CANON 1.4 LTM as back-up or 35 LUX / CRON all the way??

[FOWL]

Hello again,

I have been using a Summaron 35/2.8 for most of my analogue colour work (I also have a 50 Skopar 2.5 and DR 50 which I like but the later is a bit cumbersome for everyday use).

I greatly admire the sharpness/contrast/colour rendering of the Ron at all F stops, its a total masterpiece.

I was thinking of pairing it with a smaller, faster lens though for low light situations when the 2.8 just doesn't cut it and i'm half way through a roll, so can't easily switch up an ASA. I want to keep a similar look/feel to the Ron (and it should not be bigger/heavier than the Ron either).

I have used a friends 35 'CRON type IV and I did like the ergonomics and naturally the extra stop was super-useful- though i did notice it was a bit more contrasty (not-overly so in IMHO like many modern lenses) but just on the edge of acceptability for me.

Would anyone care to recommend the Canon 50mm 1.4/1.2 for those situations when I need the extra stop or should I just bite the bullet and go for a used 35 'CRON/LUX??.

Yes, I realise they're like comparing oranges and lemons and the canon is a different focal length not to mention the price differential - but for me they do seem strangely comparable because the canon would never substitute the Ron for daily work, whereas if I had a LUX/CRON - the tendency would be to leave them permanently mounted, which would be a shame for old Ron, who is satisfactory 90% of the time...

Thanks for advice.

 

[Fixcinater]

The Canon 50/1.2 is quite a bit heavier/denser than the 1.4. You could look at the Canon 50/1.8, which is in my experience just as good as the 1.4 and a good deal smaller and cheaper.

As for contrast, my experience with the Canon 50mm lineup shows the 1.2 to be the lowest, with the 1.4 looking the most modern and highest contrast. The 1.8 is somewhere in between, at least with my examples of them. The 1.5 Sonnar clone Canon/Serenar might be a nice addition to the Summaron but is quite dense and heavy compared to the 1.8.

 

[bobby_novatron]

I don't know if I can help you out with your predicament, but I own a couple of those lenses so maybe I can pass on some insights.

FWIW, I own the Cron 35/2 and Canon 50/1.4 ... also owned a DR 50/2 until about 6 months ago.

1. This is probably obvious but the Cron 35/2 will have a more modern rendering (i.e. more contrast) than the Canon. The Canon is an excellent lens, but it will look softer when used wide-open.
2. The Canon is bigger than the Leica -- you mentioned ergonomics, so I thought I'd throw that in there. The Canon 50/1.4 is considerably bigger and heavier than the Cron 35/2. The Cron 35/2 is very compact. Can't comment on the Lux 35/1.4, but it's probably still smaller than the Canon.
3. The F-stop détentes on the Canon 50/1.4 feel "different" than the Leica. The F-stop ring doesn't feel as precise, although it probably depends on age, wear, etc. -- at least with my Canon it doesn't feel as precise.
4. Only you really know whether the extra $$$ would be worth spending ... the Canon is much more affordable, especially if it's only going to be an occasional-use lens.

Good luck with your search! BTW here's a photo of my Canon 50/1.4, just for curiosity's sake.

 

[jaapv]

The comparison for the Summicron 50/2.0 should be the Canon 1.8/50, which is sharper than the Leica lens (and than the Canon 1.4 and 1.2 lenses). As compact and lighter. The only drawback is the pastel-like colour rendering (easily corrected in the digital age). On the Monochrom it is a superior lens.
Another underrated lens is the Canon 35/2.8. Small and light and of high quality it is an interesting alternative to the Summaron.

