35 1.2 nokton or 50 1.2 canon?

[whiteley]

i know both of these lenses have been discussed plenty, but i'm looking to get one or the other sometime in the near future and am wondering a few things. for any of you who have spent some time with both, if you could only have one, which would you choose and why? in comparison to each other what do you see as their strong and weak points?

 

[Keith]

I have both and as much as I like the Canon it's not in the class of the Nokton ... the Nokton is near flare proof and quite sharp wide open with smooth OOF areas. The Canon is none of these things but at 50mm makes a beautiful portrait lens with a character all it's own.

Difficult to compare two lenses of different focal length though and I don't really think I'd want to be in a position where I had to choose one or the other ... I love them both and regard them as two of my finest lenses!

 

[whickus]

i've been a 50mm guy for a while, but after having the 40mm nokton on my m7 for about a month i'm really starting to like the slightly wider perspective. my vote's for the 35mm nokton. of course it would probably depend on what lenses i already had, though.

 

[Roger S]

I'm usually a 35mm guy, but a Summicron rather than a Nokton (purely for reasons of cost). However I recently got hold of a Canon 50/1.2, and as soon as I can get its mis-focus problem solved it'll be a regular item on my M4 becasuse I love the soft-focus on that lens.

 

[kross]

I have both and u should too. they are of diff focal length, can't really compare them apple to apple. I need a fast 35mm and a fast 50mm at an affordable price so I bought them. And I like both their signature look. Another fantastic fast 50mm is the f1.4 nikkor-sc ltm.

 

[Roger Hicks]

As others have said, you can't really compare a 50 and a 35. Nor can you compare two designs almost 50 years apart. Having had both, I'd say that the Nokton performed better (especially at full aperture) and was more versatile, but hey, I like 35mm. A couple of weeks ago I gave my Canon 50/1.2 to a friend, who REALLY wanted it, for a 60th birthday present.

Cheers,

R.

 

[rover]

I have had both also. I liked the Canon a lot, but the Nokton was one of the best lenses I ever owned.

 

[Pherdinand]

i also thought of this choice and went for the 50.
First, i prefer 50mm against 35mm.
Second, it's the one i could afford.

 

[Krosya]

I have both. I like both. For different reasons. Keith and others pretty much said it all, but I'll add a little. WHile I'm usually a 50mm shooter, if I could only have one - I'd keep 35/1.2 - no questions about it. It's sharper, it focuses down to 0.7m vs Canon at 1m. Faster focus/shorter throw of the focus ring of the Nokton makes it a better user. Almost no flare in CV lens. I have used many different 35mm lenses and I still say that Nokton 35/1.2 is the best 35mm lens out there.
I'm also a bokeh nut, and while Canon is not bad in that respect - Nokton is superb! Just to compare here is a shot with Nokton 35/1.2 :

And here is with Canon 50mm/1.2:

As you can see - both can be fun, but Nokton is smoother.

Also, as Canon is an older lens - it seems that there some bad copies of it out there. Nokton is a new lens, so no risks when buying it.
But all in all - if you can - it's fun to have both. Really

 

[kevin m]

Wow, several people own both. Neat!

I have both, too, and as the others have said, the Nokton is the more modern design and it's much better corrected wide open. Still, don't discount the Canon. Even wide open, it has a "sweet spot" focused in the 5-10ft. range, and flare is only a problem with a light source in the frame. It's fairly resistant to veiling flare for an older design. It sharpens up quite a bit at f1.4, and has a lovely sharp/gentle signature even at f2.0.

My recommendation is to buy both. The pair will cost you less than a used Summicron 35.

 

[ferider]

They are both big lenses. If you use full frame (film), the Canon requires special filters and hood (avoiding vignetting and touching the front element). Easy to spend an extra US 50-100 in accessories. The 35 covers almost 1/3rd of the viewfinder.

I recommend to think twice before you purchase either. I had the Canon twice but never took it out of the house, because of size. There are some great alternatives at f1.4, cheaper and much more compact. f1.4 is plenty for most low light situations. Of course, if you want to do bokeh shots in your home or back yard, you need it

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[kevin m]

They are both big lenses.

No, they're both big rangefinder lenses. The 50/1.2 is actually smaller than a Canon EF 50/1.8. The Nokton is a big guy, no doubt, but IMO, any RF lens that doesn't take 39mm filters is big. If you're going out with the purpose of shooting - rather than carrying a camera "just in case" - the size is a moot point.

...the Canon requires special filters and hood (avoiding vignetting and touching the front element).

I have a standard Hoya 8x ND mounted on mine with no trouble, and a lovely metal B&W hood that works fine and looks great, too. Leave the huge, original hood for the collectors.

The 35 covers almost 1/3rd of the viewfinder.

As does the 35 Aspherical Summilux. The Nokton blocks just a bit more, but in practical terms, it's a wash, since you have to "check" your blind spot with either lens.

