Canon LTM Canon Fast 50s compared; 1.2 1.5 1.8

Canon M39 M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Very interesting comparison, Garrett, thanks for posting! Your shots w/ the 1.5 confirm something that I noticed in one of Raid's comparisons a number of years ago: that the 50/1.5 has a distinctly warmer rendering of colors compared to the 1.8 (or, in Raid's test, a 1.4).

I think both the 1.5 and 1.8 do very well in this comparison, particularly given the background in the photos. The 1.8 has a very "painterly" bokeh at 2.8, at least to my eye.
 
Phil_F_NM said:
I used to own the 50/1.4 and it was my main 50mm for years. I still love that lens for the size and how it draws. I would probably take one of those over a pre-asph Summilux, partially based upon price but also I just love the way they render an image.
After I got my 50/1.2 I tested the two side-by-side on my M9 and noticed that they drew an image so similarly, aperture-for-aperture, that the 1.2 made the 1.4 redundant so I sold it. The faster lens is significantly larger though and has a longer focus throw so it is slower in use but I think the way the two draw is very similar from f/2 on. It's the wide open signatures of both lenses that make them special, especially that 1.2.

Both of these lenses benefit a lot from cleaning. The front optical group is sealed so there isn't much to be done there. The concave surfaces of the elements adjacent to the aperture blades are where most of the crud accumulates. Fortunately, these are both extremely easy to service by the owner, all the way down to the helicoid.

Phil Forrest
Click to expand...
Thank you for the explanation. I also have a 1.4 that i love, but have been thinking of getting the 1.2 for the extra stop. Now, after looking at these I seem to like the 1.5 and 1.8 more than the 1.2

Thanks
Joe
 
Well maybe we'll let some GAS out when I show how close the Jupiter 3 is to the Canon 1.5! I think it's great that different people prefer different ones from these 3. Yes, the 1.2 is soft wide open, but in Large Format we pay BIG bucks for a soft lens with just this look. I think I prefer the 1.5, but will keep the 1.2 for portraits.
 
goamules said:
Well maybe we'll let some GAS out when I show how close the Jupiter 3 is to the Canon 1.5!
Click to expand...

What happened to that thread? I was just looking because you had nice comparison shots with the best J-3 performance I've seen. Despite the sacrilege of bringing up the other 50 sonnars in the thread and the hurt response, it was a really good reference.

You have such nice samples of the canon and jupiter--why you don't want them compared to other 50/1.5s I don't get, because that is a topic of great interest here.

Anyway, please no offense intended. Do you have links to your J-3 samples?

TY

PS you also might want to note the samples are taken on a G1, with a 2x crop---just so we don't think those are the real edges.
 
You may be new to RFF, but all threads on lens comparisons in the past ventured out to other lenses so that better comparisons could be made. In fact, this was one of the conclusions on lens comparisons that human error is always involved [even when being called scientific] in such comparisons, and that having others provide additional information is helpful. For example, the Canon 50/1.5 has a Sonnar design, so users of 50mm lenses with a Sonnar design want to provide information. Sometimes, a lens branded by one lens company is actually made by another company. The J-3 is a copy of the CZJ 5cm 1.5 and the J-8 is a copy of the CZJ 5cm 2.0 ... etc. Nobody can own a thread here; once a thread is started, anyone can chime in as long as the contributions are connected somehow.
 
goamules said:
I deleted that thread, it stopped being a comparison between the Canon 1.5 and the Jupiter 1.5.
Click to expand...

Rather than delete the thread, would be it possible to freeze the thread from further posts, if the discussion is morphing to another topic? That way, contributions and images are still preserved.
 
indeed the 1.5 looks best overall, though wide open i prefer how the 1.8 renders the out of focus area. what surprised me is the 1.5 retaining more highlight detail than the 1.8, which already is a low contrast lens, but maybe the light itself shifted (looking at the background it's different)...
 
They certainly all three have a different look. But you're right, with the sun going down, it wasn't a totally scientific and identical test. Finally, here are all three in speed order at F5.6.

6731649111_0b5c42c993_z.jpg


6731655195_08b656c51f_z.jpg


6731663793_9fb7e92f4a_z.jpg
 
I've had the 1.2 and a 1.4 amongst a few others (a CV 1.1 as well).

You may find that your 1.2 is flaring more because one of the elements inside is hazy. The lenses are quite easy to open and from the back, the 2nd group of elements seems to quite often have some issues.

I think this quite often gives the 1.2 it's 'glow' and it may differ quite a bit between copies.

Just a thought...

cheers
Paul
 
Thanks guys, I think I will figure out how to clean the F1.2. It looks pretty good held up to a light, but has a little haze or something in there. I'll clean it and repost, or do a "before and after" cleaning comparison.
 
goamules said:
Thanks guys, I think I will figure out how to clean the F1.2. It looks pretty good held up to a light, but has a little haze or something in there. I'll clean it and repost, or do a "before and after" cleaning comparison.
Click to expand...

Good luck, the one i had would have needed resurfacing and so it wasn't fixable. I was told it was quite a common ailment of these lenses.

Of course the photos looked fine, just a little too much glow.

The difference between 1.4 and 1.2 isn't really *that* great though!

cheers
paul
 
I have once had internal haze in the Canon 50/1.8 during a lens comparison, and the results stood out to others as not being representative of a clean 50/1.8.
 
I really think in such extreme backlighting, a tiny bit of oil or haze can have a bad effect. My 50mm F1.2 dosen't seem to behave like what I see here, but I carefully cleaned the lubricants from the rear inner element, and that makes a huge difference.

In a hot arid environment I would think it might even happen more quickly?
 
1.5 Sonnar looks great , much better than it's reputation !
also love the 1.8 ( have both )
1.2 looks too soft for my taste, like a 0.95 (and even stopped down too soft)
thanks for the test !
 
I took apart the 50/1.2 and carefully cleaned it. It was not that hazy at all, just a little dust and a very thin haze over about 1/3 of one of the inside surfaces. I would rate the glass now about an 8 of 10. Cleaning definitely helped, but I haven't replicated that original, into the sun shot, yet. Again, that original shot was purposely a worse case. Around the house and not into bright light, it's pretty sharp wide open, and not that flarey. Here are the before and after cleaning shots, at F1.2:

6768448935_534a0fc3fe_b.jpg


6768450627_9c2d887448_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom