35 1.2 nokton or 50 1.2 canon?

[Pherdinand]

Roland, very strange image. The letters on the film box seem to suffer from motion blur which is unexpected since you used a tripod. Look at them. They are sharp on the top-right side, blurry on bottom-left. Really looks like motion blur. Maybe that's how the lens renders stuff off center wide open, don't know, but it is strange.

 

[raid]

I have the Canon 50mm/1.2 but not the Nokton 35mm/1.2 [which I had for a lens test though]. The above comments said it all regarding a choice between these two lenses. Vintage 50mm fast lens versus modern 35mm fast lens. I would focus on the choosing between a 50mm lens and a 35mm lens first. Which focal length is best for you?

Image by Canon 50mm/1.2:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5297434

 

[kevin m]

The point is lack of performance across the field.

Name another f1.2 lens that has great performance across the whole frame.

 

[35mmdelux]

ditto: "I would focus on the choosing between a 50mm lens and a 35mm lens first."

get the one with the more utility for you, then the next.

 

[35mmdelux]

Name another f1.2 lens that has great performance across the whole frame.

Hexanon 50mm/1.2

 

[whiteley]

i should have supplied more info on the original post- i already have 35 and 50 summicrons, so either new one would be more of a special use lens, most likely for portraits and shallow DOF stuff (i've been shooting an M8 for the most part lately so 35 still works for looser head and shoulders kind of stuff). i'm not trying to compare 35 perspective to 50 perspective, more their aesthetic qualities at their respective lengths. from what i've seen, i like the swirly, soft qualities of the canon a lot just as far as a "different" kind of look from most of my lenses. the nokton looks to be much smoother in the OOF areas but i haven't seen as many images. price-wise they don't seem that far off- looks like canon's run in the $500-750 range and the noktons new are around $850, right? size isn't an issue since these won't really be carry-around-all-the-time lenses. i'd love to have both too, but want and afford don't seem to hang out too often these days. anyhow, there's lots of good info in here already, and i appreciate the images posted most definitely. so, let me revise the question a little- between the two lenses, which would you prefer for a secondary lens with a look that differs more from the summicrons? i think i'm leaning towards the canon, but looking for some more news on the nokton as well...

 

[ferider]

Roland, very strange image. The letters on the film box seem to suffer from motion blur which is unexpected since you used a tripod. Look at them. They are sharp on the top-right side, blurry on bottom-left. Really looks like motion blur. Maybe that's how the lens renders stuff off center wide open, don't know, but it is strange.

Pherdinand,

It's really the lens. With the same setup, center performance of both was comparable. Bokeh of the 1.2 is nicer, to me at least. In the opposite corner:

The "rays" on the right are really due to the 1.4's aperture shape, not a post-processing artifact.

Couple of other things that speak for the 1.2:

- the 1.2 has more aperture blades (11 vs 9 on the 1.4).
- if I remember right, the original 50s 1.2 advertisement said that the lens was optimized to have NO focus shift. I have not verified this.
- when you check Dante's site, you will see that the Canon 50/1.2 has true 1.2 performance (light transmission), which is not trivial for fast lenses of back then.

Whiteley, if you want a speciality portrait lens, 50mm is certainly great, and the 1.2 fits well, too, better than the 1.4. But then again, for portraits, I prefer 50 Sonnars, like the Canon 50/1.5, Nikkor 50/1.4 (my favorite due to 0.7m min. focus), ZM Sonnar, and so on. Too many choices, I know ....

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[rogue_designer]

If you're looking for something specifically for wide aperture and very different from the summicrons - then the Canon is the way to go. You don't need it for all purpose. And the look is about as far from the summicrons as you can go without getting a sonnar type.

thats my $.02 anyway.

 

[kevin m]

Hexanon 50mm/1.2

No, it, along with the new Canon EF 50/1.2 are still soft in the corners relative to the center. It's certainly a big improvement over the LTM Canon 50/1.2, though.

There's only one fast 35mm lens I'm aware of that's equally sharp in the corners, and that's the 35mm Aspherical Summilux. I hear the 50 Aspherical 'lux performs similarly, but I have no experience with it.

 

[M2user]

Talking about the Canon 50mm f/1.2 vignetting, take a look at the Noctilux Diary thread and see how the Noctilux, by design, suffers from the same problem when used at f/1.
Without doubt a lens being used beyond the capabilities of its design in my opinion, and its users try to make out that this "vignetting fault" is something marvellous to behold and adds to the lenses character.
Leitz were much more truthful in the 1930's when they admitted the shortcomings of the then new "28mm f/6.3 Hektor".

 

[gdi]

No, it, along with the new Canon EF 50/1.2 are still soft in the corners relative to the center. It's certainly a big improvement over the LTM Canon 50/1.2, though.

There's only one fast 35mm lens I'm aware of that's equally sharp in the corners, and that's the 35mm Aspherical Summilux. I hear the 50 Aspherical 'lux performs similarly, but I have no experience with it.

Do you have examples of the Hex softness? Do you mean it is a problem at all apertures?

I use mine mostly on digital but the few film shots I do have seem sharp to the corners (though the very slight vignetting wide open could be hiding something on my shots).

