50mm f/1.4 options for the M mount.

From what I've read, you need to be very careful to make sure you get one without haze. I have had good luck with buying lenses from Japan, and I always make sure now to only buy the ones where they say "no haze, no fungus, no scratches".
 
Compared to your 1.1 Nokton, the Canon 50/1.4 LTM will have less resolution at all f stops. It's single coated and quite sensitive to flare and barrel distorts noticeably. Also, at medium f-stops (2.0 and 2.8) the aperture has "Spikes" which you will see in the pictures in the OOF. And due to over correction you'll see slight donut oof ellipses wide open with high lights in the back ground.

I've cleaned several of them, they are mostly made of aluminum and Bakelite (spell?), and a couple of smaller brass rings.

But like you said - it's cheap, nice classic to try out. Unique 6 element formula for such a fast lens. Get a good LTM adapter, and you'll need a 48mm uv/ir filter for your M8.

Enjoy !

Roland.
 
mcfingon said:
From what I've read, you need to be very careful to make sure you get one without haze.
Click to expand...

ferider said:
Compared to your 1.1 Nokton, the Canon 50/1.4 LTM will have less resolution at all f stops. It's single coated and quite sensitive to flare and barrel distorts noticeably. Also, at medium f-stops (2.0 and 2.8) the aperture has "Spikes" which you will see in the pictures in the OOF. And due to over correction you'll see slight donut oof ellipses wide open with high lights in the back ground.
Click to expand...

And here I'm slowly being convinced to stay away from the Canon.... 😀
 
As you have already mentioned 50 f2, there are a lot of options, if F2 is acceptable.
Regards to 1.4 lens, the Leica ASPH is unbeatible. There are other fun lens, with special character IMO, like Summilux e43, Nikkor 50/1.4, Sonnar 1.5, etc... there is the Canon 50 1.4 imo the least fun, boring although quite good, especially consider the cost, if Canon is OK, then you have a lot of choices.

Sent from my DMC-CM1 using Tapatalk
 
I sold my Canon f1.4 and 0.95, but still own an f 1.2 and 1.5. These two give a special feel to images that I like better. Sharp corner to corner and lack of vignetting is not something I prize, except when I was doing commercial work. For art making, give me personality.
 
The Canon 50 1.4 is a good one, for sure. But I sold mine. For some reason, the Rigid Summicron always gives me the best results from all the lenses I ever had. Seriously, give the old cron a shot. It's got tons of resolution in the center area of the image. It's just insane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lax Jought said:
And here I'm slowly being convinced to stay away from the Canon.... 😀
Click to expand...

Don't be. There are just a couple of people that perpetuate the internet rumor about haze, and others commenting "I've never had one, but from what I've read....look out for haze" Yeah, from what you'll read by 2 people, repeated ad naseum every thread. Don't let a couple naysayers bash a lens that was one of Canon's best, used by generations of top photographers. Try a Canon for the price of a lenscap on a Summilux Leica. Report back what YOU think!

I've NEVER until this thread heard anyone talk about a Canon lens being made of cheap aluminum and Bakelite. Preposterous. They aren't, they're heavy metal lenses that continue to focus smoothly decades after being made. I've had and handled a lot of Canon F1.4 and F1.5 lenses, they are tanks, and seldom have any haze. The F1.2 sometimes does, one of mine did, cleaned at home in 15 min. Leicas from this period often have severe coating scratches, and I had a Summicron DR with either bad haze, or separation. I've never seen a Canon with balsam separation.

But I've owned about 15 - 20 Canon lenses, and I can confirm they are extremely good. I don't shoot many Leica lenses at all, because I can confirm they are not as good. But I don't shoot the multi thousand dollar ones, don't have a Summilux. I have a Leica DR Summicron that is supposed to be one of the best lenses ever made. The Canon's are just as good.
 
