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.
sanmich
Veteran
Thanks for the review Roland.
the 1.4 is an incredibly good lens in terms of resolution.
The distortion made me sell it.
I have now a Nokton 1.5. I hope it's better in that field, but I'm not sure.
the 1.4 is an incredibly good lens in terms of resolution.
The distortion made me sell it.
I have now a Nokton 1.5. I hope it's better in that field, but I'm not sure.
ferider
Veteran
Thanks, Michael.
I was thinking how to visualize the most surprising finding of my test. This is the Canon 50/1.2 at f1.2:
People often complain about lack of this lens' resolution. Well it's actually very sharp, but due to field curvature less so in the center than in the area between the two red rings above. If you ignore CA, a little glow and low macro-contrast (i.e., all you B+W shooters out there), this easily beats for instance any Sonnar variant that I have tried, at least up to f2.
Roland.
I was thinking how to visualize the most surprising finding of my test. This is the Canon 50/1.2 at f1.2:
People often complain about lack of this lens' resolution. Well it's actually very sharp, but due to field curvature less so in the center than in the area between the two red rings above. If you ignore CA, a little glow and low macro-contrast (i.e., all you B+W shooters out there), this easily beats for instance any Sonnar variant that I have tried, at least up to f2.
Roland.
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you for this technical report, Roland. I have both lenses, and both lenses are "very good" overall. Not "distinguished" though.
ferider
Veteran
Finally: distortion, color and contrast
Finally: distortion, color and contrast
Thanks, Raid.
To compare distortion, color and contrast, I took these two pictures (minutes apart, of my wife's stained glass), 2m focus distance, both lenses @f2:
Canon 50/1.2:
Canon 50/1.4:
In both jpgs above I boosted the low-lights a bit (colors were left as shot), so you could see the red line on top of the stained glass frame. The raw files showed the following level distributions:
1) the red line shows that both lenses barrel distort, the 1.4 more than the 1.2
2) the overall contrast of the 1.4 is significantly higher than the 1.2 @f2
3) the 1.4 renders colors colder than the 1.2
Thanks for looking,
Roland.
Finally: distortion, color and contrast
Thanks, Raid.
To compare distortion, color and contrast, I took these two pictures (minutes apart, of my wife's stained glass), 2m focus distance, both lenses @f2:
Canon 50/1.2:
Canon 50/1.4:
In both jpgs above I boosted the low-lights a bit (colors were left as shot), so you could see the red line on top of the stained glass frame. The raw files showed the following level distributions:
1) the red line shows that both lenses barrel distort, the 1.4 more than the 1.2
2) the overall contrast of the 1.4 is significantly higher than the 1.2 @f2
3) the 1.4 renders colors colder than the 1.2
Thanks for looking,
Roland.
Bingley
Veteran
Great review and comparison, Roland! Thanks for posting this. It would be interesting, I think, to expand the comparison to include the Canon 50/1.8, which is also reportedly a planar design.
Mackinaw
Think Different
I never noticed the distortion in either lens, though I mainly use these lenses for portraits and/or street photography. The Canon 50/1.4 is the standard lens on my M-240 and MP. The 50/1.2 is one of my favorite portrait lenses. Real unique character when shot wide-open, or near it.
Jim B.
Jim B.
uhoh7
Veteran
uhoh7
Veteran
Here at F/5.6:
50/1.2:
L1041920 by unoh7, on Flickr
50/1.4
L1041991 by unoh7, on Flickr
To my sensibility it's "Classic" vs "Modern"
I think the 50/1.4 is well understood and appreciated. The 50/1.2 is not understood or appreciated by all that many, and in fact it's a far stronger lens than most assume, but like the Sonnars, the strength is usually in the center. I did not realize how sharp it was in the central frame by F/2 until recently.
Here about 1.8ish:
Hemi by unoh7, Canon LTM 50/1.2
The M9 seems very faithful to these designs.
50/1.2:
L1041920 by unoh7, on Flickr
50/1.4
L1041991 by unoh7, on Flickr
To my sensibility it's "Classic" vs "Modern"
I think the 50/1.4 is well understood and appreciated. The 50/1.2 is not understood or appreciated by all that many, and in fact it's a far stronger lens than most assume, but like the Sonnars, the strength is usually in the center. I did not realize how sharp it was in the central frame by F/2 until recently.
Here about 1.8ish:
Hemi by unoh7, Canon LTM 50/1.2
The M9 seems very faithful to these designs.
Mackinaw
Think Different
You’re right. The 50/1.2, when shot wide-open, or near it, is sharpest in the center.
Here’s a pic of a rat-rod shot with the Canon 50/1.2 wide-open. Efke 25 film if I’m right. On my MP.
Jim B.
Here’s a pic of a rat-rod shot with the Canon 50/1.2 wide-open. Efke 25 film if I’m right. On my MP.
Jim B.
jmilkins
Digited User
Thank you Roland for further images of my favourite antenna and surrounds that has taught me much over the years! Well, it's your interpretation really that has done that.
Also good to see samples from more RFF members.
In Canon I've had the 1.4 for quite a while and a 1.5 because they are so different. So far resisted the 1.8 and 1.2 and .95 because of other brand 50s, but maybe one day!
Thanks again for adding to the RFF knowledge base.
Also good to see samples from more RFF members.
In Canon I've had the 1.4 for quite a while and a 1.5 because they are so different. So far resisted the 1.8 and 1.2 and .95 because of other brand 50s, but maybe one day!
Thanks again for adding to the RFF knowledge base.
fenixv8
Established
Thank you for posting. I have a 50 1.4, found this to be a very interesting read.
