Sonnar2
Well-known
The Canon 1.5/50 is way smaller than the C-Sonnar.
Both are corrected for maximum performance at middle distances, whereas the Nikkor-S 1.4/5cm is corrected for close work (like the Zeiss prewar Sonnar 50/1.5??) I've found the C-Sonnar and the Canon Sonnar both very sharp at middle distances and infinity about f/5.6. I disagree with some sources saying the Canon 50/1.5 is a dog. Colors are similar. Close focus, the Canon is a bit off, maybe because of focus shift, I don't know.
The C-Sonnar has the better coating (can be seen in the picture) but the Canon has two glass-air-surfaces less than the Zeiss lens. Excellent allround lenses both (which is the Nikkor-S 50/1.4 not). Probably the Zeiss lens is the better one (50 years newer) but the Canon isn't bad at all.
Both are corrected for maximum performance at middle distances, whereas the Nikkor-S 1.4/5cm is corrected for close work (like the Zeiss prewar Sonnar 50/1.5??) I've found the C-Sonnar and the Canon Sonnar both very sharp at middle distances and infinity about f/5.6. I disagree with some sources saying the Canon 50/1.5 is a dog. Colors are similar. Close focus, the Canon is a bit off, maybe because of focus shift, I don't know.
The C-Sonnar has the better coating (can be seen in the picture) but the Canon has two glass-air-surfaces less than the Zeiss lens. Excellent allround lenses both (which is the Nikkor-S 50/1.4 not). Probably the Zeiss lens is the better one (50 years newer) but the Canon isn't bad at all.
David Noble
Established
Interesting. I had really bad problems with close focus wide open—consistent front focusing by 6 cm or so— on two copies of the Zeiss, or I would probably still have one. I suppose I could have learned to live with it but I was bothered by it on such an expensive lens.
Strangely enough, close focus seems good for me on the Canon. I wonder if it has something to do with the way the two get along with the R-D1s? In any case, from what I have seen so far I agree this looks like quite a good lens.
Strangely enough, close focus seems good for me on the Canon. I wonder if it has something to do with the way the two get along with the R-D1s? In any case, from what I have seen so far I agree this looks like quite a good lens.
ferider
Veteran
Sonnar2 said:
I would appreciate if you would publish tests to undermine this
frequently made statement, which IMO is wrong.
The Canons that I had, have been dead on wide open and close up.
I have published respective tests.
And I find the Nikkor (considering also its historical use, and historical
test results in comparison to the early Summilux) very usable
as general purpose lens from f1.6 or so up.
But, as always, there might be sample dependencies, etc. Nikon changed
the 50/1.4 design a few times, I'm sure.
Roland.
PS: cool pictures, David. Congrats on the lens.
Last edited:
David Noble
Established
Thanks, Roland.
You were my inspiration!
Sonnar2: Are you the artist formerly known as taunusreiter? 'Cause if you were you share some of the blame for making me buy this lens, too.
How did you date your copy of the Canon to 1955? I'm curious becaue I was born that year and it would be kind of cool to own a lens the same age...
You were my inspiration!
Sonnar2: Are you the artist formerly known as taunusreiter? 'Cause if you were you share some of the blame for making me buy this lens, too.
How did you date your copy of the Canon to 1955? I'm curious becaue I was born that year and it would be kind of cool to own a lens the same age...
Sonnar2
Well-known
Hi David.
Yes taunusreiter is my website.
1955 is a rough estimation based on the "Canon" not Serenar engraving and the late (purple-amber; not blue) coating color. It could be 1954-1958 as well, as in 1959 the 50/1.5 was replaced by the 50/1.4.
@Roland: there are several possible reasons why a certain old lens comes out as a dog. As a rule of thumb, a lens needs to be corrected for a certain distance. If it's corrected for medium distances, say 5m, it will probably work better at infinty, but worse at 1m than a lens corrected for close distance work. From my experience the Canon 50/1.5 is better at infinity than the RF Nikkor-S 50/1.4, which after all was a professional photog.'s lens, and there is no big need for a this kind of user to take pictures at infinity with a f/1.4 lens wide open - so Nikon did it right. I made some close distance collimination test shots with my Canon 7 to prove myself wrong, but they are still undeveloped.
cheers, Frank
Yes taunusreiter is my website.
