Canon 50/1.2 v. Leica 50/1

M

merciful

Guest
I've got the Noctilust: certainly predictable in a low-light, big-push guy like me, eh?

Occasionally, however, I do stop down a bit. Can anyone here compare the performance of the 50/1.2 v. the 'lux at say, 5.6-8? I don't think I ever use lenses past f8. I ask because I won't end up with both: a bunch of gear will have to go to be able to buy the 'lux.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Merciful, I unfortunately can not answer your question yet as I have only had my Canon for two days, but I can say that after shooting with it yesterday on an M2 and the RD-1 I am very impressed. Over in the RD-1 threads I have postedthread and here
to do with the Canon 50mm f1.2.
Plus I know it is based on the RD-1 but Sean is about to release a rather large lens test in which both the Canon and the Noct is featured.
To me the Noct is a magical lens and I seem to use it mainly wide open, I don't think the canon would repace it but from what I have seen so far it seems to have its very own "Majic"
The attached was taken with XP2 f4 and f5.6 (I Think)
Mike.
 
I own a 50/1.2 Canon, cleaned and restored by Balham Optical. I've just returned a Noctilux 50/1 loaned by a very generous friend. At 5,6 and 8 (and indeed 4) the Canon is very good -- but no better than the Noctilux. At f/2 and faster the Noctilux has it all and of course beyond f/1.2 there's no contest. I wouldn't even consider the Canon except as a special purpose, soft focus lens at its extreme apertures (it's very soft at f/22 as well).

Cheers,

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)
 
Thanks, guys.

Roger, I've used the Canon pretty extensively at f1.2-1.4, and I've no complaints: I certainly wouldn't consider mine appropriate only for soft-focus work. Of course, most of my work ends up scanned rather than traditionally printed: but I haven't found myself having to do excessively large amounts of USM. I have, however, no doubts that the 'lux will be even better at the big apertures.

f1.2, 1/4 sec., Tri-X at 3200.
 
Dear Merciful,

Not so much 'even' better as 'vastly' better. Honest!

Then again it seems there may be quite some variation in these Canon 50/1.2 lenses: some people are much happier than others. But everything I've shot and every picture I've seen taken with these lenses at full aperture is similar to or (sometimes) worse than mine.

Also, a great deal depends on what you are shooting. For many kinds of reportage, especially the grainy, blurry 'available darkness' kind the lens is fine -- but I find that as soon as I want texture and detail at full aperture, it falls rather flat on its face. I've also found it much better for B+W than for colour. Of course it's a fair argument that when you really NEED f/1.2 or f/1 you'll put up with performance that would be totally unacceptable from a slower lens.

Other interchangeable 50s I own/have owned/have borrowed/have tried include 50/1.5 Nokton (which I found far more use than the Canon despite being 1/2 stop slower), 50/1.5 Xenon (very low contrast), 50/1.8 Yashica (pretty good), 50/2 Summitar (OK), 50/2 Summicron (very good but I don't see the magic that some apparently do), 50/2 Jupiter (about on a par with the 50/1.2 Canon), 50/2.5 Color-Skopar (very good), 50/3.5 Elmar (prewar -- flat and blue) and whatever comes as standard with a Hensoldt (Steinheil I think but it was a long time ago -- I wasn't impressed).

Have you considered a 35/1.2 Nokton as a complement to the Canon? I had one for review and was well impressed.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Dear Merciful,

I've just seen your gorgeous shot of a little girl on another thread. Of course one can tell very little about sharpness from anything shown on the web, but I'd be interested to know how the skin texture looked at a high-res scan. I suspect -- perhaps entirely wrongly -- that the beautiful skin tones are helped by quite low resolution, just as they are in digital portraiture: I rarely shoot children on film any more.

But if you can shoot like that with the Canon, why replace it (at vast expense) for another half stop?

Cheers,

Roger
 
I cannot compare the Noctilux with the Canon, but I do want to encourage your lust. One stop faster than f/1.4 is really, really fast.

In available light, I feel sure the shadows are usually underexposed because film does not respond linearly, especially at low levels. Pictures with my Noctilux, though, appear evenly lit. Most people think they have been taken in much brighter circumstances. I am guessing that the extra speed--perhaps even the difference between f/1 and f/1.2--is enough to lift the shadows up to something recordable.

Recently, for instance, I took photographs of people celebrating at a party, which was held in a rather dimly lit living room. The pictures look as if there had been a great many table and floor lamps illuminating peoples' faces, but they actually weren't there. This effect is so pronounced that I do not notice the (significant) vignetting at f/1. In fact, it is so pronounced that you might find you need to dial back a little in order to preserve an "available light look."

Qualitatively, the lens is good enough at f/1 that you would never be deterred from using it wide open. It's big, heavy, and costs a ton of money, but it's worth it. I actually thought I was just being self-indulgent to buy one, but it is a lot better than I expected.
 
Thanks, guys. I've seen some stunning results with the 'lux; and I've got better stuff from the Canon than many people seem to manage. F1 is a pretty magical number, though, so I expect I'll be forced over the edge in the fairly near future.

Roger, I'll have a look at a high-res scan of that colour shot (thank you) and report later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom