3rdrate
Member
Anyone know the difference in the original pricing for the Canon LTM 50 1.2 vs 1.4 vs 1.8? Was curious in terms of how it compares to the pricing of Canon's modern 50 lenses: 1.8 at $125, the 1.4 about around $350, and the 1.2 L-series at $1,200.
Spavinaw
Well-known
I found the following 50mm prices in some Canon literature dated August, 1970:
f/0.95 $320
f/1.2 $220
f/1.4 $160
f/1.8 $120
f/2.8 $55
If you are interested in any other Canon rangefinder lens prices from August, 1970, I'd be happy to look them up.
f/0.95 $320
f/1.2 $220
f/1.4 $160
f/1.8 $120
f/2.8 $55
If you are interested in any other Canon rangefinder lens prices from August, 1970, I'd be happy to look them up.
3rdrate
Member
Awesome, thanks! So adjusted for inflation...
f/0.95 $320 = $2,086
f/1.2 $220 = $1,434
f/1.4 $160 = $1,043
f/1.8 $120 = $782
f/2.8 $55 = $358
f/0.95 $320 = $2,086
f/1.2 $220 = $1,434
f/1.4 $160 = $1,043
f/1.8 $120 = $782
f/2.8 $55 = $358
peterm1
Mentor
I am surprised at how cheap the 50mm f2.8 was compared to the other lenses, even the 50mm f1.8. Although the f2.8 lens is probably a Tessar derivative and hence of simple design and so should be cheaper, the magnitude of the difference is a little surprising.
It may however partly be a marketing thing - something camera companies have done for years. I recall for example that the Pentax company, before they made the Spotmatic made a range of SLR cameras without meters. They distinguished these cameras by making one early model with 1/1000th of a second shutter speed. I think it was the S1. And were able to put a higher price on it.
Later after having capitalized on this model in the market they realized that there was a big untapped mass market for cheaper models. They also realized that it would be cheaper to simply sell the S1 with a new top plate rebadging it as an S1a and marked with a top speed of 1/500th of a second. The secret though was that there was no difference in the internals of the lower priced camera which still retained the 1/1000th speed (but this simply was not marked on the speed dial). It was still accessible by those who knew this trick, by setting the shutter speed dial one click beyond what was shown as the maximum speed on the camera. And they charged much much less for this camera which was sold as a consumer model alongside the S1 which was their "prosumer" model.
I wonder then if Canon made a similar marketing decision with their 50mm f2.8 as there would have been sunk costs associated with the higher priced lenses and they could, for example, capitalize on the tooling, machining and production line set up to manufacturer the big brother lenses allowing this one to be sold much more cheaply than otherwise might be possible to an entirely different market segment.
Any ideas?
It may however partly be a marketing thing - something camera companies have done for years. I recall for example that the Pentax company, before they made the Spotmatic made a range of SLR cameras without meters. They distinguished these cameras by making one early model with 1/1000th of a second shutter speed. I think it was the S1. And were able to put a higher price on it.
Later after having capitalized on this model in the market they realized that there was a big untapped mass market for cheaper models. They also realized that it would be cheaper to simply sell the S1 with a new top plate rebadging it as an S1a and marked with a top speed of 1/500th of a second. The secret though was that there was no difference in the internals of the lower priced camera which still retained the 1/1000th speed (but this simply was not marked on the speed dial). It was still accessible by those who knew this trick, by setting the shutter speed dial one click beyond what was shown as the maximum speed on the camera. And they charged much much less for this camera which was sold as a consumer model alongside the S1 which was their "prosumer" model.
I wonder then if Canon made a similar marketing decision with their 50mm f2.8 as there would have been sunk costs associated with the higher priced lenses and they could, for example, capitalize on the tooling, machining and production line set up to manufacturer the big brother lenses allowing this one to be sold much more cheaply than otherwise might be possible to an entirely different market segment.
Any ideas?
santino
FSU gear head
Wow, the 1.8 was pretty expensive, wasn't it?
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
ye, back then only richer people can take photography as a hobbit.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
D*mn you, AutoCorrect 😂
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
Probably a little more complex.
1. Canon's last RF lens came out in 1965 (the 35/2 II), so 1970 pricing is not going to be representative. What you are looking at in Canon's book is the list price when rangefinders were on their way out. All you need to see is Canon's lens museum, and it will be painfully clear that they were releasing nothing but SLR lenses. If Canon was even making these lenses in 1970, it would have been in a tiny volume. Consider that you could still buy a "current production" Nikon F3 until the 2000s, only it was super-expensive.
2. Nobody paid list price anyway.
3. CPIs are based around baskets of goods and are not absolute indicators of inflation. For camera lenses today, the best yardstick is the price of an equivalent current production lens. The price of most mainstream photographic gear has held relatively steady in absolute dollars and has gone done considering inflation.
