Canon 50mm f1.4 and f1.8

RichC

RichC

Well-known
Local time
3:04 PM
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
1,522
Location
Brighton, UK
View My Gallery
Can anyone confirm the following about the two lenses - both are the later black-bodied types (both the earlier version without a scalloped focus ring and the later one with a scalloped ring).

(a) Does the aperture ring rotate along with the focus ring? (Hate lenses which do that - often means the focus shifts when I change aperture.)

(b) Do the lenses have click stops for apertures?

(c) Are they comparable in optical quality to my Summilux 50mm pre-aspherical - including flare-resistance? (The Summilux is immune to flare, even wide open.)

My Summilux is worth a crazy amount of money (prices have inflated ridiculously in recent years), so I'm seriously thinking of selling it and replacing it with a lens of similar optical quality and ergonomics. Also means I can relax and concentrate on taking photos rather than worry about damaging the lens - and its value! And the Canon 50mm ones seem cheap and easy to find...

Cheers!
 
Rich,
The Canon lenses don't have rotating (with the focus) aperture rings, only very early ones did that, mostly collapsible lenses.

Both of the Canon lenses you mention have aperture click stops.

I think a very clean 50mm f/1.8 might be a little more flare resistant than the f/1.4 version but they are different formulations. The f/1.4 is a stunning lens and I used it for years till I got my f/1.2 Canon which is 97% as good as the f/1.4 but just bigger and with a longer, more precise focus throw. I don't think the f/1.8 is a rival to the Summilux but that could be a sample variation issue too.

You can't really go wrong with a clean version of the Canon 50/1.4 in my opinion. It's nicknamed the Japanese Summilux for a reason and I kind of miss mine, enough to sell my f/1.2.

Phil Forrest
 
Phil_F_NM said:
...

I think a very clean 50mm f/1.8 might be a little more flare resistant than the f/1.4 version but they are different formulations. ...
Phil Forrest
Click to expand...

I've never owned a Summilux, so can't compare, but I was surprised by the flare on the Canon F1.4 on my M9; it's a fine lens, but I've stopped using it for concert shooting where I expect backlighting, in favour of either the Zeiss or Canon Sonnars.
 
I have a clean 50/1.8 version two (the first black and chrome version) and I've never had a problem w/ flare. The bokeh is lovely and smooth, and the lens is quite sharp. I've seen it compared to a summilux, but I can't vouch for the comparison as I've never had a 'lux. I understand that the Canon is smaller and lighter than a 'lux, while still superbly made. The only rap on the Canon is that it's prone to hazing b/c of the lubricants used, although I've never had that problem.
 
Have you considered the CV 50/1.5 Nokton? A bit larger than the other lenses, but an amazing performer.

If you prefer a vintage Canon lens, the 50/1.5 is a bit harder to come by than the f/1.4 and f/1.8, but its smaller than either and has that nice Sonnar touch.

Cheers,
Ari
 
I have all of the lenses you're asking about & my answer is:

No, yes, & yes (though flare-resistance is not as great as the very last version of the 'lux).

For me, the main downside of switching to the Canon would be the loss of close-focusing capability, but that depends on what version of the 'lux you have.

RichC said:
Can anyone confirm the following about the two lenses - both are the later black-bodied types (both the earlier version without a scalloped focus ring and the later one with a scalloped ring).

(a) Does the aperture ring rotate along with the focus ring? (Hate lenses which do that - often means the focus shifts when I change aperture.)

(b) Do the lenses have click stops for apertures?

(c) Are they comparable in optical quality to my Summilux 50mm pre-aspherical - including flare-resistance? (The Summilux is immune to flare, even wide open.)

My Summilux is worth a crazy amount of money (prices have inflated ridiculously in recent years), so I'm seriously thinking of selling it and replacing it with a lens of similar optical quality and ergonomics. Also means I can relax and concentrate on taking photos rather than worry about damaging the lens - and its value! And the Canon 50mm ones seem cheap and easy to find...

Cheers!
Click to expand...
 
I had the Canon 50 1.4 IMO it's lower contrast makes it ideal for portraits, the 50 1.8 which I also had for a short time is sharper and more contrasty. Here's a sample of the 50 1.4 taken with a Canon P:

Bay-1-XL.jpg
 
I'm trying to persuade myself to sell this Canon f1.8 to finance a rigid summicron, but i'm finding it very difficult to imagine what the cron could bring to the table. This is at f2. Oh and no rotating. Mines is all chrome. Heavy, solid, and with little annoying wobble so when i change aperture i can feel it move. Images still surprisingly good though for the money.

Can't compare it to a Summilux, but can't deny the usefulness of the extra stop in low light.

7361099130_2188d965ac.jpg
 
no rotating nonsense on either. i have both. the 50/1.8 might be my favorite lens, and i've got a whole pile of 50s. it's small, handles beautifully and my copy produces really nice images. plus, it's cheap so i don't freak out about if it gets photojournalisted. my 1.4 is a little stiff in the focusing.
 
I had the Canon 50mm 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.8 lenses, and I found each of these lenses to be very well built. I kept three of these lenses, and I sold the (stunning) 1.4 lens since I needed to raise money to buy a 35mm Summilux. Do I miss that lens? Not really. I bought (again) a Nikon 5cm/2 that I had sold, but so far I have not thought of buying again the 1.4 Canon.
 
I'm a big fan of the Canon 50/1.4. I own a mess of 50mm lenses and this Canon is now the standard 50mm lens I use on my Leicas'. As for flare, the 50/1.4 never struck me as being a high-flare lens, though I do admit I don't use this lens in high-flare situations.

Jim B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom