinder, as I would be able to tell quickly if it was out of focus or not.
The results turned out better than I could have hoped:
It seems like I got lucky, and found a copy that has been converted well, as apparently there are some dodgy ones floating around, as the result of people doing the work without really knowing what they are doing. Either way, the properly calibrated Leica M bodies really help this lens sing.
There are criticisms that this lens isn’t very sharp wide open, which I don’t really understand. If you get the focal point right, then it’s more than sharp enough. Although, if all you’re interested is hyper sharp pictures, then re-engineering old technology to fit on newer bodies probably isn’t for you anyway.
The first thing that surprised me when the 50mm f0.95 arrived is the sheer size of it. I knew it was a large lens from the last one I had, but seeing it in comparison to the f1.2 was a bit of a surprise. It’s obscenely large, partially covering both the red Leica dot on both my M6 and M8. Perhaps even more amusing is that its diameter overlaps the lens release button, so to get it off of the body is a bit of a pain – requiring the corner of a credit card or something similar. I’ve found that one of the tools you get for removing sim cards from iPhones does the trick nicely.
It’s safe to say that the 50mm f0.95 on an M body blows the results from the Canon 7 out of the water. There are some purists who would rather see the lenses kept with their original mount, but to me that only reduces the amount that they can be used – a terrible shame.
Now, for some gratuitous gear comparison pictures:
Good review, I’m starting to shoot a little more with film these days, but all Nikon gear. This post gets me interested in their Nikkor 50mm f/1.2.
I’ve just bought the lens along with a Canon 7 camera ….what suggestions do you have for who in the UK can do an M conversion ? as after I’ve put a few rolls through the 7 i really want to use this on my M9 and M3
I don’t have any suggestions I’m afraid. I e-mailed a bunch of people a while back and didn’t have too much luck, which is why I bought one already converted. It seems like it is an expensive job, and there are long waiting lists.
Thank you for this comparison. I’v wanted this lens for several years now. I’ve finally went from crop sensor cameras to a Sony A7II and currently use a mint copy canon 50mm 1.2 LTM with great results (for my skill level anyway). I picked this lens up because it was so much cheaper than the 0.95 version, for now it is nice and gives me most of the results of the 0.95 lens as well. Once I finish my degree in anesthesiology I plan to find a nice clean M mount version of the 0.95 lens I’ve wanted for so long.
Again, thanks for this comparison, it really puts the size difference and similar image qualities between the 1.2 and 0.95 lenses.
Hi , can you say whats the difference between the Canon 50mm f/1.2 and the Canon FL 55mm F1.2 ?
I’ve never seen a 55mm f1.2 I’m afraid! Sorry that I can’t help.
Hello! There is an FL 55mm f/1.2 and I own it. The out of focus highlights in the corners are round and not bell-shaped like the 50mm f/0.95 rangefinder. Here is an album of pics made with the FL 55mm f/1.2: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.722628114507385.1073741917.147859318650937&type=3
I guess my biggest problem with most of these images is that their out of focus.
Fortunately I know when to use their and they’re.
Care to point out where I haven’t? Any reason you are leaving negative comments on my site?
Funny story, I picked up one on ebay for $2K I would say in mint condition, but with one flaw, a modern filter had left a 1mm dis scratch on the front element, on the center, it was in the description, well long story short, I sold it for the same price after 3 yrs when I found one at an estate sale for $125! camera, case and all, also the 1.2 LTM, the little brother, that was the best day ever and a once in a life time experience, well I mount it to a digital body and man, it is super sharp in the center and beautiful creamy bhoke, I was surprised of how sharp it was at 0.95, if you buy it, you better be prepared to use it at 0.95 or else its a waste of a lot of money! great review and comparison, for me I love the way it looks, fat, stout and all glass, its a beauty of a lens, pretty compact for a 0.95, don’t you think? 🙂
Thanks for your comment! 125USD?! That is wild. I always dream of finding something similar, but never do… You’re right that they work much nicer on some digital bodies. I like it a lot for its fat, wide nature as well.. I’m not a fan of long lenses. 🙂
Wow. Much bigger difference in size than i would have thought.
Now I’d like to see a picture of the 1.2 with the Canon LTM 1.4.
I have the 1.4 and it’s tiny (relatively speaking).
Yeah, the difference is substantial! I’ve seen a few of the 1.4s. From memory I believe that they are a lot thinner, but longer than the 50 f1.2. Maybe one day I’ll get a hold of one for a comparison.
Done and done. Between the 7th and today, I bought a 1.2 with a Canon 7. (I was looking to do that anyway; it’s not your fault.)
As I said, I already have the 1.4, so I’ll put the two lenses on Canon bodies and take some pictures, and try to get them to you somehow.
The 1.2 is much bigger than the 1.4 but the difference isn’t as large as that between the 1.2 and the .95.
Makes sense really. It occurred to me that the f numbers are fractions, so a 50mm f2, for instance, has a (theoretical) opening that’s 25mm across. For f1.4, it’s 35.7mm. For f1.2, 41.6mm. For f.95, it’s 52.6mm. That’s more than a centimeter bigger, on the inside, than the next biggest lens, and doesn’t include the size of the enormous pieces of glass.
That’s awesome. The Canon 7 is a beauty. Hope you enjoy!