Canon LTM Fast 50 ponderings...

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
W

wlewisiii

Guest
I'm thinking about trying to convince The Boss to let me get a few bits of camera gear in the (relativly) near future. My main idea was several more Serenar lenses (35/2.8, 85/2 or 85/1.9, etc) but then I got simply wondering about which of the faster Canon 50's would suit me best.

My initial reaction is to go for a 50/1.5 since I like the Sonnar look (and it fits nicely on the CL I have & the R I'd like to get). Yet going over Raid's various endevors, I wonder about the 50/1.4 & 50/1.2. The 1.4 does pretty much have the technical edge, but there have been some very interesting postings of images from all of the lenses mentioned. I'm interested in finding the fastest lens that gives a look I like while still being a lens I can just keep on the body unless I need a different FL. In 50's I currently have a Jupiter 8, a Collapsible 50/2 Summicron & a Canon Serenar 50/1.8. New fast glass is _not_ an option. I prefer the Zeiss/Canon look overall as well. Fussy fart aren't I? ;)

So, anyone want to tell me which one to get :D Good reasons are appreciated as well as just plain fun opinions. :angel:

William
 
I love the 50 1.2, but it's weight might be a bit much for constant carry, especially on a CL. And with a hood (which you'll definitely want for daytime) you might well block up your finder entirely with lens (especially since the vented lens for it is very expensive - leaving only non-vented options).

I'd go for the Canon 50 1.4 - sharpest of the bunch, easily converts to 40.5 filters with a tiny step up ring - doesn't block the viewfinders (tho I havn't checked on the CL). Relative to the 1.2 it's very lightweight.
 
I can't argue with the sharpness of the 50/1.4, however, I too like the Sonnar look. That's why I bought a nice 50/1.5 lens. And am very happy with it.

-Randy
 
vrgard said:
I can't argue with the sharpness of the 50/1.4, however, I too like the Sonnar look. That's why I bought a nice 50/1.5 lens. And am very happy with it.

-Randy
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the kicker isn't it? Combined with the wieght issue that rogue_designer reminds us of, there's a really entertaining set of trade offs in these lenses. I'll come to my conclusion eventually (and really, the 50/1.5 is in the lead, especially if I can find one marked Serenar... ;) ) Still both of the other lenses are excellent examples of what Canon's designers were capable of. I have the 28/3.5 (massivly faster than any other wide angle when it shipped.), the 50/1.8 (_the_ lens that established Canon as a lens designer), the 100/4 (this sample has been beaten into near surrender but can still make good images) & a 135/3.5 (still the best long LTM lens) so my bias is pretty clear :D

William
 
Well, my friend, the Canon fast 50s are very good. Something to consider, indeed the Canon 50/1.8 is also excellent, and you will find it draws similarly to the 1.4. The 1.4 is the bigger than the 1.8, but short compared to the CV Nokton to which optical design wise it is often likened. Its very smooth and just in general an excellent performer. If your intent is to shoot wide open often and want the best out of you lens, this is a better choice than the 1.5.

Why do I say this to a fellow Sonnar lover? Well, if you have a good Jupiter 8, then you have the Sonnar look in your bag at a bargain price. The 1.5 is a smaller lens than both the 1.4 and 1.8. I use mine as a general purpose lens, not a low light lens. Not that I don't use it wide open, but if I know I am going to need a fast lens I just reach elsewhere.

The 1.4 is relatively common and is selling for around $250 now a days, not bad at all. I have not seen a 1.5 for sale in a while, probably would sell for a little more.

The 1.2 is unique and the most expensive of the 3. I don't know that it is a lens for the CL, it has to be just as big or bigger than that body. Would a CL or R focus that fast a 50?
 
Last edited:
Given that you already have a Sonnar analogue in the J-8, I would suggest the Canon 1.4 instead of the Canon 1.5 (another Sonnar analogue). The 1.4 would probably be a bit large on a CL, but I thnk that the Canon 1.2 would just overwhelm the CL.

My only complaint about the 1.4 is that I do not care for the cool color rendition.

Also agree with rover that the Canon 1.5 would sell for a little mor money than a 1.4, probably in the $275-$300 range.
 
Thanks for the advice, folks. I think I'll look for the 50/1.4 then.

William
 
Since you expressed a liking for the Sonnar-look, you might be a bit dissapointed with the 1.4. As mentioned, it's very sharp, but is a bit cool. I love the overall look of the 1.5. I also enjoy using the 1.2, and don't find the weight a problem. I also usually use it on either a 7s or M3, both relatively large and heavy cameras. You may find that just 1 lens isn't quite the answer you're looking for, but that's what GAS is all about...

Harry
 
Canon 50/1.5 on the Bessa R2.

My favorite Canon Lens. And I have the 50/.95, 50/1.2, 50/1.4, and 50/1.8.
 
Last edited:
My 50/1.4 takes 48mm filters. ;) The 50/1.8 and 50/1.5 take the 40's.

The 50/1.4 is one of the few Canon lenses I have kept. I prefer it to the 1.5 but I tend to work colour rather tham monochrome. Having said that, I kept it in case I needed a fast 50 and didn't/don't have the money to justify a 'lux. However in practice nearly all my 50 work is done with the 'Cron and now the Pentax so even that one is likely to go.

Kim

rogue_designer said:
I'd go for the Canon 50 1.4 - sharpest of the bunch, easily converts to 40.5 filters with a tiny step up ring - doesn't block the viewfinders (tho I havn't checked on the CL). Relative to the 1.2 it's very lightweight.
Click to expand...
 
I may have to get one day either a Canon 50/1.5 or a 50/1.4. My newly acquired Nokton 50/1.5 (the old Prominent version) may have to do for a while.
I may add to all the above comments that the 50/1.2 is very special in that it is tack sharp when stopped down while still allowing you to use it at 1.2. It is not a large lens when you compare it to other ultra fast lenses. The Canon 50/1.5 is much smaller than the 50/1.4. All are fun to use.

Raid
 
You would never focus the 50/1.2 accurately enough wide open on the CL, to mention seeing much anything out the finder. While I've never had the 50/1.4 in hand, I think it too would slightly overwhelm the CL. I think the 50/1.5 is the best choice, since it's even smaller than the 50/1.8. Even so, you would be making rather stringent demands on the CL's tiny-baseline RF. The lenses made for it were limited to what it could focus accurately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom