Not a good comparison,
Canon 50/1.4 then 1.5
Canon 50/1.4 then 1.5
canon 50/1.4 vs 50/1.5
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 56
- Views 4K
I agree with everything said so far. The 1.4 probably is the better all around lens, and is a better wide open lens in low light. That said, I don't use the 1.5 as a low light lens. I just love the look of my images from it and use it as a general purpose lens. The "classic" "vintage" look has my vote. That being said, if I am walking out the door needing a sharp low light lens, the 1.4 is my tool.
Now, tomorrow night, trick-or-treat? The Canon 1.2 gets the vote, on the M3 with Delta 3200.
Now, tomorrow night, trick-or-treat? The Canon 1.2 gets the vote, on the M3 with Delta 3200.
back alley
IMAGES
what makes the 1.4 better in low light?
not the difference between 1.4 & 1.5, can't be.
joe
not the difference between 1.4 & 1.5, can't be.
joe
FrankS
Registered User
back alley said:
Sorry Joe! Just trying to add some richness/texture to your topic. 🙂
back alley said:
Though a traditional lens design as Brian mentioned, the 1.4 benefits from more modern coatings and glass types. The Sonnar is a relatively simple design with minimal surface to air elements which is why they were superior to other designs prior to WWII. The Planar design which is a Gauss design, which I guess is also a Xenon design is much more complicated the benefits of which could not be realized until lens coatings were developed. The 50 Summicron is of this design too, and is considered to be the ultimate achievement in lens design by many.
If you look at block diagrams, you will realize how similar the Canon 50/1.4 is to the CV 50/1.5 Nokton.
So, to answer your question, I guess a well executed Planar/Gauss/Xenon lens with good glass and coatings is sharper edge to edge wide open than a Sonnar. The classic Sonnar is sharp in the center wide open but the image smoothly looses that sharpness as it moves to the edges. The difference is in the construction and design of the lens.
back alley
IMAGES
i wonder how they compare at say f4 to f 11?
soft edges might look nice especially wide open in low light scenes...
joe
soft edges might look nice especially wide open in low light scenes...
joe
W
wlewisiii
Guest
This thread got me curious as to how the various other Canon 50's compared, but my searches aren't coming up with anything. Could someone explain where the 50/1.8, 50/1.9 & 50/2.8 fit in in relation to the 1.4 & 1.5 in comparative "looks" & price/availability? If there is a thread I've missed, a pointer is fine.
The J8 is nice, but I'm going to want a Canon one sooner or later... 🙂
Thanks,
William
The J8 is nice, but I'm going to want a Canon one sooner or later... 🙂
Thanks,
William
back alley
IMAGES
1.8 = very sharp, small heavy and rigid
1.9 = collapsible
2.8 has a poor rep though some have stated here that it was an ok lens
1.9 = collapsible
2.8 has a poor rep though some have stated here that it was an ok lens
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Thanks for the breakdown, joe. I didn't realize that the 1.9 was only collapsible (too used to CZJ making both types for a given lens, I guess.)
One last question, is the hood for the 1.8 one of those "hard to find/expensive" ones I notice mentioned here from time to time?
Thanks again,
William
One last question, is the hood for the 1.8 one of those "hard to find/expensive" ones I notice mentioned here from time to time?
Thanks again,
William
dexdog
Veteran
wlewisiii said:
The hood for the Canon 50/1.8 is not especially difficult to find or expensive, in my experience. Canon made a series of hoods over the years for both the chrome and black 50/1.8s, and they appear on eBay occasionally. Perhaps you are thinking of the vented hood for the 50/1.2, which is difficult to find and expensive.
dexdog
W
wlewisiii
Guest
May well be. I recall a couple of times where hoods were talked about as being hard to find and/or relativly expensive but I don't remember the context. I'll probably start out looking for a (serious) user level 50/1.8 given everything I've read here and elsewhere. But given my tastes, I'll probably end up with both a 50/2.8 and a 50/1.5 someday... 😀
Thanks all,
William
Thanks all,
William
I agree, the Canon hoods are not hard to find, but it seems there are more lenses around than hoods, so sometimes they sell like hotcakes. Now that Joe and I have all the hoods that we need though, the price will fall.
William, for all my 40mm filter thread Canons I actually use an el-cheapo Kodak Series VI hood and filters. I have a 42mm push on adaptor ring which will fit all the lenses. One hood for everything, works for me.
Think of an auto focus SLR. Tons of zoom lenses in all price ranges to drain your wallet. Fancy L glass, blah, blah, blah. There there is the $70 50/1.8 that everyone says is sharper than any zoom in the lineup. That is the Canon 50/1.8. Simple, well made, and not respected in comparison to it's brothers. The 50/1.4 was made as an step up alternative to the 1.8, but the 1.8 is very good too.
William, for all my 40mm filter thread Canons I actually use an el-cheapo Kodak Series VI hood and filters. I have a 42mm push on adaptor ring which will fit all the lenses. One hood for everything, works for me.
Think of an auto focus SLR. Tons of zoom lenses in all price ranges to drain your wallet. Fancy L glass, blah, blah, blah. There there is the $70 50/1.8 that everyone says is sharper than any zoom in the lineup. That is the Canon 50/1.8. Simple, well made, and not respected in comparison to it's brothers. The 50/1.4 was made as an step up alternative to the 1.8, but the 1.8 is very good too.
> Not a good comparison
I don't know. Can it make everyone look that young?
