lbenac
Established
I have both with their respective Canon hood and I have shot a few images on my Canon P with fast film - Agfa APX400 or TriX.
I have had a look at the various thread/test on the forum.
With limited use I do not see a lot of difference in the rendering of both and would be hard press to pick a favorite. (with my Pentax LX, my hand always come back to my K30/2.8 even if I have a dozen of other Pentax lenses).
Is that still the general opinion based on experience with the two lenses, or am I missing something regarding the 50/1.4?
I find the 50/1.8 a lot more convenient to carry around with the 35/2.8 sharing same hood and filters.
I am going to sell one of the two (with their hood) and my first inclination is to keep the 50/1.8 for its convenience.
Cheers,
Luc
I have had a look at the various thread/test on the forum.
With limited use I do not see a lot of difference in the rendering of both and would be hard press to pick a favorite. (with my Pentax LX, my hand always come back to my K30/2.8 even if I have a dozen of other Pentax lenses).
Is that still the general opinion based on experience with the two lenses, or am I missing something regarding the 50/1.4?
I find the 50/1.8 a lot more convenient to carry around with the 35/2.8 sharing same hood and filters.
I am going to sell one of the two (with their hood) and my first inclination is to keep the 50/1.8 for its convenience.
Cheers,
Luc
The 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 are both 1-2-2-1 Planar formula lenses. The 50/1.4 used a new glass than did the chrome version 50/1.8. The black 50/1.8 was recomputed for the newer glass.
Mablo
Well-known
My version (black-chrome) of 50mm/1.8 is a bit lower in contrast compared to my 50mm/1.4. Both lenses are very sharp in normal use and render b&w tones nicely but I think the big brother is sharper wide open. The 50mm/1.8 is much smaller and lighter which makes it a good allrounder. It's an undervalued lens.
The black 50/1.8 is susceptible to haze, and coating damage, on the surface after the aperture blades. That will lower contrast on it. Best to check for haze on the lens, and clean it ASAP if found.
Sonnar2
Well-known
Yes that's true. Like the 50/1.2 of the same vintage. The 50/1.4 (newer than the other) isn't.
Bingley
Veteran
True enough. But a clean chrome and black 50/1.8 can be sharp. I also like the bokeh on this lens...
conradyiu
closer
Good picture and I like the boken too！Too bad I just sold my 1.4 and 1.8 canon 50mm
photo4ls
Well-known
"The black 50/1.8 is susceptible to haze, and coating damage, on the surface after the aperture blades. That will lower contrast on it." per Brian
Brian, I have the chrome 50 f1.8 and would like to know if this pertains
to it also.(coating damage)
Nelson
Brian, I have the chrome 50 f1.8 and would like to know if this pertains
to it also.(coating damage)
Nelson
In the lenses that I've seen, maybe four of each- it happened to the Black lenses. I bought a Canon 50/1.8 Chrome that was opaque from haze. Got it for $27. Cleaned up perfectly. Same with the one I currently own, and another that I owned and sold. I have seen three black lenses that did not do so well, and one that was perfect. Both of the 50mm F1.2 Canons also had some damage in the same place, but neither of the later 50/0.95's had a problem.
lbenac
Established
I am almost decided to keep the 50/1.8 silver. The aperture blades are covered with oil/brown stains. I would like to have it CLA at a reasonable cost. Would DAG or Essex be the best places to send it or is there somebody with better price? I am in Canada.
Cheers,
Luc
PMCC
Late adopter.
Brian, how about the Canon 50/1.5: can you talk about haze issues specific to that lens? Causes, consequences, remedies? Tx.
I've used Essex for cleaning Leica lenses- they were good. DAG will take longer, I have not used him and base that on other member's feedback. I am not sure about resources in Canada- hopefully our Canadian members will see this question.
Canon 50/1.5: I have had three. None had a coating damage problem, it was made with earlier glass. One was picked up as a parts lens and was missing the rear module. It now has a "J-3 Rear Module". It makes eerie images.
PMCC
Late adopter.
What would make it susceptible to haze? Mine cleaned up nicely. Then I noticed over time that slight haze around the edges of an interior surface was returning. Is it systemic? Lubricant problem? Am wondering whether full overhaul (clean and relube helical, etc) is the next step or do I just keep cleaning the haze off?
lbenac
Established
My only experience was with a Canon 50/1.8 black purchased from KEH BGN $159. It had haze within the rear element,it looked like. I returned it to KEH and hopefully it is not the same one that is still for sale at the same price...
Cheers,
Luc
PMCC
Late adopter.
Thanks Luc. I'm hoping Brian has input on the 50/1.5 or the causes and cure of Canon LTM haze in general. I've heard that the 50/1.5 is a Sonnar design and that for some reason unfathomable to me, that that design is particularly susceptible to haze. As previously mentioned, mine cleans up with no residual damage, but I'd like to have it stay clear as long as possible.
Bingley
Veteran
Another option for you: Sherry Krauter did the cleaning on my black 50/1.8. Her price was reasonable and the turnaround time was about a month.
lbenac
Established
Hello Steve,
What is reasonable, if you do not mind me asking?
I am not sure that I would like to spend $150 on this lens. I which that I would be handier and could fix it myself but you have to know your limits....
Cheers,
Luc
lbenac
Established
I was just cleaning my J-8 (Sonnar design but only 6 elements) yesterday and I notice when putting it back together that some cleaning fluid what showing between the front element and the front group once put back together even if the glass looked perfectly dry, I had to open it two or three time before this was all gone. Probably nothing to do with theis problem...
Cheers,
Luc
I believe that lubricants out gassing is the issue with haze forming on the lenses. I've cleaned quite a few 1930 Sonnars with haze on each side of the aperture blades. Cleans up beautifully from the uncoated optics.
"My opinion"- something about the glass used on the later Canon RF lenses had a problem with the lubricants used. The glass became etched.
This is the surface behind the aparture blades on a Canon 50/2.8.
The glass is etched. I rarely see that in other manufacturer's lenses of the same period and older.
"My opinion"- something about the glass used on the later Canon RF lenses had a problem with the lubricants used. The glass became etched.
This is the surface behind the aparture blades on a Canon 50/2.8.
The glass is etched. I rarely see that in other manufacturer's lenses of the same period and older.