 

[rfaspen]

I have a summaron (35/2.8 and 3.5) and a Canon 50/1.4 (and a v4 50 cron, and Canon 50/1.8, but not summilux of any focal length 🙁 ). I do like my Canon 50/1.4 and the images I can get from it. The speed is half the reason I got it and keep it. However, if I ever find myself in the position to get a summilux (50mm) I will do it. Why? Handling.... As good as the Canon is, the focus throw is soooo long and it takes me quite a while to get to focus. Compared to my 50 cron, its laughable. The Leica 50 lux handles just how I wish the Canon 50/1.4 did. My friend has one and I really liked it for the very short time I got to try it. The Canon 50/1.8 is very capable lens.....smaller than the 1.4, just as sharp (sharper?) and compares well with the 50 cron. The focus throw is better. Not expensive either.

My fast 35 is a Zeiss 35/2. Love the handling and really love the images. A tad large though. I have to say the 35 cron is just about perfect handling-wise. And you get great images too. Never held or considered the 35 lux, but I have considered the CV 35/1.4 as my "fast" 35. They're not expensive and perform plenty well, with the focus shift being the only valid complaint from the critics. I thought it outdid or matched the pre-asph lux in tests I've seen. Focus shift happens, and when you're poor like me you learn to embrace it. Then there's that CV 35/1.2. A big guy, but you get something special from him. My friend had one of those too. It was a good lens to have in the cupboard or bag.

Canon 50/1.4 lenses are going to surprisingly cheap these days. About 1.2 what I paid for mine a couple years ago (I don't buy stock by myself). The CV 35/1.4 used is going for about the same or sometimes less than I paid for my Canon 50/1.4 (which was about $400). Those seem like good places to start your quest...

Eh, I forgot about the Canon 35/2....um, add that to the list.

 

[uhoh7]

Honestly as a low light backup for RF, nothing on earth beats the CV 35/1.2, as it offers not only speed but DOF. Calibration is generally good too.

The two Canons are very different. Both nice in their own way. But calibration is a total can of worms, the copies are not consistent, so be prepared to deal with that.

The 1.4 is the technically better lens, but the 1.2 is way faster and makes some interesting bokeh. That CV 35/1.2 is sharp as the 1.4 but has more old school rendering and bokeh.

 

[michaelwj]

Bite the bullet and save for the pre-asph lux. It is absolutely beautiful and a perfect match for the ron. Same era, similar low levels of distortion. Keep in mind I'm basing my ron thought on pics only, I've mounted one to my camera but never shot one.
I had the pleasure of use one for a few weeks (kindly on loan from jmilkins here on RFF), and if my bank balance would allow, I'd have one in a second.
It's a bit expense, but if you like 35s, the lux/ron pairing would be fantastic!

 

[rfaspen]

True about the focus calibration of the LTM Canons. My 50/1.4 is a tad off compared to my modern Leica lenses. My bodies are in Leica spec and work with Leica M-mount lenses rather well (although I have an old 90 elmarit that's waaay off). I'm pretty sure my Canon 50/1.4 back focuses a little, and its more obvious on the digital M's than the film ones.

All I hear is good things about the CV 35/1.2, but I'm still likely to end up with a 35/1.4 at some point. Just to see if it fits well with my lens selection.

 

[astro8]

I would sell the Summaron and use $ towards a 35 Summilux and forget the 50/1.4 Canon. Compared to the DR or Rigid Summicron, the Canon was a bit of a let down for me.

For all intents and purposes the 35 Summilux stopped down to F2.0 and F2.8 will replace a v1Summicron at F2.0 and a Summaron at F2.8 respectively, for both b&w and colour.

To be sure to be sure...If you can manage it, buy a 35 Summilux to compare to your Summaron but I doubt it will be long before you come to the same conclusion as I.

 

[uhoh7]

True about the focus calibration of the LTM Canons. My 50/1.4 is a tad off compared to my modern Leica lenses. My bodies are in Leica spec and work with Leica M-mount lenses rather well (although I have an old 90 elmarit that's waaay off). I'm pretty sure my Canon 50/1.4 back focuses a little, and its more obvious on the digital M's than the film ones.