Joe,
You can see in this graph that the "softness" is really curvature of the field. Maybe that is why the "Xenon" formula (or Planar, or Double Gauss) wins out. I'm sure it will make it perfectly clear...
I don't know. Can it make everyone look that young?
Joe,
You can see in this graph that the "softness" is really curvature of the field. Maybe that is why the "Xenon" formula (or Planar, or Double Gauss) wins out. I'm sure it will make it perfectly clear...
Here are some shots from the Canon 50mm F1.5 on the CL, Wide-Open.
F86:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13180
Look at the above graph, I think you can see why the print on the F86 nose is so sharp. Effective use of field curvature and lots more BS and all that...
Just a way to increase effective DOF when shooting pictures of 3D objects...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13181
F86:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13180
Look at the above graph, I think you can see why the print on the F86 nose is so sharp. Effective use of field curvature and lots more BS and all that...
Just a way to increase effective DOF when shooting pictures of 3D objects...
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=13181
djon
Well-known
I'll do more than hijack, I'll do a drive-by shooting:
Recently did a set of shots with an F1 (I'd paid dearly to get my pair CLA'd and struggled to find the right "L" screens to give me the help I needed)...thought I was going to work mostly with my 24, but I found myself working with the neglected 50 1.4 FD SSC. WOW!
I scanned and printed the Sensia 100 on 13X19 and still cannot believe my eyes. Looks like very good medium format.
If the LTM 50 1.4 is comparable to the FD SSC 1.4, you might be shooting yourself in the foot if you part with it. Of course, it's 20 years older and not SSC, but you get my drift.
Recently did a set of shots with an F1 (I'd paid dearly to get my pair CLA'd and struggled to find the right "L" screens to give me the help I needed)...thought I was going to work mostly with my 24, but I found myself working with the neglected 50 1.4 FD SSC. WOW!
I scanned and printed the Sensia 100 on 13X19 and still cannot believe my eyes. Looks like very good medium format.
If the LTM 50 1.4 is comparable to the FD SSC 1.4, you might be shooting yourself in the foot if you part with it. Of course, it's 20 years older and not SSC, but you get my drift.
The LTM version is different from the SSC FD 50mm F1.4. The latter is 7 elements in 6 groups, the LTM version is the classic 1-2-2-1 (6 elements in 4 groups) Xenon fromula.
The 50mm f1.4 FD lens traces back to 1968 in the FL mount.
http://canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html
But my Canon 58mm F1.2 FL mount Thorium lens can melt snow.
The 50mm f1.4 FD lens traces back to 1968 in the FL mount.
http://canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html
But my Canon 58mm F1.2 FL mount Thorium lens can melt snow.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
58mm? I thought there were only 50 and 55mm. I have the 55mm SSC f/1.2 FD mount non-asph; got it rather "cheap" and it's flawless. It appears to be a different beast than the LTM 50 f/1.2
I had thought that the FL/FD lenses were basically "borrowed" from the LTM formulas. I know the Canon 50 f/1.4 LTM is a Xenon "knock-off" just as the Leica Summarit f/1.5 was, just with superior (or at least more "intelligently" thought-out) coatings.
The bokeh on all of these seem to have a similar trait wide open with focused bright points, I can even see it in the "modern" Canon EF 50 f/1.4, it's only when you stop down that you see some differences between "brands". The "softness" of the EF 50 1.4 wide open is nothing but the outrageous DOF plus the curvature of field that the Super-Sharp Freaks are not fond of, but is great for those who focus in the center, and recompose.
Anyway, it's interesting to see this design in so many variations; there seems to be a small choir that like the performance of this design. I'm one of them; be it either in Canon's 50 1.4-1.2 lenses or Leica's Summarit/Summilux (before the Aspherical version) incarnations.
I had thought that the FL/FD lenses were basically "borrowed" from the LTM formulas. I know the Canon 50 f/1.4 LTM is a Xenon "knock-off" just as the Leica Summarit f/1.5 was, just with superior (or at least more "intelligently" thought-out) coatings.
The bokeh on all of these seem to have a similar trait wide open with focused bright points, I can even see it in the "modern" Canon EF 50 f/1.4, it's only when you stop down that you see some differences between "brands". The "softness" of the EF 50 1.4 wide open is nothing but the outrageous DOF plus the curvature of field that the Super-Sharp Freaks are not fond of, but is great for those who focus in the center, and recompose.
Anyway, it's interesting to see this design in so many variations; there seems to be a small choir that like the performance of this design. I'm one of them; be it either in Canon's 50 1.4-1.2 lenses or Leica's Summarit/Summilux (before the Aspherical version) incarnations.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Characteristics aside (is that possible?), one thing I like about my 1.4 and 1.8 II, as compared to the majority of my other 50's, is that I get the extra stop on the ugly/neglected (narrow) end.
🙂
🙂
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
OT War Plane Shots
OT War Plane Shots
Brian, is the plane in the 2nd shot a BF109? I'm obviously not a WWII war plane afficianado; as a kid, the BF109 and the P-51 were my favorite model airplanes to make.
🙂
OT War Plane Shots
Brian Sweeney said:
Brian, is the plane in the 2nd shot a BF109? I'm obviously not a WWII war plane afficianado; as a kid, the BF109 and the P-51 were my favorite model airplanes to make.
🙂
raid
Dad Photographer
I don't have the 50/1.4 or the 50/1.5 but I have the 50/1.8 and 50/1.2. If you add them up and divide by 2, you get a 1.5. Does this count?
