ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
Hello,
Has anyone done the comparaison between the two lenses? They are selling less than 50mm Summicrons and open up to 1.4.
I'd like to know especially how the two lenses compare contrast wise, at most apertures.
Thanks
Has anyone done the comparaison between the two lenses? They are selling less than 50mm Summicrons and open up to 1.4.
I'd like to know especially how the two lenses compare contrast wise, at most apertures.
Thanks
Koni Kowa
Well-known
The Nikkor rather be compared to the Canon 50/1.5 because both are Sonnar. You should search in the Canon and Nikon sections on RFF because I've already read lots of things on this comparison, from members who know both lenses. I don't know Nikkors.
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
Had both.
Both are very good lenses and for their time period too. Price too.
With some minor mods, the Nikon can be modified to 0.7 meters, while the Canon is stuck at 1 meter minimum focus.
I'd say the contrast is slightly nicer on the Canon, while the Nikon has slightly better resolution.
The reverse f stop and focus take some time to get used too on the Nikon.
The Canon physically looks nicer, but in the end I kept the Nikon.
Both are very good lenses and for their time period too. Price too.
With some minor mods, the Nikon can be modified to 0.7 meters, while the Canon is stuck at 1 meter minimum focus.
I'd say the contrast is slightly nicer on the Canon, while the Nikon has slightly better resolution.
The reverse f stop and focus take some time to get used too on the Nikon.
The Canon physically looks nicer, but in the end I kept the Nikon.
ferider
Veteran
The Canon was built into the 70s, it's a peculiar design with its 6 elements for such a fast lens. The Nikkor was only built (in Leica mount) until late 50s. Both a very good. The Nikkor is an outstanding close up performer, where a good Canon is better at infinity. In contrast to the Nikkor, the Canon barrel distorts quite a bit, and has some funkey OOF when closed down to f2 or f2.8. My early Nikkor is one of the best "bokeh" lenses that I have, if you care for this ....
From the samples that I had of both, I concluded that the Nikkor QA was better than the Canon. The Nikkor is also much smaller, but these days costs almost twice what a good Canon 50/1.4 costs.
In the end, for fast Leica mount 50s, I kept 1951 Nikkor and a v2 Summilux.
Now, here is a fast 50, that I feel will outperform both
: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113676. And is cheaper, too.
Roland.
From the samples that I had of both, I concluded that the Nikkor QA was better than the Canon. The Nikkor is also much smaller, but these days costs almost twice what a good Canon 50/1.4 costs.
In the end, for fast Leica mount 50s, I kept 1951 Nikkor and a v2 Summilux.
Now, here is a fast 50, that I feel will outperform both
: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113676. And is cheaper, too.Roland.
Have you considered the cv 50/1.5 Nokton? I think it compares pretty well to the Canon and Nikkor.
ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
Thanks for the replies everyone. They are helpful.
I have searched again with Canon 50/1.5 this time and did find some comparisons. I wonder if the so-called "veiling flare" of the Nikon only happens at f1.4 and at long focus distances.
The fact that the Nikon can be modified to focus down to 0.7 meter sounds really interesting. There seems to be two versions. Can they both be modified? And does anyone know if DAG or Youxin is willing to do it?
Actually I have had a Nokton 50/1.5 for a while but never liked it. My example was so contrasty that I could spot easily the shots taken by the lens from all the rest when looking at the negatives.
Congratulations on the modification ferider, maybe someday I would buy a modified silvernose Zuiko 50/1.4 to use on a Leica.
I have searched again with Canon 50/1.5 this time and did find some comparisons. I wonder if the so-called "veiling flare" of the Nikon only happens at f1.4 and at long focus distances.
The fact that the Nikon can be modified to focus down to 0.7 meter sounds really interesting. There seems to be two versions. Can they both be modified? And does anyone know if DAG or Youxin is willing to do it?
Actually I have had a Nokton 50/1.5 for a while but never liked it. My example was so contrasty that I could spot easily the shots taken by the lens from all the rest when looking at the negatives.
Congratulations on the modification ferider, maybe someday I would buy a modified silvernose Zuiko 50/1.4 to use on a Leica.
ferider
Veteran
We once did a Canon 1.5 vs. Nikkor comparison with Randy, Ulrich (http://ferider.smugmug.com/Technical/Tests/Canon-5015-vs-Nikkor-5014/2196281_P6XHGS).
The Nikon is IMO the better performer, and has no veiling flare at f1.5 even at infinity, and no veiling flare at all wide open and at closer focus. Also, the above comparison was done with a late Nikkor, I like my current early NKT lens better.
I was the first to modify the Nikkor for close focus, AFAIK (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56962). I've done a handful until now, on both NKT and NKJ 1.4 lenses, and several 50/2 lenses as well. It's easy DIY, really, all you need is a lens spanner, and I think Don has done it since then, too. I think all 1.4 versions can be modified.
And my Zuiko 50/1.4 remains untouched, it's perfect on my OM1
Roland.
The Nikon is IMO the better performer, and has no veiling flare at f1.5 even at infinity, and no veiling flare at all wide open and at closer focus. Also, the above comparison was done with a late Nikkor, I like my current early NKT lens better.
I was the first to modify the Nikkor for close focus, AFAIK (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56962). I've done a handful until now, on both NKT and NKJ 1.4 lenses, and several 50/2 lenses as well. It's easy DIY, really, all you need is a lens spanner, and I think Don has done it since then, too. I think all 1.4 versions can be modified.
And my Zuiko 50/1.4 remains untouched, it's perfect on my OM1
Roland.
Last edited:
raid
Dad Photographer
I like the Nikon 5cm 2.0, and then also like many other 50mm lenses, such as the Canon 50/1.5 and the Zeiss 5cm 1.5. What is there not to like in these beauties. Each lens is different from the other in some aspect.
sevres_babylone
Veteran
What Koni Kowa says. The comparison is really with the Canon 50/1.5. I have both the Canon 50/1.5 and the 50/1.4. I once borrowed the Nikon 50/1.4. I slightly prefer the look of the Nikon 50/1.4 to the Canon 50/1.5. Either of those lenses would give you the biggest difference in look from your Nokton (I have one of those as well, and like it more than you do.)
I believe the Canon 50/1.4 sells for quite a bit less than the sonnars. I bought mine in April/May. I like it when I don't want a sonnar look (at one time, I never imagined even thinking that
). My only quarrel with it is that I get strange reflections when there is a very bright light, like a spotlight at a concert, when shooting into that light. (That's on my M9, and without a filter).
raid
Dad Photographer
Prices fluctuate a lot, but a reasonable starting point is $300 for the Canon 50/1.4 and $400 for the Nikon 50/1.4. The Nikon 50/2 is viewed by some as having a nicer bokeh than the Nikon 50.1.4. Both Nikon lenses are sharp wide open. The Canon 50/1.4 is a sharp lens too.
excellent
Well-known
I cant speak for the nikon but I used the canon 1.4 and really enjoyed it. I found it to be a great overall lens which could handle many situations. It was particularly good with BW film.
rhjchen1966
Taiwan's Riccardo
Have both lenses but the Nikon lens is the S mount. Supposedly the LTM lens is the same lens formula as the S mount. Nikon is a little more contrast and sharpness. However, the price of Canon 50/1.4 LTM might be half the Nikon 50/1.4 LTM.