Canon LTM Canon Fast 50s compared; 1.2 1.5 1.8

[goamules]

I compared the canon 50/1.2, 50/1.5, and 50/1.8 lenses here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrettsphotos/sets/72157628955481717/detail/ See here for larger versions.

I chose a difficult back lighting situation, with the lenses shaded from direct sun. I did wide open, then F2.8, then F5.6 on all three. Very interesting, and I shot the same with a Jupiter 3 to compare the two Sonar types in another post.

All wide open:

 

[goamules]

All, in speed order, at F2.8:

 

[paulfish4570]

thanks for the post. looks like the 1.5 is right in there with the 1.8.

 

[goamules]

It was pretty revealing, in a number of ways. For fun, run it in this slideshow, remembering it's 3 shots per lens, in speed order:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/garrettsphotos/sets/72157628955481717/show/

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Very interesting test. Great results too. Though my 50/1.2 doesn't flare quite that much. Of course, as you said, this was a difficult lighting situation and you had a strong, semi-diffuse reflection in the scene as well as strong light outside the lens' field of view. Did you use hoods?
Thanks for the comparison.

Phil Forrest

 

[paulfish4570]

slide show is way cool ...

 

[goamules]

Yeah, I bumped the tripod on the last F1.2 shot, but the slideshow really shows the difference. I only had a hood for the F1.2, and used it. I've been wanting to do this for a long time. Also, notice the highlights are blown out on all the settings with the F1.2 and F1.8, but not the F1.5 Sonnar. May have been the metering was getting confused, but to me, I know the winner between the slower two....

 

[wallace]

Surprising, seems the 1.5 is the clear winner. All lenses clean?
I'd also like to see the Jupiter 3 for comparison!

wallace

 

[kermaier]

Thanks very much for giving us this comparison!

Very nice -- I like the f/1.5 best overall, in this set, though I think the f/1.2 lens wins in the bokeh category -- beautifully creamy at f/2.8.

Is your 50/1.8 black or chrome version?
Are all 3 lenses clean of haze?
Which J-3 do you have (year and factory), and can we see the results?

::Ari

 

[goamules]

No problem, happy to help. I like "comparing apples to apples" attempting a scientific method of identical shots (other than the setting sun), versus just talking about the differences, with random "best case" samples. All three lenses seem clean, with a slight amount of dust or outgassing on the 1.2, not bad. I should probably clean it, I just haven't wanted to open it up.

I'll do the comparison with the Jupiter 3 (63) next in another post.

 

[porktaco]

1.8 silver (serenar) or 1.8 black?

 

[Joe AC]

I like the 1.8 any chance you could throw the 1.4 in the mix?

Thanks
Joe

 

[goamules]

Here are the lenses used. Larger. I don't have a 50/1.4 to test, sorry.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I used to own the 50/1.4 and it was my main 50mm for years. I still love that lens for the size and how it draws. I would probably take one of those over a pre-asph Summilux, partially based upon price but also I just love the way they render an image.
After I got my 50/1.2 I tested the two side-by-side on my M9 and noticed that they drew an image so similarly, aperture-for-aperture, that the 1.2 made the 1.4 redundant so I sold it. The faster lens is significantly larger though and has a longer focus throw so it is slower in use but I think the way the two draw is very similar from f/2 on. It's the wide open signatures of both lenses that make them special, especially that 1.2.

Both of these lenses benefit a lot from cleaning. The front optical group is sealed so there isn't much to be done there. The concave surfaces of the elements adjacent to the aperture blades are where most of the crud accumulates. Fortunately, these are both extremely easy to service by the owner, all the way down to the helicoid.

Phil Forrest

 

[sparrow6224]

Um, I'm having a problem with the slide show, and I wonder if the pics are mixed up. I'm getting in order pic A (ostensibly 1.2 wide open) with no depth of focus to speak of, which seems correct; pic B, 1.5 open, roughly the same; then pic C, presumably 1.8 open, with tons of deep focus. Indeed the 1.8 seems to have close to the same depth of focus throughout. And then at what should be f/5.6 the 1.2 and 1.5 have more boken than they did at f/2.8. In the sets you post above, first set, wide open, the third pic which should be the 1.8 has just as much out of focus area as the 1.5, slightly more nicely renedered too, in my opinion. This picture among the slide show shots C, F, I the presumed 1.8 shots, doesn't exist. Am I nuts? Hep me ott, as the homeless in NYC used to say, before Giuliani and Bratton and Ray Kelly and Bloomberg shipped them all to Homeland Security camps in Pennsylvania... just kidding.

 

[sparrow6224]

Indeed I don't think the 1.8 @ f/2.8 shot you post above exists in teh slide show either. Looking at the sets here, notice that the stopper on the redish bottle is ablaze in the 1.8 shots; the book on the floor much more lighted in the 1.5 shots; stopper darkets in 1.2 shots. I'm going to review the slide show with this in mind.... brb.

 

[sparrow6224]

Ooohhhhhhh. I get it. Sorry. It's 1.2 at three speeds; 1.5 at three speeds; and 1.8 at three speeds. NOW I see. But up above in this post its 1.2 open, 1.5 open, 1.8 open, etc, right?

[Slap]

Ok, now that I'm seeing it right.....

 

[goamules]

I had dropped the 3 pics from the Jupiter 3 into the directory after I set up the Canons, but "hidden". I didn't think they would be in the slideshow, but they were, so I just killed them. It should be right now. I'm pushing the envelope with keeping em straight! But I did label them all before uploading, so if you go to my set, they're right.

Yeah, the slideshow is F1.2 lens, three settings, then F1.5 lens three settings, then F1.8 lens, three settings

 

[sparrow6224]

Now that I'm seeing it right and roughly the same both ways, I have this to say:

The 1.2 is suffering flare that is a big problem wide open, a significicant problem at 2.8 and not gone at 5.6. How anyone could favor its rendering of anything in this situation with this particular sample is beyond me. Those are very tough lighting conditions for a 1950s lens with that large a front element. And it had a hood. I can see from the less flary portions that it is a beautiful lens in other circumstances.

The 1.5 -- the sunlight is radically harsher for this set than the other two. This is a bit unfair to the lens. This might be reason the boken in the 1.8 set is really better, creamier, less harsh. At least to my eyes. By the time you get to the 1.8 the sunlight is very strong on the far right front of the photo, ie. that stopper, but much softer on the floor and in the yard -- the whole background.

All that said, in these conditions, it's a close call between the 1.5 and 1.8 but I'd say the 1.8 gives best results. In the details too, a deeper richer clearer contrast and sharpness. But it's very close.

Them's my views.

 

[sparrow6224]

Three gorgeous lenses, though, I must say. I'm soon to get back a black barrel 1.8, having sold one long ago and regretted it; and I have the 1.4 which really is also a spectacular lens. There are a lot of great 50mm lenses out there, of course (among which the first giants and longtime champs were for my money the Zeiss sonnars) but I must say this Canon lineup is really quite impressive and I do love the results I can get with them and that you got with them here.