Canon Serenar 50/1.8 is it as good as

[raid]

the following non-Serenar 50/1.8 by Canon? I have read many good things about the 50/1.8 by Canon, and I support those statements. I wonder whether the Serenar design was the same as the following 50 lens.

 

[FrankS]

Joe would know the answer to this. 🙂

 

[wlewisiii]

From what I've read, the various versions were all optically the same. However, I'd love a "hands on" answer as I begin looking for one I can afford ... (yo, Rocinante, see that giant? Charge!)

🙂

Willism

 

[back alley]

from what i have read many of the serenar lenses are the same as the canon lenses. canon made the decision to call their lenses by the canon name and design did not come into the decision.

 

[rover]

I too believe optically the 50/1.8 lenses are identical. I kept a chrome one because I like the look of it more than the later Canon lenses.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Optically, supposed to be the same. I like the build of the early chrome ones better than the later Black lenses. The Chrome lenses have a taper that helps clear the viewfinder, later Black ones will block a Leica finder.

 

[raid]

I like my chrome Serenar becuase it feels rock solid and looks cool on a Canon body. I did not know if it is optically the same as the black ones.

 

[RayPA]

Here is the Canon lens page (go to the S-Mount 50-85mm page)

According to the above link there are some very minor differences, like # of apeture blades. My recently acquired 50/1.8 II has a different coating color (?) from my chrome 50/1.8. The chrome is blue, while the II is yellow. I don't know what effect that'll have, if any (just mentioning a visual difference). I haven't owned either long enough to do a direct comparison, but I'm looking forward to it!

🙂

 

[raid]

Here is the Canon lens page (go to the S-Mount 50-85mm page)

According to the above link there are some very minor differences, like # of apeture blades. My recently acquired 50/1.8 II has a different coating color (?) from my chrome 50/1.8. The chrome is blue, while the II is yellow. I don't know what effect that'll have, if any (just mentioning a visual difference). I haven't owned either long enough to do a direct comparison, but I'm looking forward to it!

🙂

Ray: The website you gave above shows differences in the number of aperture blades and also minimum aperture. I guess, the more blades, the more circular the closing and the better the bokeh. Am I right here? The Sernear only closes down to f16 whereas the Version I (after Serenar) closes down to f22 and then Version II went back to f16, with a lower price for Version II.

 

[RayPA]

Ray...I guess, the more blades, the more circular the closing and the better the bokeh. Am I right here?

Raid, I'd agree with the former, the higher number of blades would result in a more smooth circular-shaped apeture. However, regarding the latter, I would think that there is more to better bokeh, than just apeture blades. I've seen some very nice OOF areas in images made with a Canonet, which has an aperture shape that is closer to a pentagon, than a circle.

🙂

 

[raid]

You could be right here, but I am not sure about bokeh.

 

[sockeyed]

My chrome Serenar 50/1.8 only click stops on full f-stops (4, 5.6, 8, etc), and not half-stops (although you can set it between clicks if you want). I'm not sure if the later lenses are like this.

 

[harry01562]

lens formulas

lens formulas

All the 50/1.8's are modified Gauss type, and the same formula. The barrel changed from chrome/brass to black, and the name changed from Serenar to Canon, but the glass is the same. This is one of the classics, IMHO. It sits on the front of a number of Leicas, and performs better than most lens that are 50+ years old.
I don't know what factors have gone into the recent rise in prices, but I remember not too far back when I bought near mint for well under $100.... I doubt that we will see that again, if things stay reasonable (fingers crossed).
Harry

 

[raid]

I used the Serenar a few days ago with good results. The lens feels rock solid and the optics look still great. You mentioned a Gauss design (above). Is it more like a Sonnar or more like a Planar or ...?

 

[Sonnar2]

I have a chrome 1.8/50mm too (as well as the 1.5/50mm - quite identical mounting - heavyweight!)
Yes there are differences in coating (the "Blue" - similar to the Nikkor blue - ist the earliest. The Canon-brown is later; I think since 1955)
I don't care much about number of aperture blade. Roundness is rather a question of form of blades than of their number. It needs more for good bokeh than high number of aperture blades. Wide open is a perfect circle for every lens, but not all have good bokeh.
The Canon 1.8/50 isn't the sharpest wide open - Zeiss always offered the 1-2=2-1 Planar only with f/2.0 maximum aperture, which is more realistic - but at f/5.6 it is a very solid performer. The 1.5/50 has a 1-3=3 configutation (Sonnar)
Maybe the 1.8/50 offers the best value for money of all CANON RF lenses. The well reputated 1.4/50mm was developed out of the 1.8 and has a very similar configuration. Never seen a direct compariosn 1.8-1.4 picture by picture. I believe the 1.8/50 isn't much worse, if any...

cheers, Frank
some diagrams of Planar-Sonnar here:
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_RF_e.html
scroill down to Race for the fastest
http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Biotar.html

 

[raid]

More recently, the 50/1.8 has been receiving praises on photography websites. It is, as you said above, a good buy overall.