50/1.4 ltm comparisons

[Rafael]

I know this may appear to be the ultimate tr**l post. But I certainly do not intend it that way. I would like to solicit people's honest opinions on the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the Nikkor and Canon 50/1.4 ltm lenses. As popular as I know these two lenses to be, I have not been able to find any comparisons of them in the archives. Opinions supported with photos would be very much appreciated.

 

[Rafael]

Thanks Roland, that's very helpful.

 

[furcafe]

Canon:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/canon5014lensc196168/

Nikon:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/nipponkogaku5cm14nikkorsltmc195356/

 

[rover]

furcafe's photos confirm the choice I made. I do not have a Nikkor 50/1.4, from looking at a number of images I decided that I wanted the Canon and I bought one.

In my eyes I just like the images from the Canon lens better than those I have seen from the Nikkor. That is just my opinion. I really like both galleries offered by furcafe, but the Canon shots stand out to me.

I don't categorize my images well, but most of these were from a Canon 50/1.4.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5899

 

[Bill58]

furcafe's photos confirm the choice I made. I do not have a Nikkor 50/1.4, from looking at a number of images I decided that I wanted the Canon and I bought one.

In my eyes I just like the images from the Canon lens better than those I have seen from the Nikkor. That is just my opinion. I really like both galleries offered by furcafe, but the Canon shots stand out to me.

I don't categorize my images well, but most of these were from a Canon 50/1.4.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5899

Rover:

What film/ shutter speed, aperature? Nice pics.

Bill

 

[Bill58]

More Nikkor photos (mostly tests):

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/1944337

Roland.

Roland:

I finally decided to get an LTM 28--Canon 3.5. $340 w/ finder in Exc. condition. Not a great deal, but OK I think. I'm still in love w/ the 85/2 Canon from you!

Bill

 

[Mackinaw]

Here's one with the Canon 50/1.4 at 1.4 (or close to it). On Ekfe 25.

Jim Bielecki

 

[dreamsandart]

Here's an interesting site and a take on the Nikkor and Canon comparision

<http://www.dantestella.com/technical/nikoleic.html>

 

[rover]

Rover:

What film/ shutter speed, aperature? Nice pics.

Bill

Tri X mostly, some on APX 400 (you can see the grain), I favored a slower shutterspeed and stopped down a little. The floor was lighted so the exposure wasn't bad, interesting lighting, f4 ish if I remember correctly 1/30 or 1/60. Tri X was rated at 1250 and APX 500 for Diafine.

 

[VinceC]

I've never compared the two lenses. Been using a Nikkor 1.4 for a couple of decades now. It's extremely sharp. Bokeh is beautiful wide open but can have doubled lines around f/2.8 to f/5.6.

In my years of near-daily use, I think Dante Stella's verdict is correct ... the Nikkor is optimized for close-in work wide open. That's where it shines (and is also where I do most of my work). The main page of my gallery has several photos of my kids taken by the lens wide open.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I think that both would be a worthy addition to MY kit, and if I could get one I probably would. I've decided on the Voigtlander 50mm Nokton, though, for myself.

 

[Rafael]

Many thanks to Roland, Furcafe, Vince, Ralph, and Jim for the great images. This is all very helpful. I have a 50 summicron (4th version) that makes a great all-purpose 50. Dante Stella's site was very useful as I am actually looking for a fast 50 precisely to be shot wide open and up close. Food for thought...

 

[furcafe]

I'm already on the record as not agreeing (@ least not entirely) w/Dante Stella or Vince that the 5cm/1.4 Nikkor-S is really optimized for shooting wide-open & up close. To repeat, I think that using the Nikkor in that situation is really just a good match between typical subject matter & certain characteristics of the lens. Like all lenses, the Nikkor is not @ its sharpest wide-open (I have heard of test reports stating that the Nikkor is actually sharper wide-open than stopped down, but I have a hard time believing that could be true as it doesn't accord w/my experience) & shooting close up compensates for that by magnifying details. Like all Sonnars, & the Nikkor is a Sonnar variant (or a Sonnar on steroids), the Nikkor can also create some wild boke effects wide-open ("swirly" backgrounds, etc.) & shooting close up minimizes those effects while still preserving the nice "sharp in the middle, softer towards the edges" look that I also associate w/Sonnars.

Many thanks to Roland, Furcafe, Vince, Ralph, and Jim for the great images. This is all very helpful. I have a 50 summicron (4th version) that makes a great all-purpose 50. Dante Stella's site was very useful as I am actually looking for a fast 50 precisely to be shot wide open and up close. Food for thought...

