Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
You have some very nice shots in your flickr gallery with the Sonnar.
back alley
IMAGES
it's a great lens, just out of my budget these days.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I'd go for the Canon 50/1.5 Joe
A canon 50/1.5 is going to run ~$400 and up these days.
Jupiter-3's can be every bit as good.
On my M8:
And wide-open on the M9.
About 1/3rd the cost of a Canon.
Jupiter-3's can be every bit as good.
On my M8:
And wide-open on the M9.
About 1/3rd the cost of a Canon.
uhoh7
Veteran
the Canon 50/1.2 LTM seems to vary alot between copys, my latest seems to work pretty good, very very dim here. This is on APS-C
original
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5030/5601618575_aa848e761e_o.jpg
The nokton 1.1 actually has similar OOF in my tests, and of course is sharper at all apertures, but the canon I'm finding far more practical. It's dramatically lighter and shorter, and the DOF is much easier for me.
This Canon 1.2 copy has some filter scratches, and a few other hairlines on the front element, but the rear and inner elements are totally free of haze and cleaning marks. I will say that in low light it has surprising contrast. Paid 450. Ouch.
When I stop it down its not bad, but my Canon 1.4 LTM walks all over it at f/8
In fact maybe that's a lens to consider. Good copies running about 280, and it's almost 100 grams lighter than the 1.2.
Here's the 1.4 wide open on the battlefield:
I'd assume the 1.5 is equally variable. The jupi 3 would be great IF you find a good copy from US seller, I think Brian said don't get the black one.
I do hear folks raving about the CV 50/1.5, which I think can be found for under 400.
original
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5030/5601618575_aa848e761e_o.jpg
The nokton 1.1 actually has similar OOF in my tests, and of course is sharper at all apertures, but the canon I'm finding far more practical. It's dramatically lighter and shorter, and the DOF is much easier for me.
This Canon 1.2 copy has some filter scratches, and a few other hairlines on the front element, but the rear and inner elements are totally free of haze and cleaning marks. I will say that in low light it has surprising contrast. Paid 450. Ouch.
When I stop it down its not bad, but my Canon 1.4 LTM walks all over it at f/8
In fact maybe that's a lens to consider. Good copies running about 280, and it's almost 100 grams lighter than the 1.2.
Here's the 1.4 wide open on the battlefield:
I'd assume the 1.5 is equally variable. The jupi 3 would be great IF you find a good copy from US seller, I think Brian said don't get the black one.
I do hear folks raving about the CV 50/1.5, which I think can be found for under 400.
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
that looks pretty soft brian.
the canon 50/1.4 has been looked at as well, still unsure about it though.
for me, the cv 40/1.4 seems to get in the way of most other lenses, small and sharp and single coated...reasonable price but i think it just went up by a few bucks recently.
the canon 50/1.4 has been looked at as well, still unsure about it though.
for me, the cv 40/1.4 seems to get in the way of most other lenses, small and sharp and single coated...reasonable price but i think it just went up by a few bucks recently.
I'll shoot a comparison with the Canon 50/1.5. In past comparisons on the Canon 7, the Canon 50/1.5 was not quite as sharp as the Nikkor 5cm f1.4 or a really good J-3. But... after that test, I changed the shim on the Canon to optimize for wide-open. Need to put it on the M9.
On the Obligatory Fence Post image, J-3 used in flower shots looked good.
That does not mean selling my Canon 50/1.5.
Who ended up with the one that I traded to you?
On the Obligatory Fence Post image, J-3 used in flower shots looked good.
That does not mean selling my Canon 50/1.5.
Who ended up with the one that I traded to you?
So I checked out the Canon 50/1.5 on the M9. The first thing that is apparent: focus shift of a Sonnar on a Digital Camera stands out more than it does on film. Part of it is pixel-peeping, part is the sensor is so flat compared with film. The lens is perfect at F2. The shift at F1.5 and F4 was readily identified. I also took out my 1935 Sonnar, which was also was spot-on at F2. That one I re-shimmed. Remembered why I converted that one- it's focal length is the Leica Standard, perhaps because the front element was coated after manufacture. My luck, because it maintains focus throughout the entire range from 3ft to infinity.
Long story short- the Canon 50/1.5 was sharper than the 1967 ZOMZ J-3, and on par with my best KMZ's. More contrast than the 1935 Sonnar.
Joe- you've owned the canon 50/1.2, Canon 50/1.5, and Canon 50/1.4. You sold/traded all of them. Of all the fast-50s you've had, the Nokton 50/1.1 seemed to be your favorite. You are going to end up with one anywhay, why not just save for it?
Long story short- the Canon 50/1.5 was sharper than the 1967 ZOMZ J-3, and on par with my best KMZ's. More contrast than the 1935 Sonnar.
Joe- you've owned the canon 50/1.2, Canon 50/1.5, and Canon 50/1.4. You sold/traded all of them. Of all the fast-50s you've had, the Nokton 50/1.1 seemed to be your favorite. You are going to end up with one anywhay, why not just save for it?
back alley
IMAGES
i do want to get the 50/1.1 again someday, but was hoping for something cheaper as a sub till that happens.
Prices on the Canon 50/1.2 used to be less than the Canon 50/1.4, the latter being much sharper. Now, the F1.2 is almost double the 50/1.4- up in the $500~$600 range. The Canon 50/1.4 is technically superior to the Canon 50/1.5, the latter used to be in the $150 range when the 50/1.4 was in the $250 range. Now "Sonnar Fever" has taken over, the 50/1.5 skyrocketed.
Get a 50/1.4: no balloon to bust to bring prices back to Earth. Some good ones under $300, and you can always get that back out of it.
Get a 50/1.4: no balloon to bust to bring prices back to Earth. Some good ones under $300, and you can always get that back out of it.
kevin m
Veteran
This is wide open, minimum focus of the 50/1.2 on my old R-D1, against backlit foliage. Lots of 'bokeh' to be had.
...and here's another at f1.4, focus somewhere between 4 and 5 feet, where it delivers more 'normal' looking results:
...and here's another at f1.4, focus somewhere between 4 and 5 feet, where it delivers more 'normal' looking results:
back alley
IMAGES
those look pretty darn sharp, eh?
nice greens...
nice greens...
uhoh7
Veteran
Is the Canon 50/1.2 sharper at any particular distance? 
#2 very sweet portrait
here is the 1.1 reincarnated as a dog, shot by the 50/1.2:
his name is nokton
#2 very sweet portrait
here is the 1.1 reincarnated as a dog, shot by the 50/1.2:
his name is nokton
Last edited:
The Meaness
Well-known
Kevin, those shots are awesome! I hope you haven't let go of that copy of the 1.2, there might not be another one as good.