Another with a Canon 50/1.4. They call it the "Japanese Summilux" for a reason.
Review using one on an M9 and Monochrome:
http://aperturepriority.co.nz/2013/05/28/the-japanese-summilux-canon-50mm-f1-4-ltm/

11459158706_dff4212ecc_h.jpg
 
goamules said:
I've NEVER until this thread heard anyone talk about a Canon lens being made of cheap aluminum and Bakelite. Preposterous …
Click to expand...

I can understand your passion for classic Canon lenses, but that doesn’t mean you have to personally attack me. Scratch the main black focus ring of your Canon 50/1.4 LTM with a knife and report back what comes off, please.

Regarding the often quoted "Japanese Summilux" site (http://aperturepriority.co.nz/2013/05/28/the-japanese-summilux-canon-50mm-f1-4-ltm), it has some cute photos; but technically – it’s not so accurate, attributing wrongly - for instance - a Sonnar formula to the Canon 50/1.4 type 1.

-------------------------

I used to use the Canon 50/1.4 extensively and passionately, and longer standing members here can attest to this. Probably had half a dozen of samples go through my hands, including the ones I cleaned for some RFF members. Here for instance, is one of my favorite landscapes that I shot with it (on film):

batch5-Untitled-9-XL.jpg


Then, in 2007, after destroying the occasional money shot by the lens flaring too easily, I took a portrait that finally convinced me to rather use Nikkors (Sonnars) as my classic fast 50s. I just don't like the Canon 1.4 OOF highlights, coming from a strongly over-corrected, over-simplified 6 element design, with an over-simplified aperture mechanism.

3477200-R3-010-3A-bw-XL.jpg


This morning, I took my remaining Canon 50/1.4 (serial nr. 90562 – I intentionally kept a very late one) out of the display cabinet and took these shots on the 240 (click to enlarge - these are hand-held, so forgive the slight camera shake):

Canon5014-OOF.jpg


If you look at the lens and how the aperture physically works, you'll see why this happens.

goamules said:
Don't be. There are just a couple of people that perpetuate the internet rumor about haze, and others commenting ...
Click to expand...

Actually, there is a couple of people that perpetuate on the internet how great the Canon 50/1.4 LTM's "bokeh" is, shooting it exclusively wide open, with forgiving backgrounds, preferably on crop sensors. Well - it's not to me. Night and day when compared to Nokton 1.1, 1.5 or any Summilux. And we haven't even talked about resolution, distortion or coma comparisons, where the Canon 50/1.4 doesn't exactly shine, either.

Now, the Canon 50/1.5 Sonnar is an entirely different story. Lovely lens, built like a brick. 10 years ago it was easy to find one for less than 300 bucks without haze and intact (un-etched) center element surfaces; now not so much - just look for honest sellers on ebay if you don't believe me. Probably due to low production numbers - the good ones are taken.

Enuff said.

Roland.
 
I use many 50mm lenses, day in and day out. I use more often the lenses that give me images that I like to see from 50mm lenses. My preferences in which of my 50mm lenses I use is based on my own images and not based on any published reports. I prefer the Leica Rigid Summicron over all of my 50mm lenses. I have among others, these 50mm RF lenses to choose from:

Nikon: Millenium Nikkor 50/1.4; Nikon 5cm/2 ltm;
Canon:all are ltm: 50/1.2; 50/1.4; 50/1.5; 50/1.8
Leica: Collapsible Summicron; Rigid Summicron; Summitar; Summar; Elmar 3.5; Elmar 2.8; Summarit
CV: Heliar 50/2 ltm; Heliar 50/3.5 ltm; Nokton 50/1.5 ltm
Zeiss: Sonnar 5cm1.5 ltm; 5cm/2 ltm; Opton 5cm/2 ltm; 45/2 for G1 adapted to M.
FSU: J-3 50/1.5 ltm; J-8 50/2 ltm; ZK 5cm/1.5;

Odd ball lenses: Original Nokton for the Prominent 50/1.5 (with Amedeo adapter M); Schneider for the Retina modified to ltm; Luxon 50/2 for the Paxette modified to ltm; Pentax Takumar 50/1.4 adapted to M.