All I hear is good things about the CV 35/1.2, but I'm still likely to end up with a 35/1.4 at some point. Just to see if it fits well with my lens selection.

Interesting choices at 35/1.4

CV 35/1.4
pre-asph Lux
asph Lux
FLE

FLE is way down in price, and is basically identical to asph except with better performance close in. Arguably the best 35 in the world.

ASPH is great modern lens.

Pre-asph has high copy variation, but a good copy is fantastic, unique lens with huge FC WO
CV is 400 bucks and pretty good. Sort of meant to reference the pre-asph, but it's softer WO, with less CA. Stopped down it's real sharp, with noticeable distortion.

The latter 2 lenses are nice and small. 🙂

 

[raid]

I have the Canon 35/2, 35/1.5, 35/1.8, 50/1.4, 50/1.5, 50/1.4.
I have the Summilux 35/1.4 and the Summicron 35/2, plus the 50/2 ...

On most of my travels, my main lens is the Summilux pre-asph 35/1.4. It is a very versatile lens. The Canon 50/1.4 has become quite cheap, so adding it does not hurt.

 

[FOWL]

thanks everyone...
out of the Canons which one is best wide open 1.2,1,4 or 1.8?
I think the CV 1.2 is for me too chunky...probably the 1.2 is too..
Im curious to hear if there are alt. smaller CV lenses that don't suffer from visible distortion?
I do like the 2.5 skopar..its just as slow as the Ron though!

 

[Mackinaw]

Difficult question. Owning the 50/1.2 and 50/1.4, the 1.4 is definitely better than the 1.2 wide-open, but the 1.2 has much more character with it's crazy out-of-focus highlights. If you shoot a lot of portraits, I'd look seriously at the 1.2, if you need an everyday knock-around lens, the 1.4 would be a fine pick.

I've never owned the 50/1.8, so no comment on that.

Jim B.

 

[michaelwj]

thanks everyone...
out of the Canons which one is best wide open 1.2,1,4 or 1.8?
I think the CV 1.2 is for me too chunky...probably the 1.2 is too..
Im curious to hear if there are alt. smaller CV lenses that don't suffer from visible distortion?
I do like the 2.5 skopar..its just as slow as the Ron though!

The one without distortion is the skopar. But as you've noticed it's slow. It's not "better" than the ron, but is a bit more modern in its rendering.

 

[GaryLH]

In 50s, I have had the cron v3, Konica 50f2, cv 50f1.5, Canon 50f1.8 and 50f1.2. The Canon 50f1.8 and Konica 50 u should be able find at a reasonable price. I love the 50f1.2 for the character wide open and low contrast. The cv 50 and Konica behave like modern lenses.. I still use the 50f1.2 as a portrait lens on apsc mirrorless cameras..

Gary

 

[TRIago]

I had the Canon 50 1.4 in the past. DAG did a CLA for me on that lens, it was such a smooth and sharp lens, I really liked it. As sharp as my 50 Rigid Cron, only with a bit more distortion. I sold because did not make sense to keep it, but I guess I miss that lens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fraser]

I like the Canon 50mm 1.2, I'm sure the 1.4 is better than the 1.2 wide open but its not 1.2. Its a great lens for fun but to be honest 99% of the time I use 35mm v4 summicron just because I prefer a 35mm on the leica. I do have a 35mm pre asph summilux that I sometimes use for film and mine is a good copy but in my opinion I think its more like 2.8 before it catches up to the Summicron, someone mentioned about the canon 50mm 1.8 being as good as the 50 summicron V4 and its only my opinion and again maybe it my copy of the lens but the canon come no where near a 50 summicron.
Th eone lens that I sometimes wish I had never sold was the Canon 35mm f2 great lens for the price I rated it better than the pre asph summilux (but its not 1.4) they seem to be increasing in price and getting close to a 40mm summicron probably the best value for money M lens,
good luck
15fbpicM9canon50_01 by f4saregreat!, on Flickr