Of course, if you want to do bokeh shots in your home or back yard, you need it.

It's also nice when you're walking the streets watching your daughter window shop:

 

[ferider]

I have a standard Hoya 8x ND mounted on mine with no trouble, and a lovely metal B&W hood that works fine and looks great, too. Leave the huge, original hood for the collectors.

You are wrong, Kevin. Shoot it on film at f5.6 or above and check the negative. And I am not talking about having to buy the original hood. An Olympus 55/1.2 hood will do fine, for instance. But a screw-in hood will not. If your Hoya filter is the thin SMC-Pro version, it indeed will work. That doesn't mean that other cheaper filters do.

As does the 35 Aspherical Summilux. The Nokton blocks just a bit more, but in practical terms, it's a wash, since you have to "check" your blind spot with either lens.

And your point would be ? Did I recommend that lens instead ?

I was more thinking about 35/1.4 Nokton and 50/1.4 Canon (an out-standing and small lens) for instance. You can buy both for the price of the 35/1.2 Nokton. Less internet snob value, but good value in real life, at least for me

It's also nice when you're walking the streets watching your daughter window shop.]

Lovely shot. Film or digital ?

Roland.

 

[kevin m]

Roland, the hood might vignette at f5.6 and above for all I know, but I don't carry around an f1.2 lens to use it at f8.0! I just double-checked the filter and it is a standard Hoya HMC, not a slim-line, and it doesn't contact the front element.

And your point would be ?

Comparing it to a lens with similar speed and performance.

Lovely shot. Film or digital ?

Thanks. Wide-open, Fuji NPZ.

 

[ferider]

Regarding the Canon, in addition to spending more money, this is what you pay for the half stop additional speed over the Canon 50/1.4:

I did a comparative test of the two lenses here http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/2478140_x9ynq. The testshot, done on tripod with both lenses was this:

The corner performance of both lenses at f1.4 can be compared here:

Of course this can be useful for the right subject. But a general purpose 50mm the 1.2 is not.

This is how the two lenses look size-wise on the same camera:

Best,

Roland.

 

[Krosya]

They are both big lenses. If you use full frame (film), the Canon requires special filters and hood (avoiding vignetting and touching the front element). Easy to spend an extra US 50-100 in accessories. The 35 covers almost 1/3rd of the viewfinder.

I recommend to think twice before you purchase either. I had the Canon twice but never took it out of the house, because of size. There are some great alternatives at f1.4, cheaper and much more compact. f1.4 is plenty for most low light situations. Of course, if you want to do bokeh shots in your home or back yard, you need it

Cheers,

Roland.

I suppose it's a personal preference. As I said, I have both - Canon and 35/1.2 and take them both out of the house regularly. Their size doesnt bother me. I used to shoot Canon EOS before I got into RFs and taking 1n or EOS3 with a standard 28-70/2.8 zoom was not unusual, so these lenses are far more portable.
As far as alternatives at f1.4 - well, yes there are some, but they dont offer 1.2. They dont have same performance wide open - sharpness/bokeh. And ones that are good, still not cheap, like Summilux pre-Asph/ASPH. With Nokton 35/1.4 you do get a smaller, cheaper lens, but I'm yet to see a photo that made me want one. Actually, Roland, your pic of boathouse is the best I have seen from CV 35/1.4.
So, there is always a compromise - size, price, performance, handling, etc. Yet, of all my lenses, and I have a few, I'd say that CV Nokton 35/1.2 would be the last lens I'd sell.

 

[Krosya]

Roland, while I have not done any specific testing, I can say that Canon 50/1.2 can be easily a general purpose lens, if you have a good copy. I wonder if yours was not e very good one?
Check out my thread HERE - all pics with Canon 50/1.2 at 1.2. Looks pretty sharp to me.

 

[ferider]

Roland, while I have not done any specific testing, I can say that Canon 50/1.2 can be easily a general purpose lens, if you have a good copy. I wonder if yours was not e very good one?
Check out my thread HERE - all pics with Canon 50/1.2 at 1.2. Looks pretty sharp to me.

I actually had more than one copy They behaved similarly. Your shots show nice center sharpness which is consistent with my experience. The point is lack of performance across the field. Again, for portraits this might be useful.

Comparing it to a lens with similar speed and performance.

Data please. Including a comparison (on film) to the Nokton 1.4. 400x600 screen-shots, printable on the size of a stamp, don't tell the full story.

Thanks,

Roland.

 

[rogue_designer]

Roland - while I agree with your observations in general, there is one comparison I'd like to see.

The performance of Both the 50/1.2 and the 50/1.4 at f1.2. Now which one really shines.

 

[Pherdinand]

My Canon 50/1.2 also vignettes like crazy with a simple uv filter on.
The cap i have for it, would touch the fromt glass without the filter so i keep the filter on but if i don't take it off when shooting, it vignettes...

Anybody has a fitting lens cap that is not the snap-in type?