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
In my copy of 50mm f1.2, the oil between the elements, which is a common problem (sometimes etches the elements) affect the degree of glowing and fuzziness at wide open. I clean it by my self and it gives great colors and sharpness on my Nex-7. I will try to post some images.
For a quick comparison, open this page and move the mouse over the image...
Thanks, Raid.
To compare distortion, color and contrast, I took these two pictures (minutes apart, of my wife's stained glass), 2m focus distance, both lenses @f2:
Canon 50/1.2:
Canon 50/1.4:
ferider
Veteran
Adding the 50/1.8 to the comparison
Adding the 50/1.8 to the comparison
Thanks, Steve ! Alright, so here is the 50/1.8, just for you Lens is clean, serial 299xxx and cost US 170, from a great ebay seller in the UK.
THE CANON 50mm/1.8:
First of all, the 50/1.8 is a very cute lens, tiny really (the M3 in the background has the 50/1.4 mounted, for size comparison). Also, these days it's easier to find 40mm hoods and filters, as Marumi makes them for Fuji cameras.
Here is how my copy is calibrated at minimum focus, and how it shifts backwards (like most 50s) when closing the aperture (click on this or the following pictures to enlarge, please)
My copy front-focuses wide open by a little less than an inch, which makes it perform optimally at f2.8, and also helps compensate for the cosine effect (the following has centered focus on the left, and the same focus point but the camera de-centered on the right):
The typical antenna shot to show near infinity resolution in the center:
And the same shot with 100% crop in the field:
Since this turns out to be a nice landscape lens, let's look at coma with an early morning test shot from our deck:
Center crop of the above at different apertures:
And field-crop, to show coma (which basically disappears at f5.6):
And finally a similar distortion test as above, my wife's stained glass at f2, and 2m focus distance; this is at a different time time of day than the respective Canon 1.4/1.2 shots, so please do not compare colors.
No distortion to speak of, and similar contrast as the 50/1.4.
CANON 50mm/1.8 - CONCLUSIONS:
For all practical purposes, the Canon 50/1.8 behaves just like the Canon 50/1.4, without funky bokeh at medium apertures, and without the 50/1.4's (already reasonable) distortion. Not shown here, but the 1.8 is also more flare proof than the 1.4.
That's all folks
Roland.
Adding the 50/1.8 to the comparison
Thanks, Steve ! Alright, so here is the 50/1.8, just for you
Lens is clean, serial 299xxx and cost US 170, from a great ebay seller in the UK.THE CANON 50mm/1.8:
First of all, the 50/1.8 is a very cute lens, tiny really (the M3 in the background has the 50/1.4 mounted, for size comparison). Also, these days it's easier to find 40mm hoods and filters, as Marumi makes them for Fuji cameras.
Here is how my copy is calibrated at minimum focus, and how it shifts backwards (like most 50s) when closing the aperture (click on this or the following pictures to enlarge, please)
My copy front-focuses wide open by a little less than an inch, which makes it perform optimally at f2.8, and also helps compensate for the cosine effect (the following has centered focus on the left, and the same focus point but the camera de-centered on the right):
The typical antenna shot to show near infinity resolution in the center:
And the same shot with 100% crop in the field:
Since this turns out to be a nice landscape lens, let's look at coma with an early morning test shot from our deck:
Center crop of the above at different apertures:
And field-crop, to show coma (which basically disappears at f5.6):
And finally a similar distortion test as above, my wife's stained glass at f2, and 2m focus distance; this is at a different time time of day than the respective Canon 1.4/1.2 shots, so please do not compare colors.
No distortion to speak of, and similar contrast as the 50/1.4.
CANON 50mm/1.8 - CONCLUSIONS:
For all practical purposes, the Canon 50/1.8 behaves just like the Canon 50/1.4, without funky bokeh at medium apertures, and without the 50/1.4's (already reasonable) distortion. Not shown here, but the 1.8 is also more flare proof than the 1.4.
That's all folks
Roland.
Bingley
Veteran
Thanks, Roland. Interesting results which tend to confirm the 50/1.8's status as a terrific bargain if you can get a clean one. I agree that the lens comes into its own around f2.8, which is good since that's an aperture I often use. BTW, I've found the bokeh on the 50/1.8 to be very smooth. I appreciate the time you took to add the 50/1.8 to the comparison. Thanks again!
ferider
Veteran
Agree, Steve, hard to believe how inexpensive the 50/1.8 is, when technically, it really compares well to - say - an early Summicron (collapsible or rigid). And let's not forget the additional half stop for basically the same size.
Thanks for motivating me to have a second look at it !
-----------
And anybody else, feel free to post examples of any of the 3 Canon 50s in this thread (thanks Helen, Jim and Uhoh7).
Thanks for motivating me to have a second look at it !
-----------
And anybody else, feel free to post examples of any of the 3 Canon 50s in this thread (thanks Helen, Jim and Uhoh7).
I wonder if that all comes down to the handling of the lens. Summicrons have always just been more comfortable to use for me (quicker, shorter focus throw, etc.). Same with the 50mm 1.4 canon vs. the 1.8 (at least the chrome 1.8). I just never got into the way the 1.8 felt. You did say technically though...
ferider
Veteran
Indeed JS, I carefully avoided judgement on handling and build. Got burnt in another thread once .... And it's very subjective, obviously.
Fixcinater
Never enough smoky peat
Thank you for going through all of the work and posting results, fun to see the comparisons and read your take on things.
Your experiences WRT IQ mirror or largely match my own, FWIW.
Your experiences WRT IQ mirror or largely match my own, FWIW.