There really exist many 50mm lenses that can do the job well that I am after accomplishing. I listed above the lenses that came to mind. Most people at RFF are not professional photographers. I can understand it well when a professional photographer (with assignments) has to get the equipment that gets the job done the best way possible. The rest of us, we have our favorites. I do not get excited about it if someone here does not like a lens that I happen to like to use. The Canon 50/1.4 gives overall nice looking results to me, but it is not among my favorite 50mm lenses for using.
 
I've had to clean haze out of otherwise excellent Canon 100/3.5, Canon 50/1.8 and Canon 50/1.4s. All were black versions (I don't have much experience with the earlier chrome lenses). Fortunately, the haze cleaned up easily in all of them. Two of six lenses lost coating on part of an inner element due to the haze but I didn't see any issues in practice.

They are fantastic lenses. The faster models have some slight distortion, the bokeh is a bit more classic planar and it only focuses to 1m. In other words, it's similar to many of its contemporaries. For the $250 the 50/1.4 has been selling for recently though, it's a steal. The VC 50/1.5 ltm is the only common competitor near the price point.
 
Let me see, Raid. I currently have

Canon: 50/1.4, 50/1.2
Nikkor: 3 x 50/1.4, 50/2
CV: VM 50/1.1, VM 50/1.5, LTM 50/2.5, VM 40/1.4
Leica: Rigid Summicron, Summicron v3, LTM 50/3.5, LTM 50/2.8, and I just ordered an Elmar-M
Pentax: self-modified Pentax-M 50/1.4
Konica/Minolta: M-Hex 50/2, LTM 50/2.4, 2 x CLE 40/2

In boldface my 3 favorites.

I think you still beat me. The things we do .... 🙂 😱

Roland.

PS: I had a good excuse, my "50mm project" last year (https://ferider.smugmug.com/Portfolio/One-Year-with-50mm-Lenses-on-F). I keep saying I will sell some soon ...
 
Roland: There really are so many excellent 50mm lenses out there. I once was about to get a Konica 50/2.4 for its beauty and for the sharpness. Not every user of such a lens views it as a very sharp lens, though. The CV 1.1 also looks tempting to me as I have no 50mm lens that is similar to it.
 
raid said:
Roland: There really are so many excellent 50mm lenses out there. I once was about to get a Konica 50/2.4 for its beauty and for the sharpness. Not every user of such a lens views it as a very sharp lens, though. The CV 1.1 also looks tempting to me as I have no 50mm lens that is similar to it.
Click to expand...

WRT Hex 50/2.4, Raid, my copy is sharp, but unfortunately it can not be collapsed on the 240 (hits the RF cam). Not sure about the M9. So you might want to keep avoiding it.
 
ferider said:
I can understand your passion for classic Canon lenses, but that doesn’t mean you have to personally attack me. Scratch the main black focus ring of your Canon 50/1.4 LTM with a knife and report back what comes off, please....
Click to expand...

Good, then we are in agreement, it's a good lens.

Saying the lens is cheap is preposterous. That's not a personal attack, it's my belief.

The black focus ring is probably aluminum. God knows if it was chromed brass the lens would weigh as much as an anchor. Many lenses, including Zeiss use aluminum for non critical parts, like a ring you grip and turn. That's not an issue of cheapness, as if the helicals and element fixtures, as you implied. Hyperbole demands a voice of reason to refute. Sorry.

..."nuff" said....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ken Ford
Comparing the Voigtlander fast 50s
Replies
15
Views
761
Yokosuka Mike
Yokosuka Mike
CandidChronicles
Old, cheap manual 50mm to pair to my Nikon Zf: Nikon, Canon..
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
wlewisiii
W
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
8
Views
507
Erik van Straten
Erik van Straten
CandidChronicles
Alternative to Voigtländer 35mm 2.5?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
1K
filmtwit
filmtwit
P
Voigtlander Z Mount 28mm f/1.7?
Replies
1
Views
347
gzisis69
gzisis69
Back
Top Bottom