4. The cheapness of the 50/2.8 was probably arbitrary and not the product of amortization. A lot of the parts of Canon RF lenses are brass, which doesn't have tooling in the same sense as the die-cast parts (which is pretty much just the focusing ring).
Dante
1. Canon's last RF lens came out in 1965 (the 35/2 II), so 1970 pricing is not going to be representative. What you are looking at in Canon's book is the list price when rangefinders were on their way out. All you need to see is Canon's lens museum, and it will be painfully clear that they were releasing nothing but SLR lenses. If Canon was even making these lenses in 1970, it would have been in a tiny volume. Consider that you could still buy a "current production" Nikon F3 until the 2000s, only it was super-expensive.
2. Nobody paid list price anyway.
3. CPIs are based around baskets of goods and are not absolute indicators of inflation. For camera lenses today, the best yardstick is the price of an equivalent current production lens. The price of most mainstream photographic gear has held relatively steady in absolute dollars and has gone done considering inflation.
4. The cheapness of the 50/2.8 was probably arbitrary and not the product of amortization. A lot of the parts of Canon RF lenses are brass, which doesn't have tooling in the same sense as the die-cast parts (which is pretty much just the focusing ring).
Dante
Mackinaw
Think Different
I found a March 26,1957 price list from Canon’s office in New York.
Canon 50/1.2 - $250.00
Canon 50/1.5 - $168.00
Canon 50/1.8 - $125.00
Canon 50/2.8 - $69.00
Jim B.
Canon 50/1.2 - $250.00
Canon 50/1.5 - $168.00
Canon 50/1.8 - $125.00
Canon 50/2.8 - $69.00
Jim B.
3rdrate
Member
Converted from 1957...
Converted from 1957...
Canon 50/1.2 - $250.00 = $2,245
Canon 50/1.5 - $168.00 = $1508
Canon 50/1.8 - $125.00 = $1,122
Canon 50/2.8 - $69.00 = $619
Hoping no one paid full retail back then. And crazy to think of someone paying so damn much for the 1.2 when the 1.4 and 1.8 are both generally considered to be better lenses. Crazy...
Converted from 1957...
Canon 50/1.2 - $250.00 = $2,245
Canon 50/1.5 - $168.00 = $1508
Canon 50/1.8 - $125.00 = $1,122
Canon 50/2.8 - $69.00 = $619
Hoping no one paid full retail back then. And crazy to think of someone paying so damn much for the 1.2 when the 1.4 and 1.8 are both generally considered to be better lenses. Crazy...
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Eh - once the 1.2 is stopped down, I find its performance to be on a par with the 1.4. After 2.8 they are about the same.
And sometimes, especially with film, getting the extra half stop is more important than ultimate sharpness. Depends on what you are shooting and in what situation.
*shrug*
TL
R - I've owned and shot with all three, and I've only kept the 1.2. "Better lenses" is subjective and over simplified.
raid
Dad Photographer
I still have the Canon 50mm lenses with max aperture 1.2; 1.4; 1.5; 1.8. I sold my 50/2.8 many years ago. Should have kept it for completeness. The 50/.95 is just too heavy and large. I had one as a loaner for some 50mm lens comparison project at RFF.
Mackinaw
Think Different
It’s often not about absolute speed, but lens character. The 50/1.2 has a very unique look, wide-open, or close to it. A collapsible Summicron, or Canon 50/1.4, are my usual normal lenses of choice for my Leica’s, but I do pull out the 50/1.2 when I want my photos to look a bit different. The out-of-focus highlights really are unique.
Jim B.
The Spastic Image
Established
I use my 50mm/f 2.8 often and love it. Sharp even wide open, plenty fast for what I use it for. Economy it might have been, quality it is even today! Any aperture!
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
What would a good 50mm f1.2 be worth now. I'm thinking of selling one I have ... maybe? I'm a bit torn between wanting to keep it and accepting the fact that I no longer have a body to use it on and probably never will!
pyeh
Member of good standing
Keith you can get adapters for LTM to M to Sony, to use your Canon.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
A bit of snooping on the net suggests these 2 are both really good options to use your Canon lens on your Sony.
Straight LTM to E mount:
Fotodiox Lens Mount Adapter Compatible with M39 / L39 Russian and Leica Screw Mount Lenses to Sony E-Mount Cameras
Voigtlander branded M mount to E mount. You'd need a LTM->M adapter for 50/75 lenses but it allows for closer focusing if you'd like.
Voigtlaender VM/E Lens Adaptor for Lenses
Ah better
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Oh, NOW I see thatI knew that Peter but to honest I'm pretty happy with my 50mm f1-2 OM Zuiko.
wjlapier
Well-known
In case anyone is wondering the Canon 50mm f/1.2 won’t mount all the way on the techart adapter so no AF on a Sony body. Maybe if the locking tab was machined back a little.