Canon LTM Canon 1.2 vs. 1.4 vs. 1.8 LTM, a technical comparison

[wilsonlaidlaw]

I am afraid I slightly disagree with you about the corners on the Canon 50/1.8 being sharp. I post below two corner crops of the Canon 1.8 and a Sonnar 50/1.5 (a 1954 version without the "T" coating). Whereas the Sonnar is very soft at f1.5 it is not showing the spherical aberration that the Canon 1.8 is. I suspect I could have got a sharper corner on the Sonnar if I had moved my zoomed focus point from the centre of the field to the corner, as I can do on the Leica SL, as this would have eliminated the field curvature that the Sonnar is known for but that is not how you take photographs.

I have not posted centre crops but I would agree that the Canon has greater contrast and is a little sharper in the centre of the image both lenses wide open. Both of these images taken on a Leica SL, the Sonnar using an Amedeo Muscellii Contax RF to M adapter. Focus peaking, which is contrast dependent, starts in the centre of the image at f2 on the Canon and at f2.8 on the Sonnar, which surprised me. I would have expected the Sonnar to have greater contrast. Both these lenses are in near mint condition with no fungus, fogging or cleaning marks. The Canon is a low serial number, so probably dates from 1951 or 52. The Sonnar is family owned from new, the Canon is a recent acquistion.

Interestingly, the corners on both the Canon and Sonnar were less sharp on my Leica M240 than the SL. I have noticed that the M240 is unkind to older lenses in the corners and edges, maybe an effect of its angled microlenses on the sensor. The centres were identical between the SL and M240.

Wilson

 

[kshapero]

I have the Canon 50mm f1.2, just got it really. I am waiting for my first 3 rolls to come back from the developer. Can't wait. M y question is that I heard that a UV filter does weird things. What does this mean? Causes flare? Also would hood be helpful?

 

[ferider]

Some filters touch the front element, Akiva. B+W or Hoya HMC work for me. Hoods are good but you need push-on, screw in with filter will vignette f5.6 and up.

 

[Sonnar2]

Resolution isn't everything. Particularly I found the 50/1.8 very prone to backlite flare and reduced contrast (gray-washed shadows). This is not what I like as "vintage look"... - probably worse with vs.II (my example looks absolutely clear/free of fogging) than the heavier, chrome build vs.I.

 

[kuuan]

Resolution isn't everything. Particularly I found the 50/1.8 very prone to backlite flare and reduced contrast (gray-washed shadows). This is not what I like as "vintage look"... - probably worse with vs.II (my example looks absolutely clear/free of fogging) than the heavier, chrome build vs.I.

oh, this is interesting! Both my ver.1 of the f1.8 and the f1.4 handle backlight better than my ( various copies but all not perfectly clean ) ver.2 of the f1.8, but so far I have not publicly stated these finding because I have been assuming that this weakness of the ver.II might be due to my copies not having 100% clear glass

 

[wilsonlaidlaw]

The nice thing about the Canon f1.8 is that if you want to use it with colour negative film, its colour rendition, although not perfect, is a lot better than my 1953 Leica Summitar, which is very blue and cold. The Canon is also not at the other extreme of the early "radioactive" Summicrons. which will have turned very yellow due to the effect of the radioactivity on the lanthanum glass. You also cannot use these on fast film, if you leave it in the camera for any period, as although there is an alpha and beta particle blocker as the last element, it does not block gamma rays. These are at a very low level but enough to fog fast film over a few weeks.

 

[romualdo]

I have one of these hoods for my 1.8 and it does fit but the thread pitch is slightly different and it does not screw in all the way. It works but one has to be careful about its stability.

I picked up one of these Fuji hoods for my Canon 35mm f2 LTM (2nd version) - it screws in completely with no problems