1955 is a rough estimation based on the "Canon" not Serenar engraving and the late (purple-amber; not blue) coating color. It could be 1954-1958 as well, as in 1959 the 50/1.5 was replaced by the 50/1.4.
@Roland: there are several possible reasons why a certain old lens comes out as a dog. As a rule of thumb, a lens needs to be corrected for a certain distance. If it's corrected for medium distances, say 5m, it will probably work better at infinty, but worse at 1m than a lens corrected for close distance work. From my experience the Canon 50/1.5 is better at infinity than the RF Nikkor-S 50/1.4, which after all was a professional photog.'s lens, and there is no big need for a this kind of user to take pictures at infinity with a f/1.4 lens wide open - so Nikon did it right. I made some close distance collimination test shots with my Canon 7 to prove myself wrong, but they are still undeveloped.
cheers, Frank
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Looking forward to your results, Frank. All I'm saying is that
(a) my Canons are as sharp as possible wide open and at closest distance
and (b) my Nikkor at, say f5.6 and infinity is sharp
as well. BTW, don't take me wrong - I have learned a lot from
and keep coming back to your and Dante's websites. It's just
that I couldn't reproduce your findings with my lenses.
Also, I use all my lenses on the same trusted M3 for comparison,
maybe there are differences in the cameras.
One more comment for clarification to the others
on the lens designs that you made above. This is
cut together from different sources, including Dan's, your and
Dante's web-site, I hope you guys don't mind - if there
is a problem I'll delete it. Anyways, the
3 lenses have almost identical diagrams, except for some
"air elements" in the original Sonnars/Nikkor being replaced
with modern coated glass in the ZM case.
You can also see that the Canon is closer to the original
Sonnar in its diagram - like with the 85/2 Nikon did some
adjustment, in my mind to improve general purpose.
The Nikkor was used as only 50mm by professional
documentary photographers, in kits also including
the 85/2 and 35/1.8, this is why it had to
be general purpose, IMO.
I do believe that BOTH Canon and Nikkor were optimized for close
up and wide open; and both lenses shift just like the modern
Sonnar. But I would assume that professional photographers
and testers at the time knew this and corrected for it when
shooting, which is one of the reasons for the DOF marks in
M2 and M3 finders (my guess only). Testing nowadays should
reflect this, too.
Best,
Roland.
(a) my Canons are as sharp as possible wide open and at closest distance
and (b) my Nikkor at, say f5.6 and infinity is sharp
as well. BTW, don't take me wrong - I have learned a lot from
and keep coming back to your and Dante's websites. It's just
that I couldn't reproduce your findings with my lenses.
Also, I use all my lenses on the same trusted M3 for comparison,
maybe there are differences in the cameras.
One more comment for clarification to the others
on the lens designs that you made above. This is
cut together from different sources, including Dan's, your and
Dante's web-site, I hope you guys don't mind - if there
is a problem I'll delete it. Anyways, the
3 lenses have almost identical diagrams, except for some
"air elements" in the original Sonnars/Nikkor being replaced
with modern coated glass in the ZM case.
You can also see that the Canon is closer to the original
Sonnar in its diagram - like with the 85/2 Nikon did some
adjustment, in my mind to improve general purpose.
The Nikkor was used as only 50mm by professional
documentary photographers, in kits also including
the 85/2 and 35/1.8, this is why it had to
be general purpose, IMO.
I do believe that BOTH Canon and Nikkor were optimized for close
up and wide open; and both lenses shift just like the modern
Sonnar. But I would assume that professional photographers
and testers at the time knew this and corrected for it when
shooting, which is one of the reasons for the DOF marks in
M2 and M3 finders (my guess only). Testing nowadays should
reflect this, too.
Best,
Roland.
Last edited:
grainy_shadows
Established
man that zeiss and canon rf look very sexy!!!
ferider
Veteran
grainy_shadows said:
To be fair to the Nikkor, chrome on black (!
):
And here is the real thing, call it Zonnar K., Jupiter 3 or Sonnar
:
Roland.
Last edited:
Bavaricus
Established
ferider said:To be fair to the Nikkor, chrome on black (!
Has this lens be converted to M-Mount? Or was it in LTM?
ferider
Veteran
Bavaricus said:
It's an LTM lens with Leitz M/LTM adapter.
