Canon LTM Anyone compare Leica 50/1.5 Summarit and Canon 50/1.4

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
the Canon 1.5/50 is a very underestimated lens. I have some very sharp color prints (8x12 inch) from it. You would not guess they came from a 50 year old lens. The Sonnar type (7 elements) was more expensive in prodcution because of the two 3-element-groups (36,500 yen) than the 6-element-Planar type 1.4/50 successor (25,000 yen , then reduced to 18,000 according to Canon Museum). Cost, not lack of performance was the main reason why the 1.5/50 was replaced in 1958.
In addition, the 1.5/50 was the most compact of the Canon highspeed lens line, is still one of the smallest RF highspeed standard lenses, and uses 40mm filter (not really a common size but at least the same as 1.8/50, 2/35 and all-black 3.5/100 Canon use). Indeed it's a bit shorter than my 1.8/50 chrome (Planar type) of the same vintage, very similar looking, and of same weight.
Some pictures at my small collectors webpgae:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF.html#CANON_RF_1.5-50mm
(english version coming soon...)

cheers, Frank
 
Last edited:
Brian,

You have a wonderful way of writing about lenses.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Brian,
the Canon 1.5/50 is a my favorite 50mm portrait lens, very pleasent, but sharp enough for doing landscapes as well... I don't know the Nikkor-RF 1.4/50 and Zeiss Opton... probably it plays in the same league.. I wouldn't estimate OOF area as "harsh"
take a look also at:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Files/Bentheim_1k.JPG
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Files/Brunnenburg_50mm_1.JPG
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Files/BurgNassau_50mm_2.JPG

(one scan from a print, two from B/W negatives with my not too good scanner)
 
Here is a more relevant question: has anyone empirically tested 10, 50, or 100 of these lenses under the most stringent conditions of control and with the reduction of all possible variables? Same camera, absolutely rigid mount, etc.? This nonsense about an "A" lens performing "better" than a "B" lens is most often just that: nonsense. As are the MTF tests, unless of course your particular interest is in photographing MTF cards. :D

Glass plates are best for making these assessments, glass being dimensionally more stable than film (some of my Alpa lenses have the original glass test plates -- Alpa used a solid concrete bench for their support). Of course, glass plates are difficult to come by so a good fine grain slide film is your next best bet. Are you examining the results of your "tests" from prints? This is such a poor format that it is not even worthy of discussion, except to dismiss it. Slide film under a loupe? Better, but still not the degree of accuracy you will acieve examining film under a microscope. If you are at all serious about lens performance READ/LEARN and put the time into relevant testing -- "snap shooting" just doesn't cover it!


P. S. Serious about assessing your lens? My suggestion for your next loupe (pic below):
 
Last edited:
There was a debate in LHSA's Viewfinder about how to evaluate a lens.
1. MTF, resolution et al are objective
2. Personal test is subjective, involve Personal taste bias

I think we should combine above two. high contrast high resolution not mean a lens will suit for your needs, user can give their general 'feeling' about their lens. a copy lens or a enlarge lens' resolution can reach 300lpm but these are not suitable for general photography.
 
Brian,
Empirical testing is real world use and observation, not scientific testing and analysis. The point of my post is that it is simply a waste of time and energy to draw any conclusions about how two lenses, yours or mine, perform except to say that is how these two specific lenses performed against one another on a given day -- under very limited circumstances and conditions. Perhaps I should also have elaborated to say that if anyone is concerned about the performance of their lenses they need to put much more effort into the process than most people realize, at least if they are to draw any relevant conclusions from their observations.

I quite reluctantly perform controlled tests on my lenses because as often as possible I buy three or four of whatever lens I am interested in, test them all, and keep the best one. My tests are of constant objects that replicate the qualities of the subjects that I most often shoot. Is it fun? Hell no, I hate it -- the most boring thing I do with a camera:D! I do it once, get it over with, make the decision on which to keep and never revisit it again! This could be why I am so relieved not to be buying much gear anymore. From my experience many of the same type lenses perform somewhat equally, even under examination with a good loupe; this is where the microscope comes into play. Once you bring the film grain into sharp focus then you can assess the detailed sharpness of particular portions of the objects photographed -- that is how I discern the difference between lenses, but it takes time.

Like you, I also have all of my lenses professionally serviced and collimated -- Century Optics in LA and Henry Scherer are two firms that perform these services to a higher standard than any other company I have found (Essex is high volume and does not give the personal attention to gear that Century and Scherer do, Century is connected with the movie industry -- tough customers). If your lenses are not clean and properly adjusted any conclusions on performance become all the more meaningless. It's hard to convince people to put their money into proper service -- there's no glory in it, not like buying a flashy new toy to show off. By the way, it gives me great pleasure to announce that I have nothing new to test!
 
Last edited:
collect data and analyze it is not a solely CIA's job. for lens I like to ask people's comments, collect them and analyze them, I also check available scientific lens test, but they only test one lens and in some point bias too.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/7316/sort/1/cat/500/page/1

this is an old beat up lens but I like its character

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/7315/sort/1/size/medium/cat/500/page/1

compare to this new lens
 
Last edited:
I love both of your shots, especially the first. Data and opinions are great as long as you keep the error of small sampling in mind -- one opinion about two lenses is about as small as you can get! :D :D :D

My personal philosophy is to find good gear, use it, and leave the banter to Photo.net, Leica thread.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom