ferider
Veteran
--------------
PS (04/05/2016): on suggestion of Steve, I also added 50/1.8 measurements to this thread, post 16 forward, and the thread title was changed accordingly.
--------------
There are lots of opinions, photos, and some comparisons of Canon LTM lenses on-line. But not really much data even though they can be easily collected with a digital Leica today. So I felt the following technical comparison using my 240 would add some value. As a side note, with one exception (Canon 1.2 and 1.4 distortion comparison), please do not conclude anything from the colors below, photos were taken at different day times. Click on the photos to see higher resolution jpegs.
CANON 50mm/1.2 VS CANON 50mm/1.4
I've always been attracted to these two lens designs, because they are quite unique. The 1.4 is the only fast 50 that I know with a straight Planar design. The 50/1.2 is the only 7 element 50 that I know in which the seventh element was added to the front of a Planar, making the lens fat but quite short.
My 1.2 is from the late 50s, my 1.4 comparatively late, from the 70s. I use the original hood on the 1.2, a Hoya 48mm hood on the 1.4 and IR cut filters on both. Both lenses easily vignette with filter and wrong hood added.
CANON 50mm/1.2 VS CANON 50mm/1.4 - TEST PHOTOS
1) Minimum focus, DOF and focus shift, first 1.4, second 1.2:
2) Field curvature at min. focus; take a photo focused in the center, recompose to move the center into the field, and see how much of the cosine effect remains (see also http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148485). Like this:
Crops:
3) Vignetting for both lenses is similar and not surprising:
4) Close to infinity performance; using the same photos as taken for the vignetting test. If you read other tests I do, you'll know this antenna ... First photo compares center crops, second reasonably off-center crops.
5) Bokeh; these lenses were designed long before the bokeh term was invented, and have mechanically interesting double apertures. Which might surprise you when taking a "bokeh shot" closed down a bit, with the 1.4 in particular. First the 1.4, second the 1.2:
CANON 50mm/1.2 VS CANON 50mm/1.4 - CONCLUSIONS
A) A well calibrated 50/1.4 LTM is an optically outstanding performer for its time, practically very similar to the pre-asph Summilux: high infinity resolution already at f1.4, and a nice flat field. Note that the "Japanese Summilux", and the pre-asph also distort similarly (meaning significantly). If you ignore distortion, wrt resolution, an infinity picture from the Canon 50/1.4 will be difficult to distinguish from, say, a rigid Summicron, at the same f-stops.
B) If you look at field performance, and in contrast to it being often called soft, the Canon 1.2 does surprisingly well, almost comparable to the 1.4, both lenses perform similarly f2 and up. Due to field curvature, however, the 1.2 center remains soft, and only catches up to the 1.4 at f5.6 or higher. Do note that I had to reshim my 1.2 when receiving it. The 1.4 was perfectly collimated out of the box.
C) The 1.2 field curvature compensates perfectly for the cosine effect. This makes the 1.2 an easy to handle portrait lens for "focus and recompose". When you use the 1.4, you have to consciously front-focus before recomposing.
D) Both lenses shift similarly, quantitatively similar to, say, the pre-asph Lux, or a modern 50/1.5 Nokton.
E) If you want beautiful bokeh closing the lens down a bit, these lenses are not for you. Due to the double aperture, there are "spikes" in the OOF circles at f2.0 and f2.8; this effect is more pronounced with the 1.4.
Hope this helps looking for an affordable 50,
Roland.
PS (04/05/2016): on suggestion of Steve, I also added 50/1.8 measurements to this thread, post 16 forward, and the thread title was changed accordingly.
--------------
There are lots of opinions, photos, and some comparisons of Canon LTM lenses on-line. But not really much data even though they can be easily collected with a digital Leica today. So I felt the following technical comparison using my 240 would add some value. As a side note, with one exception (Canon 1.2 and 1.4 distortion comparison), please do not conclude anything from the colors below, photos were taken at different day times. Click on the photos to see higher resolution jpegs.
CANON 50mm/1.2 VS CANON 50mm/1.4
I've always been attracted to these two lens designs, because they are quite unique. The 1.4 is the only fast 50 that I know with a straight Planar design. The 50/1.2 is the only 7 element 50 that I know in which the seventh element was added to the front of a Planar, making the lens fat but quite short.
My 1.2 is from the late 50s, my 1.4 comparatively late, from the 70s. I use the original hood on the 1.2, a Hoya 48mm hood on the 1.4 and IR cut filters on both. Both lenses easily vignette with filter and wrong hood added.
CANON 50mm/1.2 VS CANON 50mm/1.4 - TEST PHOTOS
1) Minimum focus, DOF and focus shift, first 1.4, second 1.2:
2) Field curvature at min. focus; take a photo focused in the center, recompose to move the center into the field, and see how much of the cosine effect remains (see also http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=148485). Like this:
Crops:
3) Vignetting for both lenses is similar and not surprising:
4) Close to infinity performance; using the same photos as taken for the vignetting test. If you read other tests I do, you'll know this antenna ... First photo compares center crops, second reasonably off-center crops.
5) Bokeh; these lenses were designed long before the bokeh term was invented, and have mechanically interesting double apertures. Which might surprise you when taking a "bokeh shot" closed down a bit, with the 1.4 in particular. First the 1.4, second the 1.2:
CANON 50mm/1.2 VS CANON 50mm/1.4 - CONCLUSIONS
A) A well calibrated 50/1.4 LTM is an optically outstanding performer for its time, practically very similar to the pre-asph Summilux: high infinity resolution already at f1.4, and a nice flat field. Note that the "Japanese Summilux", and the pre-asph also distort similarly (meaning significantly). If you ignore distortion, wrt resolution, an infinity picture from the Canon 50/1.4 will be difficult to distinguish from, say, a rigid Summicron, at the same f-stops.
B) If you look at field performance, and in contrast to it being often called soft, the Canon 1.2 does surprisingly well, almost comparable to the 1.4, both lenses perform similarly f2 and up. Due to field curvature, however, the 1.2 center remains soft, and only catches up to the 1.4 at f5.6 or higher. Do note that I had to reshim my 1.2 when receiving it. The 1.4 was perfectly collimated out of the box.
C) The 1.2 field curvature compensates perfectly for the cosine effect. This makes the 1.2 an easy to handle portrait lens for "focus and recompose". When you use the 1.4, you have to consciously front-focus before recomposing.
D) Both lenses shift similarly, quantitatively similar to, say, the pre-asph Lux, or a modern 50/1.5 Nokton.
E) If you want beautiful bokeh closing the lens down a bit, these lenses are not for you. Due to the double aperture, there are "spikes" in the OOF circles at f2.0 and f2.8; this effect is more pronounced with the 1.4.
Hope this helps looking for an affordable 50,
Roland.