Roland.
vrgard
Well-known
ferider said:And here is the real thing, call it Zonnar K., Jupiter 3 or Sonnar
Roland.
Hmmm, that lens looks a bit out of focus. Gee, Roland, is that the dreaded Sonnar focus shift everyone has been talking about?
-Randy
ferider
Veteran
vrgard said:Hmmm, that lens looks a bit out of focus. Gee, Roland, is that the dreaded Sonnar focus shift everyone has been talking about?
-Randy
Be nice. No secrets about this button of mine ...
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
I`m tapped out this month already...........so I`m not going after this one, but here`s a pretty clean looking f1.5 50 on the Evilbay
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-50mm-f1-5-Leica-Thread-Mount-Lens_W0QQitemZ280145513695QQihZ018QQcategoryZ30027QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
So just letting everyone know who`s looking for one, I LOVE this lens it`s my favorite to work with in artsty portraits in my PinUp looks
Good Luck to the bidders
Tom
PS: Here`s the last one that was on Evilbay, it was a damm good deal still at $400 with all the caps, Japanese Waltz goodies, hood, filters and Canon case
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-MF-50mm-1-5-Rangfinder-Lens-w-Filters-VI-T-18423_W0QQitemZ110160570490QQihZ001QQcategoryZ30039QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-50mm-f1-5-Leica-Thread-Mount-Lens_W0QQitemZ280145513695QQihZ018QQcategoryZ30027QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
So just letting everyone know who`s looking for one, I LOVE this lens it`s my favorite to work with in artsty portraits in my PinUp looks
Good Luck to the bidders
Tom
PS: Here`s the last one that was on Evilbay, it was a damm good deal still at $400 with all the caps, Japanese Waltz goodies, hood, filters and Canon case
http://cgi.ebay.com/Canon-MF-50mm-1-5-Rangfinder-Lens-w-Filters-VI-T-18423_W0QQitemZ110160570490QQihZ001QQcategoryZ30039QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Last edited:
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Sonnar2 said:
I wonder if this can be corrected?
My Canon F1.5 is soft too with lens fully open and models posing about 5/6 feet away, but I`ve heard this is a normal character trait of the Canon lens.....perhaps my lens needs adjusting?
Tom
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
That lens sold for $303 and some change......someone got a real bargin
Tom
Tom
foto_fool
Well-known
Well I'm just glad I have not checked in on this thread until now - the Canon 50/1.5 LTM has been on my wish list but I have been resisting (mostly because I just blew the budget on a 35mm UC-Hexanon). For the time being I am quite happy with my Nikkor SC and (perhaps fake) Zeiss Jena Sonnar (J-3?) - do I really need another Sonnar-design lens in LTM? Do I?
- John
- John
brobbins
Established
Well, it appears there now is a Canon 50/1.5 in the classifieds.
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
Yep!
Here tis......
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=6592
EDIT: I just read that it has some cleaning marks and issues, maybe this is WHY it has`nt sold yet?
In my opinion it`s a little too high if it has issues?
I say $250/$300 tops if it`s got cleaning marks and dirt, though I myself have never come up on a bad f1.5 yet and if this one was from Kevin then it should be a good one.....
Tom
PS; This I think has slowly become the RFF "Cult" lens, I`m Jonesin for my next Black and White PinUp shoot with mine
Here tis......
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost-classifieds/showproduct.php?product=6592
EDIT: I just read that it has some cleaning marks and issues, maybe this is WHY it has`nt sold yet?
In my opinion it`s a little too high if it has issues?
I say $250/$300 tops if it`s got cleaning marks and dirt, though I myself have never come up on a bad f1.5 yet and if this one was from Kevin then it should be a good one.....
Tom
PS; This I think has slowly become the RFF "Cult" lens, I`m Jonesin for my next Black and White PinUp shoot with mine
Last edited:
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I'd love to buy it but I'm not going to have that kind of coin anytime soon. It's one of only 2 more RF lenses I feel I want/need. The other is the Canon 100/3.5
Hey, Ben, Take a well-used prewar uncoated 90/4 Elmar in trade? :angel:
Didn't think so
William
Hey, Ben, Take a well-used prewar uncoated 90/4 Elmar in trade? :angel:
Didn't think so
William
Last edited by a moderator:
LeicaTom
Watch that step!
I re- edited my post above
Tom
Tom