 

[kevin m]

Do you have examples of the Hex softness? Do you mean it is a problem at all apertures?

The corners are only "soft" relative to how sharp the center of the frame is wide open. It's sharper everywhere in the frame than the Canon 50/1.2, in any event. Every fast lens I've ever owned is "soft" in the corners at full-aperture with the exception of the 35mm Aspherical Summilux.

I don't think it's an issue, really. The softness in the corners is appealing, IMO. I found I nearly always wanted to soften the corners of my 35 'lux images.

 

[kevin m]

You are wrong, Kevin.

Just double-checked some negs shot at f8.0. No vignetting with a standard Hoya filter mounted, and using a screw in hood. Sample-to-sample variation, perhaps. Or maybe my hood is slightly shallower than yours?

In any event, your use of definitive language is misplaced.

 

[mojobebop]

tests

tests

i have to say that i have difficulty determining
one lens quality vs. another.

the only real way one can do this visually i think, is to
put the camera on a tripod and shoot the same scene
exactly with the same specs.

otherwise at best it is inaccurate, and
almost entirely subjective.

 

[Pherdinand]

not really true, mojo.
E.g. with my konica hexar af, i consistently get very sharp images but lots of vignetting on slide film.

After a few rolls and carefully looking at the images, one can figure out how a lens works.

 

[ferider]

Just double-checked some negs shot at f8.0. No vignetting with a standard Hoya filter mounted, and using a screw in hood. Sample-to-sample variation, perhaps. Or maybe my hood is slightly shallower than yours?

In any event, your use of definitive language is misplaced.

Hear, hear, you said previously that you never used the 50/1.2 stopped down that far.

Assuming you do have these photos, can you share them with us ? Among others it would be interesting to see if the lens was focused at infinity (which is when it vignettes, of course).

My language is no more definitive than yours and I use the language I like, unless a moderator tells me differently. In contrast to your perpetual ranting on how good your current favorite lens is, and how much better performing than lenses you have never used, my statements are based on personal experience and data. If you have personally used the Canon 50/1.4 or the Nokton 35/1.4, or some comparative data that show that the Nokton 35/1.2 performance equals the Summilux asph 35/1.4, I am sure we all invite you to share comparative results.

My apology to the OP for the distraction.

Back on subject, there is a reason that the original Canon 50/1.2 filters were ultra-slim, and the original hood push-on. The vignetting test is very simple. Stop down the lens to f5.6 or above, pick your hood/filter combo of choice, focus at infinity (the lens' widest FOV) and shoot an even surface (the sky for instance). On negative film, of course.

My last post to this thread. Cheers,

Roland.

 

[kevin m]

... I use the language I like, unless a moderator tells me differently.

I thought some degree of accuracy was the point of testing, and thus, some care with the language used is called for. It has nothing to do with moderation, does it?

In contrast to your perpetual ranting on how good your current favorite lens is, and how much better performing than lenses you have never used...

All I've ever done is tried for some degree of accuracy, rather than perpetuate the nonsense that passes for conventional internet wisdom, particularly on this forum. The Canon 50/1.2 has a reputation for being a 'crappy' lens, and that's decidedly not the case. I believe my examples, and the examples others have posted, clearly demonstrate that. If you can't get good results with it, then either your lens is defective, or your methods flawed.

All you offer here is some misguided personal animosity.

...or some comparative data that show that the Nokton 35/1.2 performance equals the Summilux asph 35/1.4, I am sure we all invite you to share comparative results....

I've shot only two rolls with the Nokton and have said little about it. Contrary to your point, I have often said the 35 Aspherical Summilux is, by objective standards, simply the best 35mm lens I've ever used. FWIW, after two rolls with the Nokton, I still think it's true. Subjective impressions are another matter, of course.

What's your training/experience, anyway? I spent two years working in a camera rental house and used lens collimation charts on a daily basis. Nothing like projecting a pure white grid on a darkened wall several feet wide to find out what's really going on with a lens. And, using identical tests means comparisons between lenses are fair and accurate.

 

[whiteley]

all semantics aside, i just bought the canon, should have it within the week!

 

[whiteley]

my canon 1.2 arrived yesterday. in pretty decent cosmetic shape. only had a chance to do a brief spin with it with my two kids in tow while on a solo papa patrol trip to the park, but it seems great! contrast is certainly a bit lower than leica glass, but everything else is great, and way, way sharper than i was expecting! the OOF areas are just as i'd hoped, so i'm real happy with the choice. thanks for all the feedback on here. here's a quick snap of my older swinger from the first brief outing...

 

[spkennedy3000]

I have both and like both a lot. My Canon, now that it has been cleaned and properly adjusted, is sharp wide open. The Nokton is also sharp wide open. They both have a strong character of their own, the Nokton's is unquestionably IMO a higher quality look, more modern, contrasty, smooth and makes beautiful images. The Canon is more rough and ready, wide open it has a glow effect that I really like. It has lower contrast but that is actually quite good when shooting at ISO1600 film or higher at night. It has a bit rougher OOF highlights but they are more than acceptable to me. It is a lot cheaper then a Nokton.

Both make great, characterful 35mm film images which is what I bought them for. I have both and I will be keeping both.