 

[furcafe]

Addendum. I realize that I forgot to include examples from the Nikon RF mount versions of the Nikkor (same lens, just different mount):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/nipponkogaku5cm14nikkorschromec195457/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/nipponkogaku5cm14nikkorsblackc195864/

Canon:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/canon5014lensc196168/

Nikon:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/furcafe/tags/nipponkogaku5cm14nikkorsltmc195356/

 

[Rafael]

If you use both the Summi and the 1.4 from the same bag, the Nikkor is the better choice. If you only want one 50 in your bag, the Canon is. My 2 cents ...

Roland.

That seems consistent with what I have seen and read so far. Of course, if money was no object... But unfortunately it is.

 

[VinceC]

>>really optimized for shooting wide-open & up close<<

"Optimized" might be the wrong word. But the Nikkor performs extremely well under this most demanding situation.

The lens's overall sharpness was what brought it to the attention of photographers. The lens was popularized by Life magazine's David Douglas Duncan in Korea in late 1950, and his usual shooting method, according to his book notes, was to set the lens at f/11 and hyperfocal focus.

Wide open, vignetting is minimized when focused close.

EDIT: I never took Stella's use of the word "Optimized" to mean that the lens produces its best images wide open and up close. Rather, the lens is designed to perform extremely well in that range, whereas other designs might favor mid-range focusing, etc. Certainly when wide open, the Nikkor looks at its best when focused close, because that's where vignetting is minimized. And this lens was advertized and sold for its wide-open abilities. Further, many f/1.4 situations involve interactions of people at fairly close distances.

 

[furcafe]

I think we're actually on the same page.

My disagreement is more w/Stella's article, which states that Nikon actually designed the lens for close up & wide-open shooting (DDD clearly didn't use the lens in that mode all the time). He may be correct, as I'm not a Nikon expert, but I've never seen any evidence that would support that conclusion & it seems counterintuitive to me that Nikon would design a normal lens for such a specialized purpose. Perhaps I should send an email to Rotoloni . . . 😉

>>really optimized for shooting wide-open & up close<<

"Optimized" might be the wrong word. But the Nikkor performs extremely well under this most demanding situation.

The lens's overall sharpness was what brought it to the attention of photographers. The lens was popularized by Life magazine's David Douglas Duncan in Korea in late 1950, and his usual shooting method, according to his book notes, was to set the lens at f/11 and hyperfocal focus.

Wide open, vignetting is minimized when focused close.

 

[Rafael]

This is a very interesting and useful discussion. I really appreciate all of your input. I see what you guys mean about the Nikkor's tendency to produce swirly backgrounds and to double lines. That is not an effect that I want! The really tight shots do seem to mitigate this effect. But I see how easily it shows up. And ideally, I would like to get a lens with very smooth bokeh.

What I'm looking for is a fast 50 for low light, mostly indoor, portraiture and other people photography. I have had in mind to get a fast 50 for some time. It has come into my head recently that now would be a good time to look for one as it would match up nicely with the M3 that I am also in the market for (RFF is a bad bad place 😀 ). All that said, am I looking at the right two lenses?

 

[VinceC]

The 50/1.4 is probably single-handedly responsible for Nikon's reputation for "bad" bokeh (in my opinion, a very undeserved reputation). It is frequently harsh and unforgiving. It was designed for speed and sharpness, with out-of-focus highlights traded off as a consequence. It was, no question, the sharpest, fastest lens of 1950. But plenty of other lenses have been introduced since then, and they ALL learned from the trade-offs juggled by Nikon.

 

[RayPA]

😀

This is a very interesting and useful discussion. I really appreciate all of your input. I see what you guys mean about the Nikkor's tendency to produce swirly backgrounds and to double lines. That is not an effect that I want! The really tight shots do seem to mitigate this effect. But I see how easily it shows up. And ideally, I would like to get a lens with very smooth bokeh.

What I'm looking for is a fast 50 for low light, mostly indoor, portraiture and other people photography. I have had in mind to get a fast 50 for some time. It has come into my head recently that now would be a good time to look for one as it would match up nicely with the M3 that I am also in the market for (RFF is a bad bad place 😀 ). All that said, am I looking at the right two lenses?[/QUOTE]

I have the Canon 50/1.4. I love it. Great lens. I also have the Nokton 50/1.5. I love it. Great lens. 😀 Ltm, too, IIRC.